Security fences are common feature of borders around the world. [Archive]

marksman

9th July 2009, 11:43 AM

To be fair, my search for information on the India-Pakistan fence came up with a lot fewer hits than articles on the Israeli fence.

He did say "I find it strange that Israel is the only country that is covered on a daily basis in the media of the world and will have to defend its fence at the Hague."

I don't think there has been any movement to have the Hague adjudicate the legality of India's fence, and India started building that fence in the 1980's.

So we can nitpick the hyperliteral meaning of the OP's words or we can discuss the topic: whether the media treats Israel's fence differently from comparable fences (like India's) and whether the Hague itself is acting fairly in examining Israel's fence before India's.

I don't know enough about the Hague's processes to understand why one fence is being examined but not the other. I do think Israel's fence gets more media attention for several reasons. First, more people in the world care about "the Holy Land" than about Kashimir, so it sells more papers. Second, the India/Pakistan fight seems like a fight amongst equals, whereas the Israeli-Palestine dispute seems more of a Goliath-David situation (though who is Goliath and who is David may change based on your prejudices). Third, both India and Pakistan are considered Western allies, whereas Israel clearly has a closer relationship with the US than the Palestnians do.

Just my two cents.

Praktik

9th July 2009, 11:46 AM

well I would expect Israel's fence to get more hits, especially since western-media dominate the interwebs in terms of content. I wonder though whether confining our search to the eastern hemisphere would result in the reverse.

Still, Kashmir is a pretty big story.

FireGarden

9th July 2009, 12:39 PM

None of them. But, like the Israeli barrier, India's barrier built in Kashimir is built on land that is disputed. Both Pakistan and India lay claim to the land, including the fence.
-India Building Fence Along Disputed Kashmir Border (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1833998)

I can't play/download the media at the npr link, but that's probably my computer.

I don't know much about the Kashmir situation, but I found this wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_Control

There is a defacto border, but it is still disputed. Pakistan's view is that fences are not allowed in the region.

If Kashmir's status is ever resolved by Pakistan and India, it very well may be that the fence was built in what will ultimately be Pakistani territory (or even independent Kashmiri territory)

It's certainly possible that the finally agreed borders may not follow any currently drawn lines. Olmert also said that Israel's fence didn't mark Israel's final borders.

As I said before, Israel's own supreme court has asked for sections of the wall to be rerouted. Are we supposed to keep quiet? Are we supposed to talk about every injustice equally? Maybe I should complain that the protests at Bilin don't get the same coverage as the protests in Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bil'in

I don't know if India's wall has created similar injustice. How many villages have been seperated from their farmland? I don't know. How many people had to be relocated? I don't know. How many seperated from their work and/or family? I don't know.

Richard Kuper wrote an article which I've linked to before, post 49:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113904&page=2

I think that it addressed the real topic of the thread.

The original link I used no longer works, but this is what I quoted then:

Is Israel singled out? Well yes, in the sense that anyone supporting any cause singles that cause out from all the other they might pursue and prioritises it. There are literally dozens of reasons why people single out causes. You might identify with those who are suffering or see their oppressors as like ‘us’, or feel responsible historically in some way for the particular cause and wish to make amends. And while we might hope that all oppressions would be universally condemned on the simple grounds that people shouldn’t treat others the way they do, we know this doesn’t cut much ice in the real world. There are too many valid causes and we inevitably select.

But isn’t this still unfair? In the sense that any politics ought to strive for consistency it would be wrong to condemn Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian lands while allowing China’s continued occupation of Tibet to escape criticism. But saying that there are worse cases than Israel should not imply that what Israel is doing is therefore somehow acceptable. And even if you did care about both causes equally, the calls for action in each case might well be different depending on the political circumstances and perceived modes of influencing the situation in each case.

[...]

[ETA: browing the other thread, I found that ddt quoted Kuper's last paragraph]

Double standards predominate in any discussion of Israel, but rarely in the way its supporters claim. Throughout much of Europe and much of the Muslim world it looks as though Israel is indeed singled out – for favour, for support, for exemption when others are condemned. It is time to stop singling Israel out in this way, and to hold it accountable to the same values and criteria it claims to be embodying: values that are liberal, democratic, non-discriminatory and just. If that is singling out Israel, so be it.

geni

9th July 2009, 12:42 PM

Security fences are common feature of borders around the world.

Not remotely. There are rather a lot of boarders and you listed only a handful of fences not all of which acutaly exist.

ddt

9th July 2009, 01:19 PM

I really rather doubt that.

Who should that fence keep out? The evil English with their fearsome rowing teams trying to invade?

The French?

The Danish?

Are they so scared of the German submarines that they erect a fence whilst forgetting that we have a long, shared border with them?

All Google did spit out was an image (http://www.worldpanoramastock.com/details.php?gid=134&pid=3907) of a few fenced in sand dunes. This happens to protect the sand dunes but not to keep people out of the country.
:D :D :D :D :D

Of course it's due to our long-standing border dispute with Germany over the Dollart which makes weekly headlines in the NRC and the FAZ. ;)

I never heard of a fence around Hoek van Holland. The village lies at the end of the Nieuwe Waterweg, the canal that connects Rotterdam to the sea, built in the 1870s. In the 1880s, a couple of forts were built on this strategic place as part of the Dutch national defence system (the Netherlands was neutral at the time). These forts are now on the national heritage list. During WW2, the Nazis built their share of bunkers there as part of the Atlantikwall.

So, to the OP, evidence?

The photo Rasmus provides is a common sight along the Dutch coast - indeed for the reason he gives. There might be a couple of such fences to keep people away from not dismantled Atlantikwall bunkers, and unexploded ordnance, but I don't know.

PS. The first paragraph was of course sarcasm. If I hadn't seen this item on wiki's List of territorial disputes due to another thread on this forum, I wouldn't even know about it. The official stance is "we agree to disagree". And it's on the other side of the country as Hoek van Holland.

Upchurch

9th July 2009, 01:34 PM

The OP missed an obvious security fence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_wall_of_china).

Marc39

9th July 2009, 02:52 PM

I don't know if India's wall has created similar injustice. How many villages have been seperated from their farmland? I don't know. How many people had to be relocated? I don't know. How many seperated from their work and/or family? I don't know.

How many Israelis were killed by so-called Palestinian suicide bombers and car bombers who infillrated Israel prior to the fence? I do know: Over 1,000 dead.

The Fool

9th July 2009, 04:44 PM

I find it strange that Israel is the only country that is covered on a daily basis in the media of the world and will haveto defend its fence at the Hague.

BoyntonStu
I'd like to review todays coverage of the wall in the media of the world. Can you link to todays coverage?

Rasmus

9th July 2009, 05:45 PM

The OP missed an obvious security fence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_wall_of_china).

There's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrians_Wall) many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Germanicus) more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Wall).

Upchurch

9th July 2009, 07:28 PM

There's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrians_Wall) many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Germanicus) more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Wall).
Indeed. Not all security fences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall) are good.

Damien Evans

9th July 2009, 09:18 PM

Where would this be exactly? It can be quite hard to tell where the border between here and the UK is, usually the best indicator is the appearance of a large sign saying "Fireworks for sale" (illegal in the Republic of Ireland).

The UK does have some large walls preventing easy movement between parts of Belfast, perhaps these are what you are thinking of?

So you don't have border crossing points?

Jaggy Bunnet

10th July 2009, 01:21 AM

So you don't have border crossing points?

Technically yes, in that there is a point where the border is crossed, but no if you mean anything more than that.

"Unlike other borders in the EU, the Irish Border is not officially marked by either government. This can make identifying the border difficult for those unfamiliar with landmarks known to locals as the crossing point. At some crossings, there are signs welcoming visitors to the relevant local government authority district or, occasionally, reminding motorists of the need to ensure that their insurance is valid in the relevant jurisdiction. Generally, signposts in the Republic of Ireland which indicate distances to destinations are bilingual (in Irish and English) while such signposts in Northern Ireland are only in English. Another immediate indicator of the crossing is the change in road markings. The hard shoulder in the Republic is marked with a yellow, usually broken, line. The same marking in Northern Ireland is white and usually continuous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_%E2%80%93_United_Kingdom_borde r#Identifying_the_border

Rasmus

10th July 2009, 01:43 AM

:D :D :D :D :D

Of course it's due to our long-standing border dispute with Germany over the Dollart which makes weekly headlines in the NRC and the FAZ. ;)

Wow, I never knew.

Guybrush Threepwood

10th July 2009, 01:51 AM

Most of those are gone now, I believe - certainly the huge ones between the Falls and the Shankill.

I thought they might have gone, it's a while since I was in Belfast, but since the UK/ republic border is pretty much the least bordery border I have ever seen, I was trying to think of something the OP had read about that made him/her think there was a fence or wall of some kind.

quarky

10th July 2009, 02:29 AM

I have a fence around my garden, to keep out deer.

(Deer are communists.)

HansMustermann

10th July 2009, 02:39 AM

So you don't have border crossing points?

Well, I don't know about UK and Ireland, but I can definitely testify first hand that between Germany and Holland (since Holland was on that list) "border crossing points" just means wherever the highway crosses the border. It's not like you even see a cop there or anything.

Alex Libman

10th July 2009, 02:48 AM

And if the rest of the world jumped off a bridge, would you do it?

Oliver

10th July 2009, 03:02 AM

I guess that the Israel/Gaza borders are more evident given the nature of the conflict in contrast to the rather trivial [in light of geo-politics] borders the OP mentioned.

Even boyntonstu (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=32569) should be able to understand the geo-political aspect of the question he raised after doing some basic homework.

scratchy

10th July 2009, 03:07 AM

If the Israeli-Palestinian fence really was a border fence i dont think it would be that much of a problem. But since it is a fence that cuts off palestinian villages from each other and from their agricultural land, it is a problem. I understand that it is done to protect Israeli settlements on occupied land, but they shouldnt be there to begin with.

chillzero

10th July 2009, 03:08 AM

I thought they might have gone, it's a while since I was in Belfast, but since the UK/ republic border is pretty much the least bordery border I have ever seen, I was trying to think of something the OP had read about that made him/her think there was a fence or wall of some kind.

Yep. And while there used to be checkpoints along the border, I don't remember any fences - apart from round the army bases themselves, of course. I don't think the checkpoints are quite so stringently manned as before either, but it's been a while since I drove through. I remember playing 'spot the spotter' as a kid; identifying rifle sights peeping over rocks and hedges, while we waited for the army to finish searching my dad every time we crossed the border on holiday.

ddt

10th July 2009, 05:34 AM

The inclusion of the "Hook of Holland fence" left me wondering where the OP got this from. Googling on the Dutch spelling of the village's name led me to the site takeapen.org, an obvious pro-Israeli site (no wonder - and the registrant is based in Haifa), and specifically this page (http://www.takeapen.org/Takeapen/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=84&FID=653). The list is nearly the same, and only one in the OP is out of the order as in this page.

So, boyntonstu, am I right that you got your list from there? And why were you so dishonest to not disclose your source? And pray tell us, were you perhaps instructed by Giyus' "Megaphone" (http://giyus.org/) to further disseminate this "viewpoint"?

Getting to this "Hook of Holland fence" thing: the text next to the photo says:
This is a good fence, as friendly Dutch people know how to build. It is only meant to keep illegal immigrants from leaving the harbor area of Hoek van Holland. But the purpose is like any other fence: keep the wrong people out of your country.

Now puulleease. We normally don't use fences to protect our borders, just customs. And on the land borders with Germany and Belgium, the customs is only still there for cargo (due to Schengen). And the Hoek van Holland port is just a small place; check it out on Google Maps (http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=nl&geocode=&q=Hoek+van+Holland+langeweg&sll=51.981841,4.126267&sspn=0.01356,0.027852&ie=UTF8&ll=51.980255,4.125452&spn=0.01356,0.027852&z=15).

What do we see on the picture? From left to right: the (electrified) railroad; in the background a sign listing the various maximum speeds on Dutch roads; the road; a sign saying "Netherlands", and finally, the fence that Mr. TakeAPen takes issue with. The two signs indicate that this is a road where you just entered the Netherlands, so it must be the main road leading off the ferry from Harwich, UK. When you follow that road on the map, you see it crossing the railroad, and then, named "Langeweg", turning left in a WNW direction parallel to the railroad. So there this photo was taken.

But then the fence fences off the area north of the road. That's a piece of woodland with some small streets and houses in it (courtesy Google Earth), with the trees running directly up to the Langeweg. And the Langeweg now lies not directly next to the railroad; in fact, there's a small road in between. That used to be the Langeweg; and the current trajectory of the Langeweg has been built a couple of years ago. So, the fence just fences off the then existing construction site of the current trajectory of the Langeweg - in any case, not the harbor area as that would be to the left in the photo.

