Israeli Deputy PM asserts necessity of security fence

[Herschel]

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s913187.htm

"LINDA MOTTRAM: As Ariel Sharon delivered that message to Washington, his Deputy, Ehud Olmert, was reinforcing the Israeli Government's position on the controversial security fence. And in an interview with AM, Mr Olmert has refused to rule the possibility out that the fence, with its route zigzagging through Palestinian land, could eventually become a political border - the very thing the Bush administration fears.

So what of President Bush's concerns?

Our Middle East Correspondent Mark Willacy put that question to Ehud Olmert.

EHUD OLMERT: They are legitimate concerns but, you know, it will be a little bit exaggerated to believe that in the diversity of issues that are outstanding in the Middle East, that the understanding between America and Israel will reach to every single point in the fence of 300 kilometres.

There might be some slight disagreements and that doesn't mean a lot. Fundamentally we will carry on the building of the fence because it saves the lives of people and that's what counts.

MARK WILLACY: Well the Bush administration fears this fence, which does dip into Palestinian lands at some parts, could end up being a political border.

Can you rule that out, that it will end up being a political border?

EHUD OLMERT: No, I don't want to rule out anything. We never say that we will agree to accept the '67 boundaries and this is something that has to be negotiated. So no-one expects Israel, that Israel will determine the outcome with negotiations before they actually started by putting the fence in the, along the '67 lines. This is entirely unacceptable."

A good article to understand the Israeli position.

[Darranar]

1. Sorry, my friend...

but I still don't understand the Sharon government's position. Some of the questions were certainly dodged, and Olmert didn't give a reason for the fence not being on the Green Line.

[Herschel]

2. Building the fence on the GReen Line

Would undermine Israeli negotiations for disputed territory. It would also serve to embolden terrorists.

[Darranar]

3. How would it?

Won't terrorists be emboldened if their land is destroyed by an ugly wall built by Israelis? Israeli negotiations aren't now undermined, so why should they be after the wall is built?

[Jim Sagle]

4. I thought the whole point of a fence was to make

terrorists irrelevant. Who cares if they're emboldened so long as the fence is keeping them out?