Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 07/09/2004 View Thu 07/08/2004 View Wed 07/07/2004 View Tue 07/06/2004 View Mon 07/05/2004 View Sun 07/04/2004 View Sat 07/03/2004
1
2004-07-09 International-UN-NGOs
Court: Israeli fence violates int'l law, must be dismantled
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 Steve White 2004-07-09 1:42:58 AM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Israel.....finish building your barrier wall, if that's what you want to do. Piss on the "international court of justice". It's just another wing of the worldwide "anti-israel", "pro-arab" monster.

Thomas Jefferson would say; "Let the international court of justice enforce it's ruling." Or was it Andrew Jackson? Oh well, it doesn't matter.

Why can palestinians only be "fulfilled" if they have access to Israel? Why can't they build their own functioning economy? I'll tell you why. They've wasted all these years perfecting methods of mass murder, instead of making a better life for their people.

They've taken the billions of dollars, given in good faith, by the West, including Israel, and squandered it on explosives and weapons of every type, instead of building a better future.

Murdering innocent Israeli women and children doesn't improve the lives of palestinians one tittle. Muslims are filthy, nasty people.
Posted by Halfass Pete 2004-07-09 2:22:36 AM||   2004-07-09 2:22:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Question, is Israel party to the ICC? If not, they can tell them to roll it up, and shove it.
Posted by Silentbrick  2004-07-09 2:36:47 AM||   2004-07-09 2:36:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Tear down the wall and do a Darfur on the Palestinians. Seems the ICJ has no problem with that.
Posted by ed 2004-07-09 2:39:24 AM||   2004-07-09 2:39:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm with Halfass. Funny, that HWSNBN gets his definitions of "torture" and "international law" from the ICC.
Somebody clue me in---does he have a really fast web archive program, or does he simply save posts from everybody he disagrees with?

In any case, the "green line" is as much an arbitrary paleosimian crock of crap as the insistence on a return to the 1967 borders. One "do over" after another. The paleos are probably as filthy and nasty at cards as they are at booming.
Posted by therien  2004-07-09 2:49:09 AM||   2004-07-09 2:49:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Halfass--- I think that would have been Jackson, in re: the Supreme Court on the Cherokee resettlement/land grab decision. Jefferson might have said something similar, but ima not sure.
Posted by therien  2004-07-09 2:53:55 AM||   2004-07-09 2:53:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Question, is Israel party to the ICC
Israel never ratified its signature to the ICC.

Here's a UN website that lists all countries' and whether or not they ratified the ICC agreement:
Link
Posted by rex 2004-07-09 3:34:00 AM||   2004-07-09 3:34:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 
Who is behind this so-called "international court of justice"? The Vichy French and boys from Berlin, and they have the bold audacity issuing 'verdicts' regarding what Jews should do in order to protect themselves from nazi-like terrorists which desire to exterminate each and every Israeli?

Something is not kosher here.

Like shades of 1939 all over again lurking throughout the E.U.?

The enemy is not only the Islamist jihad boys.
Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-07-09 4:06:24 AM||   2004-07-09 4:06:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Question, is Israel party to the ICC? If not, they can tell them to roll it up, and shove it.

This isn't the ICC, it's the ICJ. Different animal, equally offensive. Check the following statement from the court's web site, "In cases of doubt as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, it is the Court itself which decides." As was said above, let 'em try to enforce it.
Posted by AzCat 2004-07-09 4:58:28 AM||   2004-07-09 4:58:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Screw it. Keep building and turn some pigs and dogs free on the "Palestinian" side.
There is and never has been a "Palestine." So this "state is a crock of cat crap.
Posted by FlameBait93268 2004-07-09 5:24:02 AM||   2004-07-09 5:24:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Antiwar TROLL 2004-07-09 6:20:28 AM||   2004-07-09 6:20:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 The world court knows nothing about the history of Jews. I think the US should nuke the place to stop them from issuing anymore stupid decisons !
Posted by Anonymous566390 2004-07-09 7:46:00 AM||   2004-07-09 7:46:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 the Tourette's Troll© shows her ugly face again...

