Islamic Jihad leader - Israel’s security fence is an important obstacle to terrorist organizations

[furman]

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/pij151106e.htm

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S)

Ramadan Shalah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader - Israel’s security fence is an important obstacle to the terrorist organizations
November 15, 2006


Ramadan Shalah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader, publicly admits that Israel’s security fence is an important obstacle to the terrorist organizations, and that “if it weren’t there, the situation would be entirely different.” The PIJ has carried out the greatest number of suicide bombing attacks during the past few years.

On November 11, PIJ leader Abdallah Ramadan Shalah granted a long interview to Al-Manar TV, Hezbollah's television channel. During the interview, for the first time he admitted that Israel's security fence was an important obstacle to the terrorist organizations (the “resistance”).

He noted that the suicide bombing attacks ( istishhad ) were the Palestinian people's “strategic choice,” and were meant to “create a balance of force and deterrence” in the campaign against a superior enemy. Ramadan Shalah noted that the terrorist organizations had every intention of continuing suicide bombing attacks , but that their timing and the possibility of implementing them from the West Bank depended on other factors. “For example,” he said, “there is the separation fence , which is an obstacle to the resistance, and if it were not there the situation would be entirely different .”


more at http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/pij151106e.htm

See also
Islamic Jihad leader: Security fence 'obstacle to the resistance'
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2006/Islamic+Jihad+leader+says+security+fence+obstacle+to+the+resistance+20-Nov-2006.htm

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Yeah. So?

The terror goes both ways. A good wall may make good neighbors, unless of course the building of the wall requires the demolition of the neighbors' homes, the uprooting of the neighbors' orchards and the separating of the neighbors from their farmlands and greater community.

The problem with the wall is not in that it exists, but in where it exists and way it exists there. It's a defacto border meant to disrupt the establishment of a palestinian state.

[furman]

2. No, it is a barrier meant to stop the terror attacks

In most places the barrier is a fence that can be dismantled.

If there were no terrorism there would be no need for the fence.

[Boston Critic]

3. So?

If the Palestinians want the fence to come down, END THE SUICIDE BOMBINGS.

It's really that simple.

If they won't, then I could care less about how inconvenient it is for them.

[barb162]

7. As an Israeli said: What's more important? Inconvenience or

20 innocent people being killed by a suicide bomber (paraphrase of an interview of a TV show I saw a few months ago)

[Violet_Crumble]

62. People losing their land and livelihoods is merely 'inconvenience'?

What a callous moron that person was, and how not surprising that you'd be able to proudly paraphrase such callousness off the top of yr head ;)

[Behind the Aegis]

63. So do you place land and livelihoods above lives?

[Englander]

66. That's a pretty grotesque claim, from that interview.

That's a grotesque & ghoulish claim used to justify land-theft, & a policy that's driven by ethnic
nationalism. Which would be expected, that the mentioned supporter of land-theft, would use a
grotesque & ghoulish claim to try & justify that theft.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. There haven't been any suicide bombings for a while...

Clearly the existence of the barrier has zero to do with whether suicide bombings stop or not...

btw, you don't seem to realise that the Palestinian population does not carry out suicide bombings - terrorists do that....

[eyl]

64. Isn't that the other way around?

The drop of attacks indicates something is effective.

Note that there was a sharp drop in (successful) terror attacks as the barrier approached completion - and this was well before the Hamas "truce" which some here have credited with the drop in attacks.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. And thank you all (above posters included) for ignoring what I said.

Maybe no-one here knows about how and where the fence, or barrier, or big fucking wall is being built. It was designed to divide neighborhoods, to separate palestinians from their lands and livelihoods, and to make permanent the illegal settlements. In most places the wall could have been built in a way as to minimize the impact on the palestinian economy and provide equal protection, but it instead maximized that impact to no better effect. It is a part of the collective punishment being inflicted upon the whole of the palestinian population for the criminal acts of 5%.

This is why I generally avoid the I/P threads.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

11. If you had a problem with your neighbour, would you build a fence on his land or yours?

It's really that bloody simple.

