It is sad that the UN has no worth at all anymore. Eventhough USA was and is one of the main powers to help start the UN, it is now doing everything that the UN is against. Building a wall??????? dont tell me any of you think that this is humane. Putting any persons/ groups inside a wall or behind a fence is not right and it will just anger more people who get seperated from their families. many jews have experianed this in the Holocost time period. and many germans have felt this during the communist regime ther. but now in the end humanity wins, the wall will come down one day and we will all live normal lives again.... ..... *prays*.....
It's good that you're for showing humanity and all, but you think the wall coming down will enable people to live "normal lives again" ?!!? You mean normal as in suicide bombing attacks? Don't tell me that you think this is humane.
adeel, Will people be 'behind the wall' as is...enclosure, or is the wall being built to seperate warring people? Curious, what if the wall works and halts terrorist attacks and the subsequent rataliatory strikes. Would a peaceful period maybe help get peace talks on track?
Perhaps if there was another way - other than erecting a fence - to stop suicide bombers from crossing into Israel, then Israel would stop building the fence? Ya think? I dunno, maybe if the PA actually cracked down on the militants as they have agreed to do, there would be no need for a fence. Perhaps if the PA stopped brainwashing the Palestinian people into thinking that pushing the Jews into the sea and martyring themselves against the hated Jews, there would be no need for a fence? Just a thought. It is no coincidence that virtually every single suicide bomber and terrorist attack emanates from the West Bank. Gaza has a security fence around it.
Why would that be the issue? The issue here should be to do what is necessary to stop the violence. If nothing but a fence works, then may God throw a fence out there before my very eyes. And who knows whose land it is anyway? Their claims of "It's on Palestinian land!" make reference to land they were supposed to get under the Oslo accords. Well guess what? The Oslo accords are dead. They died when Arafat told Barak "no". They died when Arafat decided not to reign in the militants. Dead, null, and void. The Palestinians have failed to understand one thing in this conflict: they are not in a position to make demands, especially demands that Israel cannot afford to meet. Sorry as it sounds, they will get only what the Israelis are willing to give them. If they had any brains, then they'd reign in the militants so that no fence would be built, talks could resume, and they could get their state. Sadly, they do not seem to have the requisite brainpower to figure out that that is what needs to be done, and that that is the *only* way that they are ever going to get what they want. They are lucky that the Israelis haven't just pushed them into Jordan and Egypt and been done with the whole affair. b****ing about the fence will get them nowhere.
thats what i thought was one of the issues... i mean if israel wants to build a fence around its cities by all means i hope it gets famous like the great wall and all future civilizations can appreciate it, but if its ther to stop a group of people and if it harms any citizens such as the innocents, and if it deprives a group of people of their basic god given rights, then it will be a known failure condemned by the world as long as we live
Treeman, I agree with you on many points. I see the US benefit of taking Iraq. I feel that if we promote democracy there, we can help them and at the same time help ourselves significantly. But the Israel situation just peeves me. We in the US are paying for their defense force. We subsidize their government with billions in US tax dollars and US weapons and munitions. That military equipment is used to defend financially unfeasible settlements that are creating much of this problem. I think our position in Israel is detrimental to our more important goals in Iraq. Instead of focusing on the benefit, we are seen as "helping the zionists" and fighting Israel's wars for them. The whole US-Arab /Muslim World relations disaster over the last 50 years is based on our unwavering support for the State of Israel regardless to their actions. Our dollars flowing freely and our US Apache Helicopters shooting missles into streets will not help our cause in Iraq and our sentiment in that region. I think that our subsidizing of the state of Israel is also a detriment, because if there was a significant financial crunch then they would be forced to settle and to give up trying to defend settlements in occupied areas. If we begin to cut support for Israel, this will show that we are not their monkey, and many in the world see us. Our whole congress and senate stood and gave a notion of solidarity with Israel last year??? WTF is that? When have we ever been so concerned with another nation to the detriment of our own financial and political interests??
