Israel vows to continue building barrier
 

Israel Vows to Continue Building Barrier

A defiant Israel has vowed to continue construction of its West Bank barrier despite the overwhelming approval of a U.N. General Assembly resolution demanding that the structure be demolished as the world court ordered.

The 150-6 vote late Tuesday, with 10 abstentions, reflected the widespread international opposition to the 425-mile-long barrier.

Link

Whats everyones opinions on this?

How is building a barrier going to help anything?

Between Palestinian militants attacking Israelis and Palestinian militants attacking the Palestinian Authority, I can't do much to speak against it. It most certainly is an afront to honest citizens of both Israeli and Palestinian persuasions who live on one side and enjoy something on the other (be it work, family, forbidden Shakespearian love with the other side...), but if it keeps people from getting blown up, what can I say?

It’s my opinion that if all settlements would clear out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip entirely; there wouldn’t be a need for a fence. If this impossibility ever happened and the Palestinians continued to attack the area internationally recognized as Israel; I’m sure there would be just as much support for Israel as there now is opposition.

I mainly agree with Asuka; the barrier will prevent attacks thus saving lives. I don’t think it will stop the inevitable. While complexity exists for families that may have immigrated and settled within the territories; overall the situation is very clear and simple.

The final chapter seems apparent as Jewish settlements on the West Bank have been given the green light to continue expansion. Palestinians that protest their farms or similar being annexed via simple fencing put up by settlers have to deal with the IDF. The barrier's other agenda seems apparent by just mapping its foundation.

IMO the roadmap is a dog and pony. I don’t think it's about Israeli's; whether native born or immigrated. I think it’s about Settlers with the vision that the entire area (including the occupied territories) as belonging to them. This is further enhanced by a government that supports this. If this situation continues; I believe it will lead to serious consequences.

I also believe there should be a clear distinction made between anti-Semitism and drawing a clear view observing what actions are taking place.

It’s at this point I believe the US and Israel should disengage from the UN. Its seems clear that Israel will continue to do what it does. Most of the remainder of Earth will oppose. The US will veto any resolution that isn’t in the interest of allowing Israel's colonization of the Palestinian territories. When the US is met with opposition to support resolutions that protect American interests; that shouldn’t be a mystery. Why go through the motions and empty votes?

Whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with the settlement expansion; the aspect that continues to amaze me is the attitude the Palestinians should just go along passively.
.

Re: Israel vows to continue building barrier
 

The barrier in the long run probably won't save a lot of lives. It's just waving a red flag in front of a bull. IMO, the barrier exists as a way for Israel to further cement claims to occupied lands.

Israel should give up all occupied territories, the Palestinians should receive the same level of financial support Isreal received to turn a desert into an oasis, and the first side that screws around after this is done gets a bomb dropped on it.

Ya that's a great solution, American I'm guessing?

As for the wall still going up I have to agree with Journeyman, with the Palestinians blowing everything around them up , anythings worth a shot.

Those damn Mongorians tore down my shitty wah!

Yeah, I dunno whose idea it was to build a wall, but they're idiots if they think it'll solve anything.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...265916,00.html

i am very much opposed to this wall.
and to nearly everything else undertaken by sharon.

the guardian article is quite good---i do not think the bush administration can or will do anything coherent in this situation.

maybe with kerry there might be other possibilities.
maybe once likud is finally driven out of power...

as for the americans and israelis pulling out of the un--i think that idea ridiculous. think of how it would function symbolically, for both. just think it out.

If Israel wants to build a wall around itself, I say go ahead but just build it on the correct border lines rather than swooping up large parcels of land that isn't theirs all in the name of terror. This I believe is the issue. I don't think this will happen though because internationally speaking, Israel doesn't have to answer to anyone, just themselves.

Concerning the U.N.,I'm sure someone will post something to the effect of,...they are useless, it holds no significance, it is anti-semitic,..etc, etc, etc. Just remember, especially when it comes to Israel, when the U.N supports or condones her right to fight terror, which it does, Israeli's and their supporters whole heartedly agree. But when the U.N condemns her actions for certain instances,and rightly so, the U.N is the scourge of the earth. I think it's an issue of having all the cake and getting to eat it too.

