Wall In Palestine

[Apollo]

What is everyones take on this situation, and how do u feel about america's involvement

[nasirjonesether]

It's necessary and suicide bombings have gone down significantly since.

[Apollo]

but doesnt this all seem very familiar with the berlin wall and other "great" walls that have been built, people get shot for just going near the wall

[Johnny_D]

Not a surprise. Check out what happens in Sderot every single day.

JD

[rattler]

First off it is not a wall...It is a fence in most areas. The only place it is a wall is where the proximity of towns is so close to the "dangerous area" to make snipers a real possibility.
Second Palestine is no longer a country...It hasn't been since 1948. A portion of it is now called Israel and the remainder was gobbled up by Jordan(who has most of the land of the former Palestine land...75%) and Egypt.

I feel that the fence is a necessity to protect human lives. The Berlin wall was designed to keep people in and repressed. This is a fence designed to protect innocent civilians from terrorists. Anyone that has ever been to Israel or has friends/family over there will understand the need for the fence. Edited January 23, 2007 by rattler

[Sonthert]

It was all part of the Ottoman Empire until 1927 (or around there...1926?), so the boundaries are tenuous at best. This belongs to them and that belongs to us is kinda meaningless until Britain and the other Allies of WWI sat down and drew new boundaries for the region. SINCE the territory known as Transjordan was nominally given over to the Hashemites (Losers of the civil war with Saud, earlier, Saudi Arabia) by the United Kingdom in 1946, they requested that the United Nations establish the country for the Hashemite rule. Its hard to imagine that Jordan swallowed up anything. Moreover, the UN "Partition of Palestine" in 1947 recognized a border between Palestine and Jordan. If you look at current maps, Israel/Palestine has increased in size due to the annexation of the Golan Heights. The border between Israel/Palestine and Jordan has not changed...its the Jordan River. How that equates with Jordan gobbling up anything, I have no idea.

Second off, fence...wall...fence...its a matter of semantics. Its barbaric, whatever you wish to call it, Shakespeare.

Thomas Jefferson said "Those who would trade liberty for security shall have neither."

There has NEVER been, in the history of man a way devised to increasing security other than increasing liberty. Dumbass communist USSR figured that out. You can't chain a man and expect him to be trustworthy. That is, building a barrier between two peoples will only hurt people. People will not be more free, they will not be more safe. Its a lose-lose situation. Name one time in the history of man that it was any other way. I dare ya. Why then should this be a magic wall that defies all we learned about history? Why should it magically make people better off? Name some famous walls:

Great Wall of China:Failure
Walls of Troy:Failure
Hadrian's Wall:Failure
The Maginot Line:Failure
Berlin Wall:Failure

The oppressors and facists always tell you "You'll be safer", ignore the obviously immoral ramifications of it. Its never worked, why should it now? It is just establishing in a more set form the boundaries of a ghetto where "human refuse" is to be kept separate from good, moral people. Of course, once we establish our ghetto, then we can begin to dispose of the garbage we have locked in there. A ghetto is really just a large cage for many people, really. We can cut off their food, their medical supplies, sell them drugs, rape women, take their wealth. All sorts of fab. stuff. First we have to euphemize it so that it blinds good, honest, moral people to the inherent wrong of doing it and then it will become like a reality based TV show, it will become more of an amusement than an atrocity and it will be easy to get average people to do horrific things. We will be then rid of that trash and the problem solved.

They are human beings. If we let it happen to them, one day it will happen to us. When we let one injustice through, the next day it will be a larger one until justice and decency have no real meaning and they are slogans for the back of commemorative coins; not human values.

Just because 1 out of 1000 people of Palestine is a royal piece of shit, you want to wall/fence them in? I can understand where they're deriving their spirit of terrorism...

Lookie Rube! Theres a fire!
Well, Zeke, what should we do?
Throw this can of gas on it...that should make it better!
All the cans of gas we throw on the fire before explode.
It'll put the fire out for sure, this time. I'm sure.

Edit:The Ottoman Empire was formally disbanded (by the removal of the Emir) in 1924.

[james]

*claps*

[rattler]

It was all part of the Ottoman Empire until 1927 (or around there...1926?), so the boundaries are tenuous at best. This belongs to them and that belongs to us is kinda meaningless until Britain and the other Allies of WWI sat down and drew new boundaries for the region. SINCE the territory known as Transjordan was nominally given over to the Hashemites (Losers of the civil war with Saud, earlier, Saudi Arabia) by the United Kingdom in 1946, they requested that the United Nations establish the country for the Hashemite rule. Its hard to imagine that Jordan swallowed up anything. Moreover, the UN "Partition of Palestine" in 1947 recognized a border between Palestine and Jordan. If you look at current maps, Israel/Palestine has increased in size due to the annexation of the Golan Heights. The border between Israel/Palestine and Jordan has not changed...its the Jordan River. How that equates with Jordan gobbling up anything, I have no idea.

Second off, fence...wall...fence...its a matter of semantics. Its barbaric, whatever you wish to call it, Shakespeare.

Thomas Jefferson said "Those who would trade liberty for security shall have neither."

There has NEVER been, in the history of man a way devised to increasing security other than increasing liberty. Dumbass communist USSR figured that out. You can't chain a man and expect him to be trustworthy. That is, building a barrier between two peoples will only hurt people. People will not be more free, they will not be more safe. Its a lose-lose situation. Name one time in the history of man that it was any other way. I dare ya. Why then should this be a magic wall that defies all we learned about history? Why should it magically make people better off? Name some famous walls:

Great Wall of China:Failure
Walls of Troy:Failure
Hadrian's Wall:Failure
The Maginot Line:Failure
Berlin Wall:Failure

The oppressors and facists always tell you "You'll be safer", ignore the obviously immoral ramifications of it. Its never worked, why should it now? It is just establishing in a more set form the boundaries of a ghetto where "human refuse" is to be kept separate from good, moral people. Of course, once we establish our ghetto, then we can begin to dispose of the garbage we have locked in there. A ghetto is really just a large cage for many people, really. We can cut off their food, their medical supplies, sell them drugs, rape women, take their wealth. All sorts of fab. stuff. First we have to euphemize it so that it blinds good, honest, moral people to the inherent wrong of doing it and then it will become like a reality based TV show, it will become more of an amusement than an atrocity and it will be easy to get average people to do horrific things. We will be then rid of that trash and the problem solved.

They are human beings. If we let it happen to them, one day it will happen to us. When we let one injustice through, the next day it will be a larger one until justice and decency have no real meaning and they are slogans for the back of commemorative coins; not human values.

Just because 1 out of 1000 people of Palestine is a royal piece of shit, you want to wall/fence them in? I can understand where they're deriving their spirit of terrorism...

Lookie Rube! Theres a fire!
Well, Zeke, what should we do?
Throw this can of gas on it...that should make it better!
All the cans of gas we throw on the fire before explode.
It'll put the fire out for sure, this time. I'm sure.

Edit:The Ottoman Empire was formally disbanded (by the removal of the Emir) in 1924.

You raise some very intresting thoughts that I have never thought of before. Perhaps religion actually plays a part in our views on this subject? I'm not sure.

I wish I had some peacful answer for the situation over there. I can say that unlike many of my faith I don't wish to move to Israel...America is fine by me...I'll move back to Belgium if need be.

Perhaps both sides of the argument need to sit down and smoke a hookah together? Hell I honestly don't know. I do know that I am sick of people dying for (what seems to me) no good reason. Hatred between 2 groups of people just does not make sense to me.