[furman]

15. The ownership of the land is in dispute, so the problem is not that simple.

In cases where Palestinians livelihoods have been disrupted,
they have been compensated or ordered by the Israel Supreme Court to reroute the fence.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. No, the territory is occupied and it is not in dispute at all...

Israel is violating international law by building this barrier on territory that is NOT part of Israel. That's a hard, cold fact and not in dispute...

[furman]

46. You are mistaken. The final status of the territories are still disputed.

Perhaps you would like to send a message to Microsoft if you disagree.

http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701509043/Disputed_Areas.html#s5

Disputed Areas

<snip>

II Israeli-Palestinian Disputed Areas

Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 during the Six-Day War. Following negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Palestinian National Authority assumed administrative control of Palestinian areas in the Gaza Strip in 1994 and in the West Bank in early 1996. Under the terms of a 1998 accord, Israel began further withdrawals from the West Bank, but renewed disagreements quickly stalled land transfers. In 2005 Israel evacuated Israeli settlers and withdrew its troops from the Gaza Strip. The final status of both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank remains unresolved.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. No, you and Microsoft are mistaken...

Israel does NOT hold any legitimate claim over the Occupied Territories. If it did, it could be said they were disputed, but they're not. Microsoft encarta isn't exactly to be taken seriously, and definately doesn't carry more weight or authority than the UN Security Council, General Assembly, the International Red Cross, and the International Court of Justice. It's like using a Little Golden Book to discuss climate change...

The status of the Palestinian territories is OCCUPIED. Can you explain why you seem to think that the status of East Timor during those years of Indonesian occupation was merely disputed? Because both situations were very similar and I'd be shocked and appalled that anyone claiming to be liberal or progressive would state an opinion that East Timor was merely disputed...

[furman]

50. Israel holds at least as much claim to the territories.

The territories have never been allocated to a sovereign nation or assigned fixed boundaries.

All the UN General Assmebly resolutions claiming that Israel's presence in the territories acutally have no legal weight.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/2/DISPUTED%20TERRITORIES-%20Forgotten%20Facts%20About%20the%20We

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=10&x_article=259

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=5&x_article=679

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=22&x_article=405

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf10.html#k

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/terms.asp

[Violet_Crumble]

51. It holds no more claim than Indonesia did to East Timor...

Whether or not territory is or was sovereign has zero to do with its status as occupied territory. That you are arguing that East Timor was merely disputed territory that Indonesia had claim to is utterly disgusting...

btw, try posting at least one link from a credible source that's not a biased propaganda site...

[furman]

53. I said nothing about East Timor

If you think my sources or points are not credible, then try to debunk them.
There are plenty who find these sources extremely reliable and a basis for factual reporting.

Have you ever caused a major media outlet to issue a correction?
CAMERA has on several occasions.

Have you compiled a compendium of history as vast as the Jewish Virtual Library?
No? I didn't think so.

Are there any sources that explain the Israeli point of view more accurately than the state of Israel itself?
I don't think so.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Then you want to start comparing the two occupations...

Because if you are going to insist that the West Bank and Gaza isn't occupied, yr going to have to take the similar situation of East Timor and explain why you think it wasn't occupied by Indonesia....

I'm not in the habit of 'debunking' what is clearly biased propaganda material. That you seem to believe that these are balanced and credible sources is not surprising, given yr fondness for the language used by those who hold the Greater Israel vision....

Stop wasting time and start using sources that are both credible and lacking in the severe bias that yr 'sources' are...

[furman]

55. Perhaps you could help by pointing me to sources more to your liking

and we'll take it from there.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. I've already said I'd like to see more balanced sources...

Try starting with things that aren't blatantly pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. Try it. You might even learn something...

[furman]

59. Please let us know what sources are credible

Once again, I am asking you for news sources that you consider neutral and unbiased.

That way, we hopefully can get past the bias gap.

What media outlets do you frequent for news?
Who are your favorite opinion writers and analysts?
What news organizations are the most balanced and factual?
Who holds the most credibility?

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Start with Ha'aretz...

