Israel's "Berlin Wall"

[jos]

The security "fence" that was supposed to run along the green line is actually cutting deep into the West Baknk, taking Palestinian land with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/international/middleeast/12FENC.html

[Tinoire]

1. Very sad indeed

Lived in Berlin for a long time seeing the wall on an almost daily basis, then I saw a picture of this one- its size puts the Berlin wall to shame.

Jos, people like you give me hope that peace is possible and that one day, hopefully soon, this wall will be torn down. It will do nothing but inflame more hatred- especially since it appropriates some of the better land still remaining in the hands of the Palestinians.

Thanks for posting this and helping to expose the hypocrisy behind this wall.

[jos]

2. Thanks

I don't know if it will be "soon," but one day.

[jos]

3. More on the "Wall"

Number of Palestinians to be hurt 95,000 to 200,000, loss of Jordan valley, loss of fertile agricultural land.

So much for "security." Where's the outrage?

http://tinyurl.com/h4zn

[newyorican]

4. Continuing land theft is the ultimate incitement.

Not babbling Imams and associated droolings...

[Herschel]

5. The fence is for security of Israel

The homicide bombers come from the West Bank to commit their murders. As for what is Palestinian land, that will be negotiated. Israel has a legitimate security concern and she protects her people!

[jos]

6. Bullshit

You obviously haven't read the article posteds in this thread. If you had you would know it is a land grab in the guise of a security wall. If it were just a security wall, there would be no need for the land grab.

[Herschel]

7. It is in the article

"Israel's Defense Ministry, responsible for building the fence, says it "has made every attempt to plan the route so as to avoid any undue hardship to the local population." "

"And Israel is offering compensation for land seized, but Palestinians have turned down the offer on the ground it would amount to acceptance of the Israeli policy."

"Among Israelis, the fence is seen as the best way to reduce major Palestinian attacks. Of the 95 suicide bombings against Israel, virtually all have come from the West Bank, which had no barrier until the fence began going up last year."

There is a security aspect here.

[The Magistrate]

8. The Security Aspect Here, Sir

Is being somewhat mis-used. There are some attempts, for example, to include settlements beyond the Green Line within the barrier. This is, in effect, further annexation of land. Nor is there any particular reason to credit the statements of an official spokesman that "every effort" is being made to reduce the impact on Arab Palestinians of this construction: lying is part of any official spokesman's job, in any organization, and that is as true of the Israeli Defense Forces as of General Motors.

A barrier following the Green Line, with perhaps a certain cleared zone to the east of it to render difficult infiltration to the barrier itself, would be acceptable, possibly even beneficial. That does not quite seem to be what is being constructed.

[Herschel]

9. Still the security is an issue

And this fence enhances security. Boundaries of any Palestinian state would need to be negotiated, and it is highly doubtful the Green Line would be that boundary.

[The Magistrate]

10. Certainly, Sir

Security is the principal drive behind this, but it is not all that is going on. As often happens, that unargueable drive is being used to cloud some other efforts piggy-backed onto it.

Put bluntly, Sir, it does seem to me that the boundaries between Israel and Arab Palestine had ought to be damned near precisely the old Green Line: there does not really seem to me to be a lot to negotiate on that score. The intent of the '47 Partition was clear, and ought to be respected. Israel did fairly well for itself after '48, and would seem churlish to ask for much more.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Exactly...

The intent of the '47 Partition was clear, and ought to be respected. Israel did fairly well for itself after '48, and would seem churlish to ask for much more.

Considering Israel gained territory that makes up 1/3 of Israel today, I think it did very well for itself. In reality I can't see Israel ever withdrawing to the old Green Line of its own accord and I don't even think a huge amount of pressure from the US would achieve it either. What I think will end up happening if the occupation ever ends is that Israel will insist on holding on to all the settlements in the occupied territories and will insist that the Palestinians be grateful with the rest and with being forever at the power of a suzerain (The new Word of the Day that I learnt today!) state...

Welcome back, and I hope yr on the mend...

Cheers...

Violet...

[jos]

11. If that's the case

then it's highly doubtful the conflict will end.

[Herschel]

13. Perhaps

Much depends on the Palestinian's deisre to improve their lot rather than waste away on a fantasy.

[Gimel]

26. Fears

The original idea was to follow the green line, more or less. Some Jewish communnities would then be isolated on the Palestinian side of the barrier. This led them to protest. Since the purpose is security, including those isolated communities on the Israeli side makes sense. The fence is not the border, and that has been emphasized. The final settlement agreement, once there is peace, should remove those incursions. With peace, there is no need for a fence. If the PA had stopped terrorism, it would never have come to this.

[The Magistrate]

30. That Is True, Ma'am

It is my fear, though, that the fortification may become a defacto border: the Green Line, after all, was not meant as a border either, though it has in practical effect over time become one.