So, the claim is false. Next, where did he get this photo from? A site called "Grenzeloos", or in English "Borderless". That could be the name of some action committee, couldn't it? The site is not anymore in operation, it seems, but the Wayback machine has a copy of its page (http://web.archive.org/web/20050207002928/http://grenzeloos.nl/Hoek.htm) on Hoek van Holland, dating back to 2005. It's a site with tourist information on all Dutch border areas. The main attraction in Hoek for the site's owner is a forest, chuck full of former Atlantikwall-bunkers, which has been turned into a reservation for bats. Yes, bats. The caption under the photo reads: "When returning home: the border at the coast".

Mr. TakeAPen also asks us to write to the Dutch PM about this fence. I'll certainly write, but then to point out that the site is defaming. After all, TakeAPen could have done some research too. And apparently, Mr. TakeAPen doesn't care about copyright either, because he hosts a copy of the photo. So I'll write the owner of "Grenzeloos" too about this copyright infringement. :)

Other takers who can identify the pictures there?

Guybrush Threepwood

10th July 2009, 06:01 AM

Other takers who can identify the pictures there?

Nice work, following your links it would appear that my original pulled out of my **** idea that the OP was thinking of walls in Belfast was correct, the picture is of a fence constructed entirely in the UK, to make it more difficult for representatives of different groups of UK citizens to fight each other. I don't believe that these fences ever enclosed any areas, they just meant people had to go the long way round for a fight and would run out of steam before they got there.

10th July 2009, 06:23 AM

I have a fence around my garden, to keep out deer.

(Deer are communists.)

you are an Isolationist, sir.

10th July 2009, 06:27 AM

So, Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria is legal and not an occupation, as has been alleged.

Suggestions have been made in this thread that Jews living in Judea and Samaria and Israelis' inherent right to self-defense in the form of the fence constitute violations of the law. Both are incorrect.

Building the fence on other peoples land is kinda problem, you know?

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 06:30 AM

Does "common" equal right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_as_Italian_Colony

Oliver

10th July 2009, 06:31 AM

Building the fence on other peoples land is kinda problem, you know?

Obviously not if you have an agenda and if you're the very reason for nearby people to be upset about you [and your fences].

Damien Evans

10th July 2009, 06:49 AM

chillzero

10th July 2009, 06:54 AM

So you don't have to get your passport stamped or anything?

(Before thinking my questions stupid, remember my country is an island)

No stamp for going between UK and the Republic of Ireland - at least not by driving over the border. I don't think it would be required on UK-Eire flights either, but can't be 100% certain.

Rasmus

10th July 2009, 07:03 AM

So you don't have to get your passport stamped or anything?

No. You will often have checkpoints between countries on bigger roads, and sometimes those will even be staffed and then you might occasionally be asked to produce an ID.

It's a lot more like that whoever is responsible will just lazily wave you through, or maybe nobody is going to be there at all.

Other than that, borders are not secured or anything of the sort in most places within the EU, let alone with fancy impenetrable fences or walls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VbXc9fIhq0

maddog

10th July 2009, 07:04 AM

Generally, signposts in the Republic of Ireland which indicate distances to destinations are bilingual (in Irish and English) while such signposts in Northern Ireland are only in English.

There's an Irish language? Who knew?! Am I just a stupid American USAian for not knowing this?

ddt

10th July 2009, 07:13 AM

Well, I don't know about UK and Ireland, but I can definitely testify first hand that between Germany and Holland (since Holland was on that list) "border crossing points" just means wherever the highway crosses the border. It's not like you even see a cop there or anything.

So you don't have to get your passport stamped or anything?

No - we now have the Schengen Agreement, which has abolished border checks between many (continental) European countries.

You'll recognize the border between, say, NL and Germany, on the motorway by the following signs:
(1) a largely abandoned customs building
(2) a sign with the EU-symbol and the name of the country you enter
(3) a sign listing the various maximum speeds.
And that's it.

But long before that, there was no real border checks. As a student, I used to fill up my car in Germany because the petrol was much cheaper there. The customs officers would just stand there and hardly check up on anyone. I can remember only one time they checked on me.

At that time, I also ordered CD's from a German mail order company, because they were much cheaper than the stores. They didn't deliver their orders outside Germany, so I gave them the postal address of my professor, who lived in Germany just over the border. I combined my order with orders from friends, so once I ended up with an order of 3500 DM (approx. 1750 Euro). However, the maximum allowed import was 800 DM. So I chartered four friends - not necessarily people who had ordered stuff too - to ride along with me in the car to pick up the order from my professor's house. On the way back, the customs did indeed check us. Fortunately, they didn't ask which CD was for whom. :D

ddt

10th July 2009, 07:45 AM

No. You will often have checkpoints between countries on bigger roads, and sometimes those will even be staffed and then you might occasionally be asked to produce an ID.
Schengen largely did away with that. It also allows police to continue pursuit across the border if needed. From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area):
Under Article 41 of the Schengen II Convention, police from one Schengen state may cross national borders to chase their target, if it is not possible to notify the police of the second state before entry into that territory, or if the authorities of the second state are unable to reach the scene in time to take over the pursuit. The Schengen states may declare if they restrict the right to hot pursuit into their territory in time or in distance, and if they allow the neighbouring states to arrest persons on their territory.
Here's a great clip from a Dutch TV show about traffic violators, from 1996. The TV maker sits in a Dutch police car which chases a German car over the motorway (first in NL, then in Germany), up into a German village. Note the speed that's marked in the bottom right corner, in km/h.
559f_dCbbs8

Eskarina

10th July 2009, 08:27 AM

So you don't have to get your passport stamped or anything?

(Before thinking my questions stupid, remember my country is an island)

I often use the Eurostar (the train from Brussels or Paris to London) to visit my SO in England. No checks on the train between Germany and Belgium. But when you board the Eurostar in Brussels, your luggage is x-rayed and there are French and British checkpoints and your passport is stamped, if you're not an EU citizen. I don't even need a passport, my ID card is good enough for them. :)

My funniest moment was when the Brits were checking the passports - again! - when the train was going through the tunnel. :rolleyes:

10th July 2009, 08:35 AM

Except, the fence is not built on "other peoples land", making it a moot point.

jaja, i know its the so called promised land from the so called God that gave it to the so called Israelis, Edited for Rule 12
Samaria and Judea my ass, its 2009. Edited for civility Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Eskarina

10th July 2009, 08:41 AM

There's an Irish language? Who knew?! Am I just a stupid American USAian for not knowing this?

Poblachd na h-Èireann (http://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poblachd_na_h-%C3%88ireann)

Wait 'til you get to Cymru (http://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymru) or Alba (http://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba). :duck:

bigjelmapro

10th July 2009, 09:11 AM

What a farce all these threads become. Even the leftists on this forum made a post (intentionally or that they simply didn't read what they posted), that the British were the ones who sold land exclusively to Arabs following the end of the Ottoman empire. Prior to this less than 10% of land was privately owned. Now we're led to believe that Arabs owned the majority and exclusively, all of the land deemed as 'Palestine'? That any discussion regarding immigration of Arabs in the last 120 years is automatically stonewalled with 'From time immemorial'?

Give it a rest already....

As for worldwide security/separation barriers:

Security barriers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_barrier)

Separation barriers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Separation_barriers)

So nothing unique.

bigjelmapro

10th July 2009, 09:15 AM

It's the promised land for Jews because the Allied Powers of World War I, the League of Nations, numerous US presidents, the UN and the US Congress say so.
Who cares about promised this, promised that. Land purchases occurred, wars of attrition occurred, and de facto borders have been drawn for the most part except in regards to the WB/Judea-Samaria. How this differs from the rest of the world is beyond me. Other than rampant genocide that occurred in other regions in their efforts to form their countries....

maddog

10th July 2009, 01:10 PM

Poblachd na h-Èireann (http://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poblachd_na_h-%C3%88ireann)

Wait 'til you get to Cymru (http://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymru) or Alba (http://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba). :duck:

Thank you. My head is now about to explode.:jaw-dropp

gtc

12th July 2009, 12:44 AM

And pray tell us, were you perhaps instructed by Giyus' "Megaphone" (http://giyus.org/) to further disseminate this "viewpoint"?

No. He was instructed by the Elders of Zion.

:rolleyes:

portlandatheist

12th July 2009, 01:41 AM

Haven't terrorist attacks dropped considerably due to the fence? The fence has severe consequences for the Palestinians as I also understand.

The Fool

12th July 2009, 01:58 AM

Haven't terrorist attacks dropped considerably due to the fence? The fence has severe consequences for the Palestinians as I also understand.

Attacks have dropped considerably......They have gone up and down in the past too, before any walls. Also the wall is ......around 60% complete?.... Maybe the Terrorist attackers have not thought of walking through the 40% not yet built. Or maybe there are other factors involved in the varying rates of attacks?

anyway, its costing Israel a lot of money so they have to talk it up I suppose.

SezMe

12th July 2009, 02:41 AM

Here is a short list of countries which have special fences to keep people out

The USA with Mexico
Ha. Ha. Sure it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico_barrier) does:

The 1,951 mile (3,141 km) border between the United States and Mexico traverses a variety of terrains, including urban areas and deserts. The barrier is located on both urban and uninhabited sections of the border, areas where the most concentrated numbers of illegal crossings and drug trafficking have been observed in the past. These urban areas include San Diego, California and El Paso, Texas. As of August 29, 2008, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had built 190 miles (310 km) of pedestrian border fence and 154.3 miles (248.3 km) of vehicle border fence, for a total of 344.3 miles (554.1 km) of fence. The completed fence is mainly in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, with construction under way in Texas.
Less than 20% of the border is fenced.

bigjelmapro

12th July 2009, 03:57 AM

Attacks have dropped considerably......They have gone up and down in the past too, before any walls. Also the wall is ......around 60% complete?.... Maybe the Terrorist attackers have not thought of walking through the 40% not yet built. Or maybe there are other factors involved in the varying rates of attacks?

To the non-informed, this might seem a logical conclusion, but it simply isn't the case.

The parts where the barrier isn't completed are lower risk areas of intrusion. These incomplete areas either have temporary fencing installed with increased security details to monitor them or simply have increased security, depending on the area. The rest is caught up in court cases as to the re-adjustment of the route the security barrier is taking. Court cases take long to hammer out and once this is done, the barrier will be completed.

The major factor is the effectiveness of the security barrier themselves and not that there has been a lack or a lull in attempted intrusions. Failed intrusion attempts go unnoticed in international media, hence you don't hear about it.

anyway, its costing Israel a lot of money so they have to talk it up I suppose.
The security barrier has overwhelming support within Israel. Polls conducted support this notion. The amount invested into these security measures is also accepted by the majority of Israelis. The top complaint in Israel is why the security barrier hasn't been completed.

Marc39

12th July 2009, 05:13 AM

Attacks have dropped considerably......They have gone up and down in the past too, before any walls.

Incorrect. The wave of suicide bombings that were part of the Al-Aqsa uprising, starting in 2000 and ending in '04-'-05, that resulted in the fence, has nearly completely ended.

Maybe the Terrorist attackers have not thought of walking through the 40% not yet built. Or maybe there are other factors involved in the varying rates of attacks?

Abbas has stated that the suicide bombings have been a failure and has discouraged them, not for ethical reasons, but, because they failed to produce any political advantage. The fence factors into Abbas's point of view. However, at the same time, Abbas does not call the shots and has no influence over so-called Palestinians desirous of killing Jews and achieving martyrdom. The fence is preventing entry into Israel of so-called Palestinian terrorists.

anyway, its costing Israel a lot of money so they have to talk it up I suppose.

Anyway, you cannot put a price on even one life, let alone 1,000 Israeli lives lost in the intifada.

Marc39

12th July 2009, 05:21 AM

Haven't terrorist attacks dropped considerably due to the fence? The fence has severe consequences for the Palestinians as I also understand.

Good fences make good neighbors. Robert Frost.

The Fool

12th July 2009, 06:02 AM

The major factor is the effectiveness of the security barrier themselves and not that there has been a lack or a lull in attempted intrusions. Failed intrusion attempts go unnoticed in international media, hence you don't hear about it.

does Israel claim any numbers of attempts thwarted by the wall?
or maybe they don't hear about them either...like when the terrorist bombers get to the border say "oh crap, a wall" and go home?

Thunder

12th July 2009, 06:23 AM

All Jews.

so if a Palestinian converts to Judaism, he now has a right to all of Palestine?

The Fool

12th July 2009, 06:24 AM

All Jews.

so my neighbor, who is Jewish, can go and take some land, anywhere in Palestine, and live there...but I (non-jew) would need some form of legal title to the land?

Marc39

12th July 2009, 06:26 AM

so my neighbor, who is Jewish, can go and take some land, anywhere in Palestine, and live there

Provided the land is not already.owned.

...but I (non-jew) would need some form of legal title to the land?

Correct.

Tricky

12th July 2009, 06:26 AM

A number of off-topic posts moved to AAH. Please try to constrain your posts to the topic being discussed. There are plenty of threads about the Israeli-Palestine conflict where you can hold such discussions.

The Fool

12th July 2009, 06:34 AM

ddt

12th July 2009, 07:33 AM

Marc39

12th July 2009, 07:39 AM

The ICJ's verdict about the Israeli fence was an advisory opinion on request of the UN General Assembly.

