Article

2004-08-16 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dutchgeek 2004-08-16 15:16|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Fences are OK unless tehy keep out homicidal bombers, then they are racist. One would think that the Israeli fence would be totally ineffective for the purposes of apartheit because some many Arabs live in Israel proper.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-08-16 4:55:50 PM|| 2004-08-16 4:55:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Fences are OK unless tehy keep out homicidal bombers

Fences are OK when a country builds them on territory that is actually considered its own. If this "European separation fence" is built, I'm pretty confident that it won't be built on non-EU soil.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-16 5:03:45 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:03:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 The problem is that the Arabs have very interesting ideas about which territory is Israel's own...

They tried to prove their point in 1949, 1967, 1973...

Frankly Aris, when a "neighbor" shoots at you every day, he loses the right to whine about "territory".

You know I wish Israel just said: You attacked us three times to wipe us out, we fought back... now if you want any "rights", then EARN them.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-16 5:15:52 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:15:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Israel itself has not declared the territory of West Bank and Gaza to be its own, so I don't think that Europe is under any obligation to do it on Israel's behalf.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-16 5:20:31 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:20:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 AK - we've been over this before - the fact that Israel does not annex the West Bank does NOT imply that Israel thinks it has no claim over it - rather it acknowledges that its claim is disputed, and that determination of a final boundary must done through negotiations. MEANWHILE Israel has the right (per Israel) to build a fence where security requirements dictate, without prejudicing the final boundary.

To insist on Israels building the wall on or withing the green line would be to state that all territory east of the green line is the territory of a state called Palestine, which the PA does NOT claim, in the same sense that Israel doesnt "claim" the west bank - IE the PA knows that a unilateral declaration of independence would not serve its interests, just as Israel knows a unilateral annexation would not serve ITS interests.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-16 5:26:02 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:26:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 No you have it all wrong.... From the EU perspective...

Some animals are better than others...
Two legs bad! Four legs Good!

ROFL...

Posted by 3dc 2004-08-16 5:34:38 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:34:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Aris, they objected to the fence/wall wherever it was built. Personally I think the Israelis should be able to wall off the whole thing and expel anyone that acts up. But there is a lot dispute on where the actually border lies between the âoccupied territories.â Since itâs Israelis giving up the land for what certainly is NOT peace, I would allow them certain leeway with regards to security. Facts are is that the fence/wall IS working and the Israelis would be stupid to tear it down.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2004-08-16 5:35:26 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:35:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Liberalhawk> I'd be glad enough to have Israel build a wall on the place it thinks the border *should* be built, and grant voting rights on the people contained in that line. That would atleast give us a hint of what's the maximum portion of West Bank that Israel claims to be its own.

And I'd also be more than glad to support the moral right of Israel to possess the entirety of Jerusalem + area around it + the whole of the Golan heights. And infact any other portion of the West Bank whose inhabitants Israel would be willing to give voting rights.

But doing that would ofcourse mean defacto enforcing one *specific* annexation on *both* sides -- which would be inconvenient if on a later date, Israel decided it wanted to annex some more. And it's ofcourse also inconvenient if one just wants to rule a territory without offering political rights to the people in it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-16 5:38:34 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:38:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 "Aris, they objected to the fence/wall wherever it was built. "

Not the Europeans. The Europeans only objected to a fence/wall built inside the West Bank to separate Palestinian land from other Palestinian land in order to protect what Europe sees as illegal Israeli settlements that represent a land-grab. The Europeans never objected to a fence/wall meant to protect Israel proper.

Since the Arab states (including the PA) generally object to Israelis *breathing*, there's no point in saying that they *also* object to the fence.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-16 5:43:06 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:43:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "Since the Arab states (including the PA) generally object to Israelis *breathing*"

So why should the breathing Israelis care about WHERE to protect themselves.

BTW there are Israelis living east of your cherished Green Line. Shall they breathe?

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-16 5:48:23 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:48:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 The fence is only there to avoid the UN Sanctioned Law of Overrun and it should be removed by the American occupiers of El Paso.

