World Court Rules Israel's Barrier Illegal

'Is this your way of being funny?'

No, it isn't.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I've read what each of those entities have said about it. I think for the most part their arguments have been idiotic.

That is your opinion. May I assume you're Dutch?

You do not need my permission to make assumptions. Assume what you will, assertions made to me will be corrected when appropriate.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I agree. So? I am not saying that the fence will not cause these problems, so what is your point?

My point is that the Israeli government, to protect its citizens it seems, doesn't care about the people on the "other side" who have to pay for what some Palestinian extremists do. Is that fair?

Your restricted argument does illustrate to me something I can agree is unfair. But you neglect to take into context that Israel is moving away from things that actually harm the Palestinian innocents for what their extremists do and that inconveniences them to a far greater degree.

The cycle of terrorist attacks, Israeli assasinations and murders, Palestinian revenge terrorism and Israeli incusions and roadblocks is, IMO, a FAR FAR greater injustice and inconvenience to the innocents than the fence.

If the fence can provide a lull in the cycle of violence I allege that this benefit outweights the inconvenience of the fence.

Look, you can call it an unfair inconvenience till you are blue in the face. Hell I might even agree with you.

But you also need to take the context of the situation into account.

I think this represents an opportunity to establish a lull, move toward disengagement and ultimately settle the conflict.

Now I might be wrong about this, and maybe it will be another failed attempt to solve this but if it is not, do you think the inconvenience is worth the end goal?

Quote:

I realize that both Israel and the Palestinians have certain priorities. But a wall is not the way to battle the roots of the terror performed by Palestinian terrorists.

This idiotic mantra is really really silly.

Maybe you can try to wrap your head around this idea:

The wall is not intended to "battle the roots of terror".

Got it?

The wall is intended to "battle the immediate effect of terror (i.e. people being blown up)".

This mantra is so idiotic it's hard to take seriously in response.

Why don't you go door to door and tell people to take their locks and alarms off their doors because they are not a good way to "battle the roots of poverty and crime"?

Nobody is saying this wall is meant to "battle the roots". So if you think it does poorly at it it is like claming a basketball does poorly at playing CDs.

No kidding! <laughs>

Quote:

And do not think the peace process will get much of a boost when one side is confronted with a wall which is build to stop that minority among them, but eventually will effect a majority among them.

These emotional appeals are silly. You can spin these all day but can't really show a real tangible detriment to the process.

I can, however, show a real tangible benefit to the peace process.

1) Attacks by Palestinian terrorists give Israel a pretext to delay negotiations and settlement.

2) Attacks by Israel give Palestinian terrorists recruiting power for reprisal attacks.

3) Fences have been clearly shown to help reduce the attacks in this very conflict (see the results in Gaza).

4) This represents a disengagement by Israel.

Reducing the cycle of violence is the most important thing to do to move the peace process forward. Not your nebulous appeals to emotions.

The fence offers real tangible benefit in the way of fewer people being killed on each side. Not just an intangible concern about people's feelings about a wall.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Frankly, I think their inconvenience is worth the benefits and frankly Israel's alternate measures bring the exact same inconveniences with roadbloacks, curfews and occupation.

YOU think it's worth the benefits.

Yes, that is exactly what I said...

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
This is relevant to the specifications of the fence, and not the idea of the fence itself.

But it's still the same fence.

Oh boy, I have to spell it out for you it seems.

It is a complaint about the specifications of implementation, not the inherent idea.

Let me give you examples:

Idea: play football
Example of a bad implementation of the idea that doesn't indict the idea itself: play underwater

Quote:

You realize this is all frustration.

Yes

Quote:

You realize that there will be less both Israeli and Palestinian deaths because of the fence.

Yes, and I realize that this is the most important thing to do toward the peace process.

peace = people not dying

Quote:

But we DO want the conflict to stop right?

Yes

Quote:

We DO want peace in the Middle East, right?

Yes, you are being redundant and repeating yourself by saying the same thing again and restating things.

Quote:

I consider the fence to be an obstacle in that way. You do not, I assume?

No, I do not. I see it as the opposite a tool helping move toward that.

I have given tangible reasons why, while you just make appeals to emotions and feelings that you can't even illustrate are worse than the very same emotions and feelings from the cycle of violence.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
1) Palestinians have no inherent "right" to employment within Israel, their terrorists are the ones who craete a situation in which their entry is problemetic.

