After reading the above, I thought we could start a topic on this subject.

Questions for Debate:

Is the Israeli wall good or bad for both (or either) the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Is Israel within it's rights to build this wall?




psyclist, I would appreciate it if you would expand on this in greater detail now that there is a topic to do so.

Is the Israeli wall good or bad for both (or either) the Israelis and the Palestinians?

I don't think it solves the problem, I think it's a band-aid.

Is Israel within it's rights to build this wall?They would have the right to build this wall if they didn't build it inside the West Bank and Gaza and if they withdrew the military from these areas. Then, I'd see no problem with a wall.

True. However, thus far, and for quite awhile the problem has shown itself to be all but unsolvable. So, it might be a band-aid, but it is a peaceful one. Hard to condemn Israel for putting of a wall to keep bombing attacks out as opposed to retaliating for bombing attacks with force.



Good point about limiting the wall to undisputed territory (though, on a larger scale there are those that dispute the entire state of Israel).

However, I don't understand the connection between having the right to build the wall and having troops deployed in disputed territory. I am not saying that you are wrong in regard to them pulling back , just that I do not see why the issues are linked.

In my opinion this is because, for some reason, the world doesn't want to look at the only solution that would work. The establishment of the West Bank and Gaza as trust territories (I believe it is within the realm of reason to consider them unclaimed land abandoned by the mandate).


I just feel if Israel is going to build a wall and say "stay out", then they shouldn't also be allowed to exert their control beyond the wall. Not to say that Israel shouldn't be able to retaliate against attacks, but they just shouldn't be allowed to occupy and administer the region outside the wall.

Thanks for opening the topic!

In short the wall will cut through some of the most fertile in the West Bank and will cut off Palestinians from farmland, workplaces, families, schools, and health clinics. B'Tselem, a leading Israeli human rights group, estimates that the wall will cause direct harm to at least 210,000 Palestinians living in 67 villages and towns. Let's just take a few examples of how the wall will effect the water supply to the Palestinians:


This wall is counter productive to the peace process and thus hurts both sides. Everytime a home is bulldozed, a farm confiscated, or whatever, you have that many more upset Palestinians who are now more apt to strike back (In their eyes: What do they have to lose...everything else is gone.)

Is Israel within it's rights to build this wall?
The ICJ and GA of the UN ruled against the building of the wall.
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/Special%2...er!OpenView

So I'm going to go with no. Besides, I don't think any country should be allowed to build something that would affect thousands of people.



What specifically do you have in mind for this topic though? While I'm happy to share, their are a multitude or resources out their that show the affect of the wall on the Palestinians.

Is the Israeli wall good or bad for both (or either) the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Its bad for the Israeli's since it undermines everything Israel was meant to stand for. When Israel was founded, it was declared that it would stand as a shining beacon to the rest of the world. Unfortunatly when you build your house on the foundation of land theft and ethnic cleansing, then your house won't stand very firm, regardless of how many walls you put in it.

For the Palestinians this wall is a disaster. Basically, its just another land grab, excused (as always) by the fight 'against terrorism', but in practice designed to anticipate Arafat's demise and the loss of justification that would die with him and allow the Israel settlers the chance to consolidate their government backed illegal land grab..

In accordance with this, Arial Sharon's 'peace' plan is to move settlers out of Gaza, compensate them for their loss, and relocate them from the arid desert of the Negev to the West bank, thus legitimising the land grab of fertile land in the West Bank by means of a 'peace plan' that gives the Palestinians nothing they didn't already own.



Is Israel within it's rights to build this wall?

No.

Like most of the rest of Israel, Its built on stolen land


editted to add a last word by Avi Shlaim

link

I think that you are correct that it is a band aid. But sometimes you need to employ a band aid to stop the bleeding first before a solution can be achieved.

To stop the violence is only the first step. Then and only then can peace talks begin, as long as a cease fire means Israel stops shooting and the Arabs can continue there is no point in any discussions.

Since neither the General Assembly nor the ICJ have any jurisdiction and the Israeli Supreme says that it is legal, yes it is. As for the location, it was chosen to protect the most people with the shortest and least expensive routes. This is not a cure all, the Arabs are still launching rockets and mortars over the border and no wall is going to stop them. This is merely to keep the terrorist on their side of the line. It can stop suicide bombers and it does, to date not one terrorist has manage to cross the line where the fence exists. Pretty good record for a fence. Kind of like the one India is building in Kasmer or the one Saudi Arabia built in Yemen.