Posted by Brutile 2004-08-16 6:01:03 PM|| 2004-08-16 6:01:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Breathe? Of course, perhaps a Jew law of return to Warsaw, there's good breathing space for ya!

Posted by Brutile 2004-08-16 6:02:35 PM|| 2004-08-16 6:02:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 AK - 1. In negotiations you dont state what your final position is (well unless youre Ehud Barak and willing to let the negotiation fail) You go in with a maximal position,listen to the other guys maximal position, and then work out a compromise. Its in principle impossible for Israel to know where that compromise would be, and its absurd to build the wall on the line of a maximal negotiating position - which would probably NOT be a very good strategic position for it, and would NOT be any more acceptable to the EU (other than AK) than the current wall
B. Israel does NOT accept that the wall prejudices the final boundary, and DOES NOT accept that it represents a de facto annexation. It is a security fence and THAT is all.
C. As for the moral rights AK is prepared to concede, that and a dollar gets me on the bus, as we say here in the US. What matters to Israel is what agreement they can eventually reach with the PA. Until they can reach one, indeed until the PA has a leader who is a partner for peace, theres no point in tossing around annexation lines. Theres also no reason to build the fence on the green line, when many Israelis live in places like Maaleh Adumim, that can be economically protected by a modest eastward movement of the fence.

Now if you WANT to make it inconvenient for Israel to protect places like Maaleh Adumim, as punishment for not granting political rights to the small number of Pal West bank inhabitants of lands west of the fence, and want to punish Israel by keeping all Israelis who live in areas where Pals dont have full rights vulnerable to terrorists who murder babies, than it makes sense for you to take that position, but theres no reason for Israel to take it.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-16 6:09:37 PM|| 2004-08-16 6:09:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 BTW there are Israelis living east of your cherished Green Line. Shall they breathe?

they are all racists who hate arabs, and so they must die, is the position, I take it.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-16 6:11:03 PM|| 2004-08-16 6:11:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 What negotiations? Who's dreaming now? There exist no negotiations, there exists a state of war. Build your wall at the "maximal positions", annex the territory within, let the Palestinians outside it wage war upon the bricks instead. If actual negotiations ever take place, *then* that can change.

But I think that most non-Israelis tend to believe that the reason Israel doesn't show its maximal position is that its maximal position is actually the *whole* of the West Bank. And thus a wall enclosing that territory wouldn't be useful in protecting against West Bank Palestinians because it would be a wall on the borders with Jordan.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-16 6:27:29 PM|| 2004-08-16 6:27:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 What negotiations?

The ones that ended in 2000 when Arafat refused to even discuss anything but the destruction of Israel.

Who's dreaming now? There exist no negotiations, there exists a state of war.

Yes, because the Palestinians want it that way. At least, their "leaders" do, and there's not a whole lot of evidence that the people want to change leaders.

But I think that most non-Israelis tend to believe that the reason Israel doesn't show its maximal position is that its maximal position is actually the *whole* of the West Bank.

Uh-huh, Aris. Sure. "Most non-Israelis" believe in the "Greater Israel" conspiracy theories the ~~anti-Semites~~ anti-Zionists peddle.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-16 7:32:11 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-16 7:32:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I say remove all of the damm Paleos from the west bank and gaza and deport them to Lebanon. Egypt and Jordan as least have the sense to know they will never beat Isreal in a war. Put the wall on those borders. The damm Paleos have no common sense. Their colective actions speak about their willingness to "negotiate."

The Paleos refuse to renounce violence and swear to drive all the jews into the sea. Screw them. The current borders of the middle east were established by Europe who can only snipe at the Jews a people Europe almost single handedly wiped from the face of the planet. Those borders have no relationship to reality. The wall is to keep these murders out not keep people in.

Posted by Flamebait93268 2004-08-16 8:02:29 PM|| 2004-08-16 8:02:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Aw.... hell... we keep negotiating and the Jews keep staying!

Call the Poles, Rally the Russ! Alert the Ukraine! It's Jew killing time!