And, as such, has no legal consequences.

ddt

12th July 2009, 07:40 AM

And pray tell us, were you perhaps instructed by Giyus' "Megaphone" (http://giyus.org/) to further disseminate this "viewpoint"?

No. He was instructed by the Elders of Zion.

:rolleyes:

:p He certainly is not in a hurry to answer this question.

So, I'll ask again: boyntonstu, where did you get this list? Was it from the takeapen.org site?

And now that you've seen the various reactions, have you revised your opinion?

ddt

12th July 2009, 07:45 AM

And, as such, has no legal consequences.

Oh you're so quick to try to point that out. But you fail. The verdict may be non-binding, it doesn't mean it has no consequences. From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICJ):
Whilst certain instruments or regulations can provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states, they are inherently non-binding under the Statute of the Court. This non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative views on important issues of international law and, in arriving at them, the Court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states. An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

(bolding mine)

Marc39

12th July 2009, 07:58 AM

Oh you're so quick to try to point that out. But you fail. The verdict may be non-binding, it doesn't mean it has no consequences. From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICJ):

(bolding mine)

The ICJ cannot compel the Israeli government to take down the fence. Therefore, their rulings have no legal consequences, as is evident.

bigjelmapro

12th July 2009, 09:01 AM

does Israel claim any numbers of attempts thwarted by the wall?
or maybe they don't hear about them either...like when the terrorist bombers get to the border say "oh crap, a wall" and go home?
Actually, most attempted infiltrations occur at the fencing bit since fencing comprises over 95% of the security barrier. Its somewhat easier to cut through or dig under fencing than it is to climb a 10+ foot concrete barrier. The common practice both in Gaza and the West bank along the security barrier is simply to plant explosives. But then again, this doesn't get quite the intended media attention...

Not really all that difficult to find stories of thwarted Palestinian terrorist infiltrations into Israel. So doesn't really fall into the often excused category of 'Israel claim...'

bigjelmapro

12th July 2009, 09:06 AM

Oh you're so quick to try to point that out. But you fail. The verdict may be non-binding, it doesn't mean it has no consequences. From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICJ):

(bolding mine)
'...does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect' does not equate into legal consequences actually taking effect. The worst that could occur would be trade embargoes, but a security barrier would not result in such a brash action on part of the ICJ. Funding for the ICJ could actually be used for more dire conflict zones other than the WB.

ddt

12th July 2009, 09:58 AM

'...does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect' does not equate into legal consequences actually taking effect. The worst that could occur would be trade embargoes, but a security barrier would not result in such a brash action on part of the ICJ.
Let's take one step back: the legal consequences are that virtually all countries in the world regard the ICJ's verdict as the autoritive (sp?) legal opinion - which it is, absent a legally binding opinion. As a consequence, they could implement that in the form of trade embargoes - or, as in the EU's case, not signing various agreements.

I don't see what "brash actions" the ICJ could take, even if it were a binding verdict. Look at the Nicaragua vs. USA case: Nicaragua won, but the USA didn't comply with the verdict. And the USA has, until now, not even cut back on support for Israel, although it holds, e.g., that the settlements on the West Bank are illegal.

Funding for the ICJ could actually be used for more dire conflict zones other than the WB.

Come on - this is the "look there, there's another thief!" defense. Would you have said the same if one of Israel's neighbours had complained before the ICJ? I don't know, however, if the ICJ had heard the case if, say, Jordan had complained about the WB barrier, as Jordan doesn't claim the territory. Can someone enlighten me here?

marksman

12th July 2009, 10:50 AM

The ICJ's verdict about the Israeli fence was an advisory opinion on request of the UN General Assembly.

Has the UN General Assembly considered asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion on India's Kashimiri fence?

FireGarden

12th July 2009, 10:51 AM

ddt

12th July 2009, 11:11 AM

Has the UN General Assembly considered asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion on India's Kashimiri fence?
Not that I'm aware of, but I haven't studied that. They haven't asked the ICJ for its opinion, otherwise it certainly would have been mentioned at the wiki-pages I consulted (the list of ICJ opinions/verdicts, or the articles on the Kashmir fence).

But, as I pointed out above, the situation is different in two respects. First of all, the Indian fence is on the Indian side of the ceasefire line. Secondly, Pakistan claims sovereignty over Kashmir territory, so they certainly would have standing if they'd file a case with the ICJ and, moreover, then get a legally binding verdict. No country claims sovereignty over the West Bank (not even Israel claims that), so that's why I asked if another country would have standing when filing a case:

I don't know, however, if the ICJ had heard the case if, say, Jordan had complained about the WB barrier, as Jordan doesn't claim the territory. Can someone enlighten me here?

Marc39

12th July 2009, 11:28 AM

Let's take one step back...

In terms of logical thought process, it's many steps back.

...the legal consequences are that virtually all countries in the world regard the ICJ's verdict as the autoritive (sp?) legal opinion

The word is authoritative. And, wrong, this may, or may not, be a political consequence, not a legal consequence. Understand the distinction.

...which it is, absent a legally binding opinion.

Incorrect. Which it is not, for the reason I just stated.

As a consequence, they could implement that in the form of trade embargoes - or, as in the EU's case, not signing various agreements.

This would constitute an economic consequence, not a legal consequence.

I don't see what "brash actions" the ICJ could take, even if it were a binding verdict.

Since ICJ "verdicts" are unenforceable, there are no "brash actions" (whatever this means) to be meted out/

Look at the Nicaragua vs. USA case: Nicaragua won, but the USA didn't comply with the verdict. And the USA has, until now, not even cut back on support for Israel, although it holds, e.g., that the settlements on the West Bank are illegal.

The US State Department has, generally, had a pro-Arab slant rendering it a body that is not neutral in the matter.

Come on - this is the "look there, there's another thief!" defense. Would you have said the same if one of Israel's neighbours had complained before the ICJ?

Israel's neighbors have enough problems of their own to worry about with the ICJ, such as a complete absence of human rights and civil liberties.

I don't know

This has been well-established.

however, if the ICJ had heard the case if, say, Jordan had complained about the WB barrier, as Jordan doesn't claim the territory. Can someone enlighten me here?

Jordan relinquished responsibility for Judea and Samaria and has no involvement in the matter.

Marc39

12th July 2009, 11:33 AM

But, as I pointed out above, the situation is different in two respects. First of all, the Indian fence is on the Indian side of the ceasefire line. Secondly, Pakistan claims sovereignty over Kashmir territory, so they certainly would have standing if they'd file a case with the ICJ and, moreover, then get a legally binding verdict.

ICJ judgments are not legally binding.

No country claims sovereignty over the West Bank (not even Israel claims that), so that's why I asked if another country would have standing when filing a case:

Incorrect. The San Remo Resolution transferred sovereignty over Judea and Samaria from the Ottoman Turks to the Jewish people inhabiting the territory. From Israel's politically expedient viewpoint, Israel has a legitimate claim to the territory.

marksman

12th July 2009, 11:40 AM

First of all, the Indian fence is on the Indian side of the ceasefire line.
Technically, the Israeli fence in on the Israeli side of the cease-fire line from the conflict in which Israel occupied the West Bank. That cease-fire line happens to the the Jordan River because it was a conflict with, among others, Jordan.

Secondly, Pakistan claims sovereignty over Kashmir territory, so they certainly would have standing if they'd file a case with the ICJ and, moreover, then get a legally binding verdict. No country claims sovereignty over the West Bank (not even Israel claims that), so that's why I asked if another country would have standing when filing a case:
Well, Jordan has de facto ceded the sovereignty they had possessed prior to 1967. So, yes, in that sense there is no country claiming sovereignty.

However, the fact that the UN isn't acting because Pakistan could, but isn't, going to the ICJ is also troubling to me. Who is looking after Kashmiri welfare? India and Pakistan are fighting over the territory. What what do the Kashmiri want? They don't get a referendum or self-determination. Why are we -- or more accurately, the UN -- assuming the Pakistanis are going to defend the Kashmiris just because they want to replace India as the governors of Kashmir?

I think the question of double-standards a germane one. The UN went to the ICJ to elucidate the rights of the Palestinians because they are, essentially, without effective representation in the UN. But aren't the Kasmiri without effective representation too? Aren't any people living in disputed territory without effective representation in the UN?

Marc39

12th July 2009, 11:53 AM

I think the question of double-standards a germane one. The UN went to the ICJ to elucidate the rights of the Palestinians because they are, essentially, without effective representation in the UN. But aren't the Kasmiri without effective representation too? Aren't any people living in disputed territory without effective representation in the UN?

The PLO is a non-voting member of the UN, which probably confers effective representation.

ddt

12th July 2009, 12:27 PM

The word is authoritative. And, wrong, this may, or may not, be a political consequence, not a legal consequence. Understand the distinction.
That's why governments consult their legal departments for their opinion on the matter? :rolleyes:

Incorrect. Which it is not, for the reason I just stated.
It is authoritative. See the wiki-text I quoted.

This would constitute an economic consequence, not a legal consequence.
As FireGarden has shown, there are legal consequences - the Veolia case. It didn't go to court, but Veolia was threatened with it.

The US State Department has, generally, had a pro-Arab slant rendering it a body that is not neutral in the matter.
Yeah right.

Jordan relinquished responsibility for Judea and Samaria and has no involvement in the matter.
I never said so. Jordan was just an example.

ICJ judgments are not legally binding.
:dl:

Incorrect. The San Remo Resolution transferred sovereignty over Judea and Samaria from the Ottoman Turks to the Jewish people inhabiting the territory. From Israel's politically expedient viewpoint, Israel has a legitimate claim to the territory.
Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I said Israel - i.e., the Israeli government - never claimed sovereignty over the WB. If you think I was wrong, provide evidence to the contrary.

Marc39

12th July 2009, 12:53 PM

It is authoritative. See the wiki-text I quoted.

Wiki texts are not authoritative. Nor, are ICJ "verdicts"

As FireGarden has shown, there are legal consequences - the Veolia case. It didn't go to court, but Veolia was threatened with it.

Yawn.

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I said Israel - i.e., the Israeli government - never claimed sovereignty over the WB. If you think I was wrong, provide evidence to the contrary.

Not a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of international law that the San Remo Resolution transferred sovereignty over the territory from the Ottoman Turks to the Jewish inhabitants of Israel. Last time I checked, the Ottoman Sultan didn't ask for the land back.

ddt

12th July 2009, 12:56 PM

Technically, the Israeli fence in on the Israeli side of the cease-fire line from the conflict in which Israel occupied the West Bank. That cease-fire line happens to the the Jordan River because it was a conflict with, among others, Jordan.
But UNSCR 242 expresses the inadmissibility of conquest through war. So for the border between Israel and the Palestinian-state-to-be (the two states envisioned in UNGAR 181), the Green Line is still the starting point.

Well, Jordan has de facto ceded the sovereignty they had possessed prior to 1967. So, yes, in that sense there is no country claiming sovereignty.
Not only de facto, but also de iure, in 1988 (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/01/world/hussein-surrenders-claims-west-bank-plo-us-peace-plan-jeopardy-internal-tensions.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all):
King Hussein of Jordan tonight abandoned to the Palestine Liberation Organization any claim to the Israeli-occupied West Bank his Hashemite family ruled between 1948 and 1967.

''We respect the wish of the P.L.O., the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us in an independent Palestinian state,'' the King said in a dramatic television address after several moves to distance himself from the West Bank. ''We say this in all understanding.''

However, the fact that the UN isn't acting because Pakistan could, but isn't, going to the ICJ is also troubling to me. Who is looking after Kashmiri welfare? India and Pakistan are fighting over the territory. What what do the Kashmiri want? They don't get a referendum or self-determination. Why are we -- or more accurately, the UN -- assuming the Pakistanis are going to defend the Kashmiris just because they want to replace India as the governors of Kashmir?

I think the question of double-standards a germane one. The UN went to the ICJ to elucidate the rights of the Palestinians because they are, essentially, without effective representation in the UN. But aren't the Kasmiri without effective representation too? Aren't any people living in disputed territory without effective representation in the UN?
Your question is a very legitimate one. It effectively comes down to the fact that the powers of the UN are limited. ICJ rulings - whether binding or not - are also only effective when the parties themselves want to comply with it or not, or if another powerful state wants to cower them into complying.

And frankly, I don't know what the Kashmiri people themselves want. Their sultan chose for India in the 1940s, but that's hardly the will of the people - who are in majority muslim. Does there exist a Kashmiri liberation movement? I don't know. After all, that's how the Palestinians got at least one foot in the door with the UN. Or to take another example - the Western Sahara - Polisario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic) also is recognized by a fair number of states.