If you can't work out for yrself why what you've been posting is nothing but biased propaganda swill no-one can help you, though I'm not surprised that an advocate of the Greater Israel vision would have such trouble...

btw, who's this 'us' yr talking about when you speak of yrself? Are you a front for a conglomerate of single-celled organisms or something? ;)

[breakaleg]

10. It's not always like this. Personally I agree that the problem with this

wall isn't merely that it's a wall, it's how and where it was built and that it's real purpose is to make life even more difficult for the Palestinians, if that's even possible.

But the pro-Israeli crowd doesn't seem to say much about that. They just stick to the party line - defense...

[furman]

18. Please provide proof that the purpose of the fence is to make life more difficult for Palestinians

...and not from Counterpunch, Robert Fisk, Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Chomsky and other far-left Israel bashers.
Official Israeli government documents and policy statements would be nice.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Don't be absurd. The Israeli government has a vested interest

in presenting only one side - and you request no citation from the other side. That's as fair and balanced as the No Spin Zone. When a wall goes through an orchard instead of alongside it, that's by policy. When the wall cuts the only road to a community, requiring a checkpoint be passed to get to work on a daily basis which can then then be closed at any whim, making it impossible for the residents to keep their jobs, that's by policy.

And, by the way, what's wrong with being a far left Israel basher, when the policies of Israel require bashing? In its inception, Israel was a bastion of liberalism and socialism. The left in Israel, decimated as it may be by the rightist policy makers, does not support the erection of the wall, willy-nilly, even while acknowledging it can be a valuable security tool. The left wants dialogue with the palestinians, not apartheid. What is the problem with that?

[furman]

38. Qassams and suicide bombers are Palestinian policy

When the fence cuts the only road to a community requiring a checkpoint,
that is a result of Palestinian policy.

The Palestinians have the right to appeal the route of the fence to the Israel Supreme Court,
and they have often won their cases.
That's by Israeli policy.

[Lithos]

65. Here is about the only policy comment

From inside the Israeli government that defines the real thinking.

AN ISRAELI VIEW
Chronicle of a good idea gone sour
by Yossi Alpher

I was personally involved in campaigning for the West Bank security fence. I am increasingly unhappy with some of the results.

Around two years ago, as a member of the executive of the Council for Peace and Security, a non-governmental organization that groups some 1,200 former senior security personnel, I supported our sponsorship of the fence. Our idea was to base the fence on the green line (1948 armistice line) between Israel and the West Bank. The primary objective was to keep out suicide bombers, who at the time were walking and even driving across the border freely, with devastating effect on Israel. An earlier fence around the Gaza Strip has proven a formidable barrier against suicide bombers. It seemed to us that it is the primary obligation of any Israeli government to protect the 97 percent of its citizens who live within the green line by building a fence.

The fence as we conceived it had several additional purposes. One, at the strategic level, was to delegitimize the isolated settlements (but not the settlement blocs) that lie beyond it. We advocated their immediate removal, if only to free up the large numbers of Israeli security forces that guard them, so they could patrol the fence. We argued that even if the Sharon government did not remove the settlements, the existence of the fence between them and the State of Israel would contribute to their withering away. In the atmosphere of the past three years of failed peace process and Palestinian suicide violence, the fence was a legitimate expression of the desire of the vast majority of Israelis to separate our Jewish democratic state from the Palestinian territories, once and for all. Not to occupy or annex, but rather to go our separate ways and protect ourselves.

...

When pressure was applied by settlers to include more and more of their homes within the fence, Sharon saw an opening to "hijack" the fence for his own purposes. This began with rather extensive deviations--and consequent hardships imposed on Palestinian towns and villages--to accommodate more distant settlements. Thus, in order to include Alfei Menashe inside the fence, the town of Qalqilya had to be fenced in on almost all sides and rendered a virtual enclave.

Still, most of the first two sections of the fence, the northernmost, are on or close to the green line. Along with some 22 kilometers of fencing in northern and southern Jerusalem, they have contributed in recent months (even before the ceasefire) to a genuine reduction in penetrations by terrorists into Israeli territory.