Posted by Futile 2004-08-16 8:07:52 PM|| 2004-08-16 8:07:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Aris--

You do realize the "maximalists" in Israel are against Sharon and against the wall, right?

Posted by BMN 2004-08-16 8:12:08 PM|| 2004-08-16 8:12:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm with you on this one, Aris. The fence would be completely legal and moral if the the Israelis claimed the West Bank and Gaza, or any portion of them, and then put a wall around it. Of course they'd have to drive out all the non-Israeli inhabitants.
But it's only a technicality.

Then the Paleos could start an independence movement, much like we have here with nutcases and kooks in the Republic of Texas.
http://the-republic-of-texas.org/

Posted by Asedwich 2004-08-16 8:14:29 PM|| 2004-08-16 8:14:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 There exist no negotiations, there exists a state of war. Yes, because the Palestinians want it that way.

Exactly. You utterly failed to get my point, and instead you made it: Claims that Israel doesn't need to define a border for itself because it's currently in a state of negotiations about the issue are utter bull. Glad we are in agreement.

"Most non-Israelis" believe in the "Greater Israel" conspiracy theories the anti-Semites anti-Zionists peddle.

No, it's just that most non-Israelis don't believe that countries build settlements in territory that they don't desire to control -- we're just wacky and paranoid to believe that I guess.

And since Israeli settlements have been built throughout the West Bank, all the way up to the Jordanian border, we are just wacky and paranoid to believe that an Israeli state including *them* will necessarily have to contain the whole of the West Bank.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-16 8:16:01 PM|| 2004-08-16 8:16:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Flamebait93268, your idea would have worked if Israel had done it within a year or so of the 1967 or 1973 wars when nobody contested that they had the moral high ground. They could have moved the Pals into Sinai and then given the land Sinai back to Egypt and settled the mess. But that did not happen.

Israel won't displace the Pals unless there is another Arab v Israel war involving Arab nations or a nuke. The Arabs lost so many times they know they won't win that one so they won't provide the pretext. So it won't happen unless the doomsday scenerio arises.

Posted by Yank 2004-08-16 8:25:54 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-08-16 8:25:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Who's dreaming now? There exist no negotiations, there exists a state of war.

Yes, because the Palestinians want it that way. At least, their "leaders" do, and there's not a whole lot of evidence that the people want to change leaders.

Thank you, RC, for cutting to the chase. Until the Palestinians make a concerted effort to peacefully coexist, the fence is a secondary issue at best. No one from Arafat on down through the PA's ranks have yet to demonstrate any sincere intention of resolving the crisis with anything except kassam rockets and bomb vests.

So long as that remains the case, the Palestinians (in a most richly deserved fashion) are screwed, blued and tattooed.

Aris, I honestly think you are mistaken in regarding the fence as a de facto "border." Were the Palestinians to display even a hint of sincere negotiation towards peace, I firmly believe the fence's position would instantly become negotiable.

One need only examine Qorie's demand that all Palestinian prisoners in Israel be released before the crisis can be resolved if you doubt the incredible perfidy of the Palestinians. Arafat and his gang of thugs will do whatever it takes (even against the better interests of the Palestinian people) to obstruct and foil any attempts at peace. For that they should die. The fence is merely a second-best alternative.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 8:32:08 PM|| 2004-08-16 8:32:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Zenster,

You neglect to point out to Aris that he has already admitted that there is a "war" on, so that the question of the location of the fence for self-defense purposes is really meaningless.

Aris,

You have a nasty habit of not thinking through your positions. If there is a "War" on, then Israel could build its fence as it pleases given that the right of self-defense trumps consideration of the "enemy's territorial claims."

Let me put it bluntly...

A) Israel is correct to defend itself in as non-violent a manner as possible, given the PA's vow to never deal with it in good faith.

B) America does not have Star Trek teleportation devices which will allow it to beam forces into Syria and Iran without regard for logistical and political realites.

"If Aris was any indicator the West would be attacking Syria or Iran and sending troops to turn Darfur defacto independent rather than waste time dealing with the already demolished countries of isolated hasbeen dictators."

