Some Arab Israelis find fence beneficial

[CookieD]

From Kansas City Star (subscription)

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/9119795.htm

Some Arab Israelis find fence beneficial

BY SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON

Knight Ridder Newspapers


BAQA AL GHARBIYA, Israel - (KRT) - The 26-foot-high concrete and razor wire barrier down the hill from Najeh Abu Mukh's house cuts him off from relatives and the West Bank.

But the Arab Israeli gas-station worker said he doesn't mind, because the controversial Israeli barrier has done something years of failed peace talks have not: It has taken the bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict away from his home.

Like many Arab Israeli citizens who live in northern Israel along the security barrier erected earlier this year, Abu Mukh agrees with the Israeli government that it's beneficial. The Israeli military claims the barrier has cut suicide attacks coming from the now-enclosed northern West Bank by 90 percent.

Abu Mukh questioned the International Court of Justice ruling Friday that condemned it as illegal and inhumane.

"I'm wondering if the judges ever have been here or lived here and understand the real reason for its construction," the 30-year-old asked, relaxing on his front porch with a cup of sweet Arabic coffee. "If not, they should listen and not judge."

Arab Israelis don't readily share this sentiment with outsiders. They fear appearing disloyal to their Palestinian brethren, who live across the line separating Israel from Palestinian territory and hate the structure as much as they despise the government that built it, Arab Israeli journalist Hassan Mawsi explains.

MORE

[Gyre]

1. Pretty much basic survival

is all these people are concerned about. Hence, it's not too surprising that their concerns center more on a lack of tanks rolling through front yards than the abstract loss of acreage for any potential Palestinian nation. They've been beaten so hard, for so long, by the IDF that any minute decrease in the frequency or intensity of the beatings is thoroughly appreciated. It's a shame that our taxdollars have been used to make this sorry situation possible.

Gyre

[CookieD]

4. You missed the point

These people haven't been beaten so hard, for so long, by the IDF. They've been terrorized by suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians, including Arabs.

It's a shame that we can't allocate MORE of our tax dollars to stabilize the situation. It would be money much better spent than on Iraq.

[quaoar]

2. If Reagan were still president

I'm sure he would travel to the West Bank, gaze out over the Wall and proclaim, "Mr. Sharon, tear down this wall!"

[CookieD]

5. Reagan never would have made his famous speech in Berlin if ...

East Germans had been crossing the border and blowing themselves up in West German restaurants and shopping malls. And I'm guessing his speech at the West Bank - if he felt safe enough to travel there - might not include any directive about the Israeli security fence.

Any more analogies?
:shrug:

[RowWellandLive]

22. Hi Cookiedemocrat!!!

So far I like you very much. Unfortunately our side is vastly outnumbered here and I personally don't have the will to argue as no minds are ever changed. Thanks for your voice and welcome. :hi:

[CookieD]

23. Hi back at you! n/t

[drdon326]

3. Israeli Arabs credit fence for newfound prosperity

"God be blessed, the fence ended the parade of terrorists through this city and gave us an economic boom and increased security," says Umm el-Fahm City Manager Tawfiq Karaman.

Until the completion of the fence outside Umm el-Fahm 10 months ago, locals in this city of 42,000, northwest of Jenin, had complained that Palestinians casually filtering through from the territories had harassed schoolgirls, stolen cars, and even snatched laundry.

"They stole from us as they did from the rest of Israelis," says Karaman.

Worse yet, they stamped Umm el-Fahm as a launching pad for suicide bombers. Israeli checkpoints often blocked Umm el-Fahm's streets, and border policemen patrolled the city on a regular basis, hoping to pick up illegal Palestinian workers – or terrorists.

Because of its political sensitivity, the issue of the fence is a contentious one here. A few months ago, local Islamic Movement leaders skewered Umm el-Fahm Mayor Sheikh Abdel Rahman Mahajaneh for declaring that the fence had actually benefited his community. He was accused of collaborating with Israel; some branded him a "traitor" for abandoning his Palestinian brethren.

"It appears that telling the truth might not be the safest thing for a politician to say around here," Karaman says.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1087441302553

[bigbillhaywood]

74. These "Arab Israeli" municipal officials seem like the Vichy French to me

In cases of national oppression/occupation there are always opportunistic political "leaders" willing to collaborate with the enemy to quell resistance. The Inkhata Freedom Party in South Africa is another good example.

[drdon326]

75. Really ??

i guess Sami Mcarah is another one , huh??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x74384

riiiiiight.

[bigbillhaywood]

76. Maybe I would be more sympathetic if these stories weren't coming

from the Jerusalem Post and being posted by an Israeli partisan. Reminds me of conservatives trotting out the token Black female with her story about how she opposes affirmative action for such and such a reason. Give me a Ha'aretz article showing me a poll where the majority of Palestinians support the fence, rather than a few token examples, and then maybe I will concede to your point.

