Israel Wall

[Hugo]

Yes its hyperbole of the worst kind.

No, it isn't. I already cited my source for this, we had a whole thread about it and you had very little to refute it, and could not dispute my source. The fact is that 1.5m Arabs live in Israel, and there are Arab-Israeli MPs, and that is a level of tolerance far, far exceeding anything the Palestinians show no matter what you say.

Israel's occupation is by far the biggest greivance against the state, which manifests as terrorist activity.

There were substantial terrorist attacks before Israel ever occupied Palestine. For instance, in the four months before the 1967 war, there were 37 separate terrorist attacks within Israel.

Secondly, it's the stated goal of Arafat and other Palestinian groups not to push Israel back to her own borders but into the sea. They chant slogans not about the reclamation of Palestine, but of the slaughter of world Jewry and after that, of Christendom. Their goal is not an independent Palestinian state but a second Holocaust.

[Black Dog]

No, it isn't. I already cited my source for this, we had a whole thread about it and you had very little to refute it, and could not dispute my source. The fact is that 1.5m Arabs live in Israel, and there are Arab-Israeli MPs, and that is a level of tolerance far, far exceeding anything the Palestinians show no matter what you say.

Let's revisit your statement:

In terms of their brainwashing, racism, endorsement of violence and irrational hatred the Palestinian state is an equal of Nazi Germany.

Your previous thread dealt with Walid Shoebat the ex-PLO militant who is now working to further the cause of peace. Good for him. But your statements (such as the one above) are thinly veiled attempts to use his experience (decades old as it is) to characterize Arabs as a race of Jew haters.

Furthermore, the existence of anti-Israeli sentiment has little bearing on the current political reality, which would indicate that the continued existence of Israel is not in question.

There were substantial terrorist attacks before Israel ever occupied Palestine. For instance, in the four months before the 1967 war, there were 37 separate terrorist attacks within Israel.

Source?

Secondly, it's the stated goal of Arafat and other Palestinian groups not to push Israel back to her own borders but into the sea. They chant slogans not about the reclamation of Palestine, but of the slaughter of world Jewry and after that, of Christendom. Their goal is not an independent Palestinian state but a second Holocaust.

Wrong. Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist to Rabin in 1993 and affirmed "that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter (that is: the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security, acceptanc eof United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and a commitment processof to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides) are now inoperative and no longer valid." That's the official position.

As for anyone else, be it Hamas, or the Al Asqa Brigade, what makes their "stated goals" anymore representative of Arab and Palestinian sentiment than the views of the ultra Orthodox settlers who spray paint slogans like "Arabs to the gas chambers"?

[Hugo]

But your statements (such as the one above) are thinly veiled attempts to use his experience (decades old as it is) to characterize Arabs as a race of Jew haters.

Not necessarily all Arabs, but certainly almost all Palestinians, thanks to their leadership, schools, culture etc. You have to admit that anti-Jewish sentiment runs very, very high throughout the Arab world, far higher than in North America or Europe, for instance. The entire Palestinian culture is infused with hatred for Jews. As I said before - and as you did not dispute - the first song Palestinian children learn in school is, "Arabs are chosen, Jews are dogs." Hence my comparisons to Nazi Germany - a state that endorses and fosters intense racial hatred and then uses violence against the object of that hatred.

Source?

Netanel Lorch, One Long War, (Jerusalem: Keter, 1976), p. 110.

That's the official position.

A joke. You might have missed it, but the UN Mideast envoy has just finished lashing out at Arafat's administration before the Security Council, saying it has not reined in the "extremists" you claim are not representative of Palestine, has not made any promised reforms, is not co-operating with Egyptian security policies, and is essentially "lawless." Arafat's aides have replied by saying the guy is "useless", "unwelcome" and "unwanted" - and this is about the man who has been on good terms with Arafat for years and used to meet with him on a regular basis.

The Palestinian state says one thing and does another. Arafat's Arabic speeches are very different in tone to his English ones. It's common knowledge that Arafat's regime is sponsoring and endorsing terrorism against Israel and is violently silencing Arab Palestinian dissent as it does so. They are the true enemies of peace, not the Israelis.

As for anyone else, be it Hamas, or the Al Asqa Brigade, what makes their "stated goals" anymore representative of Arab and Palestinian sentiment

Because their views are endorsed by what you claimed is the democratic Palestinian leadership. Democratic, of the people, y'know.