The whole area that makes up Israel and Palestine, and everything in between must have been "owned" by some group at some time. Like very bit of land, it has been contested down the years, because its fertile, in a region that mostly isn't.

I don't understand (except politically) how land could have been decreed to party, just because a religion / race didn't have a country of their own. It wasn't as though it was just lying there, unpopulated, or recovered from the sea. The wars in the region decided where the borders lay. That Israel, with the bigger and better funded army has been able to continue to eat away, and politically marginalise the Palestinian rights to areas of land is what i find bemusing and disgraceful.

My knowledge of the detailed history of the region is more than a little sketchy (i'm researching as we speak). But how an it be correct for a wall to be build that isn't on neutral land, that keeps a native people (the region is Arab, the only obvious exception being those within Israel, as a direct result of the millenia old biblical exodus) from land that was previously theirs. Israel has less right, historically, to the land. If the US marched into Mexico and stretched its borders to include that, there would be world outcry. How is it anything other than invasion, and how then is the building of this wall anything but invasion through stealth and politics? The effects on the marginalised people is clearly catestrophic. How can the Israeli army have been charged with the power to ensure that a people they hate get their rights to water preserved? Its like asking North Korea to look after South Korea. It's ridiculous.

I can't see how building a bigger fence is even a band aid. Has it ever worked at any time in history? Would the US sanction such a wall in Northern Ireland, or if the wall was to the detriment of Israel? If not, then why not?

I can not answer for history of walls. They have been attempted for years to various degrees of success. From Hadrian's Wall, the Great Wall of China, to Israel, India and Saudi Arabia, each depends on more than a fence, but a military force to support it as well. As for a fence between Northern Ireland and Ireland, the US answer would be why the heck didn't you build one years ago? It is not a matter for the US but I would bet a considerable amount of money that the US would say and do nothing.

The land prior to the mandate belonged to the Ottoman Empire. If you look around you will find that it no longer exists. As for fertile land, it wasn't. It was swamps, rocks and deserts. There was little to no native population. In fact the censuses conducted by the Ottoman Empire noted that fully 50 percent of the Arab population was non-native. The Jews in the first Aliya came in the late 19th century, bought and drained the swamps which created fertile land. Then more Arabs came and the place started to expand. World War I came along and changed the political landscape forever. That is a short history, but there are enormous volumes of documents that lead to the current situation. By all means read them, but read them all. Parts contradict one another and many parties have seized small part, misquote them and claim that black is now white.

Genesisblade

Well, you'll note that loreng59 neglects to draw the comparison with the most infamous wall of them all...

Sharon's wall is a contemporary version of the Berlin wall, and as such it is built to control not to defend. Modern defence does not rely on walls. Yes, the suicide bombers have been set back, but it will only be peace that keeps them back for ever. Without peace, sooner or later they will adapt to the wall just as people have always done so, and then the cycle of violence will continue.

Only a fair and negotiated settlement between the two sides can end the violence. Unfortunately the last time that happened, Yigal Amir put an end to it and put the Likudniks in power.


Well, you see, thats exactly how the USA managed to get so big in the first place which is probably why so many Americans don't care about the fact that Israel is a nation founded on ethnic cleansing.

If it hadn't been for the British in 1812, Canada wouldn't even exist today!



loreng59

And here is another...

link

You can choose to deny what every you wish, but all the documents in the world don't change the fact that Israel was founded on stolen land, so Genesisblade's conclusion remains valid.

Israel has less right, historically, to the land.

i'm partially amused and partially incredulous. Do you think the powerful "irish americans" (long distant cousins, twice removed), who financially supported the IRA's terrorist activity down the years would have allowed a wall or fence? It would have been a "breach of human rights", breaking "freedom of movement", "false imprisonment"... anything and everything, but it would NOT have been supported.

Some of the most powerful people behind the government in recent times have been of Jewish and Irish decent. There is no coincidence.

On another note, i came across an (3 years) old post on here which raised an interesting question.



My view is yes, they would leave them alone. They'd lose their moral support, and would i'd imagine be happy with the result, even though it was less than they started with. How long it would last, i wouldn't dare to speculate.

Number one the security fence is not being built to keep anybody in. just a bunch of terrorist out. So how can it be anything like to Iron Curtain? A totally false comparison.