And now, there's a fence that the OP forgot that could also be a fair comparison. :rolleyes: From the 8 "fences" mentioned in the OP, we're only really discussing 1, and 3 have only been mentioned for ridicule.

leafman91

12th July 2009, 01:00 PM

See, then someone comes along and actually bothers with a proper brick wall around his country. It wouldn't exactly be The Great Wall Of China, but already he'd have the upper hand.

ddt

12th July 2009, 01:02 PM

Wiki texts are not authoritative. Nor, are ICJ "verdicts"
Then here is the text from the ICJ's website (http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3) itself:
The States parties to the Statute of the Court may "at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court" (Art 36, para. 2 of the Statute).

Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the Court by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court, and, conversely, it has undertaken to appear before the Court should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more such other States.

The Declarations Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court take the form of a unilateral act of the State concerned and are deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

That settles it.

Not a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of international law that the San Remo Resolution transferred sovereignty over the territory from the Ottoman Turks to the Jewish inhabitants of Israel. Last time I checked, the Ottoman Sultan didn't ask for the land back.
Must we really go in circles? I'll recap.

I said: "Israel doesn't claim sovereignty over the West Bank".

You replied "Incorrect".

Now show the evidence where Israel actually claimed sovereignty. It's wholly irrelevant whether Israel could claim sovereignty.

Marc39

12th July 2009, 01:06 PM

But UNSCR 242 expresses the inadmissibility of conquest through war.

UN Res. 242 is non-binding. Israel seized the West Bank defensively, not offensively, in the '67 War. There is a significant distinction. No rule exists in international law that forces Israel to surrender the West Bank.

So for the border between Israel and the Palestinian-state-to-be (the two states envisioned in UNGAR 181), the Green Line is still the starting point.

A "Palestinian state-to-be" is purely speculative. Most people with insight into the matter recognize there are two chances of so-called Palestinian state: Slim and none.

ICJ rulings - whether binding or not - are also only effective when the parties themselves want to comply with it or not, or if another powerful state wants to cower them into complying.

No "powerful state" is empowered to "cower" a sovereign state.

marksman

12th July 2009, 01:56 PM

It effectively comes down to the fact that the powers of the UN are limited. ICJ rulings - whether binding or not - are also only effective when the parties themselves want to comply with it or not, or if another powerful state wants to cower them into complying.
See, this really brings into question the entire "legitimacy" of the ICJ to me. If the ICJ is only going to rule when the UN thinks pressure will be brought to bear on the loser, the result is going to be inconsistency in the law. India and Morocco's walls get a pass because nobody is willing to challenge India or Morocco. But Israel's wall gets challenged because there are plenty of nations willing to pressure Israel. I can see why nations aren't going to abide by the ICJ. If that's the course the ICJ takes, it should become a system for voluntary mediation and arbitration, and not cloak itself with the mantle of the law. The law deserves better.

And frankly, I don't know what the Kashmiri people themselves want.
Nobody does.

Does there exist a Kashmiri liberation movement? I don't know.
Yes. The Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. However, sadly, because it eschews violence and has taken a tactic of peaceful protest, nobody cares about it.

There are a bunch of violent mujaheddin in the area, too. Whether they are seeking independence or annexation by Pakistan or Afghanistan is anybody's guess. I doubt even they know.

Or to take another example - the Western Sahara - Polisario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic) also is recognized by a fair number of states.
Good one. They are also subject to a wall built by Morocco on their land. No ICJ action there either.

From the 8 "fences" mentioned in the OP, we're only really discussing 1, and 3 have only been mentioned for ridicule.
Yes, well, the OP was fairly ridiculous. However, it had the germs of a good discussion. Thanks for being so civil!

Marc39

12th July 2009, 03:22 PM

See, this really brings into question the entire "legitimacy" of the ICJ to me. If the ICJ is only going to rule when the UN thinks pressure will be brought to bear on the loser, the result is going to be inconsistency in the law. India and Morocco's walls get a pass because nobody is willing to challenge India or Morocco. But Israel's wall gets challenged because there are plenty of nations willing to pressure Israel. I can see why nations aren't going to abide by the ICJ. If that's the course the ICJ takes, it should become a system for voluntary mediation and arbitration, and not cloak itself with the mantle of the law. The law deserves better.

The ICJ has judges from such oppressive countries as Russia, China, Jordan and Venezuela, rendering ICJ opinions deeply compromised, particularly those pertaining to Israel, a democracy. Its affiliation with the UN, which issued a resolution equating Zionism with racism, further taints the ICJ and places it in no moral position to pass judgment on Israel .

bigjelmapro

12th July 2009, 11:14 PM

Let's take one step back: the legal consequences are that virtually all countries in the world regard the ICJ's verdict as the autoritive (sp?) legal opinion - which it is, absent a legally binding opinion. As a consequence, they could implement that in the form of trade embargoes - or, as in the EU's case, not signing various agreements.

Where is this 'virtually all countries...' listing or poll? I would interpret ICJ rulings as a guideline for future diplomatic efforts, IF it frames the situation correctly, which in terms of the security barrier in Israel, as utterly failed to do so not taking into account many of the obvious reasoning behind its construction and its effectiveness in the first place.

The EU will not (and has not) implement any limitations of trade agreements with Israel because any such action (rather than some harsh criticism) would indicate that the EU does not take Israel's security into consideration. If there was a desire for the EU to take action in line with the ICJ ruling, then there would have been a campaign to do so.

And no, EU NGO's and boycott campaigns don't quite cut it.

I don't see what "brash actions" the ICJ could take, even if it were a binding verdict. Look at the Nicaragua vs. USA case: Nicaragua won, but the USA didn't comply with the verdict. And the USA has, until now, not even cut back on support for Israel, although it holds, e.g., that the settlements on the West Bank are illegal.

Incorrect. The US, upon realization that a portion (and no, not in excess, majority, or any large percentage) of US loans and grants earmarked for economic development were diverted to economic development in the disputed territories (some of which are occupied), made adjustments to account for these diversions. For the last several years, economic grants have been all but phased out, where for more than 2 years has been zero.

There are settlements in the WB that are deemed illegal (predominantly the smaller illegal outposts), but then again, there are settlements that are not.

Come on - this is the "look there, there's another thief!" defense. Would you have said the same if one of Israel's neighbours had complained before the ICJ? I don't know, however, if the ICJ had heard the case if, say, Jordan had complained about the WB barrier, as Jordan doesn't claim the territory. Can someone enlighten me here?
Not quite that defense, but nice stonewalling attempt.

The ICJ's ruling didn't weigh the situation accordingly and there's no reason that it will actual start to do so. The situation is not as dire as presented either. Don't quite care about the rest of the hypothetical questions here....

FireGarden

13th July 2009, 02:40 AM

Must we really go in circles? I'll recap.

I said: "Israel doesn't claim sovereignty over the West Bank".

You replied "Incorrect".

Now show the evidence where Israel actually claimed sovereignty. It's wholly irrelevant whether Israel could claim sovereignty.

The thing is: you're talking about the West Bank (the land and the people) while Marc39 is saying that Israel has a legal right to the land -- I suspect that he would be loathe for Israel to have sovereignty over the Palestinians.

Marc39

13th July 2009, 04:36 AM

The thing is: you're talking about the West Bank (the land and the people)

The "West Bank" was known as Judea and Samaria for thousands of years prior to King Hussein tarnishing its biblical significance by changing its name in 1950, two years after illegally seizing the territory.

while Marc39 is saying that Israel has a legal right to the land -- I suspect that he would be loathe for Israel to have sovereignty over the Palestinians.

Circling back to the original post, Israel, specifically Israeli Jews, have a legal right to the land and a right to build a fence on the land. Jordan and Lebanon have "sovereignty" over their so-called Palestinian
populations---The Hashemites, in effect, occupy Jordan---so, Israel exercising sovereignty over the so-called Palestinians would not be unusual. The so-called Palestinians certainly have not demonstrated any ability to exercise sovereignty over themselves.

ponderingturtle

13th July 2009, 04:53 AM

Not remotely. There are rather a lot of boarders and you listed only a handful of fences not all of which acutaly exist.

But the US still needs a properly mined fence allong its northern border to keep the frostbacks out.

FireGarden

14th July 2009, 02:16 AM

Jordan and Lebanon have "sovereignty" over their so-called Palestinian
populations---The Hashemites, in effect, occupy Jordan---so, Israel exercising sovereignty over the so-called Palestinians would not be unusual.

Could you clarify?

Do you support Israel having official sovereignty over the "so-called" Palestinians? Or do you think it already does? If the later, then why isn't hafrada like apartheid?

14th July 2009, 02:21 AM

The "West Bank" was known as Judea and Samaria for thousands of years prior to King Hussein tarnishing its biblical significance by changing its name in 1950, two years after illegally seizing the territory.

Circling back to the original post, Israel, specifically Israeli Jews, have a legal right to the land and a right to build a fence on the land. Jordan and Lebanon have "sovereignty" over their so-called Palestinian
populations---The Hashemites, in effect, occupy Jordan---so, Israel exercising sovereignty over the so-called Palestinians would not be unusual. The so-called Palestinians certainly have not demonstrated any ability to exercise sovereignty over themselves.

so called israelis like you should joint the rest of the world in 2009 and stop living in biblical times. you had you country, you failed to keep it, get over it.

I guess your the last one that would admit a right to other people to get back their land that was once taken away from them, Native Americans com to mind and others.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 03:25 AM

so called israelis like you should joint the rest of the world in 2009 and stop living in biblical times. you had you country, you failed to keep it, get over it.

I guess your the last one that would admit a right to other people to get back their land that was once taken away from them, Native Americans com to mind and others.

So-called Palestinians have their land...in Syria, Egypt, Saudii Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Morocco, Algeria and other places they originate from.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 03:34 AM

Could you clarify?

Clarify in what respect?

Do you support Israel having official sovereignty over the "so-called" Palestinians?

On what basis do the so-called Palestinians merit sovereignty?

Or do you think it already does?

Why should it?

If the later, then why isn't hafrada like apartheid?

Are so-called Palestinians Israeli citizens? No. Is the West Bank Israeli territory? No. Does Israel have the right to prevent so-called Palestinian terrorists from killing Israelis by erecting a wall? Yes Does the wall have even an abstract connection with apartheid? No.

14th July 2009, 03:57 AM

So-called Palestinians have their land...in Syria, Egypt, Saudii Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Morocco, Algeria and other places they originate from.

and Israel has its land in Israel. without the West bank and Gaza.
you should be happy for it, and live with it, or you could end up have to living in diaspora again.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 04:02 AM

and Israel has its land in Israel. without the West bank and Gaza.

Palestine, the Jewish homeland, includes Gaza and, most importantly, Judea and Samaria (West Bank)

you should be happy for it, and live with it, or you could end up have to living in diaspora again.

I am happy. I'll be happier when millions of Jews are living in Judea and Samaria. The so-called Palestinians could end up living in Saudi Arabia, where they would all be beheaded for their insolence.

14th July 2009, 04:09 AM

Palestine, the Jewish homeland, includes Gaza and, most importantly, Judea and Samaria (West Bank)

I am happy. I'll be happier when millions of Jews are living in Judea and Samaria. The so-called Palestinians could end up living in Saudi Arabia, where they would all be beheaded for their insolence.

tja **** happens, West Bank and Gaza doesnt belong to you, its the land of other people. if you need more space to creat a nation, i hear on the antarctis there is plenty of room.

Post edited to remove breach of Rule 12; attack the argument and not the arguer.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 04:24 AM

tja **** happens, West Bank and Gaza doesnt belong to you, its the land of other people. if you need more space to creat a nation, i hear on the antarctis there is plenty of room.

Judea and Samaria is important Jewish ancestral land. The West Bank is not mentioned in the Qur'an. So-called Palestinians have more than enough space in which to live among their 22 Arab and 55 Muslim countries. Jews just have Israel.

14th July 2009, 04:42 AM

Judea and Samaria is important Jewish ancestral land. The West Bank is not mentioned in the Qur'an. So-called Palestinians have more than enough space in which to live among their 22 Arab and 55 Muslim countries. Jews just have Israel.

ehm carefull now with that bible, did God alow you to recreate Israel?
you know why he destroyed it according to you belivers?

North America is very important land for the Native americans, and they dont get it back. they have to be happy with a few reservation where they can live, but are in no way independent etc.

so be happy with what you got.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 04:45 AM

ehm carefull now with that bible, did God alow you to recreate Israel?
you know why he destroyed it according to you belivers?

North America is very important land for the Native americans, and they dont get it back. they have to be happy with a few reservation where they can live, but are in no way independent etc.

so be happy with what you got.

There is no parallel between native American Indians and so-called Palestinians.

14th July 2009, 04:55 AM

There is no parallel between native American Indians and so-called Palestinians.

but between the Native Americans and Jews. Both lost their land to invaders. a long long time ago.

and stop with your so called, you so called Israeli. its so disgusting.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 05:14 AM

but between the Native Americans and Jews. Both lost their land to invaders. a long long time ago.

One of those invasions was the 7th century Moslem invasion. What goes around, comes around. Now, Jews have their land back. Well, almost. They have more of Judea and Samaria to populate.

and stop with your so called, you so called Israeli. its so disgusting.

Shall I just call them Arabs, which, after all, is what they are?