Canadian actually.

I'm generally a little more on the side of the Palestinians in the land dispute, but at this point, both sides need to grow the hell up.

Eh this reminds me of the Soviets building the Berlin Wall...

In the end, this does nothing to solve the problem. All it does is preserve the status quo - and that may very well be what they want.

I agree both sides dop need to grow up

THe fence has made a serious dent in the number of attacks and reprisals. I fact this may be leading to the self destruction of the PLO at this point so that real leadership may emerge.

*snip*
The fence strategy also seems to work, at least in terms of the immediate calculus of casualties. A fence erected in Gaza in 1994 with the same goal has proven effective in reducing terrorism, and therefore the goal of protection seems to have been met. With the portions of the new wall that are completed, the overall decline in the number and lethality of the attacks speak for themselves. There have been 30% less attacks and 50% fewer killed at least partly due to the fence.4 This may be why nearly 70% of the Israeli people support its construction.5 Furthermore, with the increased security of the fence, it would be possible to reduce the number of Israeli soldiers in Palestinian areas.

Israel is also maintaining that the fence is only a temporary measure and can be dismantled to meet any future negotiated border agreements. Israeli leaders have kept similar promises in the past. For instance, Israel was willing to shift the route of the fence to keep the UN Resolution 425, which called for withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Israel insists that precautions are being taken to minimize the impact of the fence on Palestinian's lives while it must be in place. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) says that "ninety-eight percent of Palestinians living in the West Bank will not be affected by so called enclaves."6 This number seems slightly optimistic, but the Israeli government claims it is building on public land. If the fence does pose an unforeseen problem, an appeal procedure is available for parties wishing to make use of it.

Some opponents have unfairly compared the fence to the Berlin Wall, which separated Germans from Germans. The West Bank wall separates two peoples who do not see themselves as possessing a single national or political identity. Only 10% of the wall is actually concrete, while the rest is fence, with dozens of passageways being constructed. Those who rigidly oppose the fence deliberately use loaded terms like "Berlin Wall" in order to emotionally move people by propaganda rather than rationality, and arguments like that ought not to be taken seriously.
*snip*

http://www.globalengagement.org/issu...stbankwall.htm

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/isra...ence10020.html

I'm for the wall being built. It will save Israeli lives, and Palestinian lives because of less reprisals.

Those of you that say this makes the Palestinians even more pissed off, the PLO already stated they'll never stop until the jews are thrust into the sea... so that kinda rules out negotiations. This wont be permanent, and wont work completely, but will save lives none the less.

And as for the UN they're useless imo. 150 mercenaries did a better job at stopping the massacres in Freetown than 17,000 UN peacekeepers. The massacre restarted after the mercs left and only the UN was left by the way... and lead to thousands more deaths. If 17,000 cant to a job that 150 people could, their organization is worthless as a military.

"the PLO already stated they'll never stop until the jews are thrust into the sea"

Can you please back this statement up? The majority of Palestinians want the Jews to leave occupied areas they have stolen and which they are continuing to steal.

The Palestinian territories are already the biggest concentration camps in the world, and this wall is only adding to it. Of course there's also the question of the wall snaking into Palestinian land, cutting off farmers from their land, students from their schools, workers from their jobs. But who cares, right? Just say "security" and anything is justifiable. They're all terrorists anyways, right? :rolleyes:

The bantustans that are the Palestinian territories are shameful, and Israel's actions to perpetuate them are disgraceful.



SLM3

Good for them.

The "world community" is clearly anti-Israel -- they can't assassinate terrorist leaders, they can't make threatening motions towards Arafat, they can't even build a wall in an attempt to protect their populace from suicide bombers. Is Israel supposed to just grin and bear it?

They can, but on their own land.

Go ahead and try to build a wall on your neighbors property. Good luck at court.

The only thing it'll keep out is the people who would cross with peacfull intentions. Stupid.

Karsey, you'll notice I stated the PLO, not the PA.

Palestinian Liberation Organization is the military faction created under the Palestinian National Convanent in 1964. The articles clearly state anything BUT negotiations.

Article 19: The establishment of Israel is fundamentally null and void, whatever time has elapsed ...