Bringing out examples of a few individual Palestinians who support the fence doesn't cut it. Now if I found some quotes from Jews who support Hamas (and you know as well as I do they are out there), would that make you think Hamas's tactics are OK? Of course not.

[Massacure]

6. It's one thing for Israel to build a fence on their land

It is another ball game to build one through the middle of a Palestinian camp.

[drdon326]

7. And its another thing...

to use suicide terrorists to blow up busses and pizzerias
and murder a pregnant women and her 4 children in cold
blood.

But dont let that bother you.

[eridani]

8. Civilized people know to use tanks and helicopters instead n/t

[CookieD]

9. The killing from both sides is wrong.

Anything that curbs Palestinian suicide attacks (and by extension Israeli responses with their guns and helicopters) is worth a try. Apparently there are many Arabs and Israelis in Northern Israel who understand this. That is why they support the security fence.

[Malikshah]

17. Well-- really civilized people don't

blame the civilians killed by the tanks and helicopters

In other words--making generations pay for the crimes of others and then when some of them fight back in horrific ways making the entire population pay and blaming them for it-- is that civilized? Nope. Don't think so.

Not.
In.
The.
Least.

[CookieD]

19. Huh? n/t

[Malikshah]

20. The general response from supporters of the fence

involve security--even if it includes land grabs.

"Security" trumps all--

Civilians killed---well, they shouldn't have been there.
Trees uprooted---well, they hide folks
Wells destroyed--well...well, there's no good reason for that except for being real shitty.

Suicide bombers are wrong--that's pure and simple
What some folks don't seem to get is that the things I listed above are just as wrong.

Hence the diatribe. :)

[CookieD]

21. No, the things you listed are not 'just as wrong' as suicide bombings

Uprooted trees are not "just as wrong" as the killing of innocent children on school buses.

You and I just have different priorities, I guess.

Very sad. :-(

[Violet_Crumble]

32. So killing innocent Palestinians isn't 'just as wrong'?

If that's the case, I'm very glad you and I have different priorities. The killing of ANY civilian is wrong and should be condemned, imo...

Violet...

[CookieD]

37. Of course the killing of innocent Palestinians is wrong

It is very wrong when Palestinian terrorists accidentally kill their own civilians. Sometimes their bombs go off too early or sometimes Arab bystanders are slain when Palestinian terrorists try to maximize the killing of Israelis. And it is equally wrong when the Israeli army causes death to innocent civilians while trying to root out Palestinian terrorists.

But unless you subscribe to moral relativism, the worst, most evil killings are when the perpetrators intentionally TARGET innocent civilians. There is debate whether the Israeli army engages in such activity. There is absolutely no debate about whether Palestinian terrorists target innocent civilians; they openly boast about it afterwards.

I accept that we have different priorities. I like trees but I place greater value on human life. I also think that targeting innocent civilians is unacceptable and preventing it (i.e., through a security fence) should be the highest priority. Apparently many Arabs and Israelis who live in Northern Israel agree.

[Malikshah]

44. Moral Relativism

This tired meme must be stripped from the vocabulary of all speaking on this subject-- I have only ever seen supporters of Israel use this term in discussions--accusing others of it. Human life is human life--

Whether its killed in a suicide bombing
Whether its killed in "rooting out terrorists"
Whether its killed in the wholesale destruction of homes
Whether its killed when there is inadequate healthcare or ability to go to hospital

Etc. etc.

[CookieD]

45. I can understand why you'd want to 'strip' moral relativism from ...

this discussion. If (as you wrote earlier) you truly believe uprooting Palestinian trees is as wrong as blowing up busses filled with Israeli school children, then moral relativism is an obstacle for you in advancing any argument against the security fence.

But moral relativism is not your only barrier here. You also have a legal hurdle in arguing that all killings are equal regardless of the circumstances. Research the laws of any democracy and you will find greater culpability assigned to those who kill intentionally and knowingly, versus those who kill recklessly and negligently. Killers who intentionally target innocent civilians are considered worse criminals than those who cause death by other means.

Yes, killing is wrong. But it you want to resolve the Palestinian dilemna and work toward peaceful resolution, you shouldn't only concern yourself with the fact that people are dying. You should concern yourself with HOW and WHY people are dying. "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of travelers upon it," right?

Now please do me a favor. I threw together a few ideas for steps toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. These are listed under post #39. Please tell me what you think. :-)

[Malikshah]

47. I'll do that only if you

realize that I was not equating suicide bombing and uprooting trees.

I left out the killing of Palestinian civilians on purpose in my initial post so as to not to get to a stacking bodies game. You decided to add that in assuming I was equating the two. And you continue to harp on it. In other words-- I have yet to accuse you of any lack of humanity--and twice now you have done so to me. Please stop using the tired old tactics.