But when it came time to plan Section III of the fence, linking the Elkana-Ariel settlement region with Jerusalem, Sharon, now backed by the settlers, instructed the security establishment to plan a fence that deviates deep into the West Bank and attaches numerous settlements to Israel. Many Palestinian villages caught inside this area would themselves be fenced in and turned into enclaves. Sharon also revealed that he envisaged an "eastern fence" cutting off the West Bank mountain heartland from the Jordan Valley. In other words, Sharon intends to transform the fence from a security-separation barrier to a means of defining the enclave-like nature of that 50 percent or so of the West Bank that he intends to offer the Palestinians as a "state".

...

http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl110803ed30.html

Yossi Alpher was a former senior adviser to Prime Minister Barak and one of the architects for the wall.

So, it does sound like the only reason the fence was not built on the Green Line which was considered effective (and demonstrated as such by the initial components constructed along it) was to create a border which would legitimatize the settlements inside the WB and that the singular person responsible for this was Sharon.

[furman]

16. The settlements are not illegal

The terroritories are actually disputed land.

Both UN Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords allow for Jewish settlement building.

[Englander]

32. Question-

Why are you abusing language, & rewriting history?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. That's totally incorrect....

It's the Geneva Conventions that are what decide whether the settlement building is illegal or not. And the Geneva Conventions clearly state that the settlement building is illegal. Also, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are no more 'disputed' than East Timor was when it was occupied by Indonesia...

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. The 'disputed land' is only disputed because some people own

it while other people want it.

If the land is outside Israel's 1967 borders, it does not belong to Israel; there should be no settlements there.

That is indisputable.

[Lithos]

67. Actually they do not

UN Resolution 242 was to provide from the withdrawal of Israeli Armed forces from territories they claimed. While there is quite a bit of discussion as to whether the intent was to withdraw from "the territories" or "some of the territories", the intent was never to formalize a permanent assignment of territories, but rather to stop the 1967 conflict and to provide for the possibility of a negotiated agreement. No provision was included about settlement or the inclusion/annexation into Israel.

The Oslo Accords only created provision for a Council which would determine the outcome of settlements inside the OT. Currently the Council has yet to actually meet on this issue.

The original planning for the Security Fence accepted these settlements were not legal. Other Israeli policy statements have accepted they are illegal as well.

L-

[Englander]

71. Kick. n/t

[furman]

73. There are no prohibitions or restrictions on settlement building

in any of the treaties signed between Israel and the Palestinians.

The status of the settlements are supposed to take place at the conclusion of peace talks.
Until a permanent status agreement is reached, Palestinians have no control or jurisdiction over settlements or Israelis.

[Lithos]

76. The converse is true as well

And better spelled out.

The Israeli government has no jurisdiction save that as conservatorship for the civilian population. That conservatorship started in 1967 when the settler population was non-existant. To have allowed the growth of the settler bloc is a gross malfeasance of duty as they had no modern claims to the land with the only possible exceptions of those people who were forced to leave from the 1947 war. The settlers who are present now represent groups different from those who left in 1947, so do not fit in this classification.

To reiterate, Resolution 242 allows for the military occupation of some of the territory to remain until such such time as a peaceful settlement is reached. It clearly expressed the fact that acquisition of territory by war was illegal. Additional conventions such as the 1907 Hague Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1947 talk about what is proper for an occupying military power for which the settlement of occupied territories is clearly illegal.

BTW, the text of 242 is below.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

[furman]

78. Clarification about UN Res. 242

The Six Day War of 1967 was a defensive war for Israel.
The reference about acquisition of territory you refer to in Res. 242 clearly is meant for an offensive war.
Otherwise, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against
one of the main consequences of defeat: loss of land.

The Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to this situation:
Created after WWII, it was intended to protect local populations from forced displacement,
such as what happened in the Holocaust.
The settlements have not and do not cause forced displacement for Palestinians.
In this case, Israelis are voluntarily moving back to their historical homeland.
In fact, there were several Jewish settlements prior to 1948,
but residents were forced to flee or be massacred by advancing Arab armies.