'Their terrorists'. What is this? Collective punishment?

No, this is not "punishment" this is Israel's right.

Israel is under no obligation whatsoever to allow Palestinians to work in Israel.

Even if there were no terrorists at all, they would be perfectly within their rights to deny every Palestinian the privlidge of working in Israel.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I hope you don't try to pass off your weak opinions as facts. Yes, you might be so inclined to include some facts, I dispute your conclusions.

As I pointed out, I based this on what I believe to be reliable sources.

This is idiotic, I can find "reliable sources" that take opposite positions.

I won't get into your fallacious appeals to authority.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Yes, I think that on the whole the fence is a good thing for this situation, though your admirable skill with the use of emoticons nearly convinced me otherwise.

Next post will be emoticons only.

In that case it will have little intellectual difference from your preceeding emotional appeals.

As a courtesy I inform you that if your subsequent postings simply make the same knee-jerk appeals to pity I might just leave them be.

0 Replies

I agree the barrier has to stay. it is saving the lives of Israil's children from firey deaths in there homes. The Barrier keeps out violent and sick murderers. We could use a Barrier like this spanning from Florida to California.

0 Replies

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39767000/jpg/_39767757_sharon203.jpg

Quote:

Sharon rejects World Court ruling
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rejected the World Court's ruling on Israel's West Bank barrier, calling it one-sided and politically motivated.

"I want to make clear, the state of Israel absolutely rejects the ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague," Sharon said on Sunday in his first public comments on Friday's decision that the barrier was illegal. "It is a one-sided and politically motivated ruling."

source

as expected....

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

You do not need my permission to make assumptions. Assume what you will, assertions made to me will be corrected when appropriate.

I only made that assumption because you said that you know the sources 'Het Parool' and 'NRC Handelsblad' - Dutch newspapers.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I think this represents an opportunity to establish a lull, move toward disengagement and ultimately settle the conflict.

Now I might be wrong about this, and maybe it will be another failed attempt to solve this but if it is not, do you think the inconvenience is worth the end goal?

As you point out later in this post, a fence can reduce terrorist attacks - the Gaza Strip is a really good example. What I fear is that the Israelis will because of this, eventually settle with the fence. There has yet been no date chosen for the dismantling of the fence - logical of course. But what I fear is that it will stay there as a permanent barrier.

Craven de Kere wrote:

The wall is not intended to "battle the roots of terror".

No, I realize that. My point was however that we should be battling the roots of terror. As you said, we should 'battle the immediate effect of terror'. True. But we do want to achieve more some day, right? To prevent all the 'inconveniences', I propose it would be better if the Jewish settlements would be abolished and there would be a strong Palestinian government (without Arafat); I think this would have more effect to weaken the fundaments of the Palestinian terror groups.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Reducing the cycle of violence is the most important thing to do to move the peace process forward. Not your nebulous appeals to emotions.

I want to reduce the cycle of violence too - but by that I don't want to create more hate, frustration etc. I do still believe emotions are important in this conflict, that it is important to battle all these negative feelings. History has already shown that these feelings and emotions can have a good or bad effect in times of both war and peace.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Oh boy, I have to spell it out for you it seems.

As the wall is being build now, we should focus on what the parts that already stand there have for an effect. That's also part of my argumentation. I realize you are talking about the idea, and not about the implementations. I believe we are in a stage right now in which it is already necessary to look at the effects of the parts of the fence which have already been build.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I have given tangible reasons why, while you just make appeals to emotions and feelings that you can't even illustrate are worse than the very same emotions and feelings from the cycle of violence.

I rather want a situation in which both the negative feelings and emotions from Israelis and Palestinians are non-existing. Do not think I only 'care' about the Palestinians and don't know anything of the struggle many Israelis are faced with. And as I have said before, I do think emotions and feelings are important in this conflict.

Craven de Kere wrote:

This is idiotic, I can find "reliable sources" that take opposite positions.

What's with the "reliable sources"?

Craven de Kere wrote:

I won't get into your fallacious appeals to authority.

Than don't.

Craven de Kere wrote:

In that case it will have little intellectual difference from your preceeding emotional appeals.

I'm not going to comment that remark. I am not part of the Jerry Springer crowd.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
You do not need my permission to make assumptions. Assume what you will, assertions made to me will be corrected when appropriate.