Khan, if the US were to stop supporting Israel, I wouldn't expect them to give up settlements. I would expect the Palestinians an Arab countries to launch an all-out war against the weakened Israel, and then Israel would use whatever means necessary to win. Nuclear weapons included. That's probably the same that would have happened if the US didn't stop Saddam. Europe would have had to nuke him or something. Same with Slobo. US aid probably helps to stablize things, at least in the short term.
I know another thing that might help bring about peace. Stop oppressing the palestinians and get those settlements off their land. Then nobody would have to put a fence around the illegal settlements which would grap more land. Of course Israel wants as much land as it can take. There is a lot of talk about Palestinians wanting to drive Israelis away, but it's a two way street, and there have been Israeli government members who have said as much in the past. Let the Palestinians have the water they need to live decently in an arid climate. The wells the palestinians built are now in Israeli control. The Palestinians aren't allowed to drill new ones or dig deeper in the ones they've already drilled. The Israelis take water from the Palestinian wells give it to the settlers on Palestinian land. Then Palestinians are charged more for water. All of that has absolutely nothing to do with preventing suicide attacks. It does anger the Palestinians and cause resentment, and atmosphere that's not condusive to peace. None of that excuses suicide bombers, but let's at least put forth some effort to stop the oppression by Israel. We do put forth an effort to admonish the terrorists who blow themselves up in Israel, but we do nothing to stop the apartheid conditions that the Palestinians live under for no other reason than they are Palestinians.
Don't whine to me about oppression and the settlements - those things will disappear when the terrorism emanating from the West Bank disappears. And no sooner. I have tried over and over to tell you guys that nothing will change until the terrorism is reigned in, but you just don't listen. You just don't get it. You listen about as well as the Palestinians do. And becauase of that - because you will not admit that the entire peace process *cannot* move forward until the suicide bombings stop - do not ever expect it to stop. Really, don't hold your breath. The odds of the Israelis giving the Palestinians what they want while the suicide attacks are going on are right about as good as the odds of us giving Osama what he wants while his guys are trying to kill more Americans. Ain't gonna happen. Failed Leadership The obstacle to peace in the Middle East. By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn It is a "pretense" to think that "terrorism represents a failure, rather than a core element, of Palestinian governance," as Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby recently put it. The question thus becomes: If terrorism is at the center of Palestinian leadership, what is at the center of Palestinian desires — for Palestinians, for Israel, and for America? The question of what Palestinians want and think is important, because creating a new state is fraught with difficulty and rightful skepticism — especially in the Middle East, where the new Palestinian state would be the Arab world's 22nd. And not one of those states, with the exception of the new Iraq, is a democracy. Indeed, outside of Iraq, the two most prominent "moderate" Arab states — Jordan and Saudi Arabia — do not even allow basic civil or political rights for non-Muslims. In Jordan, Jews cannot be citizens; in Saudi Arabia, the prohibition applies to Jews as well as Christians. To be sure, double standards are rife in the Middle East: Israel is the first object of blame, and yet Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Jews, Christians, and Muslims have such rights as citizenship, voting, and serving in political office. Indeed, the Israeli parliament has ten Arab members. One struggles to imagine a day when Jordan or Saudi Arabia would allow a person of Jewish descent even to run for office in the Jordanian national assembly or the Saudi municipal elections. It is long past time to forgo the notion that Israel is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East or the cause of terrorism there or here. Quite simply, democracies do not start wars with other democracies — nor do democracies support terrorism. When democracy takes hold in the nascent Palestinian state there will be peace; until then, there will be terrorism, and we should not be complicit in the creation of another terrorist state. By democracy, we do not mean one man, one