Build the wall, electrify it, and doze a clear no-man's land. Shoot any Paleo or ICJ whelp that approaches it.
Posted by Frank G  2004-07-09 8:36:39 AM||   2004-07-09 8:36:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 And just what would you have Israel do,Antwit.Why don't you just come out and say your true thoughts.All here know what your not-so-well hidden thoughts are (Antwit"The only good Jew is a dead Jew".
Posted by Raptor 2004-07-09 8:37:47 AM||   2004-07-09 8:37:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 I think we should send a flight of B-52's to paleo land and let the rubble bounce.
Posted by djohn66 2004-07-09 8:39:03 AM||   2004-07-09 8:39:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Good morning Antisemite! So nice of you to join us.
Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-07-09 8:39:34 AM||   2004-07-09 8:39:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 "[it] is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives."

I agree with this decision. People in this forum, and even Sharon himself, keep on saying the same thing. That the specific course can change. That means that this course wasn't necessary.

Liberalhawk, I believe, has also mentioned the course of the barrier as an item used as a tool in negotiations. If the question was the security of Israel it *wouldn't* have been a matter that could be negotiated.

It then says: "The wall, along the route chosen and its associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order."

It does. The wall, ALONG THE ROUTE CHOSEN, is NOT a border, and is thus not a tool towards the protection of a border. It's a meandering line meant to annex land as arbitrarily decided. Decided not by the question of security for Israel but by the question of *settlements* and which land was more valuable to have.

This decision of the court is positive. It doesn't condemn the idea of the barrier itself, it condemns the route chosen.

Which should be condemned. Strongly.

In any case, the "green line" is as much an arbitrary paleosimian crock of crap as the insistence on a return to the 1967 borders.

But the Green line had existed and had been mutually agreed upon. Arbitrariness is not an issue when both sides agree to said arbirtrariness.

The 1967 border may not be able to be returned to. Fine. But you must have a viable border to replace them with. This wall ain't it. This wall creates a ghetto, not a country.

Oh well, it doesn't matter. Why can palestinians only be "fulfilled" if they have access to Israel?

If by Israel you include the West Bank, then that's because they live in it.

If by Israel you *don't* include the West Bank, then the wall does far more than isolate West Bank Palestinians from Israel, it isolates pockets of West Bank Palestinians from the rest of the pockets of West Bank Palestinians.

No nation would be viable like that, even if its leaders had been sane.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 8:44:53 AM||   2004-07-09 8:44:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Antiwar TROLL 2004-07-09 8:49:09 AM||   2004-07-09 8:49:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Ahh anti your so easy,got a cigarret. :)
Posted by djohn66 2004-07-09 8:50:26 AM||   2004-07-09 8:50:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Sinktrap the troll.
Posted by JerseyMike 2004-07-09 9:02:45 AM||   2004-07-09 9:02:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Antiwar TROLL 2004-07-09 9:06:04 AM||   2004-07-09 9:06:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 frankly Aris, I don't give a damn about isolating the hateful tribe. Israel could build the wall along Jordan's river border and evict the seething bastards for all I care - they've lost any legitimacy and sympathy they might have had
Posted by Frank G  2004-07-09 9:46:48 AM||   2004-07-09 9:46:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 It then says: "The wall, along the route chosen and its associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order."

Gravely. Good choice of words. No doubt the ICJ doesn't consider the jigsaw mess of human flesh left by suicide bombings of Palestinians against Jews as literally grave infringements on the rights of Israelis to live. But graves are where Jews are doomed to end up once the fences of PA suicide bombers are opened, aren't they?

If this were simply about the impropriety of the route, it wouldn't have topped the docket of this court. No, it's about scapegoating Israel while the PA commits crimes with impunity, as usual. I won't be holding my breath for the international community to come with an EFFECTIVE, alternative idea for keeping people alive. Keeping Jews alive isn't of interest to them.
Posted by jules 187 2004-07-09 10:03:22 AM||   2004-07-09 10:03:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Frank> I'm not only considering the Palestinians' sake, but the Israeli's sake as well, when I'm calling this a non-viable border.