I only made that assumption because you said that you know the sources 'Het Parool' and 'NRC Handelsblad' - Dutch newspapers.

Well then your error was to assume that one would need to be Dutch to read their sources.

Neither of those newspapers broke a story on the "Veiligheidshek". Upon your mention of them I researched and saw stories from the wire and from other sources that I do read like Ha'aretz. For example, Het Parool's latest article on this subject pretty much paraphrases Ha'aretz the whole way through.

CIDI is particularly informative resource that I am well aware of and they too have not, as far as I am aware, broken any news stories on the wall so much as collate relevant articles (many of which, again, from sources like Ha'aretz that I did read) and formulate opinion.

If there is anything special you think I might have missed that those newspapers broke feel free to let me know. I'm always open to hearing what went under my radar.

Quote:

As you point out later in this post, a fence can reduce terrorist attacks - the Gaza Strip is a really good example.

In addition to the example of the Gaza barrier this fence itself is a good example.

To take from another article on CIDI that they got from Ha'aretz, to the tune of a 90% reduction.

Now I do not think that this is all entirely due to the fence but the fence is part of a general disengagement strategy by Israel that coupled with Palestinian war weariness can be pointed to as having changed the status quo of this Intifada.

Quote:

What I fear is that the Israelis will because of this, eventually settle with the fence. There has yet been no date chosen for the dismantling of the fence - logical of course. But what I fear is that it will stay there as a permanent barrier.

While unfortunate this is far far better than anything else Israel has tried in its history.

It is better than the two parties killing each other cycliclly.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
The wall is not intended to "battle the roots of terror".

No, I realize that. My point was however that we should be battling the roots of terror. As you said, we should 'battle the immediate effect of terror'. True. But we do want to achieve more some day, right?

Yes, and the history of the conflict has shown us that both sides don't tend to be of a mind to address the roots of their animosity while blood is flowing in the streets.

If cessation of the bloodshed results in the unfortunate barrier being semi-permanent (I'm sure you do not think it will be eternal) while achieving an end to the cyclic violence then it will have quelled a violent conflict that has proven difficult to quell.

While it may not be a way to immediately address the feelings on each side it will have done a noble task, and one whose doing enables eventual reconcilliation of the peoples.

Quote:

To prevent all the 'inconveniences', I propose it would be better if the Jewish settlements would be abolished and there would be a strong Palestinian government (without Arafat); I think this would have more effect to weaken the fundaments of the Palestinian terror groups.

I support both the forced withdrawal of about 95% of the Jewish illegal (under international law, not just the ones illegal by Israel's own definition) of the settlements as well as the strengthening of the Palestinian Authority.

And I allege that this wall can help toward both.

First of all, you may have noticed the Israeli settlers bitching about the wall. They fear it will eventually demarcate the land that will end up a part of Israel and oppose it as it impedes their forays into Palestinian territory.

Now, when I first got my hands on the wall's plans, I was pissed. The wall is, itself, a bit of a land grab at portions of it. This I continue to oppose but I can't let details of its implementation spoil what I see as a wise Israeli withdrawal.

Hell when someone in this conflict does anything "wise" it's something to be grateful for. Let's put this in the context of idiotic measures each side tends to use to deal with each other.

Israel's systemic destruction of the PA during this Intifada was a travesty. This wall represents a unilateral disengagement that is preferrable to their bloody rampages in the occupied territories.

I am of the opinion that getting the IDF out of the Palestinian's faces, homes and streets is more important toward the goal of weakening the Palestinian terrorist base.

When the IDF is assasinating and bombing the Palestinians and occupying their streets the extremists are strengthened.

This wall represents the attempted end of occupation. By getting out of their faces the average Palestinian will not be as motivated toward violence against Israel.

Quote:

I want to reduce the cycle of violence too - but by that I don't want to create more hate, frustration etc.

For this appeal to pity (see the definition of this logical term, it's not really about Jerry Springer) to be sound you need to illustrate that this wall creates more "hate, frustration etc" than the cycle of bloodshed.

Quote:

I do still believe emotions are important in this conflict, that it is important to battle all these negative feelings. History has already shown that these feelings and emotions can have a good or bad effect in times of both war and peace.

I agree, but for this to be a non-fallacious appeal to pity you simply need to illustrate that this is causing more pitifulness than it is preventing.