vote, one time, but, rather, democracy defined by the rule of law, and by freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom to be educated in schools that are not devoted to anti-Jewish and anti-Western propaganda. There is no need for another Syria or Iran — the world is surfeited with the difficulties they have wrought already. A new poll, just conducted and published by Public Opinion Marketing Research of Israel (PORI) for Palestinian Media Watch brings into sharp relief the reasons for caution in moving forward with the creation of that 22nd state. According to the PORI poll, 40 percent of Israeli Arabs and 36 percent of Palestinians believe the United States is "the single greatest threat to world peace." In the war to liberate Iraq, 50 percent of Palestinians "strongly" supported Saddam Hussein and another 24 percent "mostly" supported him — a combined score of 74 percent support for one of the greatest thugs of our age, compared with 95 percent support for the United States by Israeli Jews. Finally, 79 percent of Palestinians do not consider "bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants to be acts of terrorism"; neither do 31 percent of Israeli Arabs. In a separate poll recently conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, 75 percent of Palestinians support the recent suicide bombing at a restaurant in Haifa that killed 20 Israelis. With these numbers, and this sense of popular sentiment from those seeking a Palestinian state, the U.S. and Israel need to move at a very deliberate pace — democracy, forswearing of terrorism, and willingness to live with (rather than eliminate) Israel will need to be the first conditions of any further movement toward the creation of that state. To create a new state under the current conditions would be to reward terrorism. Yasser Arafat and the terrorism he has brought to the modern world have wreaked enough havoc. In the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, Arafat taught the world the "benefits" of hijacking civilian airliners — he was rewarded with U.N. resolutions, U.N. speaking engagements, and U.N. status. From the U.S. he received respectability, including multiple White House visits and meetings with President Clinton. Over the past several years, just as Israel was moving toward implementing full Palestinian statehood, suicide bombings began in Israel. Arafat and his followers looked at their past generation of success and believed that if terrorism worked toward getting the Palestinians international credibility and attention, an escalation like suicide bombings could only push toward the finish line. Just over two years ago, however, we Americans suffered what Israel has for too long, and a new age of fighting terrorism was thrust upon us. It would be both imprudent and morally wrong to reward Palestinian terrorism by creating a Baathist-Taliban state coterminous with our efforts to defeat terrorism elsewhere. Palestinian statehood may come, but not under these conditions — not if the war on terrorism is to have any meaning, and not if democracy is to be supported not just at home, but in the Middle East as well. — William J. Bennett is a co-director of Empower America and the author of Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism. Seth Leibsohn is the vice president for policy of Empower America.
[QUOTE Failed Leadership The obstacle to peace in the Middle East. By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn ... The question of what Palestinians want and think is important, because creating a new state is fraught with difficulty and rightful skepticism — especially in the Middle East, where the new Palestinian state would be the Arab world's 22nd. And not one of those states, with the exception of the new Iraq, is a democracy. Indeed, outside of Iraq, the two most prominent "moderate" Arab states — Jordan and Saudi Arabia — do not even allow basic civil or political rights for non-Muslims. In Jordan, Jews cannot be citizens; in Saudi Arabia, the prohibition applies to Jews as well as Christians. To be sure, double standards are rife in the Middle East: Israel is the first object of blame, and yet Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Jews, Christians, and Muslims have such rights as citizenship, voting, and serving in political office. Indeed, the Israeli parliament has ten Arab members. One struggles to imagine a day when Jordan or Saudi Arabia would allow a person of Jewish descent even to run for office in the Jordanian national assembly or the Saudi municipal elections. ...[/QUOTE] That sounds a little contradictory to what some here have argued about Israel. Is that the whole story about Arab Israeli voting rights?