Res. 242 calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
The resolution does not call for a complete withdrawal; the wording of the resolution was quite deliberate in this respect.
It calls for Israeli withdrawal to "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".
It was well-known that the 1948 armistice line was not secure and invited further Arab aggression.

Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza is legal until a "peaceful and accepted settlement" is attained as stipulated in Res. 242.

[Boston Critic]

19. You're claiming only 5%...

...voted to put Hamas in power?

Spare us the innocent Palestinians being blamed for a tiny minority over which they have no control.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. No, Likud put Hamas in power.

The Israeli government built up Hamas, to try to marginalize Arafat and the PLO, because they were stupid enough to believe a right wing religious movement could be better controlled than a left-wing secular movement, no doubt because they themelsves are a right-wing religious movement. The Palestinian people, reacting to 1) the PA corruption, and 2) the more coherent organization of Hamas, voted Hamas into power.

Hamas is not, nor are the palestinians, all bomb throwers. The 5% is the out of control terrorist wing. Before taking over, Hamas also ran charities, schools, employment offices - IOW, accomplishing what the Israelis were preventing Arafat from accomplishing. Is it any wonder they were voted in?

The government has been doing everything in its power to undermine any effective Palestinian organization, or any move to peace. Like the South African apartheidists, they believe they are only safe if in absolute control - no dialogue allowed. These repressive measures are resulting only in the further radicalization of the palestinians, making peace impossible.

[Cary]

27. Arafat was corrupt and untrustworthy

The PLO was built in his image.

The attempt to negotiate with Arafat went nowhere because Arafat didn't have the courage to make the deal. While Hamas, and similarly Hezbollah are smart enough to do things for the people that the corrupt Palestinian Authority would not do, you are deluding yourself. Hamas and Hezbollah stepped into a vaccuum that existed simply because of the weakness of the Palestinian Authority and the legitimate government of Lebanon, respectively.

Where is the money for Hesbollah's and Hamas' services coming from?

These people are terrorists of the worst sort, and you give them way too much credit.

[Scurrilous]

12. What's up with the quote marks around the word Palestinian?

As for the garbage pick-ups, they've been rescheduled by the Palestinian authorities as not to interfere with Israel's ongoing destruction of Gaza's civilian infrastructure.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. FYI, Palestine was the roman name for the entire region.

Derived from Philistine. Ever hear of them? They've been there for thousands of years - as long as the Jews. They had neighboring kingdoms in biblical days.

But never mind. They don't count, anyway.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Scurrilous]

35. "There is no such thing as a "Palestinian."

..and yet you find yourself posting in a Israel/Palestine forum.

Must grate eh?

[barb162]

4. Good! Then the fence is working at least against some of them

-- the terrorists.

"The last few years have witnessed a constant decrease in the number of suicide bombing attacks. It results from a number of factors, including the (partial) construction of the security fence, which hinders attempts made by the terrorist organizations to infiltrate suicide bombers into Israel , although they continue to search for the fence's weak spots"

[msmcghee]

6. Just like some Repukes recently . .

. . they get in front of a camera where they think they are talking just to their people . . and their egos compell them to reveal far too much of the truth.

I wonder if he will now get the Trent Lott treatment . . and have to carry somebody else's water for a while.

[geek tragedy]

13. Nobody has a problem with Israel building a wall

on Israeli territory. That's entirely their right.

It's the fact that it's being used to effectuate a land grab that's the problem.

[furman]

14. It is not a land grab.

The fence can be dismantled if and when there is peace.

In many places, the fence even runs inside the "Green Line".

[geek tragedy]

21. Yeah, and the negotiations will take place

with a freaking security fence on the ground. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and all that.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Where does it run inside the "Green Line"?

Where's a map of the MANY PLACES it runs inside the Green Line? I'd be interested in seeing this...

[furman]

44. Link to the fence route

http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/route.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

45. And where are these MANY places it runs inside the Green Line?

I can spot a few places where the route has been revised to fall inside Israeli territory due to things like Israeli Supreme Court decisions, but unless the map's not very clear, I'm not spotting *many* places at all. Considering the amount of Palestinian territory being included on the Israeli side of the barrier, the small changes really are negligible. btw, here's a much clearer and very recent map from B'Tselem...