On common myth about Golda Meir. She never said that.

Now for the 'Palestinian people' why don't we read what they have to say about that too.

Gee some history there.

In an article entitled, "The Lesson of Palestine," printed in the Middle East Journal, October 1949, Arab activist, Musa Alami, wrote, "how can people struggle for their nation, when most of them do not know the meaning of the word? The people are in great need of a "myth" of imagination. The myth of nationality would create "identity" and "self-respect."

In 1937, Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi said, "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. 'Palestine" is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it." In 1946, a distinguished Princeton professor and Arab historian said, "There is no such thing as Palestine in Arab history, absolutely not."

From Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi on Palestinians people "there is no such thing as a 'Palestinian.' "There never was. It is a PR fiction, a Madison Avenue fantasy"

Joseph Farah, Arab-American journalist: There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass...Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough... Also "You have to give the Arabs credit," Farah said in an article titled "Arab Journalist Puts Lie to Palestinian Claims," published by the Canadian Jewish News. "This Palestine fiction is the most effective propaganda campaign that the world has ever seen."

Even the Palestinian Authority disagrees with your point of view, check out their own website. While it is top heavy on such phrases as "Israeli occupation" and "Israeli human rights violations" the site offers practically nothing on the history of the so-called Palestinian people. The only article on the site with any historical content is called "Palestinian History - 20th Century Milestones" which seems only to confirm that prior to 1900 there was no such concept as a Palestinian people.

Kind of hard to argue with the facts. The so-called 'Palestinian' and 'Palestinian history' does not and has never existed.

How right you are. So how about providing some sort of citation for your arguments?
I don't mean to be curt, I just think it would help everyone in this debate and lend a bit more credability to your responses.

Is the Israeli wall good or bad for both (or either) the Israelis and the Palestinians?
Obviously, it is good for Israelis and bad for Palestinians. However, a wall would not even be needed if the “Palestinians” were willing to live alongside the Jews, instead of plotting daily to kill them. Israel is bending over backward to be as fair as possible while protecting her own people.

Is Israel within it's rights to build this wall?

Yes, I believe so. I also think it’s a sad statement of the kind of world we live in. And before those of us in the US get in a high dudgeon about the fence, a similar idea has been floated by the states bordering Mexico to curb illegal immigration from that country. How is this so different? At least Mexicans do not hate the US and everything it stands for and become suicide bombers to kill as many of us as they can. Plus, many US citizens seem to be willing; nay, eager to give up some of their personal rights for our “security” (e.g. Patriot Act and its evil spawn Patriot Act II). Why do we criticize Israel for her attempts to achieve security by whatever means necessary?


Funny thing; the only reason the land is fertile is because of Jewish settlers, who drained swamps or built irrigation systems in drier areas, and worked very hard to make an inhospitable land productive.

loreng59

The 'security fence', (which is in fact a five meter tall concrete wall, not a fence) is keeping thousands of Palestinians from the jobs they had in Israel, as well as Palestinians famers from their lands. It is built on former Palestinian land (many families were simply removed for its construction) it skirts illegal Israeli settlements and known water supplies and thus includes both these into 'Greater Israel' and in many places it runs through Palestinian territory further sub-dividing Palestinians from each other.

The idea that this wall was only built to keep terrorists out of Israel is naive in the extreme.


I see, so you want me to believe that Avi Shlaim, Israeli historian, Fellow of St. Antony's College, Professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, is lying?

Very well. Prove it and I'll believe you.


Well, we could read about what the Palestinian people have to say about it, if we looked past the opinion pieces* you've posted here and did a Google search on the net and counted how many hits we get from the words 'Palestinian history'... I get 2,690,000. Obviously there are a lot of views on this subject, and I'm sure we can dredge up plenty that support any particular perspective we care to argue for. So, really, it doesn't matter what you, or I, or any one else thinks about the validity of a Palestinians state and as Avi Shlaim writes, In 1948 they felt they [The Palestinians] had at least as much of a right to independence as the Iraqis or the Syrians or the Lebanese.

Thats the bottom line. These people were living in their own homes on their own land, and under occupation from one power, when suddenly another power comes along and rips them up and claims they have no right to their own property and no right to their own identity and shoves them into ghetto's. Those people were the Palestinians and they were ethnically cleansed from the land which was then taken by Israeli settlers, the vast majority of whom, just so happened to speak with American accents.