14th July 2009, 05:49 AM

One of those invasions was the 7th century Moslem invasion. What goes around, comes around. Now, Jews have their land back. Well, almost. They have more of Judea and Samaria to populate.

Shall I just call them Arabs, which, after all, is what they are?

want to talk about the wars of Judea? its not like they were really peacefull.

so you would support an armed uprise of the Native Americans to get back their land? is this correct? i mean, what goes around comes around?

you can call Palestinians arabs, sure why not.

cant wait untill you stupid semites finally learn to live peacefully side by side again.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 08:04 AM

want to talk about the wars of Judea? its not like they were really peacefull.

so you would support an armed uprise of the Native Americans to get back their land? is this correct? i mean, what goes around comes around?

you can call Palestinians arabs, sure why not.

cant wait untill you stupid semites finally learn to live peacefully side by side again.

A particular member of the American Indian community takes offense at any comparison with Palestinians and describes Palestinians as more like illegal Mexican immigrants than American Indians.

14th July 2009, 08:08 AM

A particular member of the American Indian community takes offense at any comparison with Palestinians and describes Palestinians as more like illegal Mexican immigrants than American Indians.

lucky i didnt do that, instead i compared them to the jews, as both lost their homeland. :rolleyes:

Marc39

14th July 2009, 08:44 AM

lucky i didnt do that, instead i compared them to the jews, as both lost their homeland. :rolleyes:

"Palestinians", historically, never viewed "Palestine" as their homeland. Palestine was merely a place to live and work for them, however, they did not view the land as ancestral land, as reflected in the fact that they lined up to sell that land to incoming Jews who paid exhorbitant prices because Palestine did, and does, have a crucial ancestral connection to Jews.

14th July 2009, 09:50 AM

"Palestinians", historically, never viewed "Palestine" as their homeland. Palestine was merely a place to live and work for them, however, they did not view the land as ancestral land, as reflected in the fact that they lined up to sell that land to incoming Jews who paid exhorbitant prices because Palestine did, and does, have a crucial ancestral connection to Jews.

When they dont see it as theyr Homeland, why dont they just move away from it? Why not avoiding having all the troubles with Blockades tanks occupation assasinations and so on, just to piss you off?
No. They see it as theyr homeland. If you like that or not, if the bible mentions them or not.

Americans are europeans, the American Continent is actually the homeland of the Native americans, historically and so...
Do you think the Americans would just leave their countrys and go back to the european countrys where they came from? Just because the Native Americans demand back their continent? Will not happen. those europeans living in America do see theyr new countrys as their homelands, be it the USA , Canada or Bolivia.

I have a friend that was actually born in ex jugoslavia like his parents, and all his family, and he came here as a kid and partially grew up here.
meanwhile he is swiss and sees switzerland as his homeland and is more patriotic than i am. if the SVP likes that or not, doent matter, for him, this is now his homeland.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 10:27 AM

When they dont see it as theyr Homeland, why dont they just move away from it?

They have no options of moving. Jordan has closed its doors. Egypt won't accept them. And, 20 other Arab states have denied them citizenship. Under their own law, they are forbidden from leaving even if they wanted to. No problem, however, as the UN has been taking care of them as welfare recipients the past 60 years.

Why not avoiding having all the troubles with Blockades tanks occupation assasinations and so on, just to piss you off?

There were no blockades prior to the intifadas. Before the uprisings, Palestinians and Israelis traveled back and forth as people do between any other adjacent territories. Israelis visited Ramallah to go shopping and Palestinians commuted to Israel for work and trade. Israel, then, was the largest employer of Palestiniains and their largest trading partner. The suicide bombings changed all that.

No. They see it as theyr homeland. If you like that or not, if the bible mentions them or not.

They have been propagandized for political gain into thinking Palestine is their homeland. However, history edifies much differently. During most of the last 500 years, Palestine was a vilayet of Syria, governed directly by Damascus. Arabs living in the region known as Palestine identified themselves as Syrians. Or, they had allegiances to the Ottoman government. Or, they were loyal to local clans and tribes. Or, they identified themselves religiously as Muslims and Christians. Further splintered as a consequence of Palestine having been carved up into smaller provinces, Arab allegiances were not to Palestine, itself, nor did Arabs refer to themselves as "Palestinians"

Only when Jews began immigrating to Palestine did Palestine regain its religious significance, for Jews. And, only when Zionism established a foothold in Palestine did "Palestiniains" start to develop any sense of identity, however, it was an identity based more on a rejection of Zionism than on any substantive sense of Palestinian nationalism.

14th July 2009, 10:46 AM

They have no options of moving. Jordan has closed its doors. Egypt won't accept them. And, 20 other Arab states have denied them citizenship. Under their own law, they are forbidden from leaving even if they wanted to. No problem, however, as the UN has been taking care of them as welfare recipients the past 60 years.

There were no blockades prior to the intifadas. Before the uprisings, Palestinians and Israelis traveled back and forth as people do between any other adjacent territories. Israelis visited Ramallah to go shopping and Palestinians commuted to Israel for work and trade. Israel, then, was the largest employer of Palestiniains and their largest trading partner. The suicide bombings changed all that.

They have been propagandized for political gain into thinking Palestine is their homeland. However, history edifies much differently. During most of the last 500 years, Palestine was a vilayet of Syria, governed directly by Damascus. Arabs living in the region known as Palestine identified themselves as Syrians. Or, they had allegiances to the Ottoman government. Or, they were loyal to local clans and tribes. Or, they identified themselves religiously as Muslims and Christians. Further splintered as a consequence of Palestine having been carved up into smaller provinces, Arab allegiances were not to Palestine, itself, nor did Arabs refer to themselves as "Palestinians"

Only when Jews began immigrating to Palestine did Palestine regain its religious significance, for Jews. And, only when Zionism established a foothold in Palestine did "Palestiniains" start to develop any sense of identity, however, it was an identity based more on a rejection of Zionism than on any substantive sense of Palestinian nationalism.

whatever.
get happy with your fanatics viewpoint.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 10:49 AM

whatever.
get happy with your fanatics viewpoint.

My viewpoint is based on history.

FireGarden

14th July 2009, 03:07 PM

Are so-called Palestinians Israeli citizens? No. Is the West Bank Israeli territory? No.

So the West bank isn't Israeli territory, but it belongs to Israel? -- under a different name, of course, we wouldn't want to get absurd.

"Palestinians", historically, never viewed "Palestine" as their homeland. Palestine was merely a place to live and work for them, however, they did not view the land as ancestral land,

Wow. That's amazing. Tell me more.

Are the Palestinians unique in this regard, or are there other peoples who don't mind being thrown off the land they've lived on for generations?

as reflected in the fact that they lined up to sell that land to incoming Jews who paid exhorbitant prices because Palestine did, and does, have a crucial ancestral connection to Jews.

The land was owned by Turkish affendis. I discussed it with webfusion a while ago:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92707&page=3

I'd repost the links, but they don't work now and I can't be bothered to google.

During most of the last 500 years, Palestine was a vilayet of Syria, governed directly by Damascus. Arabs living in the region known as Palestine identified themselves as Syrians. Or, they had allegiances to the Ottoman government. Or, they were loyal to local clans and tribes. Or, they identified themselves religiously as Muslims and Christians. Further splintered as a consequence of Palestine having been carved up into smaller provinces, Arab allegiances were not to Palestine, itself, nor did Arabs refer to themselves as "Palestinians"

So, because Syria was carved up, it is okay to take a chunk for yourself?

And what about the people who live there? They thought of themselves as Arabs, so they can't have a right to the land their families have lived on for generations. In fact, because they think of themselves as Arabs, they would see no difference at all between living in Ramallah and living in Damascus. Have I got that right?

godless dave

14th July 2009, 03:08 PM

Security fences are common feature of borders around the world.

I find it strange that Israel is the only country that is covered on a daily basis in the media of the world and will haveto defend its fence at the Hague.

Because, as I'm sure you know, Israel's fence is not around its border, but several miles outside of it.

Marc39

14th July 2009, 03:50 PM

So the West bank isn't Israeli territory, but it belongs to Israel? -- under a different name, of course, we wouldn't want to get absurd.

The West Bank is, in effect, Israeli territory, under the San Remo Resolution and the Palestine Mandate that established Palestine as the Jewish National Home. Not recognizing history and international law would be "getting absurd".

Are the Palestinians unique in this regard, or are there other peoples who don't mind being thrown off the land they've lived on for generations?

Your premise is historically faulty on a few levels. First, the term "Palestinian" has, for the most part, applied to Jews pre-1948, not to Arabs. Second, the vast majority of so-called "Palestinians" are descendants of Arabs immigrants from surrounding regions who migrated to Palestine during Zionist immigration in order to take advantage of heightened economic conditions created by Zionist endeavours. Third, the only documented time in the history of the region of large groups of so-called Palestinians being "thrown off the land", in this context, was in the 19th century, by Arabs and Turkish Muslims, when Ottoman land reform transferred large tracts of land from Bedouins to the Arab elite. Jews, in point of fact, paid for the land they came to live on and purchased the land from those Arab and Muslim landowners in the region.

The land was owned by Turkish affendis.

"Effendi". The land was principally owned by the Ottoman Sultan. A small smount of miri farmland was privately owned, though, its ownership could be transferred only by special governmental permission.

So, because Syria was carved up, it is okay to take a chunk for yourself?

No, because Arabs sold off their property holdings to Jews, it's "okay" for them to have "taken a chunk for themselves" Real property law 101.

And what about the people who live there?

If they have title to their land, good for them. Most have not been able to substantiate ownership. If they do not have legal ownership, they have no property rights.

They thought of themselves as Arabs, so they can't have a right to the land their families have lived on for generations.

Land does not have nationality. There is no such thing as "Arab land" Either you have legal ownership or you do not. They do not give land away for free in the Middle East.

In fact, because they think of themselves as Arabs, they would see no difference at all between living in Ramallah and living in Damascus. Have I got that right?

Same fascist governments, except, Syria won't take them.

The Fool

14th July 2009, 05:27 PM

Marc39...you want the land. You call it "Israeli land" but don't want the people. What do you want to do with the people?

FireGarden

15th July 2009, 02:57 AM

The West Bank is, in effect, Israeli territory, under the San Remo Resolution and the Palestine Mandate that established Palestine as the Jewish National Home. Not recognizing history and international law would be "getting absurd".

So you've changed your mind now.
You now say that the West Bank is "in effect" Israeli territory. So I have the same question as the Fool: What about the people? Do you think you can take the land without the people?

Your premise is historically faulty on a few levels. First, the term "Palestinian" has, for the most part, applied to Jews pre-1948, not to Arabs. Second, the vast majority of so-called "Palestinians" are descendants of Arabs immigrants from surrounding regions who migrated to Palestine during Zionist immigration in order to take advantage of heightened economic conditions created by Zionist endeavours.

I would like you to provide evidence to back that up. Many Palestinians share a lot of DNA with Jews (including one concerned with deafness, which I think is ironic given how little they seem to hear one another). In fact, Arabs all over the Levant area have Jewish ancestors.

They also have other ancestors from the region pre-dating Arab conquests.

You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people

Where it says:

The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the local Arabic-speaking population of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I,[13] and the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921.

[...] During the British Mandate of Palestine, the term "Palestinian" was used to refer to all people residing there, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and those granted citizenship by the Mandatory authorities were granted "Palestinian citizenship". To refer to as "Palestinians" both the native Palestinians of all faiths and the non-Palestinian Jewish settlers alike was consistent with an Orientalist view of all Jews as "eastern" people, also indigenous to that area. Thus, figures such as Immanuel Kant could refer to European Jews as 'Palestinians living among us'.

[...] Walid Khalidi writes that Palestinians in Ottoman times were "[a]cutely aware of the distinctiveness of Palestinian history ..." and that "[a]lthough proud of their Arab heritage and ancestry, the Palestinians considered themselves to be descended not only from Arab conquerors of the seventh century but also from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial, including the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanites before them."

[...] Results of a DNA study by geneticist Ariella Oppenheim appears to match historical accounts that Arab Israelis and Palestinians, together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times", albeit religiously first Christianized then largely Islamized, and all eventually culturally Arabized. Referring to those of the Muslim faith more specifically, it reaffirmed that Palestinian "Muslim Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel, Sinai and part of Jordan." Geneticist Michael Hammer praised "the study for 'focusing in detail on the Jewish and Palestinian population"

Third, the only documented time in the history of the region of large groups of so-called Palestinians being "thrown off the land", in this context, was in the 19th century, by Arabs and Turkish Muslims, when Ottoman land reform transferred large tracts of land from Bedouins to the Arab elite.

So you indulge in Naqba denial.

Jews, in point of fact, paid for the land they came to live on and purchased the land from those Arab and Muslim landowners in the region.

"Effendi". The land was principally owned by the Ottoman Sultan. A small smount of miri farmland was privately owned, though, its ownership could be transferred only by special governmental permission.

You didn't read the other thread, where I quoted Shlomo ben Ami -- a historian and former foreign secretary of Israel.