Quote:

As the wall is being build now, we should focus on what the parts that already stand there have for an effect. That's also part of my argumentation. I realize you are talking about the idea, and not about the implementations. I believe we are in a stage right now in which it is already necessary to look at the effects of the parts of the fence which have already been build.

I don't presume to speak for you but I imagine that even if the Israelis try to mitigate the inconvenience of the wall you'd have an ideological objection to the inherent idea.

Is this correct?

See, Israel has taken steps to alleviate the inconvenience the wall poses.

For example, to use a source you may even be familiar with CIDI reprints a Ha'aretz article that tells of Israel's creation of a fund to address the inconveniences to Palestinians along the wall.

Another article from CIDI reports (again from Ha'aretz) that 8 killometers of the fence's route (the Baka al-Sharkiyeh segment) was destroyed and rerouted.

In keeping with using the sources you seem to prefer CIDI has another article (again one I'd read on Ha'aretz) with this quote from Israeli national security advisor Giora Eiland calling the barrier a..

"necessary, legitimate and temporary measure.... the planning and the implementation or the course or the fence had failed to foresee all the repercussions the fence had on the life or innocent Palestinians." Now, he said, Israel must ameliorate the situation, "including, where necessary, changing the original path or the fence."

So Israel seems open to amelioration of the inconveniences of the fence. Would this be acceptable to you or is your objection of an ideological nature?

Giora Eiland said Israel's alternative to disengagement is the deadlock and bloodshed.

I prefer the inconvenient fence as it inconveniences the more inconvenient bloodshed.

Quote:

I rather want a situation in which both the negative feelings and emotions from Israelis and Palestinians are non-existing. Do not think I only 'care' about the Palestinians and don't know anything of the struggle many Israelis are faced with. And as I have said before, I do think emotions and feelings are important in this conflict.

So do I Rick, but again, an appeal to pity in logic must simply demonstrate it's logical basis.

If you can illustrate that more harm to "negative feelings and emotions" are wrought by this wall than prevented through the reduction of bloodshed I would gladly revisit my position.

As it stands you have simply claimed it's a hate generating barrier which is an argument I had heard and pondered.

By my estimation it prevents more "negative feelings and emotions" that it causes, as the reduction in cyclic violence has been profound.

If you wish to make a non-fallacious appeal to pity, just show how this wall is causing more "negative feelings and emotions" than it prevents.

You will thusly be making a case for it being a net negative.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
This is idiotic, I can find "reliable sources" that take opposite positions.

What's with the "reliable sources"?

You mean quotation marks? I was using them merely to indicate that I am quoting that segment of my sentence.

See, the sources you cite are simply recycled sources I have already read (as I told you).

You said that you base "this" on "reliable sources".

By "this" I assume you mean your expressed position herein. It has been mostly comprised of opinion based on the same sources we both have read.

And again I extend the invitation, if said sources contain anything I missed that constitute a sound appeal to authority I am all ears. I like to learn.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I won't get into your fallacious appeals to authority.

Than don't.

Unfortunately getting into the fundaments of critical thinking is something your next comment necessitates.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
In that case it will have little intellectual difference from your preceeding emotional appeals.

I'm not going to comment that remark. I am not part of the Jerry Springer crowd.

You don't seem to understand my qualm. Appeals to emotion is not being referenced as a slur, implying that you are on the intellectual level of a day-time talk show.

It is a reference to what is lacking from your arguments to make your appeals to pity sound.

A quick primer on the Argumentum ad misericordiam:

A fallacious appeal to pity is made when the emotional appeal is made while exluding other aspects of the situation.

An acceptable appeal to pity simply needs to show that the associated argument is based on a position that produces less pitifulness and is thusly a net positive.

So let's summarize:

You content that the wall inconveniences.
You acknowledge that the wall prevents bloodshed.
The wall is part of a general disengagement strategy by Israel.
The conflict from which this disengagement is wrought is one in which sundry inconveniences were inflicted on each side's peoples.
What you need to do is illustrate that more pitifulness is caused by the wall than it prevents to validate your appeal to pity.

0 Replies

disenter512 wrote:

I agree the barrier has to stay. it is saving the lives of Israil's children from firey deaths in there homes.

Pizza parlours, homes are more rare.

Quote:

The Barrier keeps out violent and sick murderers.