I need to think about this one for awhile. I think I will go smoke a bowl of Peach Nahkla...LOL

[Sonthert]

I believe that honest, good-faith peace negotiations have been, by and large absent since the 60s/early 70s. Israel has gotten tired of the problem and after the Arab-Israeli war, it made things even more polarized. Is there a peaceful solution? Yes. There almost always is, if both sides are reasonable and willing to negotiate and compromise. I believe the Israeli and the Palestinian sides are both unwilling to budge, but Israel moreso, with their peace deals amounting to "Turn in your guns and turn yourselves into the police and we'll stop killing you." Of course, the Palestinians are responsible for alot of the violence in the first place, but for there to be a peaceful solution, there have to be equal, bilateral talks that go on. Israel takes the "We're in charge and more important than you." position which is not conducive to peace. For instance, when Palestinians elected HAMAS to parliament, Israel cut off their money to pay for police. Palestinian police were literally walking off the job. I don't know whats become of the situation now...I haven't been keeping up. If you do things that we don't approve of, you will be punished. The same way a child is rebuked by his parents. Not a good starting point for a meaningful dialogue. I'm not sure this one will be resolved until somebody uses a nuclear bomb or some other WMD.

[Lakemonster]

What is everyones take on this situation, and how do u feel about america's involvement

My take is that neither side wants peace. They want eradication of the opposition. They dont want to be neighbors.... they want the others property. Americas involvement? I think there should be none.

Let the bastards kill each other. Edited January 27, 2007 by Lakemonster

[[LB]]

It was all part of the Ottoman Empire until 1927 (or around there...1926?), so the boundaries are tenuous at best. This belongs to them and that belongs to us is kinda meaningless until Britain and the other Allies of WWI sat down and drew new boundaries for the region. SINCE the territory known as Transjordan was nominally given over to the Hashemites (Losers of the civil war with Saud, earlier, Saudi Arabia) by the United Kingdom in 1946, they requested that the United Nations establish the country for the Hashemite rule. Its hard to imagine that Jordan swallowed up anything. Moreover, the UN "Partition of Palestine" in 1947 recognized a border between Palestine and Jordan. If you look at current maps, Israel/Palestine has increased in size due to the annexation of the Golan Heights. The border between Israel/Palestine and Jordan has not changed...its the Jordan River. How that equates with Jordan gobbling up anything, I have no idea.

Second off, fence...wall...fence...its a matter of semantics. Its barbaric, whatever you wish to call it, Shakespeare.

Thomas Jefferson said "Those who would trade liberty for security shall have neither."

There has NEVER been, in the history of man a way devised to increasing security other than increasing liberty. Dumbass communist USSR figured that out. You can't chain a man and expect him to be trustworthy. That is, building a barrier between two peoples will only hurt people. People will not be more free, they will not be more safe. Its a lose-lose situation. Name one time in the history of man that it was any other way. I dare ya. Why then should this be a magic wall that defies all we learned about history? Why should it magically make people better off? Name some famous walls:

Great Wall of China:Failure
Walls of Troy:Failure
Hadrian's Wall:Failure
The Maginot Line:Failure
Berlin Wall:Failure

The oppressors and facists always tell you "You'll be safer", ignore the obviously immoral ramifications of it. Its never worked, why should it now? It is just establishing in a more set form the boundaries of a ghetto where "human refuse" is to be kept separate from good, moral people. Of course, once we establish our ghetto, then we can begin to dispose of the garbage we have locked in there. A ghetto is really just a large cage for many people, really. We can cut off their food, their medical supplies, sell them drugs, rape women, take their wealth. All sorts of fab. stuff. First we have to euphemize it so that it blinds good, honest, moral people to the inherent wrong of doing it and then it will become like a reality based TV show, it will become more of an amusement than an atrocity and it will be easy to get average people to do horrific things. We will be then rid of that trash and the problem solved.

They are human beings. If we let it happen to them, one day it will happen to us. When we let one injustice through, the next day it will be a larger one until justice and decency have no real meaning and they are slogans for the back of commemorative coins; not human values.

Just because 1 out of 1000 people of Palestine is a royal piece of shit, you want to wall/fence them in? I can understand where they're deriving their spirit of terrorism...

Lookie Rube! Theres a fire!
Well, Zeke, what should we do?
Throw this can of gas on it...that should make it better!
All the cans of gas we throw on the fire before explode.
It'll put the fire out for sure, this time. I'm sure.

Edit:The Ottoman Empire was formally disbanded (by the removal of the Emir) in 1924.

well said. too bad this is a hookah forum and not the UN

[azcoyote]

With our own double fence along the Mexican border, Americans simply don't have the moral high ground to tell anybody what to do. There was little public opposition to the Mexican fence here in AZ, and with much less of a mortal threat poised on the other side. If the good people of San Diego, Tucson and El Paso had endured the years of violence absorbed by Israeli civilians, our response would have been infinitely more severe. And I believe many here would support it. Certainly many people in Arizona would. I doubt it would be any different in Texas or California. If rockets were randomly exploding here from points in Mexico, what do you think would happen?

So why all the fuss? Well everyone has an opinion, and here's mine.

The difference here is the west bank fence is actually saving Jewish lives, which for centuries the world (Christian and Moslem) has considered...expendable. Jews know all about fences and walls, indignity, travel restrictions, ghettos, expulsions and exterminations. It must be damn hard to get used to this new reality, but folks, it ain't ever going to be the old way again. When the rhetoric about killing all the Jews stops, and a voice of moderation comes to the peace table, then there will be no need for walls. Until then, palestinians will have to endure the indignity of crossing at a check point. Really sorry but we all have to show up at the airport two hours before a domestic flight thanks to the barbarians in our midst. Damn inconvenient, but we are resigned to the necessity and somehow manage to deal without going into paroxysms of rage.

When the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ruled the west bank between 1948 and 1967, they destroyed all the synagogues and used Jewish grave markers from the Mount of Olives as pavers. Was the world outraged at this gross indignity? Double standard again? I'd bet this is news to most people here. The headstones documented hundreds of years of continuous Jewish life and community Jerusalem, an inconvenient fact for the palestinian struggle with reality.

When your mere existence is considered an insult to Allah, anything you do to preserve your life is just throwing gas on the fire, right? Sonthert, your descent into caricatures of "Rube and Zeke" only calls into question your own attitudes. I have met you and find you a fine, stand up guy in many important ways. I will not engage in name calling, but some self examination may be in order here, 'cause this isn't your first such jibe. I found your first apology sincere, but have not forgotten the reason for it. I hope we can remain friends, but I'll take you to task every single time I read this kind of thoughtless crap.

Admittedly, the fence is not a perfect solution. But "barbaric" is hyperbole, Shakespeare. Blowing yourself up in a restaurant or market full of civilians - now, that's barbaric. Flying a 747 into the World Trade Center - that's barbaric. A minefield is barbaric so to me, the fence just makes sense.

[Sonthert]

Ah, again, we resort to the old saw.

Question: Why is somebody who believes that Israel is a bad country or doing things wrong a bad person automatically? An anti-semite? Racist? Prejudiced? You said I seemed like a "Fine, stand up guy in many important ways." Then I make some point that opposes Israel and her actions and then I'm not. That smacks of prejucice, sir. You say, you hope we can still be friends? As if my opinions preclude that? It sounds like you are having the issue, not me. I'm not personally invested in the discussion, nor do I care about it terribly. I like you too, Dan. I try to not let political or personal opinions stand in the way of my opinion of people. I find you creative and intelligent, worthwhile to talk to.

So on to the question: Is it possible for a person to be reasonable, educated, honorable and be opposed to Israel and her actions?

If I make the occasional joke about Israel or anything else, don't take it too personally. Why is it thoughtless? Because the Israeli state has undertaken an obviously dumb and immoral course? Israel then justifies it with veiled hatred and smug complacency? Why wouldn't I be opposed to that?