Certainly, in a condition of peace, there would be no need for such a barrier, and certainly, absent the current prosecution of hostilities commencing in September of 2000, no such proposal as this would have ever been adopted.

[Gimel]

46. The Green Line

While this demarcation is often used as a point of reference, it has been highly disregarded by either side as a demarcation or border. Terrorists cross it at will and attack inside Israel. It cannot be patrolled adequately.

The fence-barrier will be a defacto border as long as it stands; much firmer than a supposed line that is never observed in practice. It will be a point of reference. The hope for peace should be stronger yet.

I'm sure many feel wronged when land is taken from them. The compensation offered at least shows good will. That it is being rejected is purely political.

[jos]

12. There is

a security aspect. But it is being used as an excuse to confiscate land, displace Palestinians, and disrupt their economy.

[Gimel]

14. Not tenable

the disruption of the suicide bombing industry is the only purpose the Israeli side has in mind. In order to protect the Jewish communities on the east side of the green line, it juts into area the Palestinians claim. Until a settlement is reached, these communities have to be protected by Israel's defense forces. Leaving them stranded, surrounded by hostile elements, would not accomplish the purpose of the fence.

Among Israelis, the fence is seen as the best way to reduce major Palestinian attacks. Of the 95 suicide bombings against Israel, virtually all have come from the West Bank, which had no barrier until the fence began going up last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/international/middleeast/12FENC.html



The offering of compensation does not please the Palestinians. That leads to the conclusion that it is not the value of the property that upsets them. For the long term, the fence is not a permanant structure, and can be altered or removed as per agreements.

Contractors, the ministry says, have replanted 60,000 Palestinian olive trees in the path of the barrier. And Israel is offering compensation for land seized, but Palestinians have turned down the offer on the ground it would amount to acceptance of the Israeli policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/international/middleeast/12FENC.html

[jos]

16. Yeah, right

Security is their only concern.:eyes:

And why should the Palestinians accept compensation. If a foregin government comes to steal your land and livelihood, why should you accept it? I wouldn't.

It's clear you're just an apologist for the occupation and the ethnic cleansing that it has brought.

[Gimel]

17. Your accusation

is devoid of fa factual basis. Therefore, I shall ignore it. Everyday that passes brings more truth about the sickness that has held the Palestinians in its grip for decades.

[jos]

18. The Sickness

How right you are. The "sickness" is the continued Israeli occupation, established of illegal settlements and land confiscations, stemming from the "land of Israel" ideology of too many Israeli politicians.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Lacking a partner in peace

Israel has no choice but to establish a border on its own.

If you honestly believe Israel will negotiate away everything gained in the 1967 war, you are repeating the popular Palestinian delusion.

[CitizenDick]

20. It seems to me

Israel has no business keeping land "gained" in the 1967 war. Would this be something like the US keeping the oil fields just "gained" during the war on Iraq?

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Capital

No, Israel REGAINED land long lost by regaining Israel. In addition, Israel took land from its enemies (not like Iraq in other words) and even the UN acknowledges that some of that land is needed for security.

Again, find Israel a partner in peace that will actualy negotiate and not blow up civilians and let's see what can happen.

[CitizenDick]

31. Please clarify a bit

"No, Israel REGAINED land long lost by regaining Israel." From how long ago, and what area are you referring to?

"In addition, Israel took land from its enemies". Is this to say a country is entitled to conquer lands from other countries that it considers enemies? How would this be different than the United States considering Iraq an enemy and keeping some of it's land?

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Jerusalem

The land I refer to is Jerusalem. And what threat was Iraq to the U.S. to make it qualify for attack?

[CitizenDick]

51. How long ago and how?

"No, Israel REGAINED land long lost by regaining Israel." From how long ago? When and in what way did Israel lose Jerusalem that entitles them to it now?

I don't believe Iraq threatened us in a way justifying war, but some people do. I think the notion that a country can launch a pre-emptive or defensive war and then somehow conquer land from the country they defeated is questionable.

[tinnypriv]

23. Addendum:

The popular illusion of the Palestinians and the rest of the world.

The only nations who disagree with Israel returning to 67 are the United States and Israel. The former is because of the latter.

Other than that, you're perfectly accurate. Israel does have to establish a border on its own (because nobody agrees with it) and it won't negotiate on withdrawal to 67 (because it prefers to use force).

[Classical_Liberal]

35. Aha Bantustans, not an independent Palestinian state!

You are completely dishonest when you say you favor a two state solution. Israel could have established a fair border, which would include nothing of the territory it annexed in 1967 even without a partner for peace. BTW, I thought Mazon was a partner for peace?

[newyorican]

15. "Homicide Bombers"

:crazy:

[Herschel]

21. It is the correct term

These killers come to commit murder. If they put on their belts and march off alone to blow their pathetic selves away, you may call them suicide bombers. But they come to kill innocents. Homicide bombers.

[tinnypriv]

22. This may be a first!

I agree with Herschel. :wow:

I know the term was invented by Fox, but hey, it is accurate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. The term

Was coined by the * admin first I think. Faux just did its party line and joined in instantly.

