ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Foxfyre wrote:

You're serious? You're saying the GDR built the wall to protect the people from the German people in the west? I don't doubt that was the official line, but you don't think the 2.6 million (I think) East Germans who escaped to the West was the primary reason for the wall? To keep any more East Germans from emigrating?

I didn't post my opinion but only how the fences/walls were justified by the GDR authority.

[From 1949 until 1961 nearly 3 million people emigrated from the GDR.
The number of those who could escape and weren't shot is just some dozens.]

Your logic is wrong, Foxfyre.

The Israelis built that wall.
You use their explanations for it.

The GDR built the fences and walls.
You use your/our explanation for it.

The GDR officially built a protective barrier against fascists and their influence and attacks (German title of the resp. GDR order: "Errichtung eines antifaschistischen Schutzwalls")
To assure the effective saftey of the GDR population, special troops of the regular GDR forces were stationed along the security walls and fences ("Sicherungstruppen der Staatsgrenze") ... ...

That fence, however, was to prevent your people from 'escaping' to more hospitable terrain and not to protect anybody from those on the other side. The fence separating Israel from the Palestinians is to keep militant terrorist Palestinians from blowing up Israeli synagogues, markets, and busses full of innocent men, women, and children. And it has been effective toward that end. The bombings have essentially stopped since the wall went up. Any Palestinians or anybody else in Israel who wish to move to the other side are certainly allowed to do so.

Quite a difference wouldn't you say?

Foxfyre wrote:

That fence, however, was to prevent your people from 'escaping' to more hospitable terrain and not to protect anybody from those on the other side. The fence separating Israel from the Palestinians is to keep militant terrorist Palestinians from blowing up Israeli synagogues, markets, and busses full of innocent men, women, and children. And it has been effective toward that end. The bombings have essentially stopped since the wall went up. Any Palestinians or anybody else in Israel who wish to move to the other side are certainly allowed to do so.

Quite a difference wouldn't you say?

A fence built on one's own property line is just as, if not more , effective as one built in a neighbor's yard. If you must build a fence, shouldn't you build it on the property line?

So what difference does it make where Israel puts the fence?

I don't think Israel has ever considered annihilating all of the Palestinians as an option as I see no evidence that Israel intends or approves violence on any people who are minding their own business and not attacking or attempting to attack Israel. I wouldn't support such an option and I don't think any Israelis would either. But why don't you suggest annililation as an option if you think that would be a good idea?

You still haven't answered the question.

Foxfyre wrote:

So what difference does it make where Israel puts the fence?

To Palestinians for whom it now takes 10 hours to get to another Palestinian town that had been 30 minutes away, or who have had their farm land (livelihood) cut off from them by the fence, it makes a huge difference. If Mexico decided they needed to build a fence down the middle of your town in order to keep the gun and drug traffickers out, would it make a difference?

Quote:

I don't think Israel has ever considered annihilating all of the Palestinians as an option as I see no evidence that Israel intends or approves violence on any people who are minding their own business and not attacking or attempting to attack Israel. I wouldn't support such an option and I don't think any Israelis would either. But why don't you suggest annililation as an option if you think that would be a good idea?

Again, that wasn't the question. You said that the results are all you cared about. That as long as it stopped the attacks you didn't care about anything else. Well, genocide is equally effective. If, as you say, results are all you care about, then why wouldn't genocide be fine by you?

certainly one of the most complicated political/sociological issues of the 20/21st centuries, it's so welcoming to see the amazingly simplistic solutions offered by foxfyre/advocate/ etal.

dyslexia wrote:

certainly one of the most complicated political/sociological issues of the 20/21st centuries, it's so welcoming to see the amazingly simplistic solutions offered by foxfyre/advocate/ etal.

Yes, too bad we all can't offer such insightful analysis and fact checking as you provide. So many of us mere mortals are constrained by our opinions.

McGentrix wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

certainly one of the most complicated political/sociological issues of the 20/21st centuries, it's so welcoming to see the amazingly simplistic solutions offered by foxfyre/advocate/ etal.

Yes, too bad we all can't offer such insightful analysis and fact checking as you provide. So many of us mere mortals are constrained by our opinions.

what, you couldn't find something you think i mispelled?

But if I was intellectually honest, I would condemn my leaders for effectively forcing the Israelis to bring such an affliction upon me.

If I look at it through Israeli eyes, I don't want my home, my spouse, my kids blown to smithereens or maimed or kidnapped or tortured, and I frankly don't care if the Palestinians must be inconvenienced and/or are mad because the terrorists are prevented from doing that. And I am grateful to my leadership for protecting me and mine.

Needless committing of mayhem, murder, or genocide or otherwise violating another person's unalienable rights is unacceptable to me because of my religious, ethical, and moral center. I wish the Palestinian terrorists shared it.

Foxfyre wrote:

But if I was intellectually honest, I would condemn my leaders for effectively forcing the Israelis to bring such an affliction upon me.

Ignoring the big "if" that precedes this statement, I thought you said it was the terrorists that forced the creation of the wall. Terrorists are not the leaders of the Palestinians in the West Bank.

Quote:

If I look at it through Israeli eyes, I don't want my home, my spouse, my kids blown to smithereens or maimed or kidnapped or tortured, and I frankly don't care if the Palestinians must be inconvenienced and/or are mad because the terrorists are prevented from doing that. And I am grateful to my leadership for protecting me and mine.

It is a terrible inconvenience to not be able to access your fields if you're a farmer. Annoying not to be able to get to work -- ever. Frustrating to have your produce rot in a truck at a checkpoint. Well, no matter, so long as the Israeli's feel safe. Tell me, Foxfyre, when Palestinians can't get to their fields or their jobs or their schools, what do you think they should do with their time?

Quote:

Needless committing of mayhem, murder, or genocide or otherwise violating another person's unalienable rights is unacceptable to me because of my religious, ethical, and moral center. I wish the Palestinian terrorists shared it.

What are a person's unalienable rights, in your opinion?

This is an absurb statement for even the most brainwashed liberal.

No doubt about it, it is an unacceptable arrangement for the Palestinians. But not as unacceptable as it is for Israelis who lived in fear of obliteration, maiming, kidnapping, torture, decapitation, and any number of other uglies before that wall went up.

All the Palestinians have to do in order for the wall to come down is to stop attempting to kill, maim, kidnap, torture, and decapitate israelis. Why is that such a difficult concept for some to understand? How is that so unreasonable?

Unalienable rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that require nothing from anyone other than noninterference.