I've read your posts--and yes-- the ideas are clear. UN is needed -- with teeth--powers of enforcement-- however--it won't occur. Israel's policy has long been to avoid any sort of international involvement in what it views as it's personal security.

[CookieD]

48. OK, I accept your explanation about suicide bombing and trees

I also apologize for any offense. Further, I accept that deep down you and I share the same desire: peace.

Israel has indeed resisted U.N. involvement in drawing boundaries and maintaining Israeli security. Israel is afraid of what it perceives to be a pro-Arab bias in the U.N.

But Israel might be more open to NATO involvement in the security function within the West Bank and Gaza. And when it comes to maintaining Israel's own security along the Green Line, I would think Israel might be receptive to a joint U.S.-Israel patrol of the area. Perhaps the U.S. could provide something along the line of its border patrol between South Korea and North Korea.

The most important thing is to get the ball rolling. Part of the problem is that Israel has no Palestinian government with which to deal. It is forced, therefore, to take some steps unilaterally.

On its own Israel is already putting up a security fence and dismantling a number of settlements. It also has plans to withdraw from the West Bank. Granted, Israel needs to do MUCH more but this is at least a start.

I am as pessimistic about this as you seem to be. However, I do not think we should give up all hope. We have to keep talking with one another and we have to keep trying.

What other choice do we have?

[Malikshah]

54. I was asked during a lecture

If I had hope for peace-- I said No-- but I needed to qualify it-- There will be no peace as long as the current leadership on both sides is in place.

Maybe a generation from now...but not now.

[CookieD]

55. I certainly hope it doesn't take a generation

... to bring about some kind of peaceful resolution and a Palestinian state. However, given the history, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see this drag on for more than a decade. My fear is that things may actually get worse before they get better.

You raise an interesting point about the current leadership. The Palestinians have no real leadership and Arafat has been a disaster. Further, the various militant groups committed to the destruction of Israel have little to add to the process. I honestly do not know how the Palestinians can fill their leadership vacuum.

On the Israeli side there is Sharon's right-wing stubborness with which to contend. I have never been a big fan of Sharon but his recent attempt to convince the Likud to support withdrawal from the West Bank has given me some hope. Much the same way that Richard Nixon was the only American leader who could reach out to the Soviets and the Chinese (simply because no one could ever accuse Nixon of being soft on Communism), perhaps Sharon may be the only Israeli leader who can successfully dismantle the settlements.

This isn't going to be easy, that's for sure. Fanatics who do not support a two-state solution should be marginalized and squeezed out of the process. They are the biggest problem in the equation.

BTW, were you delivering or attending your lecture? You sound intelligent enough to lecture on this topic.

[Malikshah]

60. I'd agree, but Sabra and Shatila will do him in.

There's a woodchipper with Sharon's name on it. No self-respecting Palestinian will embrace this creature.

That's why I'm not terribly hopeful until the leadership changes.

[CookieD]

62. At the risk of sounding even more boorish than usual

... it is not up to the Palestinians to embrace Sharon. (Just as the Soviet citizens did not have to embrace Nixon when he visited during the Cold War.)

The only relevant question is whether Sharon can get the citizens of Israel to accept West Bank withdrawal and dismantling of settlements. Sharon might actually succeed where other, more moderate prime ministers have failed. No matter what happens the Israeli electorate will never accuse Sharon of being soft on security or "selling out" to the Palestinians. Ironically, the very same guy you want to throw in the woodchipper might be the best bet for peace and Palestinian statehood.

Like it or not this almost has to be a unilateral process in the beginning. Israel must unilaterally seal off the border, dismantle its settlements and withdraw from the West Bank. Occasional incursions might be necessary following suicide attacks. But when the terrorism subsides and the Palestinians finally agree on someone other than Arafat to represent them, peace negotiations can resume and hopefully the Palestinians can realize their dream of statehood.

[Malikshah]

66. Unilateralism has been the bane of this whole process

From the British only really dealing with Yishuv community at a political level to the current "road map for peace"

Terrorism is a symptom -- if one does not correctly diagnose the cause, it will occur again and again. Part of the correct diagnosis is seeing that Sharon is part of the cause. For every Israeli who decries Arafat being selected as the leader of the Palestinians, there are Palestinians who will decry Sharon as the leader of the Israelis. I wasn't suggesting that the Palestinians would or would not embrace Sharon. That won't happen ever. The point I was making was that Sharon is part of the problem and that any unilateral action made by an Israeli government under is leadership (or like-minded leadership) will not solve any of the problems.

There has yet to be anything but unilateralism in the peace process thus far in some folks' eyes.

Oslo itself was not an negotiation done by two equal parties--one example--Whereas in the Letters of Recognition, the PLO recognized the state of Israel and its right to exist in peace and security, Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate voice of the Palestinians. That was not and equal recognition--a step in the right direction--but by no means equal.