C) The EU will not act to stop the Islamization of Europe.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2004-08-16 9:55:33 PM|| [http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2004-08-16 9:55:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Ernest Brown> A) Israel is correct to defend itself in as non-violent a manner as possible, given the PA's vow to never deal with it in good faith

Yes, it is indeed correct to defend itself, but it has never defined those Israeli settlements as being part of "itself", has it now? It has never declared them Israeli territory, has it now? It has never actually defined *what* is Israeli territory and what isn't, has it now?

So, what's happening is that Israel's going through a different (occupied) nation's territory to protect settlements that have little more right to be there than illegal Mexicans have to be in the United States.

"America does not have Star Trek teleportation devices which will allow it to beam forces into Syria and Iran without regard for logistical and political realites"

You are now seeking to reopen a different discussion? Very well -- I will just remind you that the logistical and political realities didn't seem to bother the USA at all when it entered the catastrophe that's named "War on Iraq". Atleast the defeat of Syria or Iran would have led to immediate positive results for the wider war on Islamofascism, not ones expected only if a couple decades of democratization end up successful.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-16 10:32:46 PM|| 2004-08-16 10:32:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Aris,

A) What "nation?" The PA has no interest in actually moving from kleptocracy and Jew-killing to legitimate sovereignty as long as Israel exists.
The Israeli Supreme Court has placed the burden of justifying the wall's location on the IDF, and, to put it bluntly, they're doing about as well as they can, given the ugly alternatives to stopping the murder bombing. Daniel Gordis has a grim piece on the wall, putting the problem very eloquently.

B) Your whining about our "catastrophe that's named 'War on Iraq'" reminds me of this current Scrappleface article. Where would we have invaded Syria from? Would our good Greek friends have allowed an amphibious invasion to be supported from their territory?

(explosive laughter in background)

Would we have done it from Israel?

No...

Make that-H@LL NO!

Would your fine Turkish friends have helped us?

(cue Aris's involuntary laughter)

Gee, I guess the Saudis would have done us proud by allowing us to take out Syria from our bases in the Kingdom.

(Rantburg shuts down from 500+ people posting LOL! at the same time)

You might want to check the geographic location of Iraq before making any more of these impossible wishes, Aris. In any case, you fail to address my point C for good reason, because it is clearly true and harkens back to B. Point blank, the EU leaders, France and Germany, were not going to help us with an obvious international outlaw like Saddam, let alone Syria or Iran, because it is in their own corrupt interest to kowtow to radical Islamists for short-term "gain" over the long term best interests of the West. You well know this, and "wishing" otherwise is foolish dreaming.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2004-08-17 12:17:34 AM|| [http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2004-08-17 12:17:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 "What "nation?" The PA has no interest in actually moving from kleptocracy and Jew-killing to legitimate sovereignty as long as Israel exists."

Yes, the PA is a dictatorship. How does that make the Palestinians not be a nation, except in the sense that you like to redefine words in order to suit your purpose?

"Where would we have invaded Syria from?"

From Israel.

Or from the sea, if you are so very terrified of openly declaring the alliance between USA and Israel that everyone already knows is there. Use the UK naval bases in Cyprus as staging area.

But ofcourse the UK might prove to be "Old Europe" and not such good allies after all if it came round to the issue of attacking Syria. You might have to do it *gasp* unilaterally.

But do you *really* want your whole argument to boil down to "We had no place to attack Syria from and that's why we let it keep on supporting the same global terrorism that kills Israelis and Americans?"

And I'm uninterested in addressing your unsubstantiated point C, mainly because it's unsubstantiated.

Point blank, the EU leaders, France and Germany, were not going to help us with an obvious international outlaw like Saddam, let alone Syria or Iran, because it is in their own corrupt interest to kowtow to radical Islamists for short-term "gain" over the long term best interests of the West.

And America has likewise often seen its own corrupt interest in kowtowing to dictatorships for short-term "gain" over the long term best interests of global democracy and freedom. In this France and America are quite similar.

