Israeli army taking huge risk by lifting checkpoints: military source

[Herschel]

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030727143349.wkn3c60l.html

"Israel is taking an "enormous risk" by easing the noose on the Palestinians by allowing thousands to cross into Israel and lifting several major West Bank checkpoints, a senior military source said Sunday.
"We are taking risks," the source told a small group of reporters, warning that the lifting of 10 major checkpoints in the West Bank and the new Israeli work permits granted to thousands of Palestinians potentially endangered Israel's security.

Pointing to an explosives-filled belt seized by the Israeli army in the West Bank recently, the source said: "Belts such as these will have better chances of getting to Tel Aviv." "

See this-

"The military source also stressed that it "would have been very difficult to take these risks without the fence" being erected between the Jewish state and the West Bank."

[Darranar]

1. Why not reorganize the checkpoints themselves?

Why not place them on the borders between Israel and the West Bank? That will stop the terrorists from getting through, and will give the Palestinians more freedom of movement.

[Herschel]

2. I am no expert, my friend

But I am certain there is a security rationale for checkpoints beyond the borders.

[Darranar]

5. Unfortunately...

in the horrible situation like this one, a choice must be made between humanitarian concerns and security concerns. In a situation where the humanitarian concerns are obvious, and the importance of the checkpoints to security is questioned, the humanitarian concerns must take precendence.

[Herschel]

6. I respect your opinion

However, Israel's first concern must be the safety of her people.

[Darranar]

9. Yes, of course...

But the concern for that proection and safety must not harm a substantial group of people.

The Israeli government has two responsibilities. One is to the people that elected them; the government has the obligation to protect them, to protect their rights, to aid them, and to represent them.

The second is to the international community, or, more accurately, mankind and humanity itself; to respect other nations and not take away the rights of other peoples.

The second responsibility is extremely important in our world taht grows smaller, in a sense, every minute.

Both responsibilities must be honored together. At times like this, where the responsibilities seem to conflict, the Israeli government must weigh the benefits of following one responsibility against following the other.

[StandWatie]

30. you would be wrong

as can be attested to by the fact that Muslim weddings in green line Israel always have relatives from the West Bank coming in despite the roadblocks using paths everyone knows are there but rarely guarded.

This has always what made the thing such a joke for me, if the goal was just to keep bombers out of green line Israel it would be readily achievable and expose less Israeli soldiers to risk but this isn't the point and never has been, they are out there from a tactical point of view to try and keep Palestinians from coordinating attacks againt settlements which are problematic to try and defend from anything more sophisticated than single human bomb and strategically to make life as hard as they possibly can for the local population to encourage them to move.

[Gimel]

11. Certainly

there are checkpoints for entry into Israel at all roads. The problem was that before the Wall, Palestinins could enter anywhere, accross-coutry, through fields, keeping under cover from the patrols. There is no recognized border, remember.

[quilp]

3. "easing the noose on the Palestinians"

Couldn't have put it better myself!

[Herschel]

4. Always a problem to know

When to tighten or loosen a bit.

[quilp]

7. The KKK said the same while lynching negroes.

But, with practice, they got the knack of it.

[Gimel]

12. Apparently

Israel has found a way to keep out the suicide bombers. I know that they were lusting for .... Anyway, a secure Israel means the terrorists won't enter. The wall is the least inhumane of the options. The wall doesn't require body checks or inhumane treatment. It is a non-personal structure, and doesn't shoot anyone.

[Cassandra]

13. Were blacks in the South...

ever using bomb belts or any other methods to mass murder whites? Since we know they didn't, your suggestion of moral equivilence between Israel and the KKK is highly inappropriate.

[Herschel]

23. I fear something else, my friend

Perhaps the comment is to aggitate the history of misunderstandings between blacks and the Jewish people. I hope I am wrong.

[Darranar]

24. I think that the comment was meant...

to compare the KKK to Israel, which, as Cassandra aptly pointed out, is hardly reasonable.

[Herschel]

25. Perhaps

But even that comparison could be a wedge between Jews and blacks. I hope I am wrong.

[Herschel]

22. Explain yourself

What does this have to do with the KKK or the negroes, as you call them?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

8. Fence needed - but central section path MUST change

In the Ariel area the fence's route winds along 90 kilometers to surround the Jewish towns built in the heart of Samaria and the smaller settlements in the area - an invasive route not needed for security of the central stretch of fence, from Qalqiliya south, but which was put in to appease the settlers. A new route is needed that is not so invasive of land that will be under PA control.

Granted, the right of return to villages that do not exist, that is proposed only to kill Israel as a Jewish state, should be formally given up by the PA right about the same time Israel gives up on the crazy Ariel fence path.

[Darranar]

10. A fence on the Green Line...

that has lots of possible gates through and is passable is acceptable, even preferable, for the current security of Israel.

[bemildred]

14. The problem

as was discussed here ad nauseum last year, is the
absence of a coherent and defensible border, i.e. the settlements.
The settlements are "essential to Israeli security" in the same
way that the "drug war" makes Colombia a safe place to raise kids.

[Gimel]

15. Most of the settlements

are outside the fence. Not only settlements in the areas outside the green line were under attack, however. The fence is primarily there to protect Israel, not the settlements. Tel Aviv and Haifa were also under attack, and all points in between.

The settlements are not the same as the border issue, although they may be taken into account in some areas, like the large 'settlements" near Jerusalem.

[bemildred]

16. The fence is another stupid waste of time and money.

But I realize you and I disagree about that.

[Darranar]

18. A fence...

Like the one I described above would not be a waste, because it would secure Israel without being impassable. The current one, with its twists and turns through Palestinian land, is indeed a waste of time and money. Stupid? I don't think so. It is a great way for Sharon to dictate the borders of a Palestinian state without negotiations.

[bemildred]

19. OK.

I don't really disagree, but the fence, in either case, is
needed because of unwillingness to pursue real remedies. It
will not provide security, it just becomes something else that
has to be defended.

The real fence does more than that, it is part of Sharon's
"facts on the ground" stupidity.

History has many fences in it, none of them stayed relevant long,
they are always put up to stave off the future a bit longer, and
they always become monuments to the cluelessness of the builders.

[Darranar]

20. How about this?

The fence can provide short-term security somewhat, and the Israelis can remove the checkpoints. From there, the majority of the settlements can be removed, the Palestinian state can be declared, and the government of that state can combat the terrorists.

[bemildred]

21. Yeah.

A fence in the context of a mutually negotiated political
settlement could help with security on both sides from the
inevitable nutballs that prefer to keep on with the killing.

Absent that, you might as well piss up a rope.

[Darranar]

17. If it is...

Then why does it severely cut into Palestinian land?

[LeftistGorilla]

26. it's makes it easier to take it...

obvious...no?

[Darranar]

27. I don't think Sharon wants to take it exactly...

He's no real partner in peace and I think he intends to use the wall to create "facts on the ground" that will give him an edge in the negotiating.

[Gimel]

29. Somehow, I don't think so

Would the opposing crowd of propagandists ever let it? will the wall ever be accept as it is? Downs't seem like it will be. It'll be debated as long as it stands. It may be a marder for a border, but the border will be somewhat different.

[Darranar]

31. The point is...

why not put the wall on Israel's 1967 border? The only reason is to protect the settlements, and then you have the series of problems with the usual interfering with many Palestinians' lifestyle and taking their land.