Avi Shlaim's Iron Wall is a decent analysis of Israeli foreign policy with regard to the Arab world--the idea being that one must negotiate from a position of overwhelming strength. Build an "iron wall" in order to force recognition and one's interests. Some may decry Jabotinsky's realpolitick attitude, but at least it was brutally honest. Unfortunately, the Iron Wall policy has ruled the roost over the last generation or so. Forcing people to accept agreements through overwhelming firepower will never result in a lasting peace.

BTW-- you didn't sound boorish :)

[CookieD]

68. Very enlightening

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I was initially skeptical about learning much from our dialogue (because discussions like these have a tendency to degenerate into verbal slugfests) but I am learning a great deal.

I think we may be driving at this from two different angles. I have been focusing on the bottom line, the peace "product" if you will. I am interested to know what tangible steps can be taken for the parties to achieve peace.

You appear to be telling me that the peace "process" is important as well. Who the negotiators are, what their underlying motivations appear to be, whether the outside brokers appear trustworthy, whether the overall process appears to be unilateral or multi-lateral, etc., are all valuable considerations for the Palestinians.

Let me ask you this. If you were prime minister of Israel and you wanted (in the following order) security for your people, peace with the Palestinians and did not object to a Palestinian state, what would you do? What specific steps would you favor?

I will spend some time today trying to think about this from the Palestinian perspective. :-)

[Classical_Liberal]

84. Sharon is not withdrawing from the West Bank

He is moving the gaza settlers there and annexing it.

[Classical_Liberal]

82. Sharon is resettling the Gaza settlers to the West Bank so

I don't know why it gave you hope. The fanatics that don't support the two state solution are in both the democratic and republican parties. Kerry supports the settlements and an undivided Jerusalem. This is why he is also supporting the theft fence.

[Classical_Liberal]

81. Even many Moussad people admit the no partner for peace issue

is a lie. I personally prefer the UN since I perceive prosettler bias in the US. I don't think America is a leader anymore anyway.

[Classical_Liberal]

80. It's also moral relativism to argue that stealing land is a justiable

responce to terrorism, not to mention an outright lie. Since the stealing started before.

[Malikshah]

35. So sorry not list the catalogue of crimes by Israel

How's this for starters.

If you were to add up the civilians killed at the behest of Arafat v. those killed at the behest of Sharon.

Sharon's stack would be far higher.

Do you really wish to play the numbers games with innnocent civilians.

Don't even talk to me about priorities--writing off the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians is a shameful act.

The reason I did not go into civilian body counts is that pro-Fence, pro-Israeli supporters would get in a snit, because they'd lose that little debate.

[mbperrin]

36. Yes, in the name of security, anything can be justified for

those with small minds.

Perhaps quitting the behaviors which created the suicide bombers in the first place would be an idea. After all, they are a really recent phenomenon. Here's a useful link:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Israel/Overview_IsraeliPalestinian_Relations/Intifada_I/Intifada2/Intifada2b/SuicideBombing1.htm

<snip>
The use of suicide bombers in the Middle East actually began not as a Palestinian precedent but a Lebanese one, and indeed there are some observers who see its spread to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a part of a general shift of "tactics" learned from Lebanese experiences southward.

<snip>
The fact that the U.S. forces could be forced to pull up stakes from an Arab country due to an attack by a local militia made a great impression in the Arab world. Despite this, however, the idea of using suicide bombers in Middle East conflicts seemed to go into remission up to the early 1990s, when the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization began viewing suicide-bombing missions as a central weapon in its arsenal.

<snip>

Suicide bomb attacks against Israeli targets were conducted throughout the '90s, most notably in an intense period in the winter and spring of 1996. But it was really the second Intifada, beginning in September 2000, that brought the strategy to unprecedented usage, with secular Palestinian organizations eventually adopting it as well.

<more>

It's worth a look. I do think that one question anyone would have to ask is what conditions could actually cause someone to think that giving up their own life is their most productive path? Better look at Maslow and his hierarchy of human needs. When people cannot have their basic needs met, they become desperate. And Kohlberg conducted a whole series of behavioral experiments which dealt with the same sorts of issues of desperation and human behavior.

Until those conditions are fixed, any wall will be just as useful as the Maginot.

But the construction companies building them and the politicians who own parts of them are indeed becoming wealthy. And when this doesn't work (and it can't; it doesn't solve the problem), they will sell the public something else really expensive.

[CookieD]

39. I don't disagree

... that the conditions causing Palestinian anger need to be addressed.