Article 15: [We call for] the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine


Article 22: The liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East ...

Doesnt sound to me like they would change their mind if Israel stops building the wall.

It's amazing to think that such a small part of the world has brought about over 2000 years of religious violence. The best thing to do would be to pull everyone out of Israel/Palestine/whatever, and level the entire fucking place. Nuke the hell out of it, turn it into a big piece of glass and move the Jews and the Palestinians to opposite ends of the globe.

You think the Jews would like New Zealand maybe, the Palestinians can have, I dunno, Cuba?

Whocarz: We're trying to minimize terrorism against us. This would unite the Muslims, Jews and even many a Christian against the United States. And it's a really bad idea to start with, too.

No problem at all, if I can show that my neighbor is a whack job who keeps throwing cherry bombs at me.

2000 years of violence? Where do you get this info from? Jews and Paletinians lived side by side, peacefully, for hundreds of years, as Palestinians.


SLM3

Peacefully maybe... but as two classes of people. The Muslims and the non-Muslim who could not participate in the military, public government, oh and has to pay a massive tax just for practicing thier beliefs.

Putting aside questions of whether or not a fence should be built, does anyone defend the path that Israel has chosen for this fence?

http://www.jr.co.il/pictures/israel/maps/map0307.jpg

As this map shows, the completed fence and projected plans for the fence extend far past the Green Line of 1949.

It seems obvious that Israel is expanding its borders by simply placing large swathes of land on their side of the fence. The only defense I can see is that it is necessary to do this to defend the settlements in these areas. However those settlements are illegal and many are supposed to be in the process of being dismantled.

In short, I think Israel would be justified in building this wall if they respected the 1949 boundaries. As it is, I cannot see how one can defend the construction of this particular fence.

Israel was attacked on several occasion by invading Arab armies, after repelling said attacks, and making gains in 4 different conflicts, Israel always tried to broker gained land for peace, to no surprise no Arab's would deal with them.

Just because the "world community" is critical of Israel at times, and rightly so for it, does not mean they are 'anti-Israel.' This, among other buzzwords which are propogated by pro-Israeli supporters do not help Israels cause but actually make people more intolerant and indifferent of the situation at hand.

But this is a classic technique perfected by the Israeli's and its supporters as to how they play both sides of the fence to maximum benefit. If you agree the Israeli's are the victims of the world, you are a good honest person. If you are critical, you are an anti-semite. Either way, it is a win win situation since you can't not call them victims. Incidentally, victimhood is very profitable.

And don't blame the world for Israels woes. Israel has a long standing record for doing as they please with little or no regard as to what the rest of the world thinks. When one country in the world is accountable to no one but themselves and can do as they please ignoring everyone in sight, the onus falls on them. You reap what you sow.

Mojo_PeiPei

I'm going to assume your comment was a reply to mine. I won't try to respond to your statements, but merely ask again, if you think that Israel is justified in a de facto appropriation of lands that they she has never owned. Does anyone feel that Israel is right to expand beyond her borders?

"Israel always tried to broker gained land for peace, to no surprise no Arab's would deal with them"

This sadly is untrue...Israel were offering back peanuts. They are still continuing to build illegal settlements today on Palestinian soil, which counter the claim that the land was only grabbed during the war.


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit.../20/2003179714

last time i checked, "palestinians" didn't exsist pre-1960, so that would be pretty hard to have happened. jews and arabs lived peacefully together for a rather long time, but that started to erode in the 1910's or '20's.

this is why i've never understood how people can claim that it is an illegal occupation. i can not think of any other time in history when the winner of a war has had to give up territory taken in combat. doesn't matter who started it, if there's war, winner gets what it can take. but for soem reason with isreal, that's just not okay, even though it never took territory in an offensive war, it always managed to take land by beating back its attackers.

i just don't get it.

Think of it this way, hannukah harry (and this is a simplification, as is damn near any post about the Israel issue)...