* you surely don't expect me, or any one else to accept the notion that Zahir Muhsein, Musa Alami or Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi speak on behalf of the Palestinian people do you? These people are not elected. They speak on their own behalf.


editted to add


How curious then that the settlers currently being moved from Gaza by the latest Sharon 'peace' plan are being moved into fertile regions that, until recently, belonged to Palestinian olive farmers... I bet you won't read about that at the Jewish Virtual Library.

Don't you find it odd that the Palestinians have been growing olive's in the land for hundreds of years, and yet we are expected to believe that until the nice settlers arrived, the region was a useless swamp?

Did the Native American population not exist, simply because they were made up of different tribes that moved about the country? Is that what gave the US the right to take land that was not uninhabited as their own? on top of which to then marginalise and go back on agreements made regarding areas designated as preserves for these peoples?


Right, its only a one way thing. That war, and that trigger eagerness must be an illusion. Israel being fair and bending over backwards? How? By limiting water supplies to inhumane levels?

Funny thing is that people who support Israel never see anything wrong in what they've done, yet its fairly normal for those on the other side, or neutral, to be clear that the Palestinians terrorist responses have been wrong (if understandable).


I like this quote, and will have to research the timelines a bit more. As i understand it, it was the ancient Egyptians that used such systems to make the most of their limited water. So, when the Jews left in their Exodus, where did they go, with this knowledge? At the end of the day, the land may have been used for other purposes, but it wasn't just uninhabited... back to Native Americans vs US again.

Number one part I repeat part (about 5%) is a wall. Most of the rest is a wire fence. Most of the fence is built on non-privately owned land. In fact somewhere around 80% of the land is not privately owned. Just because an Arab claims it does not make it his.

As for Professor Shlaim, he most certainly is lying. I am having problems with the link, Golda Meir

Actually, that's untrue. They have relocated 60,000 olive trees so far...if you'd read a little further on the Jewish Virtual Library.

Thank you for the link loreng59. I can't say it helped clarify much, but clearly Gerry Philip Mok believes that Golda Meir never made the statement she is widely credited as having said. For the sake of this argument, however, I am prepared to accept Gerry Philip Mok's opinion since he then goes on to say:


Clearly then, if Golda Meir herself had a Palestinian passport, then this blows any argument as to the existence of a Palestinian people out of the water.

If Golda Meir herself was a Palestinian, with a Palestinian passport before she was an Israeli. Then clearly there had to be a place called Palestine and a people called the Palestinians...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Daffygrl

Sorry, you've lost me. Which bit is untrue?

The fact they the state of Israel has relocated 60,000 olive tree's does not mean that the land now being occupied by the illegal settlers from Gaza didn't formerly belong to the Palestinian farmers that those 60,000 trees belonged to...

...nor does it change the fact that the illegal settlers destroy Palestinian olive tree's...

...nor does it verify the claim that the land was a 'barren swamp' before the Israeli's arrived.

Yes there a territory called 'Palestine' for 30 years. The 'Palestinians' were the Jewish citizens, not Muslims, they consider it an insult to be called 'Palestinian'. The people changed the name on independence to Israel and became Israelis.

So the leaders of 'Palestine' were David Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, etc. Boy oh boy are the Arabs going to be surprised at that.

But again, no independent country was called 'Palestine'.

I will stand corrected on the percentage of wall vs. fence. It is 97% wire and 3% concrete wall to stop snipper bullets Controversial Israeli security fence is 'engineering tour de force'

As for the 'barren swamp' how about the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission quotes an account of the Maritime Plain in 1913:

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts...no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached [the Jewish village of] Yabna [Yavne]....Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen....The ploughs used were of wood....The yields were very poor....The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist....The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert....The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants. (vjl) (Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 233.)

Also from vjl "Lewis French, the British Director of Development wrote of Palestine:

We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria....Large areas...were uncultivated....The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbor these and other criminals. The individual plots...changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin's lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbors, the Bedouin." (Palestine Royal Commission Report, pp. 259-260.)

ok, but then it was still inhabited, and farmed, however poorly. Just because a "more civilised" people come, and make a judgement about the natives doesn't give them the right to take over that land. The Spaniards also paid little consideration to the native south american's when they went to strip their gold, and take their land. Was that also perfectly fair? I'm sure some reference will be made to British (or French) colonialism, which had its fair share of such behaviour. I'll be the first to say that wasn't right either, but supposedly we've moved on from such an age, except where Israel is concerned.