Your analysis of the Mexico-US border relations is intersesting and insightful, but fails on one point. You are talking about the border of two separate, sovereign nations. Its not unusual for national borders to involve walls. In fact, not having the wall between the US and Mexico might solve some of our problems. On the other hand, when within one country, a wall is erected to keep or control people from crossing from one area to the other, that area it establishes is a ghetto. A ghetto is defined as an area where people of a certain race, ethnicity, religion, class or culture are congregated in some level of seclusion. The Palestinian areas of Israel are NOT a country. They are not recognized as a country and they don't have a vote in the UN. Although more important areas like the Marshall Islands do. There is no national boundary. It is a place where non-Israeli arabs are meant to live. Therefore the wall is in terms, closer to Hadrian's Wall or the Berlin Wall...not the border of the United States. Moreover, a critical examination of the Israel-Palestinian political situation would lead us to believe that the Non-Israeli Arabs (Incorrectly referred to as Palestine...Israel IS Palestine. For brevity, I would like to refer to the Non-Israeli arabs as Palestinians, though) and the Israelis are related in a form of a bantustan. A bantustan is roughly defined as an area that lacks any real power. The Palestinians have no real power. They are not a country, no voting rights. They elected HAMAS to their national parliament (which is also powerless) and Israel cuts off their supply of money, the same way South Africa administered their bantustans. South Africa, from most accounts, wanted to eliminate all blacks from South Africa...hence they set up these bantustans/homelands for the blacks. I believe they said as much in not as many words in 1978, we want to get rid of the black people. We saw what became of apartheid. It failed, too. When you segregate people, treat them poorly, differently, as second class citizens, its immoral. When you put up fences to enhance or distinguish those boundaries more clearly, it is immoral. They will launch rockets at you because nobody wants to be treated like that. Then you say "Gosh, we treat them so darned good and they launch rockets at us...we'll have to put up a wall to protect us." Can you say the Palestinians are treated well? Is this a recent development or has it been going on for 40 years? Why do you doubt that a group of people thats been treated poorly, like second class citizens would put use violence to make the overlords notice them?

Manhattan is such a nice place; affluent and prosperous. Harlem has alot more crime, as does the Bronx. We need to build a wall between Manhattan's south side and the north Side with Harlem and the Bronx. Why don't we build that wall? It would protect the citizens of Manhattan...in theory. Look at all the guns and violence that comes into Manhattan from the Bronx and Harlem. We need a wall there. This is, of course, a parody idea. Its absurd for it to happen in the US, but its OK if its over there. Thats the mindset I keep hearing from pro-wall people.

If we spend all our time looking at the argument from the side of the people of South Manhattan, protecting them from crime and violence, we forget there are two sides to the issue. I believe that segregating one group of people for their political and religious beliefs for the convenience/safety/profit of another group of people is wrong. Its always wrong, its dispicable and vile. To effectively deliminate that argument, you must inherently believe that the group to be segregated is inferior to the first group in some way. They are less orderly, more violent, immoral, uneducated or whatever. If you believed them to be equals, how could you reasonably segregate them? When you believe that a group is different, you are making a generalization. When you make the generalization, it becomes prejudice. When you act on that prejudice, it becomes descrimination. You now are trying to justify descrimination for national security. I say if ANY country's well being is predicated on continuing descrimination, that country is immoral. Israel is such a country...why not let the Palestinians live anywhere they want to? Why establish set areas for one religion to live in and others for another religion? I reject the need for that. Open up the state of Israel for Non-Israeli and Israeli alike. You don't need a wall and violence will go down...if you have a territory that is run and controlled by "them" (the rich, the white, the balck, the Israeli, whatever) somebody from "us" won't have a problem bombing "them". If the country becomes free for people to move around, maybe buy houses, open stores, then "us" also owns houses over there, it makes it alot tougher to bomb "them", cause we might hurt some of "us". Then one day, "us" and "them" become "we". Instead of building fucking walls that keep people apart, why not work towards making a "we" in Israel? Further dividing people by walls just makes for a larger distinction between "us" and "them". It makes killing "them" easier. It makes "them" less than human. It promotes violence, not prevents it.

My reference to Shakespeare was in calling it a fence or a wall or whatnot...A rose by any other name...

No, a fence is barbaric, it is what will cause the 757s/767s to be flown into the World Trade Center, it will be the thing that causes people to blow up bombs in restaurants...deepening the divide, makes for violence. If you were to let them roam free across Israel, the violence would increase in the short-term but decrease quickly.

Has everyone forgotten (or just not ever known) what Thurgood Marshall said in his landmark case fighting segregation in American schools? Its wrong because it hurts the people being segregated.

It may be terrifically helpful to the whites to segregate them. Its wrong, because it hurts those people. They feel badly about themselves and start viewing themselves negatively because they believe the propaganda of the ruling party. They don't accomplish anything and education rates go down. When education rates go down, violence rates increase and many of those are focused on the ruling party. You addd the best ammunition against yourself...would there be any border violence between the US and Mexico if there wasn't a border? By definition, no. Would the amount of violence go down overall? I think so. Would there be problems created by it? Absolutely. Could we fix those problems and essentially solve three problems at the same time by removing the border fence, reducing crime and fixing the problems of illegals working here? Yes. For the record, if you go to the very south-west tip of San Diego, at the water's edge, the fence is only figurative. You could wade out 10 feet and then cross over to the other side. Through the holes in the fence, you can talk to people on the other side. Sometimes, some people love to just talk and talk. I think its very cool there, and people will sit near the fence intentionally...because they think its cool, too. I think its because lots of people don't want there to be walls. Not that they or us would ever stay on the other side, but just the sheer nature by the place where anybody, if the moment was right and the government wasn't watching could sneak over if just for a moment and shake somebody else's hand.

I stand by my parody of Israel and its erecting a wall. Walls don't work, they incite violence and anger. They always have. To do something that fails repeatedly with the idea that the results will be different is a definition of insanity...which this is on Israel's part (this was the subject of my parody). Furthermore, to undertake a policy with intent, that has had the effect of increasing violence almost universally across history is what I would define as barbaric.

Besides, to say that people in the US are in no position to criticize the state of affairs in Israel because of our border with Mexico is the logical fallacy tu quoque. Thats the same fallacy as "Fat people can't say people are fat, only thin people can."

Who said the Jews are considered to be expendable? I'm not sure I have ever seen that in print. Please back up with citations or other empirical evidence. I think the Israeli government since its almost completely Jewish Israelis should have a little more compassion, since they know what its like to be shipped off, stripped, robbed and treated like animals. Admittedly, the Jews were treated qualifiably worse than the Palestinians are, but there is no acceptable level of descrimination.

As to your point regarding the Jordanian transgressions:did the world speak out about us segregating colored children from white children? Did the world cry outrage at the Arabian persecution of Christians that culminated in the killing of Christians and burning of the tomb of Eve in Jeddah in 1926 (or it being filled with concrete in 1975...its folk stories...hard to separate fact from story)? Did the world cry out against us importing slaves? Did the world object to Indonesia and their atrocities in the 60s and 70s? No? Most times, people mind their own business, them not noticing is often because they don't find out about it or if they do, they don't care. All sorts of things happen if you take the time to find out, but unless it personally has some impact on you, it bounces off. People not noticing isn't a rebuke of Judiasm...its a comment on how most people go about their business.

Additionally, I'm not sure where you get your information about Islamic views of Jewish people. The Koran recognizes Judiasm as one of the three right religions. There may be anti-Semitic arabs, but connecting anti-sematism to their Islam is spurious at best, racist at worst.

You go ahead, take me to task. If my making points that oppose Israel's policies disturb you, you shouldn't read my stuff. Thoughtless crap? No. Certainly not. I am reducing the idea down to an appropriate level...a couple of cartoon hicks who come up with an idea that history says fails and education says fails. History says gas cans explode when put on a fire. Education says gasoline is explosive when put on fire, a fuel for more fire. Same thing as building a wall around Palestinian areas. History and education say it is a bad idea (in my opinion, of course) and it will just be fuel for more fire, not less. One cartoon guy points out that the history of the idea isn't too good and the other guy disregards reason and memory (and morality?) and indulges in an idea that he thinks seems good, but has always failed. Pretty profound, huh?

As I pointed out earlier, the four planes involved in the 9/11 attacks were American Flight 11, a 767-223ER, United Flight 175, a 767-222, American Flight 77, a 757-222 and United Flight 93, also a 757-222 not a single one of them were 747s.