In addition to the innocent Palesinians, and the cost/benefit needs to be weighed.

Quote:

We could use a Barrier like this spanning from Florida to California.

Without the justification of escalated and protracted cross border terrorism through this frontier this simply reeks of ignorant xenophobia hijacking a remote conflict to validate pre-existing prejudice.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I don't presume to speak for you but I imagine that even if the Israelis try to mitigate the inconvenience of the wall you'd have an ideological objection to the inherent idea.

Is this correct?

Craven de Kere wrote:

So Israel seems open to amelioration of the inconveniences of the fence. Would this be acceptable to you or is your objection of an ideological nature?

I don't have a real ideological objection to the idea of building a security fence, as long as it stays within the borders of international law and does not violate human rights. Now the fence is being build for a large part on the West Bank, and brings along many problems. (Again) I do not deny the right for Israel to defend itself; but why not building the wall on the border (the Green Line), instead of sometimes deep in the West Bank?

Craven de Kere wrote:

You don't seem to understand my qualm. Appeals to emotion is not being referenced as a slur, implying that you are on the intellectual level of a day-time talk show.

That clears up a lot. For what I thought was that you meant this as a personal insult. I understand it now. You made me pretty pissed off actually Smile

Craven de Kere wrote:

What you need to do is illustrate that more pitifulness is caused by the wall than it prevents to validate your appeal to pity.

True. Looking at the 'inconveniences' caused by the fence one can suggest it will create hate and frustration to the Palestinians living in the West Bank. The following is said by Human Rights Watch. Although it does not speak about the personal feelings and emotions, looking at the consequences it can suggest that a lot of Palestinians will not be 'pleased' with the fence.

Quote:

The Human Rights Watch briefing paper argues that the barrier imposes arbitrary and excessive restrictions on the freedom of movement of tens of thousands of Palestinians and violates Israel's obligation under the Geneva Conventions to ensure the welfare of the population under occupation. The route of the barrier, moreover, is designed to incorporate and make contiguous with Israel the civilian settlements that have been constructed over the past three decades.

"The settlements violate the Geneva Conventions' prohibition against transfers of population and have gravely affected Palestinian access to basics like employment, land and water," Stork said. "The separation barrier further encroaches on the land and resources of the West Bank with the aim of consolidating this illegal enterprise."

Source: Human Rights Watch.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
But if you want to talk about long-lasting peace, it is a step in the opposite direction - re-inforcing stereotypes, enlarging the already large gaps between Jews and Arabs, who need to be kept behind a fence, because they are so savage and dangerous.

I don't know about all that...

Either way it is irrelevant as the barrier is not a long term solution. It is proposed as a short term solution.

Perhaps this is the root of your objection? Not knowing that this fence is proposed a short term security measure?

The Berlin Wall was proposed as a short term security measure ...

How it is "proposed" says next to nothing about how long it will actually last in what way once its there.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

The Berlin Wall was proposed as a short term security measure ...

How it is "proposed" says next to nothing about how long it will actually last in what way once its there.

Indeed. So?

Do you assert that the wall would be worse than the cycle of killing? If not, then it is a net improvement.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

... why not building the wall on the border (the Green Line), instead of sometimes deep in the West Bank?

I agree. If Israel wants a wall they would do well to build it within their own territory, this has been my qualm since the inception of the barrier.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
You don't seem to understand my qualm. Appeals to emotion is not being referenced as a slur, implying that you are on the intellectual level of a day-time talk show.

That clears up a lot. For what I thought was that you meant this as a personal insult. I understand it now. You made me pretty pissed off actually

Sorry 'bout that. There's nothing wrong with emotions, appeals to emotions in arguments are often sound. But they simply require some criteria.

Making an appeal to emotions can be very easy and thusly needs qualifying data.

You've qualified it with facts and substantiation on why it is pitiful, but did not illustrate that it is more so than the alternatives.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
What you need to do is illustrate that more pitifulness is caused by the wall than it prevents to validate your appeal to pity.

True. Looking at the 'inconveniences' caused by the fence one can suggest it will create hate and frustration to the Palestinians living in the West Bank. The following is said by Human Rights Watch. Although it does not speak about the personal feelings and emotions, looking at the consequences it can suggest that a lot of Palestinians will not be 'pleased' with the fence.