Just because we may improve something, doesn't give us the right to take it away from the original tenants. It wasn't for the natives benefit but for the new settlers, who had always claimed God given rights to promised land. They didn't care what was there, only that they might improve it for themselves, with might against farmers. Don't you think that this behaviour to the native peoples might give good grounding to the dislike of the Israeli peoples from their neighbours?


I get that there wasn't a historical place called Palestine. But up until a certain point Britain was a land of different tribes, including remnants of previous invaders. There was no Britain, and no national, only regional, identity. However, doesn't detract from there being a native people with historical, ancestoral claims on the land. Likewise, America. Until a certain point there were just a number of states, no national identity at all... i'm afraid your assertion that there were no people in a region now known as Palestine and Israel previously is ungrounded.

The main difference is that most countries had their borders created longer ago. Yes there have been wars that have moved these, and people will always lose out. But this is more than just moving borders affecting a few. That is the point. This is forcing a people who lived in a large area to be contained in a small portion of that land, while property such as the Olive trees are cut down or just stolen by force, in modern times. If this was in Serbia, there would be a NATO force on its way.

Well at least there is some change here.

Okay so there were people living there, that I agree with too. Over 80% of the land was owned by non-resident landowners mainly residing in Damascus. The locals were what is referred to as sharecroppers. Individuals that worked the land and paid the owner with a portion of the crops.

The first Aliyah brought people in the bought those swamps and arid portions (at very inflated prices, but that is not the point). World War I came along and the British asked for assistance vs. the Ottoman Empire in exchange for nationhood. They set up several countries in the aftermath of the war including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the mandate. The French set up Syria and Lebanon.

The original mandate territory included Israel, Jordan, Gaza, and what has become the West Bank. Because the territory contained more Arabs than Jews the League of Nations decided to split the territory, giving the Arabs 78% of the land. Which became Jordan. The Jews were to get the rest, but give full rights to the non-Jewish population. Then the British reneged on the deal. Jews continued to buy land in the territory and set up several towns in Gaza and what is now the West Bank. The UN General Assembly decided to divide the land a 2nd time. Nobody was happy, both sides wanted all it. The Jews accepted the deal, the Arabs refused.

During the War for Independence about 400,000 Arabs refused to be Israeli citizens. Jordan occupied the West Bank and claimed it. Egypt Gaza and did the same. Both expelled all of the Jewish residents. The rest of the Arab followed. After 1967 War the original settlers took back the land they had paid for. Other towns and villages were established on public land.

That is a short history, now the question is where to go, etc.? Clearly to claim that the 'Palestinians' own the land is disputed and the entire point. Israel is offering a middle ground, the PA still claim the entire state including what the UN General Assembly voted for the Jews.

it seems to stem from a situation that the UK / league of nations had no right to be giving out, or promising land at all. If I was working on the land, and my family had been for generations, for the price of giving the supposed owner a share of the crop, i doubt very much that i'd accept someone else coming and buying it from under my feet.

If that is the case then both sides have a reasonable claim to the land. If France bought Cornwall (the southwestern tip of England) from the Queen of England, i doubt very much whether the people that live there would accept it with grace. If then France turned around and said that the local people could have part of it, i doubt still whether they'd be happy with the result. If i buy a stolen car (unknowing this to be the case), if it is recovered, i lose ALL the money and ALL the car. I don't have a right to any of it, and i can't turn around and give the righful owner the tires in compensation.

So who had the right to the land, the local and historical farmers and dwellers (now Palestinians), or a people that bought the land from parties that maybe or maybe didn't have the right to sell it.

I have no issue with Israel building a wall. It is certainly a nation's right to do such a thing. What I do have a problem with is that they built portions of it on disputed territory. They should've built it on undisputed territory and only seized what is very clearly Israeli land. They should've only built it on the borders of the West Bank and Gaza and not extended an inch into either area.

I just ran across this article at Salon.com. I thought it was pretty pertinent to this debate, so I felt obliged to include it in it's entirety.


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/...rael/print.html

Didn't mean to check out of this debate, I was gone for a few days and seems I missed a majority of the discussion. Regardless, I don't understand how anyone could support a wall that is causing such destruction to the Palestinians. Not only is it being built on occupied (or "disputed" if you must) land but it is having a huge humanitarian impact on the Palestinians.

