Why Israel Needs a Fence By BENJAMIN NETANYAHU

[drdon326]

Third, despite what some have argued, fences have proven highly effective against terrorism. Of the hundreds of suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel, only one has originated from the Gaza area, where Hamas and Islamic Jihad are headquartered. Why? Because Gaza is surrounded by a security fence. Even though it is not complete, the West Bank security fence has already drastically reduced the number of suicide attacks.

The obstacle to peace is not the fence but Palestinian leaders who, unlike past leaders like Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, have yet to abandon terrorism and the illegitimate goal of destroying Israel. Should Israel reach a compromise with a future Palestinian leadership committed to peace that requires adjustments to the fence, those changes will be made. And if that peace proves genuine and lasting, there will be no reason for a fence at all.

Instead of placing Palestinian terrorists and those who send them on trial, the United Nations-sponsored international court placed the Jewish state in the dock, on the charge that Israel is harming the Palestinians' quality of life. But saving lives is more important than preserving the quality of life. Quality of life is always amenable to improvement. Death is permanent. The Palestinians complain that their children are late to school because of the fence. But too many of our children never get to school — they are blown to pieces by terrorists who pass into Israel where there is still no fence.

In the last four years, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israel's buses, cafes, discos and pizza shops, murdering 1,000 of our citizens. Despite this unprecedented savagery, the court's 60-page opinion mentions terrorism only twice, and only in citations of Israel's own position on the fence. Because the court's decision makes a mockery of Israel's right to defend itself, the government of Israel will ignore it. Israel will never sacrifice Jewish life on the debased altar of "international justice."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/13/opinion/13NETA.html

...................................................................

[Soloflecks]

1. Maybe location is the problem.

Perhaps some would not find it so objectionable if the wall was being constructed in Israel instead of Palestine.

[sushi]

4. Exactly

They can build the highest and longest wall in Israel's territory, and nobody will object.

[mstrsplinter326]

2. Fences are also good at

Promoting racial dizcrimination, economic inequality, political oppression, withholding of vital resources, etc.

So, yeah, I guess Netanyahu would like a fence put up, it would be good for wealthy Israelis like himself.

[sui generis]

3. I completely disagree on so many levels

Let's start with the Israeli (non-palestinian) extremists who assassinated Rabin and who were just recently stopped from blowing up a busful of Palestinian children.

It is absurd and shameful to claim that all Palestinians are terrorists, and all terrorists in the region are Palestinian, no matter which way you slice it.

Israel practices the worst possible public policy, and has spent years making its own bed. While terrorism of all kinds is deplorable, bulldozing people's homes, shooting their children from attack helicopters, preventing them from getting and holding jobs, real estate, medical aid, and even water is what fuels the kind of deep hatred that would send someone who has nothing to lose to do a desperate and horrible act.

Israel is doomed if it continues to practice the policies in place today, whether its demise will come in a blaze of nuclear glory or not and within 10 years or 40 years is irrelevant. If Israel wants to "defend" itself, then it needs to make real progress in public policy that strives to unite people rather than divide them with something as short sighted and utterly stupid as their wall.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

6. This Piece, Sir, Is Swill

Netanyahu bases his position on the old canard that the land overrun in '67 is "disputed territory" to which Israel has some legitimate claim. Though a few learned whores can be found to echo it, this claim is wholly baseless, and its reiteration is becoming tedious: Enron had lawyers and accountants who wrote that its various swindles were legal, too, after all, and they were clearly and deliberately wrong when they did.

Israel has not a shadow of right to anything but the status of occupying power on that ground. All the land overrun in '67 is part of the Arab Zone set aside by the U.N. partition of the Palestine Mandate to be an Arab Palestinian state. Various interludes of occupation by Jordan and Egypt do not alter that one whit, nor does the tardiness of the Arab Nationalists in proclaiming their state. The ground is not Israeli, and can only be viewed as Palestinian.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Hear, hear, Sir

Well said.

!!

[hansolsen]

11. You might enjoy reading a recent post in another thread, along these lines

Here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x74607#74747

[Lithos]

14. Absolutely

No other way around it. Well said my friend.

L-

[Forkboy]

7. Well,if it's good enough for that shithead

it's good enough for me :eyes:

[Djinn]

8. Right now we listen to Netanyahu?

How about a few op-eds from Karl Rove while we're at it...sheesh :eyes:

[number6]

10. yea post some Ann Coulter and Dick Cheney ... some body

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes: ....:puke:

.........Netanyahu? :crazy:

[IndianaGreen]

17. Bibi is the Newt Gingrich of Israel's rightwingers

His American education shows too, he speaks English with no accent and he shares the same bigotry and intolerance that is so prevalent among our Freeper friends.

Bibi's wife is a first class B-word of a woman! She also has a shoe fetish, like Imelda Marcos.

BTW, Bibi is more rightwing than Sharon.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

12. Israeli fence argument doesn't make any sense

The Israelis first argued that they needed the fence because it prevents terrorism. Then after the recent bombing they said they needed the fence to prevent such attacks. Well this doesn't make any sense. The fence failed in the job they claim it exists for, and you can't use its failure to justify its existence. If there was another attack on American soil, we couldn't say "this is the exact reason we need the Homeland Security Department," because the Homeland Security Department would have failed in its mission.

[The Magistrate]

16. That Is A Bit Much, Sir

Perfection is unattainable, particularly when attempting to balk human ingenuity. Your argument amounts to saying that because, on occassion, a locked automobile is stolen, there is no reason to lock your car and take the keys. A competently constructed and manned barrier will certainly reduce the incidence of attacks, and can be easily justified on that ground. The problem with this one is its location, not its efficacy.

[JohnLocke]

13. NETANYAHU?

:wtf:

[umtalal]

20. Exactly my thought!!!!

What is this?

[Darranar]

23. At least he doesn't have the mass murder record of Sharon...

yet, at least.

This is like posting a piece by Delay, though.

[Forkboy]

24. Thank you John

[Classical_Liberal]

15. The court didn't rule Israel couldn't have a fence either.

It ruled it couldn't be built in the occupied territories, but I don't expect honesty from conservative neoliberal repuke Netanyahu.

[Betty The Younger]

18. Benjamin Netanyahu is a really really right wing conservative...

But I agree with everything he says about Israel.

[Djinn]

25. You agree with everything

that a really really right wing conservative says? are you sure you're in the right place?

[umtalal]

19. And why are we quoting BENJAMIN NETANYAHU on the DU? n/t

[geek tragedy]

21. Because Kahane and Baruch Goldstein can't talk anymore?

[IndianaGreen]

22. Throw an Israeli flag over someone like Tom Delay

and his views will suddenly get an imprimatur in the DU.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

26. Rules are different here

Curiously, it seems that the I/P Conflict message board is not beholden to the same rules as the rest of DU. While a post promoting the points of view of Jerry Falwell or Trent Lott would be immediately deleted and the poster banned in any other forum, arguments from the most right-wing of Israelis, those as diametrically opposed to the mission of this board as Strom Thurmond, are permissible in this forum.