For peace to happen you can't have a person being able to see two walls separating his village from his nearest city, just because the neighbouring nation arbirtrarily decided that it wanted to have a protected corridor that'd pass between the lands it desired to annex (because they were valuable) and the leftovers it decided to leave them.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 10:12:53 AM||   2004-07-09 10:12:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Aris--

No matter the route, the ICJ would not find in favor of the wall. That's the upshot of this paragraph:

Most of the justices believed that in building the fence, Israel violated international humanitarian law, by infringing on Palestinians' freedom of movement, freedom to seek employment, education and health. Israel violated international treaties it had signed which deal with these topics, the ruling states...

This is vague enough that the ICJ will always be able to rule against Israel. Movement to seek employment, education, and health covers pretty much everything.

Furthermore, it must ensure freedom of access to the Holy Places that came under its control," the justices wrote.

This was of course never an issue before 1967. And wouldn't have been, either. How can Israel "insure freedom of access" in the middle of a war?
Posted by BMN 2004-07-09 10:24:44 AM||   2004-07-09 10:24:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 For peace to happen you can't have a person being able to see two walls separating his village from his nearest city, just because the neighbouring nation arbirtrarily decided that it wanted to have a protected corridor that'd pass between the lands it desired to annex (because they were valuable) and the leftovers it decided to leave them.

The problem with this arguement is that Isreal tried allowing the Paleostinians free movement. Suicide bombers just kept coming through, killing more people. Regardless of whether this wall sets back the peace process or not, Isreal changes it route, or the world condemns it, this wall is the right thing to do. The right thing to do isn't always the prefered option, and you know this Aris.
Posted by Charles  2004-07-09 10:46:45 AM||   2004-07-09 10:46:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Paleostinians need to be fenced out same as zoo animals need to be fenced in.
Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 10:47:13 AM||   2004-07-09 10:47:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Fourteen votes favored the decision and the sole opponent was the American Judge, Thomas Buerghenthal.

If the US does not support the court and is not a member, why is there an American judge on this abomination?
Posted by RWV 2004-07-09 10:50:51 AM||   2004-07-09 10:50:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Aris-- the "green line" is essentially the 1949 Armistice line. It was an agreement between the Israelis and their Arab enemies (not the paleos) that delineated the West Bank and Gaza. It did not limit of define the borders of the Israeli State.
Neither did it define the limits or borders of a "Paleo" state.
But the Green line had existed and had been mutually agreed upon. Arbitrariness is not an issue when both sides agree to said arbirtrariness. When both sides agree, and then one side disagrees and tries to kill the other, then loses, then asserts the original agreement is still binding, THEN it's arbitrary.
"Paleo" ghetto or Jews being pushed into the sea... hmmm, tough call, eh?
Posted by therien  2004-07-09 11:15:02 AM||   2004-07-09 11:15:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 The problem with this arguement is that Isreal tried allowing the Paleostinians free movement. Suicide bombers just kept coming through, killing more people.

If the wall had been put in a location where a border would exist, then you WOULDN'T need to let people through it. It'd be a border, in the sense of people in that side staying in that side, and people in this side staying in this side. A very borderlike border. :-)

A wall is the right thing to do, simply not in the location built.

RWV> USA does support the International Court of Justice, it's the International Criminal Court that it doesn't support.

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

"All states maintain the right to exempt themselves from rulings of the ICJ, and particular states that have availed themselves of this right include Argentina, China, France, Israel, Russia, and the United States.

The U.S. accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946, subject to the aformentioned right to refuse all suits, and first exercised this right following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua."
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 11:17:57 AM||   2004-07-09 11:17:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 Aris--

If the wall had been put in a location where a border would exist, then you WOULDN'T need to let people through it. It'd be a border, in the sense of people in that side staying in that side, and people in this side staying in this side. A very borderlike border. :-) A wall is the right thing to do, simply not in the location built.

I pretty much agree with you. It's just that I really doubt a "court" like the ICJ would. What do you think?
Posted by BMN 2004-07-09 11:20:35 AM||   2004-07-09 11:20:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 When both sides agree, and then one side disagrees and tries to kill the other, then loses, then asserts the original agreement is still binding, THEN it's arbitrary.

I think the word you are looking for is "hypocritical", not arbitrary. Yeah, the Palestinians have scums for leaders. We know that.