[Sully]

Most Palestinian violations of negotiated cease-fires came about as a result of continues Israeli incursions into the Occupied Territories, settlement construction and so forth. In other words, the trends show that, even as negotiations have progressed, Israeli violations of Palestinian rights have continued.

Oh really, so Israel says lets negotiate peace and then the next days tries to steal more land from the Palestinians, hmmmmm I think you are being too naive in not realizing why the Israelis must do what they do, if Israel is threatened they will protect themselves, great move on Israels part.

Who's occupying who, again?

Think about why they have too, its very much unlike Canada, Israel is not afraid to take action and look bad in others eyes.

And how are they suppoossed to that without resources and while under military occupation? Israeli withdrawl from the OT is a fundamental precondition of peace and the establishment of a viable Palestinian civil state.

Hahaha thats your excuse, blame Israel for everything right. If Palestine cannot get itself together, blame Israel, blame Israel for occupying a small part of the land and for fragmenting Palestinians, gimme a break. HOW ABOUT BLAME PALESTINE, AFTER ALL CAN THEY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES, i know this maybe a truly novel idea.

I could counter with similar examples from the other side, but why bother? Neither side has the monopoly on inhumanity.

True enough!!!

Terrorism is also a result of desperation.

Ya well then according to that theory, most of Africa, Haiti, Bangeladesh etc, should be absolutely teeming with terrorist activity, thankfully they are not. Hmmm I wonder if it has to do with statewide brainwashing by Palestine.

[caesar]

Of course the Arabs and particularly the Palestinians are inclined to be anti Israel..So would you if they kept attacking your country; taking over your lands and bulldozing down your houses. If you have had innocent children killed by the overkill mechanism of Israel; you would hate too. I do understand that works for Israel and its dislike for Arabs/ Palestinians, too. But Israel does have a powerful military with top notch weapons and a very powerful ally. It is time for the moderates on both sides to speak up and take charge. I am sure that most ordinary citizens would prefer to live more peacefully.

[caesar]

Remember Rabin; he was seriously working towards a peaceful settlement with Israel's neighbours. It was one of his own people who assassinated him.

[Sully]

Remember Rabin; he was seriously working towards a peaceful settlement with Israel's neighbours. It was one of his own people who assassinated him.

So what !!!! Of course there are crazy Israelis, but this is just a comment to cloud the real issue, Palestine needs to be run by a strong coordinated government, who does not believe in destroying the Jewish state or its people by any means. Palestinians are responsible for the state of Palestine!!!

[caesar]

It is NOT a comment to cloud the issue. Palestine cannot be run by a strong government until Israel gets out of the occupied lands and quits attacking the Palestinians. There is no excuse for the overkill that takes out innocent civillians including women and children. Terrorists can exist anywhere; they are not as easily controlled.

Sharon may be taking a good step if he does move the wall onto Israel land.

How can Palestinians be responsible for the state of Palestine when the Israelis will not allow them to have a state

[KrustyKidd]

I put myself in an Israeli postition. I have the power to safeguard my children and will do whatever it takes, whatever the discomfort or harm it does to anyone else on earth. I do it. I don't feel great about it but a hell of a lot better than I would burying a child.

A Palestinian doesn't want the wall, it is not formed on his or her precieved boundaries, they have no way to stop it and any negotiation that will stop it is thwarted by terrrorists in their midst. Rational voices are listened to but the terrorists are strong and beyond the law. This inability for Palestinians to be able to make a true peace is not an Israeli problem. Soon they will have a wall up, and if that is breached, they will do something else.

The Israelis hold the upper hand and thier main concern is the lives of their citizenry, not UN law, condemnations or Palestinian welfare. I don't blame them one bit.

You can go on and on about historical and biblical promises but the concern is the here and now. An Israeli wants security and nothing else. They hold the power at this time.

[caesar]

Put the wall up on their own land not the occupied land and most would have no problem with it.

[neutralabouteverything]

the un is bieng plain stupid it tells israel it can exist but it dosen't have the right to defend itself a better solution would be one unified state with one unified parliment

[Black Dog]

Not necessarily all Arabs, but certainly almost all Palestinians, thanks to their leadership, schools, culture etc. You have to admit that anti-Jewish sentiment runs very, very high throughout the Arab world, far higher than in North America or Europe, for instance. The entire Palestinian culture is infused with hatred for Jews. As I said before - and as you did not dispute - the first song Palestinian children learn in school is, "Arabs are chosen, Jews are dogs." Hence my comparisons to Nazi Germany - a state that endorses and fosters intense racial hatred and then uses violence against the object of that hatred.