[azcoyote]

Ah, again, we resort to the old saw.

Question: Why is somebody who believes that Israel is a bad country or doing things wrong a bad person automatically? An anti-semite? Racist? Prejudiced? You said I seemed like a "Fine, stand up guy in many important ways." Then I make some point that opposes Israel and her actions and then I'm not. That smacks of prejucice, sir. You say, you hope we can still be friends? As if my opinions preclude that? It sounds like you are having the issue, not me. I'm not personally invested in the discussion, nor do I care about it terribly. I like you too, Dan. I try to not let political or personal opinions stand in the way of my opinion of people. I find you creative and intelligent, worthwhile to talk to.

So on to the question: Is it possible for a person to be reasonable, educated, honorable and be opposed to Israel and her actions?

If I make the occasional joke about Israel or anything else, don't take it too personally. Why is it thoughtless? Because the Israeli state has undertaken an obviously dumb and immoral course? Israel then justifies it with veiled hatred and smug complacency? Why wouldn't I be opposed to that?


Your analysis of the Mexico-US border relations is intersesting and insightful, but fails on one point. You are talking about the border of two separate, sovereign nations. Its not unusual for national borders to involve walls. In fact, not having the wall between the US and Mexico might solve some of our problems. On the other hand, when within one country, a wall is erected to keep or control people from crossing from one area to the other, that area it establishes is a ghetto. A ghetto is defined as an area where people of a certain race, ethnicity, religion, class or culture are congregated in some level of seclusion. The Palestinian areas of Israel are NOT a country. They are not recognized as a country and they don't have a vote in the UN. Although more important areas like the Marshall Islands do. There is no national boundary. It is a place where non-Israeli arabs are meant to live. Therefore the wall is in terms, closer to Hadrian's Wall or the Berlin Wall...not the border of the United States. Moreover, a critical examination of the Israel-Palestinian political situation would lead us to believe that the Non-Israeli Arabs (Incorrectly referred to as Palestine...Israel IS Palestine. For brevity, I would like to refer to the Non-Israeli arabs as Palestinians, though) and the Israelis are related in a form of a bantustan. A bantustan is roughly defined as an area that lacks any real power. The Palestinians have no real power. They are not a country, no voting rights. They elected HAMAS to their national parliament (which is also powerless) and Israel cuts off their supply of money, the same way South Africa administered their bantustans. South Africa, from most accounts, wanted to eliminate all blacks from South Africa...hence they set up these bantustans/homelands for the blacks. I believe they said as much in not as many words in 1978, we want to get rid of the black people. We saw what became of apartheid. It failed, too. When you segregate people, treat them poorly, differently, as second class citizens, its immoral. When you put up fences to enhance or distinguish those boundaries more clearly, it is immoral. They will launch rockets at you because nobody wants to be treated like that. Then you say "Gosh, we treat them so darned good and they launch rockets at us...we'll have to put up a wall to protect us." Can you say the Palestinians are treated well? Is this a recent development or has it been going on for 40 years? Why do you doubt that a group of people thats been treated poorly, like second class citizens would put use violence to make the overlords notice them?

Manhattan is such a nice place; affluent and prosperous. Harlem has alot more crime, as does the Bronx. We need to build a wall between Manhattan's south side and the north Side with Harlem and the Bronx. Why don't we build that wall? It would protect the citizens of Manhattan...in theory. Look at all the guns and violence that comes into Manhattan from the Bronx and Harlem. We need a wall there. This is, of course, a parody idea. Its absurd for it to happen in the US, but its OK if its over there. Thats the mindset I keep hearing from pro-wall people.

If we spend all our time looking at the argument from the side of the people of South Manhattan, protecting them from crime and violence, we forget there are two sides to the issue. I believe that segregating one group of people for their political and religious beliefs for the convenience/safety/profit of another group of people is wrong. Its always wrong, its dispicable and vile. To effectively deliminate that argument, you must inherently believe that the group to be segregated is inferior to the first group in some way. They are less orderly, more violent, immoral, uneducated or whatever. If you believed them to be equals, how could you reasonably segregate them? When you believe that a group is different, you are making a generalization. When you make the generalization, it becomes prejudice. When you act on that prejudice, it becomes descrimination. You now are trying to justify descrimination for national security. I say if ANY country's well being is predicated on continuing descrimination, that country is immoral. Israel is such a country...why not let the Palestinians live anywhere they want to? Why establish set areas for one religion to live in and others for another religion? I reject the need for that. Open up the state of Israel for Non-Israeli and Israeli alike. You don't need a wall and violence will go down...if you have a territory that is run and controlled by "them" (the rich, the white, the balck, the Israeli, whatever) somebody from "us" won't have a problem bombing "them". If the country becomes free for people to move around, maybe buy houses, open stores, then "us" also owns houses over there, it makes it alot tougher to bomb "them", cause we might hurt some of "us". Then one day, "us" and "them" become "we". Instead of building fucking walls that keep people apart, why not work towards making a "we" in Israel? Further dividing people by walls just makes for a larger distinction between "us" and "them". It makes killing "them" easier. It makes "them" less than human. It promotes violence, not prevents it.

My reference to Shakespeare was in calling it a fence or a wall or whatnot...A rose by any other name...

No, a fence is barbaric, it is what will cause the 757s/767s to be flown into the World Trade Center, it will be the thing that causes people to blow up bombs in restaurants...deepening the divide, makes for violence. If you were to let them roam free across Israel, the violence would increase in the short-term but decrease quickly.

Has everyone forgotten (or just not ever known) what Thurgood Marshall said in his landmark case fighting segregation in American schools? Its wrong because it hurts the people being segregated.

It may be terrifically helpful to the whites to segregate them. Its wrong, because it hurts those people. They feel badly about themselves and start viewing themselves negatively because they believe the propaganda of the ruling party. They don't accomplish anything and education rates go down. When education rates go down, violence rates increase and many of those are focused on the ruling party. You addd the best ammunition against yourself...would there be any border violence between the US and Mexico if there wasn't a border? By definition, no. Would the amount of violence go down overall? I think so. Would there be problems created by it? Absolutely. Could we fix those problems and essentially solve three problems at the same time by removing the border fence, reducing crime and fixing the problems of illegals working here? Yes. For the record, if you go to the very south-west tip of San Diego, at the water's edge, the fence is only figurative. You could wade out 10 feet and then cross over to the other side. Through the holes in the fence, you can talk to people on the other side. Sometimes, some people love to just talk and talk. I think its very cool there, and people will sit near the fence intentionally...because they think its cool, too. I think its because lots of people don't want there to be walls. Not that they or us would ever stay on the other side, but just the sheer nature by the place where anybody, if the moment was right and the government wasn't watching could sneak over if just for a moment and shake somebody else's hand.

I stand by my parody of Israel and its erecting a wall. Walls don't work, they incite violence and anger. They always have. To do something that fails repeatedly with the idea that the results will be different is a definition of insanity...which this is on Israel's part (this was the subject of my parody). Furthermore, to undertake a policy with intent, that has had the effect of increasing violence almost universally across history is what I would define as barbaric.

Besides, to say that people in the US are in no position to criticize the state of affairs in Israel because of our border with Mexico is the logical fallacy tu quoque. Thats the same fallacy as "Fat people can't say people are fat, only thin people can."

Who said the Jews are considered to be expendable? I'm not sure I have ever seen that in print. Please back up with citations or other empirical evidence. I think the Israeli government since its almost completely Jewish Israelis should have a little more compassion, since they know what its like to be shipped off, stripped, robbed and treated like animals. Admittedly, the Jews were treated qualifiably worse than the Palestinians are, but there is no acceptable level of descrimination.