Contrary to what you may believe, most Isarelis, Jews, non-Jewish friends of Israel, etc., are not all in lock-step with Ariel Sharon. My personal belief is that the following should be accomplished at a minimum:

1. Israel should complete the security fence and seal off the border;

2. Israel should dismantle its settlements and withdraw from the West Bank;

3. To the extent that Israel might need to retain some West Bank and/or Gaza land - not for settlements, but for security - the Palestinians should be compensated;

4. NATO and some Arab nations should send in a multi-national force to secure the West Bank and Gaza, rooting out Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.;

5. The United Nations should offer financial aid, education, job training, etc., to the Palestinian people;

6. The United States should patrol the area around the Green Line;

7. The United States should assist Israel in financially compensating re-located settlers;

8. The United Nations should oversee the formation of a sovereign Palestine and hold free elections.

You can pick this apart if you wish. These are just some ideas off the top of my head. I think security should be the first step in the peace process. Not the final or only step.

[bigbillhaywood]

73. Hizbollah has no operational capacity to speak of in the West Bank

or Gaza. What operations they may have there are minimal at best. They operate in Lebanon.

[CookieD]

78. Golly, someone should inform the Washington Institute!

They look awfully silly having published a Middle East Intelligence Bulletin entitled, "Hezbollah's West Bank Terror Network."

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt0803.htm

No offense, but if an inaccurate statement about Hezbollah's operational capacity in the West Bank is all you have to offer in response to a suggested peace plan, then perhaps this conversation is a bit over your head. (Like an Aaron Boone fly ball.)

:shrug:

[bigbillhaywood]

83. Another Red Sox zinger. Maybe I should get a different avatar to make

thinking of witty digs more challenging for you.

Okay, a few points:

1. "Someone should inform the Washington Institute"? The Washington Institute counts among its Board of Advisors: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Alexander Haig, and George Shultz. Daniel Pipes is an adjunct scholar. It amazes me what people are able to get away with in the I/P forum in terms of citing right-wing think tanks, publications and websites as gospel. This wouldn't be allowed elsewhere on DU. I could see how a Freeper could easily hang out here in I/P, posting RW talking points on the I/P conflict and rarely head upstairs. DISCLAIMER: I'm not accusing you of the abominable crime of Freepery as such a public accusation is forbidden on DU and would result in deletion of this post.

2. You will notice that even this biased article indicates that Hizbollah's organizational capabilities are not even close to being fully functioning in Palestine, and that they still fill more of a support role there. Although the article does note that Hizbollah's organizational capablities are developing rapidly. Not surprising as both the military and political organization of Hizbollah is quite impressive from a dispassionate and objective standpoint.

3. I picked out one part of your post I found error in. So what, am I required to address each post comprehensively? Or would responding to each of your 8-point peace plan (to be presented to the UN any day now) satisfy you?

[CookieD]

87. The Wash. Inst. Board also includes Warren Christopher

It's director is Dennis Ross from the Clinton Administration. (Of course these are more of those "pro-Israeli partisans" from whom you cannot learn, right?)

Speaking of learning: could you please cite for me a reliable source that states it is "error" to claim Hezbollah has an operational capacity in the West Bank? In fact, do you have a reliable source for anything that you've stated??

I am sorry you feel DU is unfairly biased against your point of view. I am impressed with the variety of viewpoints I have seen thus far. Of course, you are always free to leave this particular discussion faster than Wade Boggs left Beantown for the Yankees.

;-)

[bigbillhaywood]

88. Yeah, yeah

1. As far as your reliable sources are concerned, although I like to spend time on DU, I'm pretty old-fashioned when it comes to getting my information. I read newspapers, magazines, journals and books-- most of the time (except with the books), I toss them when I am done. And most of my books are in storage. My primary job is labor organizing-- arguing foreign policy on DU is just a sideline (although an increasingly addictive one), so I don't feel the need to compile online sources and links like many on DU.

I take an interest in underground and guerilla organizations, not just in the Middle East, but in general. Hizbollah is one of the more interesting and effective ones, so I happen to know a little more about them, than say, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad. Some of the old Marxist groups like PFLP and DFLP interest me as well, but we won't get into that now.

2. Warren Christopher and Dennis Ross-- conservative Democrats. They represent corporate interests, nationalism and American imperialist aggression. So no, I don't feel like I have anything to "learn" from these fucks, except how duplicitous pro-corporate, jingoist politicians that claim to be for ordinary working Americans can be.

3. "I am sorry you feel DU is unfairly biased against your point of view." That's a way to put words in my mouth. I simply said I believe some people can get away with citing right wing websites in I/P forum that they would unlikely be allowed to do upstairs. Perhaps that is an incorrect characterization on my part, but in any case I never said DU is unfairly biased against my point of view.

Alright, I'm gonna soon be taking a hiatus from DU for a day or two to attend to business. But feel free to take a parting shot at my beloved Red Sox, since that seems to get you off.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

85. The washington Istitute were also the people

promoting the Osama Saddam link. I wouldn't take them very seriously.

[Massacure]

10. I don't oppose the fence

I just think that there were better places to let it run through.

[CookieD]

12. I have no problem with that position

The most important aspect of the fence is to curb suicide attacks. Provided this can be accomplished while respecting the land rights of Palestinan farmers, etc., I am all for it.