He was interviewed at Democracy Now (who use the same spelling choice as I used).

part of the tragedy was that the Palestinians, as such, did not have — the Palestinian peasants did not have the full control of their own destiny. Part of that land was bought by the Zionist organizations from Affendis, landowners living in Turkey or anywhere else throughout the Ottoman Empire, and these people were inevitably evicted by these kind of transactions. But as a whole, I think that not more than 6 or 7% of the entire surface of the state of Israel was bought. The rest of it was either taken over or won during the war.

Just to be clear, ben Ami is talking about 6-7% of modern day Israel. Norman Finklestein has kept a copy of the debate:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/democracy-now-debate-with-finkelstein-shlomo-ben-ami/

The Democracy Now link leads to an error page. (It didn't when I linked to it in the above mentioned thread).

Same fascist governments, except, Syria won't take them.

You're choice of words indicates weasling. Why don't you answer clearly?

I asked this:
Your opinion seems to be that, because they think of themselves as Arabs, Palestinians would see no difference at all between living in Ramallah and living in Damascus. Have I got that right?

Marc39

15th July 2009, 03:40 AM

What about the people?

Terrorists, not "people"

Do you think you can take the land without the people?

If the "people" have legal title, they can stay. Otherwise, they should leave.

You might want to read this, below. Makes more sense than your DNA nonsense...

Former PLO leader, Zuheir Mohsen...

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

Naqba denial.

Of course, I deny it. I also deny the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Just to be clear, ben Ami is talking about 6-7% of modern day Israel. Norman Finklestein has kept a copy of the debate:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/democracy-now-debate-with-finkelstein-shlomo-ben-ami/

Finkelstein is a crackpot. He has a deep anti-Israel bias and has been denied tenure at each of the universities he has taught at, including DePaul, which fired him due to "psychological issues" Not a reputable source. Try to do better, next time.

Marc39

15th July 2009, 03:41 AM

Marc39...you want the land. You call it "Israeli land" but don't want the people. What do you want to do with the people?

What did the Kuwaitis do to "the people" in 1991?

FireGarden

15th July 2009, 03:56 AM

Terrorists, not "people"

Your words say a lot about the kind of person you are.

If the "people" have legal title, they can stay. Otherwise, they should leave.

What if they don't want to?

You might want to read this, below. Makes more sense than your DNA nonsense...

Former PLO leader, Zuheir Mohsen...

I fail to see what that has to do with DNA and your claims that most Palestinians are descended from recent immigrants and that they have no real attachment to their land.

Of course, I deny it. I also deny the existence of the Easter Bunny.

So you disagree with the offically accepted history of the region.

Finkelstein is a crackpot. He has a deep anti-Israel bias and has been denied tenure at each of the universities he has taught at, including DePaul, which fired him due to "psychological issues" Not a reputable source. Try to do better, next time.

You're opinion of Finklestein is neither here nor there. My source is Shlomo ben Ami, the interview was conducted by Democracy Now. As far as I can find, DN no longer hosts a transcript of the debate. But you can find other copies of the quote hosted by other people -- including at the JREF where I quoted ben Ami a couple of years ago in a debate with webfusion. (Linked to above).

Finklestein's link to the mp3 still works. You can download that and listen to a former Israeli foreign minister (and historian) say:

AMY GOODMAN: And Shlomo Ben-Ami, your response to those who continue to say that at that time, at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel and before, that it really was empty, that Jews came to a place that was not populated.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Of course, it is nonsense. I mean, it was populated. Obviously, it was populated. I mean, the notion that existed, I think it was Israel Zangwill, the first to say that we are — we came a nation without a land to a land without a people. Obviously, it was not true, but again, part of the tragedy was that the Palestinians, as such, did not have — the Palestinian peasants did not have the full control of their own destiny. Part of that land was bought by the Zionist organizations from Affendis, landowners living in Turkey or anywhere else throughout the Ottoman Empire, and these people were inevitably evicted by these kind of transactions. But as a whole, I think that not more than 6 or 7% of the entire surface of the state of Israel was bought. The rest of it was either taken over or won during the war.

At around 12min into the broadcast.

ETA: regarding the justice of dispossing tenants who have no official deed, you might want to look up the origin of the word "boycott":
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848045.html

15th July 2009, 04:02 AM

The Palestinian people does not exist

The Israeli people does not exist.

Marc39

15th July 2009, 04:11 AM

What if they don't want to?

What did the Kuwaitis do?

I fail to see

This is clear.

So you disagree with the offically accepted history of the region.

I disagree with PLO officially accepted history.

You're opinion of Finklestein is neither here nor there.

My opinion on Finkelstein is based on the facts of his career. Sorry.

ETA: regarding the justice of dispossing tenants who have no official deed, you might want to look up the origin of the word "boycott":
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848045.html

People who do not own property have no property rights. Sorry.

Oliver

15th July 2009, 04:15 AM

FireGarden

15th July 2009, 04:19 AM

What did the Kuwaitis do?

No. The question is: what do you want to do?

I disagree with PLO officially accepted history.

Benny Morris and Shlomo ben Ami are part of the PLO?

My opinion on Finkelstein is based on the facts of his career. Sorry.

And your opinion of my source?: Shlomo ben Ami

People who do not own property have no property rights. Sorry.

You still have not said what you want done with such people. Are you too scared to say it?

Dr Adequate

15th July 2009, 04:26 AM

Good fences make good neighbors. Robert Frost. As Frost's poem is attacking that adage, this could be considered a quotation out of context.

**************It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.'

Marc39

15th July 2009, 04:36 AM

As Frost's poem is attacking that adage, this could be considered a quotation out of context.

**************It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.'

Aww, how sweet. Frost didn't have terrorists as neighbors.

Marc39

15th July 2009, 04:41 AM

No. The question is: what do you want to do?

What did the Arabs do to their Jewish citizens in the 1940s and 50s?

Benny Morris and Shlomo ben Ami are part of the PLO?

Benny Morris has said so-called Palestinians should be in cages. I'm not sure you want to go with Morris as a source.

Shlomo ben Ami

Anti-Israeli zealot not really taken seriously, except by other anti-Israeli zealots.

You still have not said what you want done with such people. Are you too scared to say it?

You still haven't said what Kuwait did with "such people"

Oliver

15th July 2009, 04:41 AM

Marc39

15th July 2009, 04:47 AM

Actually the Northern Ireland conflict was as relevant as the Israeli border conflict, even if the Israeli border is the more concerning one given it's multi-national nature. I guess even Marc does acknowledge this fact concerning international politics.

The Israeli border has a "multi-national nature"? Arabs kill each other in droves, they deny each other human rights and civil liberties, they occupy each other's land, they fence each other out, and, nobody in the world utters a peep. But, when Israel fences out terrorists, it takes on a "multi-national nature". What a surprise!

15th July 2009, 04:50 AM

Marc, would you like to kill of the so called Palestinians? well atleast those that refuse to leave your god promised land?
why dont you just admit it? you scary ******.

Edited, beach of Rule 12. Additionally, please do not ignore mod warnings, such as appears here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4902066&postcount=95

Oliver

15th July 2009, 04:55 AM

The Israeli border has a "multi-national nature"? Arabs kill each other in droves, they deny each other human rights and civil liberties, they occupy each other's land, they fence each other out, and, nobody in the world utters a peep. But, when Israel fences out terrorists, it takes on a "multi-national nature". What a surprise!

Uhm, no. I was referring to Israeli foreign policies of the past to neutralize opposing voices rather than trying to solve those differences in opinion without military intervention.

However, why do you think did the northern-Ireland border issue as much attention than the Israeli border issue if for some unknown reason you think that Israels borders get more attention than other borders?

FireGarden

15th July 2009, 05:15 AM

What did the Arabs do to their Jewish citizens in the 1940s and 50s?

That doesn't answer the question: what do you want to do?

ETA: Don't let anything keep you silent, Marc39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

Benny Morris has said so-called Palestinians should be in cages. I'm not sure you want to go with Morris as a source.

I meant as a historian, not a moral philosopher. I am fully aware that Benny Morris approves of what he found was done.

Anti-Israeli zealot not really taken seriously, except by other anti-Israeli zealots.

You're saying this about Shlomo ben Ami? Do you even know who he is?

You still haven't said what Kuwait did with "such people"

Is that all that's keeping you quiet? Here's what the Kuwaitis did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Expulsion_from_Kuwait

Do you want to do the same? Is that the inference you want people to make? Why don't you just simply state, in an unambiguous manner, what you want to do?

Dr Adequate

15th July 2009, 05:38 AM

Aww, how sweet. Frost didn't have terrorists as neighbors. A simple "Thank you" would have sufficed.

The Fool

15th July 2009, 06:32 AM

Why don't you just simply state, in an unambiguous manner, what you want to do?
I don't think that is likely. What is more likely is you will spend your time simply chasing the same soundbites around the forum.

FireGarden

15th July 2009, 07:18 AM

Hey, why should Paxo be the only one to have any fun?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8080379.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7740130.stm

bigjelmapro

15th July 2009, 10:03 AM

Because, as I'm sure you know, Israel's fence is not around its border, but several miles outside of it.
Not quite. The security barrier snakes back and forth around the green line, not 'several miles outside of it'. And just so you know, an armistice line is not a border, especially if the armistice line has been voided 3 times over since the time it was made.

Marc39

15th July 2009, 12:24 PM

A simple "Thank you" would have sufficed.

Thank you. Better?

Marc39

15th July 2009, 12:31 PM

I meant as a historian, not a moral philosopher. I am fully aware that Benny Morris approves of what he found was done.

Benny Morris is an ideologue, not a proper historian. I read Morris for entertainment, but, take everything he says and writes with a large grain of salt, or, sand. I do not regard him as a reliable source.

You're saying this about Shlomo ben Ami? Do you even know who he is?

Yeah, I know all about him.

Is that all that's keeping you quiet? Here's what the Kuwaitis did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Expulsion_from_Kuwait

Do you want to do the same? Is that the inference you want people to make? Why don't you just simply state, in an unambiguous manner, what you want to do?

Why is it ok for Kuwait to have done what they did? Because...Arabs are not held to the same level of expectations for basic human conduct as other people?

Marc39

15th July 2009, 12:56 PM

Uhm, no. I was referring to Israeli foreign policies of the past to neutralize opposing voices rather than trying to solve those differences in opinion without military intervention.

You mean, like when Ben-Gurion arm-twisted Emir Feisal into their agreement for Jews and Arabs to live and work together in peace? No military intervention there.

Or, the time Israel offered return of all territory seized in the '67 War, a war provoked by the Arabs, merely in exchange for a peace treaty and diplomatic relations, flatly rejected by the Arab League? No military intervention there.

Or, Israel returning the Sinai, a landmass twice the size of Israel, captured defensively, in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt that really is not much of a treaty, after all? No military intervention there.

Or, Israel dismantling 10,000 Jewish-owned houses in Gaza and even exhuming the corpses of dead Jews from cemetaries so that Gaza would be "Judenfrei", gifting Gazans 3,000 Jewish-built greenhouses in which to grow fruits and vegetables, which so-called Palestinians proceeded to burn to the ground? No military intervention there.

Or, how about Israel tolerating 8,000 rockets fired into its sovereign territory from Gaza, killing Israeli civilians, including children, over the course of seven years, which was condemned throughout the Arab world, before military intervention became the only option? Now, what do you suppose the US's military response might be if Cuba lobbed just one missile into Miami? Cuba would be turned into a Cuban sandwich. Do you see a certain pattern of Israel not resorting to "military intervention"? Of course, you do.

Marc39

15th July 2009, 01:09 PM

What is more likely is you will spend your time simply chasing the same soundbites around the forum.

History and facts would be nothing more than soundbites to the uninformed.

Marc39

15th July 2009, 01:35 PM

Marc39...you want the land.

It's not a matter of "you wanting the land", not a very elegant turn of a phrase. Israel is legally entitled to the land. Capice?

You call it "Israeli land"

What we evidently have is a failure to communicate. It is not merely I who calls "it Israeli land", as you put it. I am joined by esteemed company in the Allied Powers of World War 1--England, France, Italy and Japan, the 51 members of the League of Nations, Lord Balfour, Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and both Houses of Congress.

FireGarden

15th July 2009, 10:01 PM

Benny Morris is an ideologue, not a proper historian. I read Morris for entertainment, but, take everything he says and writes with a large grain of salt, or, sand. I do not regard him as a reliable source.

So which historians do you regard as reliable?

Why is it ok for Kuwait to have done what they did? Because...Arabs are not held to the same level of expectations for basic human conduct as other people?

Who says it was ok for Kuwait to have done what they did? If anything, it seems to me that you are the only one who thinks that. But you refuse to simply state that you want to do the same. You want us to infer it -- but from statements that you can then weasel out of.

bigjelmapro

15th July 2009, 11:35 PM

Or, Israel dismantling 10,000 Jewish-owned houses in Gaza and even exhuming the corpses of dead Jews from cemetaries so that Gaza would be "Judenfrei", gifting Gazans 3,000 Jewish-built greenhouses in which to grow fruits and vegetables, which so-called Palestinians proceeded to burn to the ground? No military intervention there.