As I said you might have had to go it unilateral. Oh, the horror of it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-17 1:29:00 AM|| 2004-08-17 1:29:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 "How does that make the Palestinians not be a nation"

Not declaring sovereignty is the point at issue.

But do you *really* want your whole argument to boil down to "We had no place to attack Syria from and that's why we let it keep on supporting the same global terrorism that kills Israelis and Americans?"

False dilemma, we first have to have a base to put pressure on Syria and Iran.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2004-08-17 10:13:49 AM|| [http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2004-08-17 10:13:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Point blank, the EU leaders, France and Germany, were not going to help us with an obvious international outlaw like Saddam, let alone Syria or Iran, because it is in their own corrupt interest to kowtow to radical Islamists for short-term "gain" over the long term best interests of the West.

And America has likewise often seen its own corrupt interest in kowtowing to dictatorships for short-term "gain" over the long term best interests of global democracy and freedom.
-----
Tu quoque is a pathology of reason, Aris, I suggest you dispense with it in the future. Did I say that France's behavior justified bad behavior by the U.S.? No.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2004-08-17 10:16:42 AM|| [http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2004-08-17 10:16:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 Your sudden obsession with randomly revisiting an old debate is just as unexplained as *your* bringing the supposed "EU leaders" (gonna be calling Texas "the US leader" from now on, I guess) when debating which country should have been attacked.

So at this point, I think I'd rather stop this non-sequitur thread of yours, which originated by a comparison between two fences and two situations until you choose to somehow bring back a different issue about Syria and Iraq (probably because you sought an opportunity to bring it up and were too impatient to wait until actually finding a *relevant* thread in order to display your mocking overdramatic theatrics) without even pretending any hint of a connection to the matter being discussed.

And, btw, please do admit it that when you were mocking me about my supposed lack of geographical knowledge, you didn't even know about the UK naval bases in Cyprus, just one short step from Syria.

Did I say that France's behavior justified bad behavior by the U.S.?

And I never said that US stupidity and bad behaviour justified French bad behaviour, but you nonetheless sought fit to bring up the French "kowtowing" to dictators. That's your non-sequitur insanity, not mine.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-17 11:11:23 AM|| 2004-08-17 11:11:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Aris,

You said that "the West" should intervene in Syria and Iran. If you're saying that Germany and France no longer count towards that, fine, join the club.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2004-08-17 11:26:49 AM|| [http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2004-08-17 11:26:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 Not only is France's pro-Arabist tilt FULLY DOCUMENTED, it was even predicted in the following position paper presented to de Gaulle in -1945.- It is a virtual playbook of the "French exception" policy post-1967.

Alexander Kojeve makes the call

Posted by Ernest Brown 2004-08-17 11:36:00 AM|| [http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2004-08-17 11:36:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 Ernest Brown> Yes, I'm saying that the West should intervene in Syria and Iran, and yes Germany and France *do* count as Western, the same way that America counts as Western even though it didn't intervene in Syria or Iran either.

Do you know the meaning of the word "should" as describing not what necessarily actually happened but what would have been good to happen?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-17 5:36:04 PM|| 2004-08-17 5:36:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Aris, I'm being sarcastic. Of course they SHOULD side with the West and stand against radical Islam. They aren't going to for the near future, not when they can prop up their economies with the neo-colonial exploitation of "guest workers" that started the whole thing in the first place.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2004-08-17 7:08:04 PM|| [http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2004-08-17 7:08:04 PM|| Front Page Top

18:00 Halfass Pete
17:02 Halfass Pete
15:01 Halfass Pete
17:23 Halfass Pete
17:15 Halfass Pete
14:10 Halfass Pete
13:37 Halfass Pete
12:38 Halfass Pete
12:27 Halfass Pete
11:26 Halfass Pete
10:11 Bulldog
10:11 Bulldog
19:08 Ernest Brown
17:36 Aris Katsaris
11:36 Ernest Brown
11:26 Ernest Brown
11:11 Aris Katsaris
10:16 Ernest Brown
10:13 Ernest Brown
08:42 Howard UK
07:12 Shipman
04:51 Bryan
01:43 Asedwich
01:29 Zenster