[Massacure]

13. I was refering more toward drdon326's post.

:P

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Do you think it was a good thing

that Hitler built the Atlantic Wall in France, rather than Germany? Do you think the French should have stopped their resistance, and realised that Hitler was just defending himself from The US and Britain?

[CookieD]

25. With all due respect you need to brush up on your history

Hitler built the Atlantic Wall to repel the allies from re-taking Continental Europe. He was not trying to defend innocent German civilians from French suicide bombers. Nor was he worried about the French murdering German school children in downtown Berlin.

Any more analogies? :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. The point is he built it in occupied territory

rather than in Germany. I have never heard, from anyone, a single reason why the Israeli barrier could not be built on the edge of Israeli territory, rather than in the West Bank. Would you like to be the first in the world to attempt a justification?

[CookieD]

31. Don't get upset, but I think you need to brush up on your geography

as well as your history.

The security fence is not built "in" the West Bank. It is built near the northern part of the pre-1967 “Green Line” between Israel and the West Bank. The location of the fence is to prevent Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating into Israeli population centers. This includes population centers in Northern Israel. With all due respect I doubt I am the "first in the world" to point this out to you.

Your comparison of the Israeli security fence to Hitler's Atlantic Wall is historically and geographically flawed.

FWIW, I do think the land rights of the Palestinians is important. I believe the security fence should be erected in a manner that respects land rights, if that is at all possible. The United States should roll up its sleeves and help determine the exact location of the fence. It should also offer help in patroling the Green Line border. That would be a welcome start.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. What???

The security fence is not built "in" the West Bank.

Care to explain how a fence that at times is going around 20km into the West Bank (that's how far it has to go to take in Arial) isn't being built "in" the West Bank?

From the ICJ ruling on the fence:

The Written Statement of the Secretary‑General further states that Phase C of the work, which runs from the terminus of Phase A, near the Elkana settlement, to the village of Nu’man, south‑east of Jerusalem, began in December 2003. This section is divided into three stages. In Stage C1, between inter alia the villages of Rantis and Budrus, approximately 4 kilometres out of a planned total of 40 kilometres have been constructed. Stage C2, which will surround the so‑called “Ariel Salient” by cutting 22 kilometres into the West Bank, will incorporate 52,000 Israeli settlers. Stage C3 is to involve the construction of two “depth barriers”; one of these is to run north‑south, roughly parallel with the section of Stage C1 currently under construction between Rantis and Budrus, whilst the other runs east‑west along a ridge said to be part of the route of Highway 45, a motorway under construction. If construction of the two barriers were completed, two enclaves would be formed, encompassing 72,000 Palestinians in 24 communities.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

Guess those judges need to brush up on their geography, eh? ;)

Violet...

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Map of the barrier

if your eyesight is still OK ...

http://www.btselem.org/English/Separation_Barrier/Map.asp

[CookieD]

40. Several maps of the fence route, plus ...

an explanation of why the route was set up in the chosen way. You don't have to agree with all of it. Just give it a thorough try:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

[drdon326]

42. The Peace Fence has proved itself for security...

from your link...

"Since construction of the fence began, the number of attacks has declined by more than 90%. The number of Israelis murdered and wounded has decreased by more than 70% and 85%, respectively, after erection of the fence."

hopefully the jewicide bombers are too inconvenienced.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. And how many Palestinians have been murdered and wounded?

That seems to be something that doesn't matter to some folk, unfortunately...

btw, the ruling (which you should try and read) wasn't a judgement on the barrier itself, but on the bits of it that are constructed in the West Bank itself. There is no expectation for Israel to dismantle any part of it built inside Israel (about 1km of it), or along the Green Line...

Violet...

[CookieD]

51. Excellent question

Far, far more Palestinians have been murdered and wounded by other Palestinians than by Israelis. That's not a story you hear about much. Perhaps it tends to shatter our romantic vision of this being some kind of David versus Goliath struggle. Of course, we could always try and figure out a way to blame Palestinian atrocities against other Palestinians on the Israelis, right? ;-)

I am glad that you do not seem opposed to the security fence. I, too, am concerned about the bits that are constructed in the West Bank. I think the Israelis should erect the fence, withdraw their West Bank settlements and compensate the Palestinians for any land annexed for security purposes. See my post #39.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. I kind of detest body-count competitions...

And what I find the worst is when people say that no-one's been killed in a particular space of time, when what they mean to say is that no-one in Israel's been killed, and it doesn't matter how many Palestinians have been killed in the time that they sometimes refer to as 'a lull in the violence'. Somehow I doubt very much that we miss out on hearing about cases relating to the conflict where Palestinians are killed by other Palestinians. Those stories are dutifully posted here, but I suspect that the IDF has way more notches on its belt when it comes to Palestinian casualties...