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

I've been in this forum a long time and found it interesting that the same talking points were used by supporters of the separation barrier BEFORE court decisions forced the Israeli govt to make some alterations to the route. Back then posters argued till they were blue in the face that the route needed to be the way it was to fight terrorism, but clearly the Israeli Surpreme Court didn't see things the same way :)

[Violet_Crumble]

61. As I thought - it doesn't run inside the green line in many places...

Why is it so difficult for some people to stick with facts?

[Englander]

68. Map of route;

http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/west_bank/west_bank_separation_barrier_july_2006.html

[msmcghee]

17. A serious question . . .

If the West Bank is still disputed territory that was captured from Jordan in the '67 war, subject to settlement by various indigenous peoples from the region, and not a state in any sense - why is anything that Israel does there a "land grab"? This would seem especially true if what Israel does there is not permanent and falls under the broad definition of defense from ongoing attack from Israel's enemies.

I'm not asking this facetiously. I'd really like to know the answer and your post indicates that you know the answer. Thanks

[geek tragedy]

20. The WB is not part of Israel, and never has been.

Therefore, trying to enclose it within the wall would be a de facto annexation, therefore a "land grab."

[furman]

22. Israel captured the West Bank in 1967 as the result of a defensive war

UN Resolution 242 gives them a right to be there, until a "just and lasting peace" is established.

There has been a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria for centuries, much longer than Palestinians have lived there.
The only time in recent history when Jews were prohibited from living there was between 1948 and 1967 then the terroritory was ruled by Jordan.

[Englander]

31. Neocon nonsense. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. It gives them the right, and responsibility, of administering it -

just as any occupying country is responsible for administration in occupied lands. It does not give them the right to colonize.

[geek tragedy]

47. Sorry, you lost me at "Judea and Samaria."

The modern state of Israel does not include the WB.

If I try to build a fence on land that doesn't belong to me, yeah that's a land grab.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. The use of 'Judea and Samaria' by Americans...

..and furman can correct me if he's not American but Israeli. Anyway, the use of Judea and Samaria by Americans (unlike some Israelis who don't give the terms the same connotations) is a habit of those of a conservative slant who believe in that Greater Israel garbage and who aren't interested in any fair and lasting settlement to the conflict....

[Englander]

72. Yeah, that's a dead giveaway, the usage of the phrase. n/t

[furman]

74. This statement is an insult to 3500 years of history and the Jewish People

You actually have no idea of what I believe about the Greater Israel view.
Nor do you have any idea about my nationality or my political leanings.

In fact, I used the terms Judea and Samaria only to note the geographic names of the West Bank territories.

However, your use of the words "garbage" (and "swill" in another of your recent responses to me)
clearly and undeniably prove your bias against Israel.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. It was never supposed to be Jordanian territory in the first place.

The original 1948 partition was between Jewish and Palestinian territories, but the the invasion of the neighboring countries changed all that - Syria siezed Golan, Jordan siezed the West Bank, Egypt siezed Gaza, while Isreal barely hung onto most of what was originally agreed on by the UN. That established the pre-67 borders. Jordan had no legal claim to the west bank. After the 67 war, Jordan renounced that claim in, I think, 1972, just as Egypt relinquished any claim to Gaza. At that point Israel might have assisted in establishing a palestinian state, but they were too clearly a client state of the US, and the PLO had strong contacts with the soviets, and we would not allow a soviet client state to be created in the middle-east.

That's the short answer - it's a little more complicated than Israel good, Arab bad, as some posting here seem to think.

[msmcghee]

30. Thanks for your reasonable response.

However, I wasn't asking anyone to justify that Israel was good and the Arabs were bad - or not.

I asked, "If the West Bank is still disputed territory that was captured from Jordan in the '67 war, subject to settlement by various indigenous peoples from the region, and not a state in any sense - why is anything that Israel does there a "land grab"?

There are several messages posted here every day, sometimes whole threads, that characterize the GOI as stealing Palestinian land on the West Bank and creating a state of apartheid there that they are forcing the Palestinians to submit to.