And of course, the brutal occupation would have nothing to do with the persistance of such sentiment, hmmm? Hate seldom exists in a vaccum.

The Palestinian state says one thing and does another. Arafat's Arabic speeches are very different in tone to his English ones. It's common knowledge that Arafat's regime is sponsoring and endorsing terrorism against Israel and is violently silencing Arab Palestinian dissent as it does so. They are the true enemies of peace, not the Israelis.

I think there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. But, as I've said many, many times before, its Irsrael that holds all the cards in this situation.

Because their views are endorsed by what you claimed is the democratic Palestinian leadership. Democratic, of the people, y'know.

Funny. Especially considering any refernce to the democratic nature of the PA is usually greated with howls of "fraudulent elections!" and such. But I guess such contradictions are just part of the movement to cast the victims of Israeli occupation as villians.

put myself in an Israeli postition. I have the power to safeguard my children and will do whatever it takes, whatever the discomfort or harm it does to anyone else on earth. I do it. I don't feel great about it but a hell of a lot better than I would burying a child.

So you have no problem burying others' children?

A Palestinian doesn't want the wall, it is not formed on his or her precieved boundaries, they have no way to stop it and any negotiation that will stop it is thwarted by terrrorists in their midst. Rational voices are listened to but the terrorists are strong and beyond the law. This inability for Palestinians to be able to make a true peace is not an Israeli problem. Soon they will have a wall up, and if that is breached, they will do something else.

If Israel wasnts to build a wall, there's no reason they need to do so on Palestinian land. The wall would do the same job on the Green Line. But the fact that it deviates so much from Israel's borders indicates it is part of a land grab.

[Hugo]

And of course, the brutal occupation would have nothing to do with the persistance of such sentiment, hmmm? Hate seldom exists in a vaccum.

The simple fact, Blackdog, is that hatred of Jews has nothing to do with the occupation of Palestine. The entire Arab world has been violently opposed to the state of Israel ever since it was created - hence the multiple wars and terrorism that stretch way back before the occupation. Hatred against Jews is as old as the hills. Tsarist Russia and the USSR conducted many pogroms, Hitler gassed 6 million of them, heck, Pharaoh enslaved them.

This is borne out by the messages the Arab world has for Jewry: not that "we want you out of Palestine", but "we want you dead, every last one." That is what they want.

I think there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. But, as I've said many, many times before, its Irsrael that holds all the cards in this situation.

I don't think that's true. The violent hatred and aggression is virtually all on the Arab side. Israel has never initiated a war against the Arabs and has never taken action against terrorists without severe provocation.

All the cards, you could say, lie with the Palestinians. If they can stop the hatred and the violence I think they'll find that Israel will make a good and friendly neighbour. It might take them a while to forgive all that the terrorists have done to them, but it'll happen.

Funny. Especially considering any refernce to the democratic nature of the PA is usually greated with howls of "fraudulent elections!" and such. But I guess such contradictions are just part of the movement to cast the victims of Israeli occupation as villians.

It was your contradiction. You claimed that Arafat was democratically elected, and then asked me why the Palestinians could be blamed for the terrorist actions endorsed by what you say is their democratic government. The answer, you might say, is in the question.

Caught in a lie. Shame. You're going to have to climb down on at least one point, which is it going to be?

[Black Dog]

The simple fact, Blackdog, is that hatred of Jews has nothing to do with the occupation of Palestine. The entire Arab world has been violently opposed to the state of Israel ever since it was created - hence the multiple wars and terrorism that stretch way back before the occupation. Hatred against Jews is as old as the hills. Tsarist Russia and the USSR conducted many pogroms, Hitler gassed 6 million of them, heck, Pharaoh enslaved them.

This is borne out by the messages the Arab world has for Jewry: not that "we want you out of Palestine", but "we want you dead, every last one." That is what they want.

Anti-semetism as a historical fact? Well duh. However, only a fool would deny that hatred flourishes under conditions such as those that exists in the territories under military occupation.

Also, given that the "Arab world" outisde of the OT has, by and large, come to terms with Israel's existence on a political basis, your original contention that a withdrawl to the pre-1967 borders would inevitably result in Israel's destruction dose not stand up to scrutiny. You haven't suggested how a security fence along the Green Line would be a less effective measure than the one that currently is swallowing up Palestinian land. In the context of your original point, your comemnts on the prevelance of anti-Semetism s and corruption in the PA smack of obfustication.