I've always said since the barrier came up as an issue that I'd have no problem with it if it were constructed along the Green Line. I think when it was originally floated as an idea by Israel intended to run along the Green Line, Sharon was vehemently opposed to it because his precious settlements wouldn't be on the Israeli side of it....

I took a quick look at yr points in post #39 and don't find anything there I disagree with. I think what you've stated is pretty damn reasonable...

Violet...

[CookieD]

53. Thank you

I detest body-count competitions as well. Reducing human beings to numbers is sad, offensive and only serves to numb us to the terrible consequences of war.

What I meant about the failure to report the various complexities of the Palestinian dilemna is that the so-called mainstream American media doesn't cover it very well. Of course, that sure as hell isn't saying much. I sometimes think the mainstream media likes GWB because he's easy to cover and doesn't get hung up on complexity. (To put it mildly.)

BTW, I like your blog.

Peace.

[Lithos]

56. Off topic

Nice picture...

[JohnLocke]

77. You seem like a fellow who listens to reason.

Welcome, friend. :toast:

[CookieD]

79. Thank you n/t

[CharlesGroce]

11. while the rest of the world...

knows it's illegal and definitely stealing land and water from what farmers Palestine still has is not a solution to this problem.

[number6]

14. how many is some ?

is that like some democrats find bush to be a very good (p)resident ?

[drdon326]

15. Call them and ask....AT THEIR COUNTRY CLUB !!

"The benefits of the fence to Umm el-Fahm are already evident, says Karaman. On a drive toward the area's only country club, el-Waha, Karaman points out a new shopping center lining the city's main road. Shops there include Ra'adi Kaba'a's new "Tel Aviv-style" caf , replete with traditional Ashkenaki treats such as rogalach and cheesecake, a cellphone shop, and a spacious new restaurant."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1087441302553




Call the israeli arabs on their CELLPHONES at their COUNTRY CLUB
before they tee-off and tell them how upset you are at the peace fence.

[number6]

18. LOL

yea, I'll bet they get honorary human status there ...

[NNN0LHI]

16. I bet the Arab concrete makers like the wall a lot n/t

[quaoar]

27. An interesting link

From B'Tselem's website on the Separation Barrier:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Separation_Barrier/Index.asp

[drdon326]

28. The first sentence shows its stupidity.

"The route of the Barrier was dictated by extraneous considerations which have little to do with security."

kind of hard to justify that bullshit when there has been a
decrease of 90% in suicide attacks.

[quaoar]

30. Perhaps you shouldn't take the quote out of context

Here is a bigger portion:

"According to the State Comptroller's report from 2002, most of the Palestinians who perpetrated attacks in Israel entered the country through the checkpoints situated along the Green Line, and not through the open areas between the checkpoints. Despite the report's findings, Israel decided to erect the barrier before it solved the problems that were found in the operation of the checkpoints. Furthermore, the IDF did not take any meaningful action in the seam area that would prevent Palestinians from entering Israel, and gave this lower priority than other objectives, such as carrying out extensive operations deep in the West Bank.


Even if we accept Israel's claim that the only way to prevent attacks is to erect a barrier, Israel is required to select the route that results in the fewest possible human rights violations. The planned route almost totally ignores this principle and is based on extraneous considerations which have little, if anything, to do with the security of Israeli civilians. One of the government's primary considerations was inclusion of as many settlements as possible west of the barrier in order to increase the likelihood of their annexation into Israel. The authorities also determined the route of the barrier in a manner that would avoid the political problems resulting from recognition of the Green Line as the border of Israel."

[CookieD]

33. Another interesting link

From the Jewish Virtual Library on the security fence:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

[Wind Dancer]

29. World Court voted the barrier to be illegal

by a vote 14-1, the US being the only country to vote against the barrier. Israel does not have the right to build this on the settlements, leaving Palestinians literally homeless. Israel has one of the most powerful military and intelligence and have the right to protect themselves. Palestinians are not violent people, the fundamentalists become suicide bombers, it's their weapon. Palestinians homes and land are being bulldozed down, they can't claim citizenship. The barrier also prevents many from getting to and from work.

I do not condone any type of violence or killing of innocent people. I respect the state of Israel but it does not have the right to deny Palestinians of basic human rights. Both need to compromise.

Edited to add points.

[CookieD]

41. How?

In your words: "Israel has one of the most powerful military and intelligence and have the right to protect themselves."

OK, how should Israel protect itself against suicide bombers? Would love to have your help with this one.

:shrug:

[drdon326]

43. Some people....(not here of course)

just wish Israel would just die......call it anti-zionism.

riiiiiiiight.

[number6]

46. Some people....(not here of course)

just wish Palestinians would just die off .....

[Wind Dancer]

49. I didn't indicate that by my post at all!

Of course I don't want Israel to die, why see things so black and white? Do you know how many Israelis are against having this wall built? I respect both and am disgusted by violence of any kind, including suicide bombers and bulldozers killing Innocent people.

Please don't misunderstand my statement.