We can sit here and debate the jurisdiction of the ICJ and UN to Israel or who really "owns" the land but the fact of the matter is, people's lives are being destroyed by this wall. How anyone can defend something that is causing suffering to innocent women and children is beyond me.

I am sure glad so many people are interested in rights of innocent civilians. My question would be what about the most basic right of all? When and where are their rights? Does anybody care?

The most basic right I speak of is life. The right for Israelis to live. The live without fear of riding their buses being blown up, the right to walk down a street without a bomb blowing them and their children to pieces.

All this concern for the poor 'Palestinian' civilians having to suffer for the actions of their terrorist neighbors is very touching. But what about the rights of Israelis, nobody addresses or cares about their rights. It like only the Arabs have rights and the Israelis don't.

Build the friggin wall and make it permanent, they earned it one body at a time.

Just when you think its all died down for a bit...

The Israeli army never blows up houses of children and families in retaliation, do they. What about the basic rights of Israelis to live? i guess those rights to live must take precidence over those of palestinians to live. After all, the poor Jewish civilians are more important, right?

Or at least, they could afford to buy their rights, whereas the people who became the palestinians could not. Yes yes, it was lawful, the repossession of peoples land and homes on the basis of favours. Just like the war against Iraq for reasons as murky as the Thames river, is lawful. Just like the treatment of the "detainees" at guantanamo bay, is lawful.

"But what about the rights of Israelis, nobody addresses or cares about their rights." Only international law, but what is that... no-one cares about that.

Yes, just when you think that it's all died down, the Palestinian terrorists strike again.

I can't imagine why Israel would want to wall off a "country" whose own government leader sponsors the attack of Palestinian police stations. Not to mention the suicide bomber that slipped through into a Tel Aviv nightclub last Friday. Your sarcasm is mis-placed. The Israelis are indeed buying their right to live. Good for them.

Except when it comes to Israel then International laws mean absolutely nothing. The 'Palestinians' are not complaining that the construction of a fence is killing them. They complain that going through checkpoints 'delays' them, and keeps them from entering a country illegally my goodness, that is far more important than lives.

As for blowing up empty houses, guess what, they don't. Use a bulldozer yes, but not explosives. Again that is a building, not lives. Buildings are built, people are not. Arab owned olive trees are more important to the world community than Israeli lives.

Damn right. Let them blow up whoever they want. Hey the US can do it, why can't they? I guess the "irish-american" (second cousins, twice removed) won't mind if we protect people in Ireland by buying their right to live with crack troops sniping off whoever they think looks dodgy.


Erm, blowing up empty houses? Yeah, that'll be the day. Or do you just mean empty of "important" life i.e. no Jews inside, only a coupld of dozen Arab women, children and men. Yes, inflammatory, and yes, i'm putting words in [b]your[b/] mouth for a change. None the less, these incidents are not one-offs, or accidents. It has been the deliberate retaliation of Israeli troops, on innocent civilians. Of course, the Israelis don't see any Palestinian as innocent, as they can always be accused of "harbouring" the terrorists.

Get real. Its amazing that, although you see me accepting that the Palestinian terrorists are doing wrong, you cannot see or bring yourself to say that when the Israeli troops do it that it too is wrong. You will not accept the reason for Palestinian anger (although we have for Israeli anger), and you won't see that both sides who use terrorism or guns to resolve this are up to their elbows in blood and guilt. Virtually anything else I can throw back at you has already been said, and either not been read or just been ignored.

You don't care what affect the wall has on the majority innocent Palestinians. Just as long as the Israelis, none of whom have done any wrong, are free to push the limits of the laws, as they have always done.

But they are complaining how it's killing them. As I stated in my very first post, this wall is cutting off Palestinians from their water, medical care, farm land, and destroying their homes. Yes checkpoints are just an inconvenience but it causing much more problems than that.

A wall is not the answer. What good is a "security barrier" when you already have Arabs living in Israel? Most population projections show that their will be more Arabs in Israel in 20 years than Jewish Israelis. A wall isn't going to stop these people.

Furthermore, it is my contention that this wall is creating more problems than it is stopping. Every time a home is bulldozed or a parent loses a child, that's 2 or 3 more Palestinians that are willing to strike back at Israel who would otherwise have done nothing.

I'm not just looking at the "plight of the poor Palestinians," I believe that this wall is creating more problems than it is solving.