I don't think that's true. The violent hatred and aggression is virtually all on the Arab side. Israel has never initiated a war against the Arabs and has never taken action against terrorists without severe provocation.

That's a purely sunbjective view.

All the cards, you could say, lie with the Palestinians. If they can stop the hatred and the violence I think they'll find that Israel will make a good and friendly neighbour. It might take them a while to forgive all that the terrorists have done to them, but it'll happen.

All the talk of "the Palestinians should stop the terrorists" is all well and good on paper: but how do you propose they go about doing this with no viable civil government and a military occupation on their doorstep. Furthermore, what incentive is there? has Israel given any reason for anyone to believe that if the intifada ceased tomorrow, that hey would withdraw? No. In fact, during th eperiod prior to the cureent intifada, a period of minimal terrorist activity, Israel continued expanding settlements and sucking up land. So your claim that peace is up to the Palestinians lacks credibility .

No, the power to move towards a resolution of this conflict lies with Israel, who has the military, political and economic upper hand. A withdrawl from the territories, the dismantling of the settlements and the wall and a renewed commitment to the peace process would be gestures of good faith. At that point terrorism could be defined and dealt with as an issue on its own, seperate from the occupation.

was your contradiction. You claimed that Arafat was democratically elected, and then asked me why the Palestinians could be blamed for the terrorist actions endorsed by what you say is their democratic government. The answer, you might say, is in the question.

Caught in a lie. Shame. You're going to have to climb down on at least one point, which is it going to be?

No, ity's your contradiction., sinc eyou choose to paint the PA as democratic when it suits your purposes to do so.

But suppose that a majority of Palestinians do, in fact, support "terrorism" as a means of resistance to the occupation. So what? Resistance to a military occupation is an option, and while I don't endorse attacks on Israeli civilians, I would consider IDF targets within the OT to be fair game. Terrorism is not a necessarily corollary of the desire to drive the Jews into the sea, as you say.

Again: extremism and terrorism are largely symptoms of the occupation: hell, even the UN envoy you mentioned earlier has acknowledged the conditions of the occupation is driving the type of extremism that often leads directly to more terrorism.

[Hugo]

However, only a fool would deny that hatred flourishes under conditions such as those that exists in the territories under military occupation.

My point, Blackdog, is that the hatred will not go away if Israel retreats to the Green Line and only a fool would believe otherwise.

Also, given that the "Arab world" outisde of the OT has, by and large, come to terms with Israel's existence on a political basis

Officially. Unofficially, many of them are still endorsing, sponsoring and training terrorists. Remember Hussein's Al-Jazeera promises? Buildings in Gaza, near the Egyptian border, are used to conceal tunnels that smuggle weapons and explosives from Egypt in order to attack Israel. The Egyptian government could easily stop this. It does not.

your original contention that a withdrawl to the pre-1967 borders would inevitably result in Israel's destruction.

Please, show me the post where I said that.

You haven't suggested how a security fence along the Green Line would be a less effective measure than the one that currently is swallowing up Palestinian land.

Because going after terrorists in their own territory is a more effective policy than allowing them to come to you. And I had, in fact, already suggested that:

Unfortunately, as 9/11 showed, you simply can't sit at home and wait for terrorism to come to you. Not if you want to maintain a scrap of civil freedom and avoid living in a police/security state. The only way to defeat terrorism is to excise it at the source, and that won't be served by retreat. The current policy may not be the best one, but a retreat to the Green Line would be the worst.

Me, 09:42am, July 14th, 2004, this thread.

That's a purely sunbjective view.

I have given my evidence for that. You haven't proven anything you have said so far. I think it is you who is holding subjective views.

All the talk of "the Palestinians should stop the terrorists" is all well and good on paper: but how do you propose they go about doing this with no viable civil government...

Israel ceded civilian authority to the Palestinian Authority in the Oslo accord. Israel retains the right to control external Israeli security and Israeli citizens but 98% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.

In fact, during th eperiod prior to the cureent intifada, a period of minimal terrorist activity...

I can tell you that between September 1993 (signing of Declaration of Principles between Israel and the PLO) and September 2000, before the current intifada, 256 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed in terrorist attacks within Israel (Israeli Foreign Ministry).