I just wondered how one can get from disputed territory not annexed by Israel and available for settlement by anyone to stealing land and apartheid so easily.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. The West Bank is NOT disputed territory available for settlement by anyone...

Anyone who thinks that is very, very wrong....

[msmcghee]

69. A little helpful advice . .

It would be nice if you would include something in your posts beside your own biased, emotional opinions . . . some supportable facts occasionally thrown in amongst the insults would create the impression that you actually have a point.

Simply saying, "The West Bank is NOT disputed territory available for settlement by anyone. Anyone who thinks that is very, very wrong...."

. . doesn't really cut it in discussions beyond perhaps the high school level.

[Englander]

70. 'Irony? What's that?'

It would be nice if you would include something in your posts beside your own biased, emotional opinions . . . some supportable facts occasionally thrown in amongst the insults would create the impression that you actually have a point.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Englander]

77. Yeah, I know.

Hence the quotes in the subject line of the previous post, it was a *quote*, not my own words, but
a fabricated quote, an eg of hyperbole intended for comic effect. I wasn't being literal. I'd have
thought that was obvious, because of the quotation marks, & because of the question, it was clearly not
intended to be taken literally.

As for any discussion, I choose not to engage with those who make grotesque, repugnant accusations, or
who produce venomous insults, or who produce alternate versions of reality, or who produce fantastical
fantasies, or who fail to comprehend what they've been repeatedly told.

[Englander]

36. Wow.

Finally, acceptance of reality;

There are several messages posted here every day, sometimes whole threads, that characterize the GOI as stealing Palestinian land on the West Bank and creating a state of apartheid there that they are forcing the Palestinians to submit to.


Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land
www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/middleeast/21land.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=middleeast&pagewanted=print

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. The point is, the West Bank was intended to be a Palestinian

state at the time of partition, but the various arab factions warring with each other prevented the formation of any kind of administration of their portion -- when partition came, only Israel was ready. In fact, IIRC, the British pulled out of the region precipitously because they were pissed about losing the mandate they'd had there since the end of WWI. They knew that the Palestinian portion was not organized for self governance, but they expected the Arab nations to overrun Israel so it wouldn't make any difference - the Arab Legion had British officers training it right up to the war, and by some accounts, during the war - many of the Brits thought that Transjordan should control the entire mandate.

So it was never "up for grabs", except in the reality that those it was intended for never got a chance to build the partner state that was meant to be there, because of the war of 48. The pre-67 borders conform more or less with the original partion plans, which (somewhat) clearly defined what was and what was not Israel, based on relative Arab/Jewish population densities.

[msmcghee]

49. Good answer. At least you've read some of the history.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

My sense is that Israel figures after all these years and just more suicide attacks and more declarations that Israel must be destroyed - that what the hell, here's this land that would offer our enemies easy shots at all our major population centers, no-one really claims to want to manage it, or has the ability to do so, or turn it into a state - why the hell shouldn't we start using some of this "disputed" territory for our defense - and perhaps use it to give some of our RW zealots a sandbox where they can play with our enemies' zealots that live there?

I don't know. It just seems like when wars like this go on forever - the bad shit eventually starts piling up.

[pelsar]

57. the history.....

it was in 1979 when the settler went to live in Hebron and got the movement started.....all israeli govts pitched in. So some of the settlers were religious some werent....

after intifada I it became clear that the palestenains were going to get the westbank sometime or another...israel was split about 50/50 on this. Intifada II made three things clear:

1). The palestenian state would rise one day

2). It wont be in the near future, until israel can be sure kassams wont be launched from Hebron/Jenin etc.

3). Gaza made it clear, that the religious right, when push comes to shove, doesnt have the power to stand up to the govt or the IDF.

[msmcghee]

58. Thanks, as usual for your input.

It still seems amazing to me that I can sit here at my computer and ask questions of people like you and eyl and some others who actually live in Israel and have real experience with the people and events that we just read about over here.

I hope you don't get discouraged and that you stay around. You're a valuable resource for everyone here - even if some refuse to admit it.

:)