As to your point regarding the Jordanian transgressions:did the world speak out about us segregating colored children from white children? Did the world cry outrage at the Arabian persecution of Christians that culminated in the killing of Christians and burning of the tomb of Eve in Jeddah in 1926 (or it being filled with concrete in 1975...its folk stories...hard to separate fact from story)? Did the world cry out against us importing slaves? Did the world object to Indonesia and their atrocities in the 60s and 70s? No? Most times, people mind their own business, them not noticing is often because they don't find out about it or if they do, they don't care. All sorts of things happen if you take the time to find out, but unless it personally has some impact on you, it bounces off. People not noticing isn't a rebuke of Judiasm...its a comment on how most people go about their business.

Additionally, I'm not sure where you get your information about Islamic views of Jewish people. The Koran recognizes Judiasm as one of the three right religions. There may be anti-Semitic arabs, but connecting anti-sematism to their Islam is spurious at best, racist at worst.

You go ahead, take me to task. If my making points that oppose Israel's policies disturb you, you shouldn't read my stuff. Thoughtless crap? No. Certainly not. I am reducing the idea down to an appropriate level...a couple of cartoon hicks who come up with an idea that history says fails and education says fails. History says gas cans explode when put on a fire. Education says gasoline is explosive when put on fire, a fuel for more fire. Same thing as building a wall around Palestinian areas. History and education say it is a bad idea (in my opinion, of course) and it will just be fuel for more fire, not less. One cartoon guy points out that the history of the idea isn't too good and the other guy disregards reason and memory (and morality?) and indulges in an idea that he thinks seems good, but has always failed. Pretty profound, huh?

As I pointed out earlier, the four planes involved in the 9/11 attacks were American Flight 11, a 767-223ER, United Flight 175, a 767-222, American Flight 77, a 757-222 and United Flight 93, also a 757-222 not a single one of them were 747s.

Working backwards through your response I am looking for things we can agree on. We can still like each other and disagree on this. Good.
I stand corrected on the which type of airplanes were involved with the 9/11 attacks. There's one part where I got my facts wrong. Didn't remember. Is it really important what kind of big airplane it was?

As for your cartoonification of the Israeli decision process, the only flaw here is that sometimes effective solutions are counter-intuitive. "Common sense" would dictate NOT to use dynamite to put out a burning oil well. One would expect it to make things far worse. Imagine the balls of the first person to try that!

Not having any real power for about 2,000 years and the modern State of Israel, Jewish lives have always been relatively expendable. In every century since the Roman occupation. Shall we give some examples?
Jesus, you should know was one of many tens of thousands of everyday Jews were crucified. Thousands more were brought in chains back to Rome. How about the bloodletting crusaders visited on ghettos across Europe? Those good christian soldiers got plenty hungry and horny stomping their way across Europe. The raping and pillaging began long before they reached the gates of the holy city. Not to mention the Jews living at the time in Jerusalem. An estimated 50,000 were murdered by crusaders. Moving right along...The many blood libel riots of the middle ages? The passion plays that included the "after party" in the Jewish quarter? The Spanish Inquisition (convert or die)? The Massacre of York?(more blood libel) The Russian pogroms? Hitler's final solution? Dier Yassin? Huh? Only someone who is either totally ignorant or in denial will not admit Jewish lives have been routinely discounted throughout ancient and modern history. This is Israel's raison d'etre.

Let talk about historic Muslim/Jewish relations.

In the bad old days following the Roman siege and conquest of Judea many Jews escaped and went south to the Arabian Peninsula. They founded the cities now called Mecca and Medina. They thrived there for hundreds of years until along comes Mohammed with his Bedouin tribes and slaughters them. It is said the prophet came under the flag of peace and then made war. In the Koran one learns believers can tell anything to the enemy, make any treaty and break it when the time is right for a victory by force. This is beyond dispute. This is also what Hammas is doing in Lebanon. Say anything to buy time, the rules don't apply to you. Do what you please when time favors you. Ha Ha.

Let's fast forward to the early 1930's.
What of the pact between the Nazis and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the top Muslim spiritual leader for Palestine? I am not making this up. In exchange for spying on the British, the Germans and would assist the Mufti to carry out "the final solution" on the Jews of Palestine. Is this spurious logic or racism on my part?

To this day, Arabic translations of that old libel, Protocols of the Elders of Zion are published and distributed widely in Arab lands. This forgery of Russian invention and was debunked a long, long time ago. Another generation of children are brought up on poisonous lies. Is this paving the path for peace and harmony? Recently, Egyptian television produced and aired a dramatized version of this pathetic pap and presented it as historical fact. The diatribe describes the cabal of Jews who are scheming to take over the world. It aired during the festival of Eads, a time when families would watch it together. This is not helpful for creating an atmosphere where peace can happen.

There is a passage in the Koran that refers to the Jews as pigs and monkeys. It is said that they will not be able to hide from their fate of death at the hands of believers because the rocks and trees will give them away. As you said, before you can kill someone, you have to dehumanize them. I can't cite chapter and verse on this, but it is widely known. If you think I'm making this up, I will be happy to find the exact chapter and verse.

The Koran may refer to Judaism as one of the three "right" religions, but Jewish life under Moslem regimes has never been a picnic. Many discriminatory practices were common. Special areas were designated for Jewish habitation, restrictions on employment, travel, land holding, and punitive taxes were all part of Jewish life under the Caliphate. As long as the Jews kept to their place, paid exorbitant taxes and displayed a proper subservient attitude, their lives were relatively safe. Relative to life in Christendom, that is. Of course they could be stoned to death if they got too upity. The Jews were a defenseless underclass - dhimmis is the term - in the Caliphate for hundreds of years. If you look into it, you will see for yourself this is correct. Sound a lot like a Bantustan as you have described it.

I agree the walls don't solve anything for long. Walls suck. They just delay constructive dialog. In the "best of all possible worlds" Arabs could live anywhere they wanted to in Israel, and Jews could live wherever they pleased in Arab lands or anywhere else. Let's mention specifically cities like Hebron, wherein lies the tomb of the patriarchs. Let's not discriminate here. If this is to work at all, it has to work equally across the board. I would welcome it.

I would also argue the life of a Palestinian living in Ramallah is far freer and holds more promise than that of a of a Jew living in Damascus. Jews are not permitted anywhere near Mecca. The penalty i believe is death by stoning. Foreign contractors doing projects in Saudi Arabia have stipulations that no Jews are to be employed in the work. Not Israelis - but Jews per se NEED NOT APPLY. Since Saudi Arabia's legal system is Sharia, it would follow that this discrimination is consistent with Koranic principles. Or did I miss something here? And how is this not racism?

Substantial Jewish communities in places like Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Iraq, Persia, Jordan, Syria and Ethiopia were depopulated following the establishment of Israel. Jews were lucky to get out with their lives. Some were not so lucky. All forfeited what they could not carry or wear. Accounts frozen; they left penniless. I have met some of them. This is very well documented, since it happened in recent history. I know Palestinians are very fond of waving the keys to their homes in Jerusalem or Haifa for any TV news cameraman who happens bye. It is truly a tragic and regrettable thing, but they are not alone in the loss of hearth and home. Should there be restitution? Yes, a restitution for all the dispossessed parties. Fair enough?

I can't remember who said it - " Every complex problem has a very simple and very wrong solution." Such may be the case with constructing the wall or in taking it down at just the wrong moment in time. I do apologize for calling your arguments thoughtless crap. Clearly much thought has gone into your position. I have learned a few things reading your post. Hopefully I have also given you a broader perspective. Heck, maybe it would be would be worth a try. What's the worst that could happen? You said it yourself, increased violence. Against whom? Jews. I guess in your book, that's justice. What exactly leads you to think it would soon subside? Certainly it would in the "best of all possible worlds..."

[mushrat]

Not adding anything to this discussion, merely thanking you all for making this the most civil and polite discussion of its type we've ever managed..please keep up the good work. Good to see we can discuss issues like this WITHOUT the previous drama. Pardon the interruption.

[Apollo]

if i can get ahold of the video i will post it on here, but my friend was apart of a group protesting the wall in palastine. each person in the group dressed as a different world leader, about 50 people stood in a line and they represented the wall, and then there was the "common people" my friend played the part of George Bush and ran up and down the wall throwing money at it screaming out "IN THE NAME OF GOD" it was really a sight to behold.