Israel continued expanding settlements and sucking up land

Israel has withdrawn from 40% of the West Bank and 80% of the Gaza Strip, to date. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to up that to 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip.

Israel has repeatedly offered to cede territory for peace. They returned vast amounts of land that they occupied during wars of Arab aggression, for example, Sinai, and they offered to allow Syria to reoccupy the Golan Heights in exchange for peace.

I notice there's no evidence given for your allegations. Figures.

A withdrawl from the territories, the dismantling of the settlements... would be gestures of good faith.

All of which have been offered and rejected in the past.

No, ity's your contradiction., sinc eyou choose to paint the PA as democratic when it suits your purposes to do so.

I was being ironic in order to point out to you the fallacy in your argument. I see that you have conceded that the Palestinian Authority is undemocratic. From that, it's easy to see how it is an enemy to peace. Despotic regimes are usually the warmongers, democracies usually peaceloving.

Resistance to a military occupation is an option

A "military occupation" means that you have occupied land that was previously part of a foreign sovereign state. The West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, so there is no military occupation.

Israel also came into this land in the course of a war in which it was the defendant. That, also, means that it is not an occupation.

In Resolution 242 the UN Security Council rejected Arab demands that Israel withdraw from territories won in 1967 and legitimised Israeli claims to at least part of these lands for new and more defensible borders.

I don't endorse attacks on Israeli civilians, I would consider IDF targets within the OT to be fair game

Magen David Adom treated 6,362 casualties of terrorist attacks between September 29, 2000 and June 1, 2004. That was 860 killed and 1,344 injured, 554 of them severely. That total does not include a single IDF soldier. The Palestinians are primarily targeting civilians.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think it fair to say that the former policy, the one you advocate, would perpetuate this conflict longer than necessary. The source of the hatred and violence in this conflict is the Arab world, excising it requires going to them, as much as excising Nazism required the invasion of Germany.

Well, that is where we disagree. I believe that this conflict is fueled by two things:

a) remotely, the pan-Arab sense of having been wronged by, in their view, the imposition of the state of Israel, and

proximately, the sense of being wronged by the Occupation of the Palestinians.

Accordingly, ending the Occupation will reduce the main proximate fuel of the conflict.

I am curious why you cannot see or won't admit that these perspectives in the Arab world are at least not unexpected or unnatural.

Then what was your point? Israel has been doing pretty well, so don't worry about the destruction caused by the wars and 10,000 dead?

My point was that Israel has been and will continue to be capable of defending itself against any likely strategic aggressors. Therefore the policy I advocate, that Israel should aggressively defend itself within its own borders, is not subject to the criticism you made.

What was your point?

I think it is the case that Israel has done very well and, had it not had to fight off Arab aggression for so long, it would have done even better. And so, possibly, would the Arabs.

I agree. I think the Palestinians and Israelis would make great progress if they could do so together. Unfortunately they are locked into the socio-cultural insanity of an Occupation instead.

Ah, so you were making a separate, tangiential point.

...your reply was, basically, "Ah, no, in one of those wars Israel actually fired the first shots despite not actually being the aggressor." I said that there were "surprise attacks." There were. You tried to find an exception to a general rule you thought I made but did not.

Hey, don't quote me if you're not going to quote me. Look at what I actually wrote and get back to me if you still disagree.

[Hugo]

I believe that this conflict is fueled by two things:

The former may have a resolution and Israel has offered to give up the West Bank and Gaza Strip almost completely in exchange for peace. That's a complete non-argument. The problem is that the Palestinians have rejected all such proposals in favor of further violence and are stalling the peace process. The reason why is because Arafat uses the Jews as a scapegoat for his despicable little regime and so is not genuinely interested in a solution. The occupation of Palestine is a problem, but it's a problem because the Palestinians insist on making it one.

But the latter is always going to be a problem no matter what the Palestinians do. I can't see the Jews going quietly this time, nor should they be forced to. Israel is, historically and culturally, their homeland too.

I am curious why you cannot see or won't admit that these perspectives in the Arab world are at least not unexpected or unnatural.

I never said they were not. I said that your proposed solution to them wouldn't work.

What was your point?

I was responding to your point that Israel had been "entirely successful" in defending herself with the counterpoint that such a high bodycount and material destruction renders any such victory bittersweet at best.

Therefore the policy I advocate, that Israel should aggressively defend itself within its own borders, is not subject to the criticism you made.