Plenty of military intervention there. Please don't use this as an example as it is easily proven false.

Marc39

16th July 2009, 03:16 AM

Plenty of military intervention there. Please don't use this as an example as it is easily proven false.

The point is, evidently, way over your head, Israel unilaterally surrendered territory it had acquired defensively in war, incurring billions of dollars in costs and immense pain to those Jewish residents uprooted, which Israel was not compelled by law to do.

Marc39

16th July 2009, 03:27 AM

So which historians do you regard as reliable?

Bernard Lewis, Martin Gilbert, Giuseppe Ricciotti, Uri Milstein, John Keegan, Barbara Tuchman, Paul Johnson, Yoav Gelber and Victor Davis Hanson

Who says it was ok for Kuwait to have done what they did?

Who says it was not ok?

If anything, it seems to me that you are the only one who thinks that.

It seems to me that I'm the only one who knows about that.

The Fool

16th July 2009, 03:55 AM

It's not a matter of "you wanting the land", not a very elegant turn of a phrase. Israel is legally entitled to the land. Capice?

What we evidently have is a failure to communicate. It is not merely I who calls "it Israeli land", as you put it. I am joined by esteemed company in the Allied Powers of World War 1--England, France, Italy and Japan, the 51 members of the League of Nations, Lord Balfour, Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and both Houses of Congress.
I suppose there is enough wriggle room between "wanting the land" and believing you are legally entitled to the land (and want it too)...can't say I can see much distinction. But anyway enough with the attempted distraction from the question..... which was what you think should happen to the people who live on this land. Remember that one? Its the "too hard" question for this thread....

Marc39

16th July 2009, 04:53 AM

I suppose there is enough wriggle room between "wanting the land" and believing you are legally entitled to the land (and want it too)

There is no "wriggle room" whatsoever. All of the authoritative entities involved with the reestablishment of Israel unequivocally acknowledged Palestine as the ancestral Jewish homeland and unanimously called for a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Therefore, the fence is legal.

FireGarden

16th July 2009, 08:18 AM

Bernard Lewis, Martin Gilbert, Giuseppe Ricciotti, Uri Milstein, John Keegan, Barbara Tuchman, Paul Johnson, Yoav Gelber and Victor Davis Hanson

Bernard Lewis was convicted of not recognising the Armenian genocide. Why am I not surprised that he heads your list?

And Uri Milstein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Libel_at_Dir_Yassin

The account of the 1948 raid on Deir Yassin, a village on the outskirts of Jerusalem, that is accepted by most scholars (including Milstein in an earlier work)[4][5][6] is that more than 100 Arabs—mostly noncombatants—were killed when forces from the Irgun and Lehi invaded the village. Milstein claims that many of the elements of the accepted narrative are false.

[...] "Uri Milstein is almost entirely outcast by publishers, not to mention the academic establishment," writes Gideon Samett, editor of Haaretz. "He has not succeeded in establishing himself in a single respectable academic institution."

I've heard of Martin Gilbert, but only as Churchill's biographer. Wiki says this about his work on Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gilbert#Praise_and_Criticism

Israeli historian, Tom Segev, writes that Gilbert's coffee-table book The Story of Israel is written with "encyclopedic clarity," but Segev is critical of the absence of figures from Arab sources.

More from Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009564.html

His book radiates great respect for government power and as in history textbooks of yesteryear, he teaches that history is mainly something that leaders do. They are also the proper sources for its study: The bibliography lists only 10 books and five were written by Israeli politicians. The book is dedicated to Shimon Peres, the president of Israel.

You're not exactly full of surprises.

Who says it was not ok?

I say it was not ok. Care to give your opinion?

And... What do you want to do about the people living in the West Bank?

Marc39

16th July 2009, 08:45 AM

Bernard Lewis was convicted of not recognising the Armenian genocide. Why am I not surprised that he heads your list?

Lewis was required to pay a fine of one franc, reflecting the "severity" of his "conviction" Of course, Lewis recognizes the historic fact of the massacre of Armenians during World War I. What he does not acknowledge, however, is that the massacre constituted genocide, applying a strict guideline of genocide as the intentional extermination of an ethnic group by government authority. The issue of whether the Armenian massacre was genocide or not has been an ongoing debate since World War I. Numerous historians and scholars have drawn the same distinction as Lewis.

And Uri Milstein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Libel_at_Dir_Yassin

You really should learn to employ a higher level of sourcing than Wikipedia, which is not reliable as anyone can contribute to their articles. Milstein is regarded as the ultimate authority on the history of the 1948 war and his books are viewed as the definitive sources for the war and for events leading up to it.

More from Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009564.html

Ha'aretz doesn't cut it, either, as a reliable source as it often has an anti-Israel slant to its news coverage. Sorry.

Thunder

16th July 2009, 08:50 AM

Ha'aretz doesn't cut it, either, as a reliable source as it often has an anti-Israel slant to its news coverage. Sorry.

being against the illegal racist settlement enterprise does not make one anti-Israel. Israel existed before the settlements and it will be there once the settlements are long gone.

FireGarden

16th July 2009, 12:59 PM

Lewis was required to pay a fine of one franc, reflecting the "severity" of his "conviction" Of course, Lewis recognizes the historic fact of the massacre of Armenians during World War I. What he does not acknowledge, however, is that the massacre constituted genocide, applying a strict guideline of genocide as the intentional extermination of an ethnic group by government authority. The issue of whether the Armenian massacre was genocide or not has been an ongoing debate since World War I. Numerous historians and scholars have drawn the same distinction as Lewis.

You really should learn to employ a higher level of sourcing than Wikipedia, which is not reliable as anyone can contribute to their articles. Milstein is regarded as the ultimate authority on the history of the 1948 war and his books are viewed as the definitive sources for the war and for events leading up to it.

Ha'aretz doesn't cut it, either, as a reliable source as it often has an anti-Israel slant to its news coverage. Sorry.

Let me guess: the good sources are the ones that say things you like. The fact that majority opinion leans heavily against your sources just indicates how rare your level of intelligence is.

Any chance you'll answer my question: What do you want done with the people in the West Bank?

Marc39

16th July 2009, 01:13 PM

Let me guess: the good sources are the ones that say things you like. The fact that majority opinion leans heavily against your sources just indicates how rare your level of intelligence is.

"Good" sources are not hardcore agenda-driven idealogues, like Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim et al. Good sources have an established record of reliability, which is how they become respected in their field, they try their best to be objective and present history as factually accurate and uncolored as humanely possible.

Praktik

16th July 2009, 01:26 PM

Ha'aretz doesn't cut it, either, as a reliable source as it often has an anti-Israel slant to its news coverage. Sorry.

What I find most curious with these debates, and American politics sometimes descends to these depths (more often in recent years it seems) is the tendency for people to label actual Israelis, and in this case, a paper based in Israel with Israeli writers as being "Anti-Israel".

To me, without a dog in the fight and as something of an outside observer it is certainly curious, and an oxymoron.

If we take them literally, then all these Israelis are anti-"themselves"...

Doesn't make any sense.

Could it be that perhaps they just have a very different vision of Israeli policies? A different politics?

Seems to me to be the simpler answer - and without resorting to emotional and innacurate language like "anti-Israel".

Ace of Spades recently captured this pretty well in the uproar caused by his reaction to the Palin resignation: (http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2009/07/13/the-inquisitor-becomes-the-heretic-part-i/)

Someone offers a contrary opinion in good faith, their reasons for the opinion clearly and unambiguously expressed, and the childish magical thinkers start insulting him and coming up with alternative explanations — the REAL explanations — as to why this LIAR and DEFEATIST is now spreading such obvious untruths.

…People can disagree without resorting to insane nutroots bullying and tossing about the “RINO/DEFEATIST/TRAITOR” stuff left and right.To me its a similar mechanism at work - Ha'aretz isn't offering a contrary opinion in good faith - they're offering it because deep down, they hate Israel!

Really simplistic and divisive thinking IMHO.

Marc39

16th July 2009, 01:35 PM

What I find most curious with these debates, and American politics sometimes descends to these depths (more often in recent years it seems) is the tendency for people to label actual Israelis, and in this case, a paper based in Israel with Israeli writers as being "Anti-Israel".

It's curious that you are curious. Ha'aretz is not government controlled, unlike the Arab and Muslim press. Among those who are anti-Israel are Israelis, themselves, including Israeli Jews.

Praktik

16th July 2009, 01:37 PM

Among those who are anti-Israel are Israelis, themselves, including Israeli Jews.

Perhaps in your cartoon world, but in objective reality I think it is highly innacurate, and if you were to actually confront the editors of Ha'aretz with the accusation of being "anti-Israel", that they would strenuously deny it.

Policy differences do not always stem from hate, in fact they rarely do.

Ha'aretz does not hate Israel - they are part of Israel.

Only those who wish to cordon off a sector of the political spectrum for themselves as the only legitimate place to be, and deem contrary opinions beyond the pale, think the way you do.

Marc39

16th July 2009, 02:17 PM

Perhaps in your cartoon world, but in objective reality I think it is highly innacurate, and if you were to actually confront the editors of Ha'aretz with the accusation of being "anti-Israel", that they would strenuously deny it.

Your knowledge of Israeli society is de minimis, with all due respect.

Praktik

16th July 2009, 02:19 PM

Your knowledge of Israeli society is de minimis, with all due respect.

based on what? I hardly ever post in those threads, so I don't know how you could cast judgment on what I supposedly know or don't know about Israeli society.

But then again, I guess it is this imaginary power of mind-reading is what allows you to claim that the true reason Ha'aretz might have an editorial against the fence, or settlements, or the Lebanon war is because they hate Israel.

And bonus points for latin. You really impressed me.

Thunder

16th July 2009, 02:51 PM

It's curious that you are curious. Ha'aretz is not government controlled, unlike the Arab and Muslim press. Among those who are anti-Israel are Israelis, themselves, including Israeli Jews.

it is the height of arrogance and dishonesty, to argue that because Ha'aretz exposes racism against minorities in Israel and exposes the illegal and racist settlement policies, Ha'aretz is therefore "anti-Israel".

was it "anti-South African" for the SA papers to criticize Apartheid and the black Homelands?

was it "anti-white" to criticize Jim Crow and segregation?

was it "anti-German" to criticize the Nuremberg Laws and the persecution of the Jews?

is it "anti-Chinese" to criticize China's brutalization of Tibet?

is it "anti-Muslim" to criticize the genocide in Darfur??

certainly not.

when we label simple dissent and criticism of obviously undemocratic and inhumane policies as "unpatriotic", the road to Fascism and dictatorship is not a long one.

Marc39

16th July 2009, 03:07 PM

But then again, I guess it is this imaginary power of mind-reading is what allows you to claim that the true reason Ha'aretz might have an editorial against the fence...

The fence, or, a necessary national security barrier designed to protect Israelis against Arab terrorist attacks that had previously killed over 1,000 Israelis--including Israeli Arabs, and, maimed and wounded many thousands more.

...or settlements...

Settlements, or, legitimate Jewish communities built on Jewish-owned land with an important historical link to the Jewish people, sanctioned by international law.

...or the Lebanon war...

The Lebanon war, a conflict provoked by Hizbullah attacks inside sovereign Israeli territory, a terrorist organization that the Lebanese have given safe haven to, violating several key anti-terrorism laws and subjecting themselves to military reprisals.

Praktik

16th July 2009, 04:20 PM

The fence, or, a necessary national security barrier designed to protect Israelis against Arab terrorist attacks that had previously killed over 1,000 Israelis--including Israeli Arabs, and, maimed and wounded many thousands more.

Settlements, or, legitimate Jewish communities built on Jewish-owned land with an important historical link to the Jewish people, sanctioned by international law.

The Lebanon war, a conflict provoked by Hizbullah attacks inside sovereign Israeli territory, a terrorist organization that the Lebanese have given safe haven to, violating several key anti-terrorism laws and subjecting themselves to military reprisals.

Ok fine, those are some appraisals of the situation, Ha'aretz has others. I'm not necessarily endorsing the ha'aretz view of everything but what I am saying is that their policy differences do not spring from hate, or "anti-israel" feelings, they spring from legitimate political viewpoints, however much you disagree with them.

Your political opponents don't have to be craven, cowardly, hateful or "anti-israel", can't they just have genuine, honest differences of opinion with you?

It is kind of ridiculous to hear that individuals who have spent their whole lives in Israel, where all their friends and loved ones are, the country that gave them birth, that they are "anti-israel". To me that sounds like "anti-themselves", or Marc39 being "anti-Marc39"

Marc39

16th July 2009, 05:02 PM

I'm not necessarily endorsing the ha'aretz view of everything but what I am saying is that their policy differences do not spring from hate, or "anti-israel" feelings, they spring from legitimate political viewpoints, however much you disagree with them.