[tinnypriv]

27. Well

You may be correct. But in my defense, it is hard to tell the difference between them. :)

[tinnypriv]

28. n/t

n/t

[Equinox]

32. What about the security of the Palestinians?

Why must it be so one sided? Why grab/steal land and then negotiate it away like it's yours? That is hypocracy and only fuels the fire of the extremists. Peace won't be accomplished this way.

[Herschel]

37. Peace will be accomplished

When Palestinian terror groups are dismantled. This is required. Israel will agree to no state harboring terrorists that have and will again kill her citizens. As for whose land is whose, this can be discussed. First, remove the terrorist threat. Then consider some type of Palestinian state.

[Alex88]

36. The Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza predates suicide bombings

Defenders of the Israeli governments brutal policies in the occupied territories in this forum, from my observation, seem to always justify their position in some way connected with the threat of Palestinian suicide bombings inside Israel as though these suicide bombings have been going on throughout the existance of Israel.

But the suicide bombings began in the 1990's. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza began in 1967 and the confiscation of Palestinian land, stealing of 80% of their water and building of Israeli settlements has been going on non-stop ever since. Furthermore, the kids blowing themselves up have never known a different reality than this.

[Darranar]

38. The suicide bombings...

justify Israel's CURRENT actions. The Arab states' actions justify Israel's past actions.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

39. flawed observation of position...

Arab/Palestinian rejectionism/terrorism is what predates the occupation...suicide bombings are what overlap the Oslo accords contravening the Palestinian agreement to renunciation of violence...

[tinnypriv]

40. LOL

See the vetoed two-state UN resolution of Jan 1976.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

41. LOL...

I addressed the periods pre-67 and post-1993 only, but say hello to Noam for me...

[tinnypriv]

42. I'm sure

1) You could say hello yourself, since you can obviously type. Plus, if you do it yourself, it adds so much more of a personal touch :D

2) I didn't realise the 1967-1993 period was irrelevant when it comes to discussing the occupation and the "rejectionism" of the Arabs etc. In other words, I didn't realise history was bunk. My mistake.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

43. if you would take note of very recent history for a second...

my reply was to post # 36 which itself disregarded a bit of relevant history...

re the period in question, it is not a big surprise that once Israel had, through war, gained control of Arab territories, Arab rejectionism diminished as a means to retrieve the lost territory, and also, a certain rejectionism worked it's way onto the other foot...

[tinnypriv]

44. I'm not sure "disregarded" is accurate

I'd hate to speak on behalf of the author, but in terms of general accuracy, post #36 was essentially correct. It did leave out some recent and relevant history, but (as far as I can see) including that history wasn't altogether required in context of the broad point the author was addressing.

As to your second point, I would in very (I stress, very) general terms agree. I could charge that you are ignoring elements of history such as Arab peace offers immediately after 48 which were rejected (and as an aside: not proposed via a balance of power relationship as in 1967), but that would plainly be idiotic - even though they bear on the situation after '67.

I think it would be better to address what you have posted, rather than what I think you have posted, or ignored, or left out etc etc. I'd politely suggest that you do the same.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

50. your interpretations have been noted...

your suggestions given no matter...

[tinnypriv]

52. I'm crushed

:D

[Gimel]

47. Non-suicide bombings

The suicide aspect of the bombings has given the attackers a note of sympathy. Suicide actions are known to be actions of desperation. Placing of bombs on buses in Israel goes back quite a number of years. There was a bombed bus near the Lebanese border prior to the Lebanon war, as well as many attacks on buses, civilian homes, synagogues, schools. While gun and grenade attacks were frequent, the number of fatalities was lower than with the suicide attacks. However, the suicide attacks are the same old terrorism in another guise.

[jos]

48. Excellent point

And the responses to this point, as usual, totally avoid it.

Why are the Palestinians expected to stop all violence but the Israelis not only are permitted to continue the occupation and keep the illegal settlements in place, but are actually expanding the existing settlements? There is a total lack of symmetry here.

[tinnypriv]

49. Expansion of settlements

These days, the main way the settlements are expanded is simply by not dismantling them - so-called "natural growth". Since roughly the late 90's there hasn't been much of a need for the GOI to put in new settlements, they just keep the existing ones in place.

So I agree with you that there is no symmetry, but it is pretty clear why that is: no media outlet will tell people what is going on daily on the ground.

[quilp]

45. More like a giant concentration camp, or ghetto. n/t

n/t

[Gimel]

53. I used to hear that

about Israel. Then the suicide bombings started, a sort of enhanced terror attack killing 10 times as many and severely wounding many times more. Now Israel is a giant hospice for the disabled.

[quilp]

54. You seriously want to compare Israeli and Palestinian casualties?

You've got to be kidding!!!

[Equinox]

55. I thought the same, but you beat me to it, quilp.