I feel that the policy you advocate will be more costly in human lives and damage and so is subject to the criticism I made. I have repeatedly explained why.

Look at what I actually wrote and get back to me if you still disagree.

I don't disagree with what you said, but it just wasn't a valid response to my original post.

[Black Dog]

My point, Blackdog, is that the hatred will not go away if Israel retreats to the Green Line and only a fool would believe otherwise

No. But fail to see how continuing the occupation and repression of Palestine wil actually reduce the antipathy towards Israel and Jews.

Officially. Unofficially, many of them are still endorsing, sponsoring and training terrorists. Remember Hussein's Al-Jazeera promises? Buildings in Gaza, near the Egyptian border, are used to conceal tunnels that smuggle weapons and explosives from Egypt in order to attack Israel. The Egyptian government could easily stop this. It does not.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad have both stated that their organizations are ready to postpone indefinitely their operations on the sole condition of an Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders.

Are they serious? Only one way to find out.

QUOTE 

your original contention that a withdrawl to the pre-1967 borders would inevitably result in Israel's destruction.

Please, show me the post where I said that.

Earlier:

The problem is that Jewish Israel next to any Arab state is much like the USSR next to Nazi Germany - you know there will be trouble, the only question is when. Israel seeks to establish a buffer zone for its own security and to preserve the freedom and lives of Israeli citizens.

Because going after terrorists in their own territory is a more effective policy than allowing them to come to you. And I had, in fact, already suggested that:

Still don't see the connection between occupation and terrorism?

Israel ceded civilian authority to the Palestinian Authority in the Oslo accord. Israel retains the right to control external Israeli security and Israeli citizens but 98% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.

...whose leadership is kept under virtual house arrest by the IDF, which makes frequent incursions into the territories. The PA is impotent. At the height of its power, it cotrolled 17.2% of the Israeli occupied West Bank. I find it odd that Israel, with all its military might, is unable to maintain internal peace and security, yet the toothless PA is expected to whip up a cure in an instant.

I was being ironic in order to point out to you the fallacy in your argument. I see that you have conceded that the Palestinian Authority is undemocratic. From that, it's easy to see how it is an enemy to peace. Despotic regimes are usually the warmongers, democracies usually peaceloving.

Israel has withdrawn from 40% of the West Bank and 80% of the Gaza Strip, to date. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to up that to 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip.

Israel has repeatedly offered to cede territory for peace. They returned vast amounts of land that they occupied during wars of Arab aggression, for example, Sinai, and they offered to allow Syria to reoccupy the Golan Heights in exchange for peace.

I notice there's no evidence given for your allegations. Figures.

Yet settlement continues. Throughout the years of the "peace process" during the 1990s, Israel continued to construct settlements, doubling the number of settlers in the West Bank from about 100,000 to 200,000 according to the Israeli group "Peace Now." At least 34 new settlements have been built since Sharon took office.

Meanwhile, I've pointed out elsewhere that the 95 per cent figure is bogus. Let me refresh your memory:

What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state."

The proposal would have meant:

no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state,

no control of its external borders, limited control of its own water resources, and no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law.

In addition, the Barak plan would have included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley;

codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice; meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community."

Barak himself said he intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), therefore he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent of a divided non-state.

A "military occupation" means that you have occupied land that was previously part of a foreign sovereign state. The West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, so there is no military occupation.

Jordan had occupied the West Bank illegally occupied according to whom?

That aside, you're engaging in semantics. Even if the Israeli occupation does not adhere to the strict dictionary definition, it remains a de facto military occupation in that the only way they are currently maintaining a hold on the land is by military force.

In Resolution 242 the UN Security Council rejected Arab demands that Israel withdraw from territories won in 1967 and legitimised Israeli claims to at least part of these lands for new and more defensible borders.

That's just wrong:

242 in full

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1.Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

1.Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

2. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Furthermore, 242 also "emphasiz(ed) the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

Subsequent to 242's adoption, the Security Council has adopted 26 resolutions that affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel. Of those resolutions, several deal directly with the issue of Israeli settlements and several also specifically deal with Israeli violations in Occupied East Jerusalem.

I can tell you that between September 1993 (signing of Declaration of Principles between Israel and the PLO) and September 2000, before the current intifada, 256 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed in terrorist attacks within Israel (Israeli Foreign Ministry).

...