[Sonthert]

Working backwards through your response I am looking for things we can agree on. We can still like each other and disagree on this. Good.
I stand corrected on the which type of airplanes were involved with the 9/11 attacks. There's one part where I got my facts wrong. Didn't remember. Is it really important what kind of big airplane it was?

As for your cartoonification of the Israeli decision process, the only flaw here is that sometimes effective solutions are counter-intuitive. "Common sense" would dictate NOT to use dynamite to put out a burning oil well. One would expect it to make things far worse. Imagine the balls of the first person to try that!

Not having any real power for about 2,000 years and the modern State of Israel, Jewish lives have always been relatively expendable. In every century since the Roman occupation. Shall we give some examples?
Jesus, you should know was one of many tens of thousands of everyday Jews were crucified. Thousands more were brought in chains back to Rome. How about the bloodletting crusaders visited on ghettos across Europe? Those good christian soldiers got plenty hungry and horny stomping their way across Europe. The raping and pillaging began long before they reached the gates of the holy city. Not to mention the Jews living at the time in Jerusalem. An estimated 50,000 were murdered by crusaders. Moving right along...The many blood libel riots of the middle ages? The passion plays that included the "after party" in the Jewish quarter? The Spanish Inquisition (convert or die)? The Massacre of York?(more blood libel) The Russian pogroms? Hitler's final solution? Dier Yassin? Huh? Only someone who is either totally ignorant or in denial will not admit Jewish lives have been routinely discounted throughout ancient and modern history. This is Israel's raison d'etre.

Let talk about historic Muslim/Jewish relations.

In the bad old days following the Roman siege and conquest of Judea many Jews escaped and went south to the Arabian Peninsula. They founded the cities now called Mecca and Medina. They thrived there for hundreds of years until along comes Mohammed with his Bedouin tribes and slaughters them. It is said the prophet came under the flag of peace and then made war. In the Koran one learns believers can tell anything to the enemy, make any treaty and break it when the time is right for a victory by force. This is beyond dispute. This is also what Hammas is doing in Lebanon. Say anything to buy time, the rules don't apply to you. Do what you please when time favors you. Ha Ha.

Let's fast forward to the early 1930's.
What of the pact between the Nazis and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the top Muslim spiritual leader for Palestine? I am not making this up. In exchange for spying on the British, the Germans and would assist the Mufti to carry out "the final solution" on the Jews of Palestine. Is this spurious logic or racism on my part?

To this day, Arabic translations of that old libel, Protocols of the Elders of Zion are published and distributed widely in Arab lands. This forgery of Russian invention and was debunked a long, long time ago. Another generation of children are brought up on poisonous lies. Is this paving the path for peace and harmony? Recently, Egyptian television produced and aired a dramatized version of this pathetic pap and presented it as historical fact. The diatribe describes the cabal of Jews who are scheming to take over the world. It aired during the festival of Eads, a time when families would watch it together. This is not helpful for creating an atmosphere where peace can happen.

There is a passage in the Koran that refers to the Jews as pigs and monkeys. It is said that they will not be able to hide from their fate of death at the hands of believers because the rocks and trees will give them away. As you said, before you can kill someone, you have to dehumanize them. I can't cite chapter and verse on this, but it is widely known. If you think I'm making this up, I will be happy to find the exact chapter and verse.

The Koran may refer to Judaism as one of the three "right" religions, but Jewish life under Moslem regimes has never been a picnic. Many discriminatory practices were common. Special areas were designated for Jewish habitation, restrictions on employment, travel, land holding, and punitive taxes were all part of Jewish life under the Caliphate. As long as the Jews kept to their place, paid exorbitant taxes and displayed a proper subservient attitude, their lives were relatively safe. Relative to life in Christendom, that is. Of course they could be stoned to death if they got too upity. The Jews were a defenseless underclass - dhimmis is the term - in the Caliphate for hundreds of years. If you look into it, you will see for yourself this is correct. Sound a lot like a Bantustan as you have described it.

I agree the walls don't solve anything for long. Walls suck. They just delay constructive dialog. In the "best of all possible worlds" Arabs could live anywhere they wanted to in Israel, and Jews could live wherever they pleased in Arab lands or anywhere else. Let's mention specifically cities like Hebron, wherein lies the tomb of the patriarchs. Let's not discriminate here. If this is to work at all, it has to work equally across the board. I would welcome it.

I would also argue the life of a Palestinian living in Ramallah is far freer and holds more promise than that of a of a Jew living in Damascus. Jews are not permitted anywhere near Mecca. The penalty i believe is death by stoning. Foreign contractors doing projects in Saudi Arabia have stipulations that no Jews are to be employed in the work. Not Israelis - but Jews per se NEED NOT APPLY. Since Saudi Arabia's legal system is Sharia, it would follow that this discrimination is consistent with Koranic principles. Or did I miss something here? And how is this not racism?

Substantial Jewish communities in places like Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Iraq, Persia, Jordan, Syria and Ethiopia were depopulated following the establishment of Israel. Jews were lucky to get out with their lives. Some were not so lucky. All forfeited what they could not carry or wear. Accounts frozen; they left penniless. I have met some of them. This is very well documented, since it happened in recent history. I know Palestinians are very fond of waving the keys to their homes in Jerusalem or Haifa for any TV news cameraman who happens bye. It is truly a tragic and regrettable thing, but they are not alone in the loss of hearth and home. Should there be restitution? Yes, a restitution for all the dispossessed parties. Fair enough?

I can't remember who said it - " Every complex problem has a very simple and very wrong solution." Such may be the case with constructing the wall or in taking it down at just the wrong moment in time. I do apologize for calling your arguments thoughtless crap. Clearly much thought has gone into your position. I have learned a few things reading your post. Hopefully I have also given you a broader perspective. Heck, maybe it would be would be worth a try. What's the worst that could happen? You said it yourself, increased violence. Against whom? Jews. I guess in your book, that's justice. What exactly leads you to think it would soon subside? Certainly it would in the "best of all possible worlds..."

Indeed, it doesn't matter what type of airplanes they were. The reasoning associated with that error is part of the problem. It was a remnant of a thought that I deleted in the thread (for brevity's sake! ) pointing out that when people hear things second hand, its like the old game of telephone, things get screwed up, 747s are a very common airplane for Boeing, the stereotypical airplane for Boeing, really. Indeed, Boeing products were used exclusively by the terrorists on 9/11. So, somebody says "they flew a seven-something-something" and people associate that it is with a 747...incorrectly. So what does this matter? The same thing is true for Arabs. They are people, they are a diverse group. There are liberals, conservatives, gays, straights, christians (I said Arabs, which only indicates they speak arabic...it doesn't refer to what religion they follow), muslims, jews, etc., etc. By some extension, would you assume that I want to kill Vietnamese civilians? Well, I am an American, and Americans killed Vietnamese civilians in the Vietnam conflict...so, by one line of thinking I want to kill innocent Vietnamese civilians. So much so, that if I were to show up in Vietnam, I would be shot on sight...right? Because the Vietnamese want to avenge the death of their family members and loved ones and the destruction of their country and their way of life. It is, regrettably, the same logic you are using, and I believe it to be incorrect. Here's why:

A. The wall punishes innocent, peaceful Palestinians for the crimes of other, more violent Palestinians. The only association they have is they are Palestinian...this sort of action is descrimination...functionally imprisoning innocent people. When that occurs, any semblance of justice that existed is destroyed.

B. It reduces the state of Israel further to apartheid (Besides the functional difference of religion versus skin color, tell me how there is a difference between Palestine/Israel and South Africa/bantustans?) South Africa was hated and maligned for their treatment of people who were segregated off because they different than the ruling party. Israel is different...how?