We may have won the war in Iraq, but the people there will only allow the US to perform limited actions. Occupying a land is a tricky, blood soaked task, regardless of history or cultural imperative. Any overtly hostile action that Israel takes will undoubtedly harden resistance against it. Whatever you believe about the issue, it should be obvious that Israel can't just expel all of it's "enemies" at will (there are already thousands upon thousands of resentful refugees out there).. Israel may be one tough fucking coutry, but they can't survive with no one on their side.

but that's not the issue. with iraq, the US mainly claimed WMD as the cause of the war and proclaimed that they were not coming to conquer the country, but remove it's current govt.

israel, on the other hand, was attacked. they never started a war, and they managed to always gain territory in those wars. i'm sorry if people disagree with me, but i think that if you choose to go to war, and lose, then shut the fuck up and stop crying to the UN about "they stole our land." my previous post wasn't about the the refugee's either, it was about the way isreal and its disputed territories are viewed by the rest of the world.

as far as i'm concerned, the land is israels. i think that they should have been more inclusive from the start, that may have caused less problems. but when you consider that israel deals with the palestinians, in some regards (outside of anti-terrorism modes) jordan, where many of the palestinians are from, along with all other arab countries, refused to take them.

on the topic of the legality of the territories, there was an article i read recently on the UN resolution that most people use as justification for it being illegal. it was written by one of the people who drafted that resolution and explains how most people misunderstand it and that in fact it is a legal occupation of the land. i'll try to find it, but don't get your hopes up. i'll edit if i can (until then, feel free to consider that hear-say and inadmissable if you choose to do so).

Sorry, I support what you're saying... but in '67... you know when they invaded Egypt... they had yet to be attacked.

True Nasser was building up alliances and a battle plan, but Israel attacked first there. And damn did they take Egypt by surprise.

i figured someone might mention that. in my opinion, and the opinions of every source i've seen on it so far, is that the build up by egypt (and if i'm not mistaken, there was a build up on another countries border as well) was prelude to war, and isreal was justified in its pre-emptive attack.

There were no muslims 2000 years ago.

True. They've only been around for 1400 years. That still leaves them hundreds of years of peace.

****Note*****
Anything I have to say on this subject comes from researching sources I consider valid eg- UN Records, British records, etc. I do my best not to post anything derived exclusively from an Arab funded site. (Only to prevent getting into source debate) This means its history as I have interpreted it. I wasn’t there all I have to rely is the sources I have come to accept. Therefore when I make I statement it's not meant to come across as though I’m educating anyone or telling them "how things are". I also invite directions to sources that may prove what I have learned to be inaccurate. That is not meant as a challenge; but as a desire for information.
****************

Since you mention the 1920's I'll start there: the maps I've seen from various sources; including many Bibles, that date back to then have the word Palestine titling the area. A census in 1922 had a total population of 757,182, of whom 78% were Moslems, 11% were Jews and 9•6% Christians (of which contain some Arab) What exactly would you call these indigenous populants?

As I understand it the major cultural erosion didn’t explode until post WWII when the Zionist movement began disregarding agreed immigration caps. The British brokered arrangement had the concurrence of a majority of the Arab population until these caps were being exceeded. Many even sold land to the newly arrived immigrants.

I similarly understand how you feel; I can’t understand how they can’t see it. The very influence and international body that recognized Israel's statehood also recognized lands going to the INDIGINOUS population.

I can think of one time in history where the winner of a war gave up territory taken in combat: Excluding Las Vegas and Tahoe who do you think is running the casinos in the US? While their reservations are only a small fraction; it’s at least something.
But if you’re looking at this in terms of the person with the bigger guns is the one that’s right- I fully agree; that’s the reality. I don't think it’s very noble or just- but conquest rarely is. Are the Palestinians expected to take what’s happening with a smiles on their faces "thank you sir may I have another"? This really isn’t about extremists like Arafat that think things are going to go back to the way they were in the early 1900's. It's about getting the Jewish settlements that are in the West Bank and Gaza strip out.
I'm looking at what the project goal here is. From watching events unfold, looking at the current numbers (population numbers Palestinians / Jewish settlers) with one side having the protection of the IDF, and looking at what appears to me as clearly being the inevitable; I can only see the situation as a slow, calculated, politically correct form of ethnic cleansing.

I understand that ethnic cleansing is a strong phrase. Can you explain how it isn’t such?

Im curious; who was?