Magen David Adom treated 6,362 casualties of terrorist attacks between September 29, 2000 and June 1, 2004. That was 860 killed and 1,344 injured, 554 of them severely. That total does not include a single IDF soldier. The Palestinians are primarily targeting civilians

In the same period the IDF killed 3,089 Palestinians (ICRC). That includes 2,476+ civilians and 589 children.

Of course, I've already pointed out neither side has the monopoly on inhumanity: it is you who seems to believe Israel is pure.

[Hugo]

But fail to see how continuing the occupation and repression of Palestine wil actually reduce the antipathy towards Israel and Jews.

It won't. However, Palestine won't accept any kind of lasting or meaningful solution, so Israel is forced to go to the next-best option, which is occupying the territory and trying to excise terrorism at the source.

Israel is not interested in "occupying and repressing Palestine." It has offered to cede virtually all of Palestine and it has offered numerous increases in autonomy and self-government to the Palestinians. All have been rejected.

Please, show me the post where I said that.

You haven't. I see two posts where I said that a return to earlier borders would, under the circumstances, create further problems. I didn't say that Israel would be destroyed if she did. That was you, putting words into my mouth. Now stop it and debate properly.

whose leadership is kept unde rvirtual ahouse arrest by the IDF, which makes frequent incursions into the territories. The PA is impotent.

Not impotent enough that they can't butcher their own with impunity. In the first intifada, more Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians than by the IDF (Jerusalem Post, (January 12 & 14, 2004); Jay Bushinsky, "Arafat's rule a nightmare for Palestinian journalists," Chicago Sun-Times, (March 5, 2004). Arafat has shown himself most potent at eliminating his political opponents and establishing his rule with an iron fist - and yet you claim the Israelis are keeping him under lock and key. The two don't add up, Blackdog.

Furthermore, at the Camp David negotiations Israel offered an autonomy plan for Palestinians. It was rejected.

That's just wrong:

242 in full

It is not wrong. You have grossly misinterpreted Resolution 242.

Let's deal with "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war." That refers to an offensive war. The 1967 war was not offensive for Israel and was not fought for acquistion of territory. If it did not refer to an offensive war the resolution defeats a primary purpose of the UN because it gives a "free shot" to aggressor states, guaranteeing that if they lose the conflict they cannot lose any territory.

242 does not state that Israel must give up "all territory." That wording is very deliberate. The USSR and Arab states pushed for "all territory" to be stipulated, but it was overruled. 242 states that Israel must withdraw "from territories occupied." That means that Israel must withdraw from all, some, or none of that territory. Since Israel has withdrawn itself from 91% of that territory when it gave up Sinai alone it can consider itself in full concord with 242.

Israel has since entered separate settlements in all states except Lebanon and Syria. The acquisitions from Lebanon were made after 1967 and so are not relevant. The acquisitions from Syria comprise the Golan Heights and their return was rejected. According to 242, Israel is under no obligation to return Golan until Syria makes peace.

Yet settlement continues.

According to UN Resolution 242 and international law scholar Stephen Schwebel, Israel has every right to settle the West Bank.

Furthermore, settlements have never been an obstacle to peace in the past. Between 1949 and 1967, Israeli settlement in the West Bank was expressly forbidden and yet no Arab nation would make peace with Israel. In 1978, Israel froze settlement in the hope that this would draw other Arab nations to the Camp David accords. It didn't. In 1994, Jordan made a peace treaty with Israel. Settlements were not even mentioned.

Jordan had occupied the West Bank illegally occupied according to whom?

The entire international community except for Britain and Pakistan.

Even if the Israeli occupation does not adhere to the strict dictionary definition, it remains a de facto military occupation

According to international law it is not an occupation. It's a misnomer that is being used to discredit Israel, much like the substitution of "militant" for "terrorist" in Iraq.

In the same period the IDF killed 3,089 Palestinians (ICRC). That includes 2,476+ civilians and 589 children.

According to one study, Palestinian noncombatants were mostly teenaged boys and young men. In the words of the study, "this completely contradicts accusations that Israel has ‘indiscriminately targeted women and children... There appears to be only one reasonable explanation for this pattern: that Palestinian men and boys engaged in behavior that brought them into conflict with Israeli armed forces."

An Engineered Tragedy: Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, September 2000-June 2002," International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, (June 2002).

As to the rest of the casualties, terrorists hide in crowds of noncombatants. The use of human shields is outlawed under Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, therefore, the Palestinians are guilty of this particular crime, not the Israelis.