C. The Palestinians are not responsible for the crimes of other muslim or arabic peoples of the past. They are a individual, unique people. Is not a cornerstone of justice not: "The son shall not bear the crimes of the father."? The past and the history of the arabs/muslims doesn't pertain to the Palestinians any more than I'm responsble for the death of Vietnamese civilians. Since the inception of Israel/Palestine, the region was administered, for whatever reason, that the two groups couldn't live together and they were separated and that has persisted until today. Another good example of a forced separation is India/Pakistan...those two countries HATE each other...alot more than the Israelis and Palestinians. Forced separation is a bad idea, too.

Which brings me to another point...why does Pakistan have a territorial dispute with India? Because Kashmir is predomiantly Muslim...India is the Hindu state, Pakistan the Muslim state...their people are not the mosy welcome in India. What about Nepal? What about Tibet? All religious conflicts. Jewish people don't hold a monopoly on religious oppression. They don't hold a monopoly on being persecuted in Muslim countries, either. Iraq, one of the friendliest countries to Christians before the US Invasion (ironically) welcomed christians from Saudi Arabia (whom the US supports) who are not welcome and persecuted there. Christians aren't allowed in Mecca, either. They don't have a monopoly on that either. While regrettable, everything you mentioned about Judaism's past is not unique, every other religion/ethnic groups/racial group in the world of any size has had the same problems. Essentially, Judiaism isn't special. They go through the same shit everyone else does. They have been persecuted for 6000 years, true, but that's because they have been around for 6000 years. The christians have been persecuted for 2000 years, since they have been around 2000 years. Being around longer means they've endured more crap, but that still doesn't justify your position that they have been put under some extraordinary strain. You can name specific dates in history as atrocities, which they are, but every religion/people has similar issues, we just don't know them. I agree, most muslim governments around the world are extremely hard on Jews, but they are hard on other people that are non-muslims.

Moving people into encampments is persecution. It was persecution in German-controlled sectors in WWII (aside from the other atrocities) and its persecution in Palestinian areas of Israel. Building a wall and restricting their movements because they are different, but not convicted of a transgression of justice is persecution. Its mean, ignoble and barbaric. I have the utmost sympathy for the Jews and what happened to them in Germany. I knew people that were in German camps (as opposed to concetration camps). I met a man who was an american soldier who rushed into a Nazi gas chamber when it fell to Americans to see if he could save any people in there. It was still wet with gas and he inhaled to much and was permantly crippled. He didn't ask are they jews or muslims? He just saw that there might be people that needed help. (I can say, without a doubt, meeting him was...I don't know the greatest man I ever met). Because I feel sl strongly about what happened to the Jews in Germany, I must object to Israel and how it treats the Palestinians.

Turned another way, Jews are persecuted for their being different and that somehow justifies persecuting the Non-Israeli Arabs for being different? I disagree. If its wrong for it to happen to Jews, then it is wrong for the country that is the homeland for the Jews to do it to some other group. AS WELL as, if its wrong for it to happen to muslims, its wrong for the country (Saudi Arabia) that is the center of muslim spirituality to do it to other groups, etc.

[Sonthert]

It's necessary and suicide bombings have gone down significantly since.

Its necessary to punish innocent people because of their religion, even though they have been convicted of no crime? Suicide bombers or not...

Building the wall deepens the chasm between these two peoples. I can only think of two historical examples where a country rounded up people because of characteristic (race, religion, etc.) and left them in encampments...South Africa and Nazi Germany. Both had the specific intent of getting rid of those people. SO, Israel is on the same level as South Africa and Nazi Germany...is their intent to get rid of the Palestinians, too?

Your short simple statement is quite smug...however, its not necessary. Whats necessary is for the Israelis to treat the Palestinians like human beings and begin negotiations in good faith as equals. Israeli negotiations alternate between bombing apartment buildings and offereing reduced prison sentences if people surrender. Building a fence doesn't start the peace process. It just becomes...well, before we start talking about that, we have to remove the fence.

I am curious, please outline Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, specifically, what was offered, what both sides largely said and so forth. You seem to have alot of knowledge regarding Israeli affairs. I have heard them characetrized a certain way, but perhaps I am wrong...your specifics might help to change that. Unbiased newspaper article citations are helpful. Since the UN has tried to pass resolutions regarding Israel in the past (vetoed by...the US!), over the matter, I am inclined to believe that the characterizations I have heard are true.

[nasirjonesether]

While Israel is constructing the security fence, it has appropriated Arab land. Compensations is offered but most reject it in order to avoid legitimizing the construction of the fence. Is this ethnic cleansing? No, not really. An ethnicity is not being asked to leave, members of a nationality are. If you do call this ethnic cleansing then you must also call Israel's disengagement of Gaza ethnic cleansing. The choice is yours.

The fence saves lives on both sides of the conflict. In history, walls were built to keep people in, Israel has built its fence (let's be honest, only 5% of it is actually a wall) to keep certain people out. You're right that initially the fence was meant as a political and security tool but after several rulings from the Supreme Court of Israel (the only court in the middle where Arabs can get a fair trial) it was restricted to act as a tool for security alone. Sometimes the Court has even ruled that security must take a back seat if the route of the fence would cause undue hardships on the Palestinian population. Also, judging by the dramatic drop in successful Palestinian suicide attack since construction of the fence, it was worked miracles.

The fence itself, of course, saves lives. This is an objective fact. Everyone agrees, and the Israeli High Court has ruled as such, that the material damage to the Palestinians must be kept to a minimum but some damage is unavoidable and human lives are worth more than anything.

Please read this, here's an exerpt:

Like all Muslims, I look forward to the day when neither the jeep nor the wall is in Abu Dis. So will we tell the self-appointed martyrs of Islam that the people not just Arabs, but Arabs and Jews "are one"? That before the barrier, there was the bomber? And that the barrier can be dismantled, but the bomber's victims are gone forever?

Apartheid is defined in international law. Article 7(2)(h) of the Rome Statute defines apartheid as:

inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

The inhumane acts refered to in paragraph 1 includes murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment in violation of international law, torture, rape and similar humanitarian violations.

As a legal definition, you must establish mens rea (i.e. Israel's intentions and the context of the conflict). In order to say that Israel has commited aparthied you must believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a racial one and that the purpose of the occupation of the West Bank is to maintain dominance of one race over another.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very clearly not a racial one. Thus the term aparthied is inaccurate.

Israeli and Palestinian are not races, they are nationalities. Both encompass many races and ethnicities. There are Jewish Palestinians (there was a Rabbi in Arafat's cabinet) and there are Arab Israelis. Again, this is not a racial conflict. To further drive this point home, please look at Article 6 of the PLO Charter, "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians." National, not racial. Like I said, there was a Rabbi in Arafat's cabinet and there are Arab Israelis in the IDF patrolling the West Bank. National, not racial. (BTW, Zionism is a national, not racial movement. There are Arab, black, and Christian Zionists along with Jewish ones).

Is Israel's goal to maintian racial dominance over another race? The answer is very clearly no. In Israel there is widespread support for a Palestinian state, there is also widespread support for futher withdrawls from Palestinian territory. This is fact refelcted in polls. Israel withdrew from Gaza with the support of the majority of Israelis. This is fact. Israel has no intention of maintaining any sort of dominance over Palestinians. This is fact.

But what about Israeli Arabs? Is there apartheid in Israel proper? The answer is no. Ian Buruma, a man one wouldn't call a fan of Israel, said it best:

[T]he comparison with South Africa is intellectually lazy, morally questionable, and possibly even mendacious... Inside the state of Israel, there is no apartheid. In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest minority within its borders of any country in the Middle East. The official figure for Copts in Egypt is 10%. Non-Jews, mostly Arab Muslims, make up 20% of the Israeli population, and they enjoy full citizen's rights. Israel is one of the few Middle Eastern states where Muslim women are allowed to vote.

Certainly, Israeli Arabs are not always treated well, though not nearly as badly as the Egyptian Copts, or the few Jews left in the Muslim world. Israeli Arab towns are neglected and, particularly since the latest intifada, public suspicion has led to social discrimination. To make things worse, some politicians make no secret of their desire to remove the Arabs from Israel altogether. But apartheid, however satisfying it is for the morally outraged to think so, it is not.