[bigbillhaywood]

57. Can anyone say "Uncle Tom"? nt

[CookieD]

58. Considering Boston's reputation ...

that's not a very sensitive or enlightened thing to say.

And no, I'm not referring to Boston's reputation for choking in October. :silly:

[Liberal Classic]

59. Thank you

I wasn't sure what to say.

[bigbillhaywood]

61. I'm Arab-American and if I want to call another Arab an Uncle Tom

because he's okay with selling out his oppressed brothers and sisters, that's exactly what I'm gonna do. I don't need any lectures from pro-Israeli partisans on what language I should be using.

[CookieD]

63. Being Arab-American does not give you license

to use a phrase that is sometimes considered offensive and hurtful to African Americans.

Sadly this concept has eluded you like a ground ball through Bill Buckner's legs. :D

[bemildred]

64. That "phrase" was invented by African Americans.

Perhaps the concept has eluded him because it is bullshit?
It is the equivalent of calling someone a "self-hating Jew",
approximately, and has long since been generalized to apply
to anyone seen as an ethnic traitor.

Edit: Uncle Tom

[CookieD]

65. A couple of things

First, the use of "Uncle Tom" as an insult to African Americans is well established. The phrase is considered a "contemptuous name for a Black man who is abjectly servile and deferential to Whites." {See Dictionary.com} Even your own link describes the phrase as "disparaging", "offensive", and "contemptuous."

Second, even if the phrase somehow transcends race and culture as you claim but fail to prove, the essence of Uncle Tom is subservience. It comes from the character Uncle Tom in Harriet Stowe’s 19th century novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, who put his master’s wishes and life before his own. It is NOT the equivalent of calling someone a "self-hating Jew." One can be subservient without hating oneself. And a self-hating person is not necessarily subservient to anyone.

Your use of the phrase self-hating Jew is incendiary and highly insulting. Especially in the context of this conversation. You should apologize.

[bemildred]

67. It is a duty and an honor to insult some people.

"Uncle Tom" most certainly is an insult, and so intended, but
it is not a racial or ethnic slur as you imply, or a general
insult to blacks. You confuse equivalence with analogy, "Uncle
Tom" and "self-hating Jew" both imply ethnic disloyalty. My use
of "self-hating Jew" is typical of the right wing Israeli press.
You'll get an apology from me when you get one from them.

[Classical_Liberal]

86. We know it is used for a black man that kisses white ass

which is why it is completely appropriate for the Arabs that like the fence.

[bigbillhaywood]

69. You're really milking this Red Sox metaphor...

Anyways, would you prefer I use the term "Arab Uncle Tom" or maybe an "Uncle Tarek"? Hey, Uncle Tarek--that's pretty good maybe I will start using that and try to coin the expression. I work with black radicals, and none of them get offended by my use of the term in that context. So I'm sorry, but your offense to my use of the term in that particular context means zilch to me.

[drdon326]

70. OUCH !!

Quite frankly the use of "uncle tom" is a racially loaded
term.

[CookieD]

71. That you claim to work with 'black radicals' (whatever that means)

does not make you an authority on whether something is offensive to African Americans or any other group. My original observation was that your "Uncle Tom" remark came off as insensitive and unenlightened. Please feel free to re-read my post. I stand by that observation.

Now, if you wish to share your views on the concrete steps necessary for a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian dispute, I invite you to comment on Post #39. In my opinion that might be a more productive use of your energy.

Hurling remarks and dismissing those who disagree with you as "pro-Israeli partisans" does little to advance the dialogue. And I believe it is plain callous to label Palestinians - who actually LIVE in Northern Israel and who are terrified for their families' safety at the hands of suicide bombers - as mere Uncle Tom's. Spend considerable time in the area and you will discover it is a far cry from Boston, MA.

P.S. Sorry if all of this means zilch to you. Your deep-seated hatred of Bucky Dent means zilch to most baseball fans. I.e., it's all a matter of perspective. ;-)

[bigbillhaywood]

72. Yeah

"That you claim to work with 'black radicals' (whatever that means)does not make you an authority on whether something is offensive to African Americans or any other group."

Never claimed it made me an authority on it. But the way I figure it, if people that admire and respect, and have dedicated their lives to the struggle for black liberation (and in some cases risked their lives for it) don't find my use of it offensive in that context, then I really could care less what some random person on DU making arguments in favor of Israel's apartheid fence thinks.

As to you're argument that I have no right to make judgements on Palestinians simply because I live in the US, then I guess everyone on this Board who's not living in Israel or the Occupied Territories should just shut up, because they have no right to make moral judgement calls on Israelis or Palestinians if they are not residents of the region. That's a good idea-- why don't you ask the Admins to add that to the rules for the I/P forum.

I think we're done here-- this topic is pretty much exhausted. Well, at least I'm done. I'm sure you'll want to get in another clever dig at the Sox before we close it out.