Inflammatory yes that and more - it is an outright lie but who cares about the truth? But again that has nothing to do with building a fence to keep terrorists out. That is the entire point of this discussion. Yes the fence affects a large number of 'Palestinians'. Whether they are innocent or not is not the issue.

You are stating that their property rights supersede Israeli rights to live. That is what it comes down to when you are said and done. I happen to disagree, I truly believe that if they are not allowed to live, then that is the ultimate right.

And yes I do ignore the rest, that is my right because it doesn't belong in this section, and I refuse to excuse terrorism or accept it, nor do I believe all of the propaganda that you have endeavored to add to this discussion.

That I can understand and partially agree with. What good is the "security barrier" well all I can do is point out where built no terrorists have managed to cross. That's what good it does, it keeps the terrorists outside of the country.

I am not sure what study you may be referring to, but the Arabs make up about 20% of the population, and you think that in 20 years they will be 5 times as many as today, and no Jews being born? I am not sure what the authors were smoking but it wasn't tobacco.

With the wall terrorist homes do not have to be destroyed - no terrorists causing mayhem. No children being killed in the cross fire, b/c no cross fire. I would say that would be a win-win situation for both sides, wouldn't you?

I believe that when the Arabs start teaching their children that other people are human too, then perhaps the wall will no longer be required. But a long as the Arabs teach their children to hate instead of accept, until the Arabs love their children more than hate Israelis there is no other choice. Just maybe what they need is time to solve their own problems without having an outside scapegoat.

Then and only then can there be peace. Otherwise it is merely a farce.

UN says more Arabs than Israelis in 2050 50 years sorry. I know I've seen 20 before but I'm running late.

An outright lie? Oh, so the israeli forces haven't blown up houses with people in them. Whether they are innocent or not is EXACTLY the issue. The majority are innocent. How can you support this treatment of a majority of innocent people? I don't support the murder of innocent Jews in Israel, so how can you accept it the other way around? Both parties have the right to live. No-one's right to live takes priority over another. I do state that Arab property rights do supercede Israeli property rights, because it was incorrect, even if "lawful", for those lands to be given over.

Had the wall been build on Israeli land, then that too would be different - they would have been doing it at minimal but pointed cost to themselves, but it was not.

I have no axe to grind here. I'm not Palestinian, Israeli, or Jewish, and no have no friends who are either. I see both the Israeli military behaviour and Palestinian resistance through terrorist retaliation as wrong. I see that human rights are being breached, and that Israel is happy to punish the entire Palestinian population for the crimes of a few. I see that you support that approach.

Propaganda doesn't come in to it. You'd have us believe the Israelis are innocent victims. I'd have you accept that the innocents on both sides are innocent victims, and i'd have you understand, if not accept, the motivations of the Palestinians who feel they must resort to terrorism. I wouldn't have you accept terrorism, just as I don't.

But if you put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians rather than the Israelis, with the anger and passion you've expressed, I feel sure you'd feel as strongly as they do.

edited to add:

Everything is so one sided. Everything is the Arabs fault. They don't teach their children to hate! The Israelis have themselves shown little consideration for Palestinian and Arab life.

What this is, is a historical problem that has been left for too long to fester and has escalated. Building a wall is not even a band-aid (or short term solution), as previously refered. Band-aids don't work on, or prevent cancer from spreading. The root needs to be found, accepted and healed. A band-aid simply pretends that it is all ok.

At least the current discussions between Palestine and Israel seem to be getting somewhere, far more than this discussion.

Yes I read that study, it has a small problem. That is not Arabs in Israel, but the PA's claims in Gaza, and West Bank. Those have been found to be off by just a little bit like the PA claims 3.8 million people when there is 2.4 million living there. Nothing like claiming more people than there are to start off. Let's look at some different numbers PA Demographics. But again it doesn't matter how many Arabs are outside of Israel, nor does that effect the the question on the value of the fence.

Keeping terrorists on the outside is a win situation for Israelis. They get to live, and a win situation for the Arabs because they won't have the IDF coming into their towns and villages attempting to arrest those terrorists, or destroy their homes. Less contact, means less conflict.

Please provide a single incident of the Israelis doing that.

No the question is not whether there are innocent 'Palestinians', that is absolutely immaterial to this discussion.

As for teaching hatred, I can provide a few thousand examples from their text books if you wish. The PA teaches the population to hate Israel, I have yet to ever find a single example of that in any Israeli textbooks. Please show me a single example.