Agreed. But does it cause more Palestinian frustration than the incursions, assasinations, road blocks and arial bombings did?

The wall represents a disengagement from those strategies, I assert that despite its negatives the wall is a net benefit from those tactics.

Do you see it as worse? Or just better but not better by enough?

Quote:

The Human Rights Watch briefing paper argues that the barrier imposes arbitrary and excessive restrictions on the freedom of movement of tens of thousands of Palestinians..

Similarly, the roadblocks, curfews and road closures all imposed arbitrary and excessive restrictions on the freedom of movement of tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Wanna know the difference?

The previous imposition was on the Palestinians' movement within their own territories.

This wall is, in principle, a restriction on the Palestinians' movement into Israeli territory.

Now lament as they will, but Israel has the right to do so. Palestinians have no inherent right to enter Israel at all.

A parable would be that Israel has stopped entering their neighbour's house to restrict their movements within their own house and is now simply keeping the neighbours out of Israel's house.

I call this a net improvement.

Quote:

....and violates Israel's obligation under the Geneva Conventions to ensure the welfare of the population under occupation.

It really pisses me off when eleemosynary groups and watchdogs issue such blatant idiocies such as this.

They undermine their noble causes through brainfarts of this nature.

I hate to say it but this is mental flatulence on Human Rights Watch's part.

The barrier is no such thing, and if they'd pay a modicum of attention they would note that Israel is, in conjunction with this barrier, retreating from the territories and wishes to end the occupation.

Ending the occupation through unilateral disengagement means they have no Geneva obligation of this nature as they will not be occupying the territories.

Another net benefit by the way.

Quote:

The route of the barrier, moreover, is designed to incorporate and make contiguous with Israel the civilian settlements that have been constructed over the past three decades.

I don't think the barrier was a land-grab in intent. Just in effect.

Israel's government would never have the political capital to leave certain settlements on the wrong side of the wall.

While I wish they'd raze the settlements by force, it is important to recognize political capital and whether or not what we wish is even possible in their fracticious democracy.

Quote:

"The settlements violate the Geneva Conventions' prohibition against transfers of population and have gravely affected Palestinian access to basics like employment, land and water," Stork said. "The separation barrier further encroaches on the land and resources of the West Bank with the aim of consolidating this illegal enterprise."

Source: Human Rights Watch.[/quote]

This last part is more rhetoric than reality and is, in portions, outright deceit.

For just one example, the effect on "employment" simply means Palestinians might have a hard time getting work in Israel.

Newsflash: The state of Israel is under no obligation whatsoever to provide employment for Palestinians.

Frankly, if I had my way they would be prevented from allowing it alltogether.

I want them to hermetically seal the border so we can get moving on the peace process. The initial sacrifice would be worth ending the conflict.

With the cyclic violence the process does not proceed, and with the unsealed border the cycle can't end.

Seal it now. Let's get the peace process underway.

BTW, you are still just arguing that the wall causes problems without arguing that it causes more than it solves. If it does not cause more problems than it solves it is a net benefit.

0 Replies

Craven--

Thank you for sending your plan to Sharon... Smile

What is your proposed second step? I know you have written extensively, and wouldn't ask you to go into detail. Can you jot down the second step?

Are the Pals really blocked off from important infrastructure? Could it be duplicated on their side of the wall? (Hospitals, schools...) Would it be prudent to ask the wealthy Arab nations to help them build a thriving state on their side? Do they have access to Jerusalem?

(For anyone who knows and cares to answer.)

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Agreed. But does it cause more Palestinian frustration than the incursions, assasinations, road blocks and arial bombings did?

Who says this will disappear? For what I know, it is Israeli government policy to kill the leaders and militants of the Palestinian terror groups. The fence between Gaza and Israel didn't stop the Israeli's to do incursions and assasinations in the Gaza Strip. And road blocks... there are some Jewish settlements in the West Bank who are not 'behind' the fence at the Israeli side. Road blocks will still continue to be there. That also accounts for the parts of the Palestinian Territories which will be 'inside' the wall, cut off from the rest of the West Bank. See map.

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/middle_east_israel0s_security_fence/img/1.jpg

0 Replies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/middle_east_israel0s_security_fence/img/1.jpg

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Craven--

Thank you for sending your plan to Sharon...

What is your proposed second step? I know you have written extensively, and wouldn't ask you to go into detail. Can you jot down the second step?