By using the word apartheid, you are being intellectually dishonest. Worse, you are marginalizing real apartheid and victims of it for political points. Edited January 30, 2007 by nasirjonesether

[rattler]

The Palestinian Authority has sowed much of what they are now reaping. They are not innocent.

"The Muslim remembers how the Jews corrupted the land. The Jews are Jews, O Muslims, their character and their custom are the corruption and destruction of this land. We keep warning you, the Jews are a cancer that spreads inside the body of the Arab and Islamic nation. They invest in the east Asian countries, which were destroyed [by the tsunami]because of the Jewish and American corruption and destruction."
[Ibrahim Mudayris, PA TV, January 7, 2005]

"Why did Allah change the direction of prayer from Al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] to Al-Haram Mosque [in Mecca]? The reason is those who are the cause of all catastrophes on earth. The reason for it is those who spit their poisons at the international and regional level, and more so at the domestic level. Those who are the reason for every disaster of the world - they are the reason for the changing of the direction of prayer from Al-Aqsa Mosque to Al-Haram Mosque. These are the Jews, Allah's curse upon them."
[Ibrahim Mudayris, PA TV, September 24, 2004]

The Palastinian textbooks for elemetry age students even teach Shahid (Martyr for Allah). They are planting the seeds of terrorism in thier youth. The message Palestinian children are taught is that Jews, according to Allah, are like donkeys, Israel is a colonial occupier who stole their land, the cities, and the children have an obligation to liberate it “even if a centimeter is stolen”.

A quote from a Palastinian textbook....

"Asma, Abu Bakr’s daughter, [b]was my age when she played a role in supplying provisions and water and passing information[/b] about Kuraish [Tribe] to the Prophet and his companion during their secret Hegira [emigration] from Mecca to Medina.
What role can I play in order to support the national resistance movement against the occupier and colonialist?"
[History of the Arabs and Muslims, sixth grade, p. 34, translated by CMIP]

Peace won't come to a region where children..."educated"...the way the Palastinians have chosen to educate thier children. That makes alot more than 1% of them potentially dangerous people.

[Johnny_D]

The Palestinian Authority has sowed much of what they are now reaping. They are not innocent.

"The Muslim remembers how the Jews corrupted the land. The Jews are Jews, O Muslims, their character and their custom are the corruption and destruction of this land. We keep warning you, the Jews are a cancer that spreads inside the body of the Arab and Islamic nation. They invest in the east Asian countries, which were destroyed [by the tsunami]because of the Jewish and American corruption and destruction."
[Ibrahim Mudayris, PA TV, January 7, 2005]

"Why did Allah change the direction of prayer from Al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] to Al-Haram Mosque [in Mecca]? The reason is those who are the cause of all catastrophes on earth. The reason for it is those who spit their poisons at the international and regional level, and more so at the domestic level. Those who are the reason for every disaster of the world - they are the reason for the changing of the direction of prayer from Al-Aqsa Mosque to Al-Haram Mosque. These are the Jews, Allah's curse upon them."
[Ibrahim Mudayris, PA TV, September 24, 2004]

The Palastinian textbooks for elemetry age students even teach Shahid (Martyr for Allah). They are planting the seeds of terrorism in thier youth. The message Palestinian children are taught is that Jews, according to Allah, are like donkeys, Israel is a colonial occupier who stole their land, the cities, and the children have an obligation to liberate it "even if a centimeter is stolen".

A quote from a Palastinian textbook....

"Asma, Abu Bakr's daughter, [b]was my age when she played a role in supplying provisions and water and passing information[/b] about Kuraish [Tribe] to the Prophet and his companion during their secret Hegira [emigration] from Mecca to Medina.
What role can I play in order to support the national resistance movement against the occupier and colonialist?"
[History of the Arabs and Muslims, sixth grade, p. 34, translated by CMIP]

Peace won't come to a region where children..."educated"...the way the Palastinians have chosen to educate thier children. That makes alot more than 1% of them potentially dangerous people.

And this is not unique to the situation in Israel.

A recent undercover documentary by Channel 4 went into mosque's (apologies for spelling) and in each and every mosque, including the so-called 'liberal' the teachings and speeches were not of a friendly nature to the UK.

The UK has it's own crimes and culpability in the middle east for sure. But as a country that has shown nothing but respect and bent over backwards to accomodate other's within our shorelines it sure felt like a kick in the teeth.

So I agree with sonerth's comments re:arabs being arabic speaking people. As for muslim's that is another story. Israel there is both blood & guilt on both sides. But i sure do not believe that any of Israel's neighbours want peace (with the exception of Jordan).

As my early comment in this thread mentioned Sderot, a place where kassam's land all the time, but are specifically target times when children will be going to and from school. Why is this?

I sure don't remember seeing Israelies throwing rockets over into Palestine's children's schools.

So you wonder why the wall is there?

Is is the right thing? - No, of course it is not.
what is the right thing? - I have no idea.

JD - As my signature reads, Praise God - He's the only one that can sort this one out.

[McDarragh]

IMO a wall/fence wont stop anything in these countries and peace talks will never work because the way pease talks are used is wrong. It's not used for the purpose of peace but to see how much of the oppositions stuff you can strip them of for no loss of your own.

I believe America should have no involvement as they have there own agenda's and most of the time cannot understand the conflicts at hand. Take Iraq as a prime example.... 1st off Saddam first rose to power how?? The USA

Now that America is in Iraq again there are more people dying every week than when Saddam was in power.

I BET that America will have to do exactly what they did last time and stick someone in power and walk away because they dont have the intricate knowledge of the cultures and religions to be able to do the right thing for the country...

[rattler]

Your right Johnny D, God is the only one that can sort this mess out.

[McDarragh]

IMO thats some of the roots of the problem - people thinking there god is the almighty and instead of allowing people to see there own views they try and pressure people to follow there chosen god....

If you could count the amount of wars started by religion and count the human life tolls of all the wars - maybe religious people would see themselves as being a lot less self righteous.

Whats wrong with avidly following ones own religion and leaving other people to theres? Just because someone claims that you should be 'spreading' the word of god doesnt mean it has to be to people that arn't religious. If you feel the need to preach then do it with your friends of the same religion - you may be surprised at some of the discussions that take place. No two people see exactly the same messages and some quite avid discussions can usually ensue....

Keep an open mind and you will learn much! Keep a closed mind and you will only limit yourself.

[rattler]

IMO thats some of the roots of the problem - people thinking there god is the almighty and instead of allowing people to see there own views they try and pressure people to follow there chosen god....

If you could count the amount of wars started by religion and count the human life tolls of all the wars - maybe religious people would see themselves as being a lot less self righteous.

Whats wrong with avidly following ones own religion and leaving other people to theres? Just because someone claims that you should be 'spreading' the word of god doesnt mean it has to be to people that arn't religious. If you feel the need to preach then do it with your friends of the same religion - you may be surprised at some of the discussions that take place. No two people see exactly the same messages and some quite avid discussions can usually ensue....

Keep an open mind and you will learn much! Keep a closed mind and you will only limit yourself.

I'm Jewish it would be against my religion to try to convert anyone...In fact people who wish to convert are generally turned away 3 times. We don't believe we need to spread the word of God to anyone, particularly not in a forceful manner (convert or be killed). My branch of Judiasim (Reform I can't speak for others) does not judge other religions...it's simply not our place.

Yes wars have been started over religion...They have also been started over women, land and numerous other things. I'm sorry, but I don't really see where your going with this and it's relation to the wall/fence.

The driving force behind the conflict between Israelis and Palastinians isn't about religion in my opinion. There is a land dispute between 2 groups of people...Granted each side's majority religion is different, but that's not the driving force behind the dispute even though the religion card has been thrown on both sides. It's a mess true...but if you know the answer of how to resolve the situation over there please step forward and let it be known. However this is a issue that existed before I was alive and I'm sure it will continue to exist after I am gone.