agreed that the arab states lack true multi-party democracies in general. i think the hasty British retreat from its middle east empire has a large part to play here. i think religion, raditional political arrangements, and the lack of advanced political education play a part too. however i do believe several arab leaders are initiating democratic reforms, and most arab states already do have elements of democracy (usually single-party) in place. the authors of the article cites two extreme examples of intolerance, which, though reprehensible, isn't that representative. furthermore, a question i have to ask is: even IF there was true multiplary democratic elections, would there be enough jews in these arab states to get jewish candidates elected? if not, then is the question they ask relevant? if a homogenous society elects to be intolerant, who's there to be hurt? kind of like if a nation of deaf people bans the radio... but what is bennet and leibsohn fundamentally trying to argue here? that the lack of democracy in other states is an excuse for israel not to grant palestine it's own? even if the palestinians choose not to adopt a democracy (and instead establishes say a theocracy), it's still should be their own choice, and theirs alone.
after rereading that article i've come to this conclusion: to these two authors, democracy is only good when the results are in our favour. it is precisely this dumbass, anachronistic logic that had America supporting ruthless right-wing dictators/butchers in south america and africa. don't they remember pinochet? don't they remember mobutu seseseko? by the way, cohen, it's sure much nicer to be on the same side as you. i really do admire your ability to see both sides of the issue. i'm trying, but on things like this it's just so hard...
I'm afraid that you are the one who doesn't get it. Water rights have zero to do with stopping terrorism. Allowing Palestinians to have water won't in anyway increase suicide bombings. You seem to be the one who doesn't, can't or won't listen. You listen about as well as the oppressive govt. of Israel. Why does a Palestinian farmer get the same amount of water for bathing, showering, irrigating all of his crops, drinking, and cooking, that an Israeli settler gets for just drinking? That is a decision based solely on someone being Palestinian and not at all on suicide bombings. They aren't related. You mentioned whining about oppression? hahaha! Some of us are actually concerned about oppression. We want it to stop. Some of us aren't so blind as to think water rights are related to suicide bombings. The settlers wouldn't stop if the suicide bombings stop. They want the whole area, and have vowed to build new settlements for any of the old ones torn down. They don't listen. Sorry to whine about following the Genvea convention, and UN resolutions. Some people take those commitments seriously even if you do not. Plus stopping that kind of bigotted legislation and policy is what is fair and just. To stop being fair and just for any reason is just plain wrong. Are you one of those moral relavists? Or do you believe when something is wrong it's wrong? During periods of relative peace, the settlements did not stop. They kept on being built. As for the peace process not continuing because of suicide bombers, you are giving the terrorists control of the process. That's one of the things wrong with the whole deal. The terrorists don't want peace, their support will dry up and fade away. The peace process should go on regardless of the suicide bombings. The terrorists should still be sought, hunted down, and gotten rid of, but their actions should no longer have any effect on the peace process. By stopping the process with each new bombing, the only group that has power from that are the groups that do the suicide bombings. Unlike you, I'm all for making them irrelevant to the process, and not giving them the power that you seem to place in their hands. Once they are being hunted down, AND their tactics no longer impede progress toward Palestinian Statehood the people who would normally join or support them won't feel the desire to do so near as much. The oppression would stop, and the power would be out of the hands of the terrorists.
I didn't think you guys would get it. Any idea that puts the onus on the Palestinians to reign in their terrorist elements is just not going to fly with you guys. And that is why we will never have peace there. You guys *honestly* think that it is possible that peace will come before the suicide bombings stop? Just think about what is wrong with that sentence.
but u think that building a wall will stop suicide bombings... the more you tick of a group of people the harder they will revolt, its a proven point
Seems simple, right? But no, apparently, just one more outrageous strike against the dignity of these people will make them as complacent as cows. ... I won't hold my breath for that.
A couple of things... 1. If the Palestinians had their own state they would have more freedom in which to act against the Palestinians 2. It wouldn't have to just be the Palestinians who were going after the suicide bombers. The U.S. is nation building in Iraq. One of the rationales for that is that setting up an independent democracy is good for the region. Well the UN could help with the nation building in Palestine. They would be on the ground to help capture, elminate terrorists etc. That way we could help establish another independent democracy, and the operations against the terrorist groups woul expand as well. Having leaders willing to do that is another question, so I don't know if it will happen or not. But it would be the right thing to do?