And there since the PA still refuses to stop terrorism there is no 'getting anywhere' going on.

Is the Israeli wall good or bad for both (or either) the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Is Israel within it's rights to build this wall?


really? Immaterial to the discussion on whether the Israeli wall is a good and reasonable thing? No, you're right - a persecution of an entire people to punish a few within that group IS wrong regardless. This wall, as discussed and supported thoughout this thread, punishes the Palestinian people. You like to say how is just about border security, but that is to deny the truth that it is to enable easier management of the terrorists. Maybe the US should ban all those from the Middle East from entering her borders, to prevent terrorists getting in? How would that be so different? Duplicate to Northern Ireland. The fact that all the people punished aren't guilty is at the HEART of this discussion.


I'm sure you can, in your library of one-eyed books. Islamic and Christian "fundamentalists", while fundamentally misunderstanding and mis-teaching their religions, tell their populations to do stuff. That they try to convince them, doesn't make the population accept the teachings. That they can gain any support says much about the influences on them from outside, more than it does the people themselves.

I'm still amazed that you won't conceed that the Israeli forces have misbehaved at all.

If i do something wrong, why should you punish my family for it? it is retaliation, nothing else.

It would be the RIGHT of all nations to determine who can and who can not enter their country. It is call SOVEREIGNTY. If the US so chooses they would be within their rights to ban foreigners for whatever reason we determine. Just like every country in the world has the right. In fact most Arab countries still ban Israelis from entering, and have for more than 50 years. Why do you not protest that? Where is the standard to be upheld? The silence is deafening.

My library consists of many thousands of books in several different languages on hundreds of topics. I do not concede because I am still awaiting a single example of your claims. You have made many rash claims, and provided no proof.

If you do something wrong and your family proclaims how wonderful it is that you committed a crime, should I welcome them to my home? I don't think so, but that is just me.

I'll come to the other points later on. However, the issue was not preventing them from coming them into your home. The issue was the blowing up of their home, when they had nothing to do with the action. The issue is the threat of retaliation against family to stop people doing what they feel they must (be that right or wrong). It is punishing the innocent to stop the guilty. The issue under discussion was not how Israel is treated by other neighbours, but how Israel is treating the Palestinian people. Stop evading.

To take a line i've had thrown at me recently, if you want to discuss how Israel is treated in the region, by her neighbours, and how the laws only apply to Israel, that's another discussion and i'd be interested to see facts on that subject.

Isn't Israel obliged to look out for Palestine as well? I thought I read that somewhere... If that is the case, then it is failing through the building of the wall.

Okay let's deal with Israel only. Still dealing with the homes. The family allows a terrorists to use a building, according to the Geneva Convention, it looses it's protected status because the terrorist lived there. That is what the Geneva Convention says, too bad, too sad.

Does it hurt the family, sure does. But not nearly as much as the families of victims of the terrorists, but yes it does hurt. So what?

In answer to the question is Israel obliged to look out for Palestine as well, uh no it isn't, why should it? Israel is no more obligated to look out for Palestine than say England obligated to look out for Ghana. These people have been trying to kill Israelis, why Israel should do anything at all for them? Again Israel is a sovereign nation and they have the right to keep anybody out that they want. It is the definition of the term.

I don't know whether this was countered after the event, but this seemed to be built into the heart of the creation of Israel:


link to above
link to the further links

Hate to mention this, but the mandate ended in 1948. The people in question do not reside in Israel, and are not Israeli citizens. Again why does Israel have to 'look out for Palestine'? Is England going to continue to 'look out for America'?

I fail to see why you would bring up the Geneva Convention, Israel is in constant violation of it. Furthermore it outlines the obligations that Israel has to Palestine.


and the list goes on and on and on...

Keep in mind, Israel is an occupying power:


I'm also sure you know Israel is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention.

All of which are absolutely irrelevant. Seeing as there was no 'Palestine' in 1967, Israel can not ever have been occupying anywhere. It is totally meaningless in this context, 'Palestine' was not a country, had no territory, and in general was a propaganda myth.

I was not referring to the IV Convention but the rules of war governing combat. Which state if a building is used in any regard for hostile operations, it can be considered a target.

Israel has no obligations to people that are and have been under the control of another government since 1992. They are not and have not been under Israeli control for more than a decade.