Does the editor-in-chief of Ha'aretz pleading with the US State Department that Israel be "raped" constitute "hate" or "anti-Israel" feelings? Does such talk spring from "legitimate" political viewpoints?...

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c41_a1531/News/Short_Takes.html

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/journalist-us-should-rape-israel/68612/

Praktik

16th July 2009, 05:55 PM

Thunder

16th July 2009, 08:23 PM

He wants a settlement to protect his country, Israel. He lives there.

the settlements are not there to "protect" anyone.

they are there because some Israelis and Jews believe that "God" gave them all the land and they have the right to take, control, and settle all the land..regardless of who they hurt.

These Israelis..these Jews...have become all that we have despised for the last 2,000 years. Racists, persecuters, and extremists.

The Fool

16th July 2009, 10:03 PM

There is no "wriggle room" whatsoever. All of the authoritative entities involved with the reestablishment of Israel unequivocally acknowledged Palestine as the ancestral Jewish homeland and unanimously called for a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Therefore, the fence is legal.

Lol...Is the question really that scary that you need to read it and constantly answer some other imaginary question?

once again...

"I suppose there is enough wriggle room between "wanting the land" and believing you are legally entitled to the land (and want it too)...can't say I can see much distinction. But anyway enough with the attempted distraction from the question..... which was what you think should happen to the people who live on this land. Remember that one? Its the "too hard" question for this thread.... "

see the question marc39??

it is

"what do you should happen to the people who live on the land"

nothing to do with fences or whatever else you want to answer in fear of this question.

one last try eh?

FireGarden

17th July 2009, 02:30 AM

It's curious that you are curious. Ha'aretz is not government controlled, unlike the Arab and Muslim press. Among those who are anti-Israel are Israelis, themselves, including Israeli Jews.

Earlier on, you described Shlomo ben Ami as "Anti-Israeli zealot not really taken seriously, except by other anti-Israeli zealots."

Please quote the relevant part of ben Ami's wiki bio -- to show that you've understood the conversation. ie: that he was part of the Israeli government.

FireGarden

17th July 2009, 02:31 AM

Only those who wish to cordon off a sector of the political spectrum for themselves as the only legitimate place to be, and deem contrary opinions beyond the pale, think the way you do.

You make good points in this and your previous post.

Marc39

17th July 2009, 02:34 AM

Lol...Is the question really that scary that you need to read it and constantly answer some other imaginary question?

once again...

The question is incoherent, as all your posts are.

"I suppose there is enough wriggle room between "wanting the land" and believing you are legally entitled to the land (and want it too)...can't say I can see much distinction. But anyway enough with the attempted distraction from the question..... which was what you think should happen to the people who live on this land. Remember that one? Its the "too hard" question for this thread.... "

see the question marc39??

As unintelligent as previously.

one last try eh?

Your posts are extremely trying.

FireGarden

17th July 2009, 02:36 AM

the settlements are not there to "protect" anyone.

I think Praktik meant something like "He wants an agreement to protect his country" when he said "settlement" -- the word has more than one meaning.

Marc39

17th July 2009, 02:41 AM

Sorry man, quote wars aren't going to convince me, and while I think it was a poor choice of words what the man was saying was that the US use its leverage to pressure Israel towards a settlement.

He wants a settlement to protect his country, Israel. He lives there.

"Sorry, man", your's is not a very thoughtful response. Had any newspaper editor in the US, or any senior-level media executive, for that matter, been caught suggesting the US be "raped" by another country, he or she would be fired. The former head of news for CNN, Eason Jordan, resigned in large part as a consequence of having accused the US military of shooting at the press in Iraq.

Marc39

17th July 2009, 03:53 AM

I think Praktik meant something like "He wants an agreement to protect his country" when he said "settlement" -- the word has more than one meaning.

Yes, settlements really mean "communities", which is, after all, what they are. Jews have as much a right to live in communities in Judea and Samaria as they have to live in communities in New York, Paris and London.

Praktik

17th July 2009, 04:06 AM

the settlements are not there to "protect" anyone.

they are there because some Israelis and Jews believe that "God" gave them all the land and they have the right to take, control, and settle all the land..regardless of who they hurt.

These Israelis..these Jews...have become all that we have despised for the last 2,000 years. Racists, persecuters, and extremists.

I think you mis-read, I meant "settlement" in terms of "peace settlement"... ;)

Praktik

17th July 2009, 06:18 AM

"Sorry, man", your's is not a very thoughtful response. Had any newspaper editor in the US, or any senior-level media executive, for that matter, been caught suggesting the US be "raped" by another country, he or she would be fired. The former head of news for CNN, Eason Jordan, resigned in large part as a consequence of having accused the US military of shooting at the press in Iraq.

I'm thinking you're on automatic when it comes to posting. Rarely are they free of little digs like your opener. Do you find that strategy productive? Seems to me they're more geared to adding points under the "Marc39" column of your mental spreadsheet.

Even if I were to agree with you that his statements warrant a dismissal, I still wouldn't agree that they are "anti-Israel". What he was saying was that Israel be forced to the table with a lot of pressure - he wasn't saying that the country he lives in be "raped" in a "rape and pillage" kind of understanding.

His vision of eventual peace rests on very different foundations from the Likudniks - ultimately they all want the same thing, a free, secure and prosperous Israel (however much they differ on how to get there). The fact one side calls the other "anti-Israel" should interest us mostly for what it says about the speakers of such epithets, since as epithets, they have little bearing on the reality of their targets. What they represent is an artificial narrowing of legitimate political debate - moving the bars so that only the policies of the speaker are "acceptable", everything outside is "radical". In some ways, I think such utterances are rather anti-democratic, since the foundation of democracy rests on the interplay of competing political viewpoints. By saying that some policy prescriptions are "anti-Israel", and getting people to believe that, they are attempting to de-legitimize legitimate viewpoints - turning democracy into a monoculture (one that conveniently coincides with with the viewpoint of the speaker).

I'd also say that resorting to such tactics is rather, well, dumb. Couldn't they articulate why the policies of their opponents won't work? Why they're myopic? Couldn't they detail why theirs are better?

Resorting to the "anti-Israel" epithet is the low-road, and they could certainly do better in terms of advocating for their position.

Oliver

17th July 2009, 06:59 AM

The fact one side calls the other "anti-Israel" should interest us mostly for what it says about the speakers of such epithets, since as epithets, they have little bearing on the reality of their targets. What they represent is an artificial narrowing of legitimate political debate - moving the bars so that only the policies of the speaker are "acceptable", everything outside is "radical". In some ways, I think such utterances are rather anti-democratic, since the foundation of democracy rests on the interplay of competing political viewpoints. By saying that some policy prescriptions are "anti-Israel", and getting people to believe that, they are attempting to de-legitimize legitimate viewpoints - turning democracy into a monoculture (one that conveniently coincides with with the viewpoint of the speaker).

I tend to think that those epithets are a deliberate and maybe even widely-used, common tactic to intimidate opponents of Marc's point of view.

Or it's just a matter of Patriotism concerning ones own borders.

Thunder

17th July 2009, 07:54 AM

Yes, settlements really mean "communities", which is, after all, what they are. Jews have as much a right to live in communities in Judea and Samaria as they have to live in communities in New York, Paris and London.

as the WB is occupied by Israel..and NOT annexed...it is therefore illegal for civilian Israelis, Jew or Arab, to move to the West Bank.

The Golan has been annexed by Israel. As has East Jerusalem. it is legal for Israelis to move to these areas.

if Israel really intended on keeping the WB..they would annex it. their failure to annex shows their intentions are limited in time and they KNOW that in the end..most of the settlements will go bye bye.

Praktik

17th July 2009, 07:55 AM

Oliver

17th July 2009, 08:01 AM

The other question is - to what degree does the incorrect use of the term "anti-israel" deprive it of all meaning?

Surely, Hamas and Hizbollah qualify as "anti-Israel". If Ha'aretz and Hamas are BOTH "anti-Israel", then aren't we somewhere off the beaten path?

I rather assume that the term "Anti-Israel" in the context of an epithet being used to shut up people isn't about the support of Hamas and Co, but about opposing any major Israeli policies in general.

The Fool

18th July 2009, 08:17 PM

The question is incoherent, as all your posts are.

"What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

this is incoherent?

Marc39

18th July 2009, 09:53 PM

"What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

That would be the world's largest group of stateless people who have never been offered statehood, as you have stated, right?

Tricky

18th July 2009, 09:54 PM

That would be the world's largest group of stateless people who have never been offered statehood, as you have stated, right?
I thought that was the Gypsies.

The Fool

18th July 2009, 11:19 PM

That would be the world's largest group of stateless people who have never been offered statehood, as you have stated, right?
Your desperate avoidance of a fairly straightforward question is humerus.... Would you like some suggestion for other diversions?

"What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

tooo hard.

Marc39

18th July 2009, 11:24 PM

"What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

Who are "the people"?

The Fool

18th July 2009, 11:32 PM

Marc39

18th July 2009, 11:34 PM

"What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

tooo hard.

Tooo hard to define who "the people" are and what "the land" is?

The Fool

18th July 2009, 11:40 PM

Who are "the people"?
Not interested son....I'll just chalk this up as another fail for you if you can't bring yourself to say what you think should happen to non Jews on this land you claim is "Israeli land".

Not going to follow you flapping around.

"What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

question tooooo hard.

Marc39

18th July 2009, 11:46 PM

Not interested son....I'll just chalk this up as another fail for you if you can't bring yourself to say what you think should happen to non Jews on this land you claim is "Israeli land".

Not going to follow you flapping around.

"What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

question tooooo hard.

You are incapable of defining who people are and what land is on which you want said people to live? This would appear to be a rather simple task. Question tooooo hard?

FireGarden

19th July 2009, 02:04 AM

Tooo hard to define who "the people" are and what "the land" is?

I think I understand why you find it very hard to define "the people": you're probably trying to think of it in terms of race -- a concept that has largely outlived its usefuleness.

So here's a definition of "the people": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

The land is the West Bank. (You may refer to it as Judea or whatever else).

Now: "What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

Marc39

19th July 2009, 04:53 AM

I think I understand why you find it very hard to define "the people": you're probably trying to think of it in terms of race -- a concept that has largely outlived its usefuleness.

So here's a definition of "the people": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

And, here's another definition of "the people", from a leader of "the people" ...

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

Zuheir Mohsen, Leader of the as-Saiqa faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization

The land is the West Bank. (You may refer to it as Judea or whatever else).

I may refer to it as Judea and Samaria? Is "The West Bank" mentioned in the Old Testament? How about in the Qur'an?

FireGarden

19th July 2009, 08:00 AM

And, here's another definition of "the people", from a leader of "the people" ...

Zuheir Mohsen, Leader of the as-Saiqa faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization

I may refer to it as Judea and Samaria? Is "The West Bank" mentioned in the Old Testament? How about in the Qur'an?

Your response has nothing at all to do with answering our question.

You know what I mean by "the people" -- what other people mean is neither here nor there.

You know what I mean by "the land" -- what other people mean is neither here nor there.

So: "What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

The Fool

19th July 2009, 11:19 PM

So: "What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

Lol... I think "Elvis has left the building".

when someone lacks the courage to express thier views I can't see the point in persisting.

FireGarden

20th July 2009, 06:09 AM

I can agree with you there, TF

Marc39

20th July 2009, 06:51 AM

Now: "What do you think should happen to the people already living on the land?"

The 300,000, or so, Jews already living on "the land" are fully compliant with the law in doing so, given Jewish sovereignty over the land and Jewish title over much of the land. International agreements permit a non-Jewish minority in Palestine, provided they, of course, have title to property. Most do not as history has shown their inability to substantiate ownership. What I think should happen is...Jewish communities on the land should continue to grow and flourish.

FireGarden

20th July 2009, 07:47 AM

ddt

20th July 2009, 08:08 AM

Lol... I think "Elvis has left the building".

when someone lacks the courage to express thier views I can't see the point in persisting.

I think it's quite obvious why Marc39 won't answer the question; especially after the ban of Alex Libman.

Thunder

20th July 2009, 08:14 AM

The 300,000, or so, Jews already living on "the land" are fully compliant with the law in doing so, given Jewish sovereignty over the land and Jewish title over much of the land. International agreements permit a non-Jewish minority in Palestine, provided they, of course, have title to property. Most do not as history has shown their inability to substantiate ownership. What I think should happen is...Jewish communities on the land should continue to grow and flourish.

the issue is not "Jews living in the West Bank".

the issue is Israelis living on land that was legally expropriated for military purposes and then illegally used for Israeli civilian settlement, with NO compensation to the original land owners.

the Palestine Mandate calls for Jews to settle the land...NOT steal it from others, kick them out, and move in.

There are only two legitimate solutions to the issue of the settlements:

#1. remove all the settlements and the settlers. except for those few that will remain within Israeli sovereignity.

#2. let some or most of the settlements stay....but under Palestinian soverignity and the settlers become Palestinian citizens.

If 1 million Arabs can live in Israel as Israeli citizens..then 250,000 Jews can live in Palestine as Palestinian citizens.