If I had my way the next step would be declaration of Palestinian statehood. There has been a pretty good lull going on and what I'd do now is try to bolster the PA and infuse it with as much authority as possible and work toward declaring statehood.

It would really take the wind out of the extremist's sails to have both an end to occupation and self-determination realized.

Once this is sorted we work on that full normalization offer that the house of Saud proposed between all arab states.

I predict that the arabs will demand settlement on all the outstanding issues and I'd do it step by step between the Israelis the arab community and the new Palestinian government.

The US and other big players will need to play that stage of the game well to avoid a flare up when the going gets tough in negotiation.

Israel needs to be willing to at least make verbal concessions on marginally related issues like Golan.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Agreed. But does it cause more Palestinian frustration than the incursions, assasinations, road blocks and arial bombings did?

Who says this will disappear? For what I know, it is Israeli government policy to kill the leaders and militants of the Palestinian terror groups. The fence between Gaza and Israel didn't stop the Israeli's to do incursions and assasinations in the Gaza Strip.

From what I know the Israeli government has used the recent assasinations to quell their own extremists who are paiting the disengagement as surrender.

As long as there are no Palestinian attacks the Israeli government will not face much political pressure to continue such forays.

What the intended plan seems to be is for the forays to continue while the political capital for the fence is gathered and then when the fence prevents the terror there will not be the political pressure for incursions that results from the terror.

Quote:

And road blocks... there are some Jewish settlements in the West Bank who are not 'behind' the fence at the Israeli side. Road blocks will still continue to be there.

Yes but there will be far less. In the past this fence existed in the form of widespread roadblocks.

The remaining roadblocks will not have the same scope at all.

Quote:

That also accounts for the parts of the Palestinian Territories which will be 'inside' the wall, cut off from the rest of the West Bank. See map.

It is urgent that we move toward final settlement or the Palestinians will continue to see Israel eat away at contiguous land.

Frankly I'm a bit pissed at Bush. In the run up to the Iraq war one of the things I liked was that he seemed to want to solve this.

There were delays because of attacks but there was always Washington pressure.

Now the attacks have subsided but the interest from Wshington seems to have as well.

The sooner we can get to Final settlement the sooner there will be a sovereign Palestinian government with the authority to tear down any walls on their land.

0 Replies

I was also thinking incredible support for the Pal side of the fence would be a showing of good faith.

Much enthusiastic agreement!

But-- I think the Arab states should pony up. Sounds good to me. You have been startlingly prescient on this matter.

Rick--

Thanks for the map.

0 Replies

More on the comparison to the Berlin Wall.

1) The main reason the Berlin wall was wrong was it's effect as a prison keeping people in, not a security measure keeping people out.

2) The Berlin Wall had no legitimate threat to protect against. This fence does.

3) If this fence lasts as long as the Berlin wall did it I'm fine with it (as long as it will have helped bring about final settlement).

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

nimh wrote:

The Berlin Wall was proposed as a short term security measure ...

How it is "proposed" says next to nothing about how long it will actually last in what way once its there.

Indeed. So?

Do you assert that the wall would be worse than the cycle of killing? If not, then it is a net improvement.

I don't. Well, I do think so (or rather: I dont believe thats quite what the choice is), but I'm not asserting such in this thread (I know better than that ;-)).

All I was asserting was that your argument against Dagmar - ie, perhaps she was opposed cause she didn't realise that it was "proposed as a short term measure" - was neither here nor there. How it is "proposed" is, in affairs like this, pretty much meaningless. We are well warranted to make our own judgements on how the actual effect, lifespan and use of the wall will probably be different from how it is "proposed".

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Agreed. But does it cause more Palestinian frustration than the incursions, assasinations, road blocks and arial bombings did?

A lot of your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that Israel will indeed cease with the incursions, assassinations and road blocks once the wall is up. I would say that is indeed a mere assumption.

I would guess that the Israelis would indeed gladly retreat from the roadblocks, tho that too is just my guess. But I dont believe for a moment that just because they've got the wall up, they'll suddenly refrain from the opportunity to bomb a Hamas honcho, for example. The result might well be and/and: both the wall and incursions, assassinations and bombings.

[EDIT: I see that Rick already made this point.]

0 Replies

World Court Rules Israel's Barrier Illegal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know