What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state."

When Palestine was occupied by Jordan there was no call for a Palestinian state. Israel has never ruled out the possibility of a Palestinian state in the future, but wants to be reassured that such a state would not be a danger to Israel, and no such assurance is evident.

[Black Dog]

see edits above.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The former may have a resolution and Israel has offered to give up the West Bank and Gaza Strip almost completely in exchange for peace.

Well, that statement is so incomplete as to be incorrect. The conditions Isreal has indicated it presumes to impose on such a 'peace', were not realistic, or justifiable.

...  The occupation of Palestine is a problem, but it's a problem because the Palestinians insist on making it one.

I'm tempted to laugh in your face here. The Palestinians are Occupying themselves? The Palestinians are flying helicopters over their own cities firing missiles? The Palestinians are flattening their own homes? No. Israel is doing that.

I can't see the Jews going quietly this time, nor should they be forced to. Israel is, historically and culturally, their homeland too.

What on Earth are you going on about? The existence of Israel is not under discussion here as far as I know.

I am curious why you cannot see or won't admit that these perspectives in the Arab world are at least not unexpected or unnatural.

I never said they were not. I said that your proposed solution to them wouldn't work.

Okay. It seemed to me the two went hand in hand though.

What was your point?

I feel that the policy you advocate will be more costly in human lives and damage and so is subject to the criticism I made. I have repeatedly explained why.

Yes. It seems we disagree on the efficacy question. There is, of course, the ethical question.

[KrustyKidd]

Krusty kidd

put myself in an Israeli postition. I have the power to safeguard my children and will do whatever it takes, whatever the discomfort or harm it does to anyone else on earth. I do it. I don't feel great about it but a hell of a lot better than I would burying a child.

Black Dog

So you have no problem burying others' children?

krusty Kidd (from above quote)

I don't feel great about it but a hell of a lot better than I would burying a child.

If Israel wasnts to build a wall, there's no reason they need to do so on Palestinian land. The wall would do the same job on the Green Line. But the fact that it deviates so much from Israel's borders indicates it is part of a land grab.

Hmmmm, ever think that possibly there is nobody to negotiate true boundaries with? If Palestinians had a government that could control their people ie terrorists then I am sure Israel would be more than happy to discuss international boundaries with them. In the meanitme, taken from an Israeli perspective, 'they hate us anyways, so who cares.'

As I said, with the wall up, lives saved on both sides, the only option for Palesitnians is to get their act together and negotiate. As one voice that can hold a bargain. You can only hate an Israeli so much and want them dead so much. It's a signal that Israel has given up trying to be friends, slapping the Palestinians in the face as they slam the door shut. Bye bye homeland. Stew and fume all you want, let Yasser rule over dung. When you guys get your act together we may negotiate, not until.

Don't bother looking to the UN to do anything but make rulings, they don't back them up as we all know. Don't enforce their own embargos and there are lots of willing companies out there to do a flourishing business with them. Sure it's wrong but it's perfectly understandable. You all can quote Biblical passages and history but it is the here and now people are interested in, with a wall they are ten thousand times safer than they would be with a handshake from Yasser Copone.

[caesar]

Build the wall within Israel's original boundaries; not on occupied land. Simple!!!!!! Quit the land grab!

[caesar]

"If Palestinians had a government that could control their people ie terrorists "

Give me a break. Controlling terrorists is not the same as controlling an army. A country needs its land unoccupied by foreign interests to become capable of any controls.

Did the USA control the homegrown terrorist in Oklahoma or the Anthrax situation. That is easier said than done and connot be done overnight

[KrustyKidd]

Build the wall within Israels origional borders. OK. Good plan. Let's sit down with somebody that can stick to a plan and has the authority to speak for everybody. It sure as hell isn't anybody that has come up so far from the Palestinian side. When they demonstrate the ability to exert control over the people and terrorists then you never know, Israel might actually be willing to listen. This time, they don't have to.

I like it, they like it, Palestinian mothers should like it A lot less death will be going around, and to change it, all we need is a legitimate control over the Palestinian people by a legitimate Palestinian Authority.

Tim McVeigh and your crappy example

Let's see, 300 million people and one terrorist act, 3 million people and a hundred terrorist acts. A slight disproportion to your example. Try it again please. As for occupation, if I remember right, the Israelis gave the PA guns and authority, and were failed by them. But we won't go into that right now as you are going to get back to me with a more realistic example.