That doesn't make it any less of a fact that even non-scum Palestinian would be offended by the meandering wall in the route it's being built, not just now but a hundred years from now. A wall who's purpose is not protect to Israel but to protect settlements that were created as a way to *annex* the entirety of West Bank.

Hell, even I'd be offended by people seeing that insane line and pretending it's a "border".

"Paleo" ghetto or Jews being pushed into the sea... hmmm, tough call, eh?

No, that's not the real dilemma, the real dilemma is Paleo ghetto or abandonment of Israeli settlements deep in the West Bank.

Which is not a tough call at all IMO -- the Israeli settlements there should simply be abandoned. They were only created in an effort to conquer the West Bank. If the attempted conquest has now been aborted, and people want the creation of two states existing side by side, then these settlements should likewise be aborted.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 11:30:07 AM||   2004-07-09 11:30:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 BMN> I can't really know how the ICJ would have reacted. I've not studied either its history nor its underlying politics in its decision-making. Perhaps you are right and they'd have been unfair regardless. But I don't know that for sure.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 11:32:02 AM||   2004-07-09 11:32:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 If the wall had been put in a location where a border would exist, then you WOULDN'T need to let people through it. It'd be a border, in the sense of people in that side staying in that side, and people in this side staying in this side.

A big IF, dependent upon agreed borders, which depend upon negotiations, which depend upon securing Israel from suicide bombings.

Back in your court, Palestine.
Posted by jules 187 2004-07-09 11:32:54 AM||   2004-07-09 11:32:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Aris, you can argue the nuances of international law (and God help us all, you will!), but the fence is staying.
All of this blathering was done before the Intifada and the WOT and the Israelis aren't going to argue with success which is no more splodeydopes!
And they don't have to listen to "reason" about borders because they've won every fight they've ever had with the Mooooslims, including wars where they gained the territory of the West Bank and Gaza.
They found out the hard way that Paleos don't respect "land for peace" deals, but they do respect this fence, which has effectively isolated them for the killers and losers they are.
Posted by Jen  2004-07-09 11:32:57 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-07-09 11:32:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 A wall is the right thing to do, simply not in the location built. 




Why? Because you fucking say so? You strike me as a pompous ass who has no comprehension of Israeli security problems. Your kind will be blabbering and blubbering once the Paleostinians start firing rockets and such over the security fence. Meanwhile the Paleos chose terror. The Israeli response is to fence them out in an
effective way which means to *try* to have Israeli Jews out of accurate rocket
range. You want to play a juvenile game of pretend that Israel should have the fence on the Greenline and leave hundreds of thousand
of Jews outside the fence. This will not happen and is the price the Paleos are paying for their terrorism. Which poll after poll show the
Paleostinian populace supporting. They love their murderous Jihadis and now must
pay the price. Screw 'em and their dysfunctional, murderous culture that springs
from the murderous Koran of the murderous pedophile prophet Muhammad.


Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 11:34:36 AM||   2004-07-09 11:34:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Aris--

If the attempted conquest has now been aborted, and people want the creation of two states existing side by side, then these settlements should likewise be aborted.

My argument has always been that the Palestinians should have statehood forced upon them whether they (or, particularly, their leaders) want it or not. I assume impending statehood, whether formally declared or not, is what's behind the recent revolt (perhaps too strong a word?--maybe "split" is better?) in the PA ranks.

If abandoning settlements is what is necessary to do that, I am 100% in favor of it.
Posted by BMN 2004-07-09 11:35:42 AM||   2004-07-09 11:35:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 BTW, I don't mean to say that Israel ought to abandon 100% of the West Bank. I mean that it ought to have militarily defensible borders. That could well mean some settlements must go.
Posted by BMN 2004-07-09 11:37:16 AM||   2004-07-09 11:37:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 jules> A big IF, dependent upon agreed borders, which depend upon negotiations, which depend upon securing Israel from suicide bombings.

The whole idea of the wall should have been the enforcement of a border. Such an enforcement would *not* have required negotiations. It would be the creation of a defacto border which would however have been sanely drawn so as to be accepted by an *eventual* likewise sane Palestinian government, and which in the meantime would be defensible enough.

This wall as drawn satisfies neither criterion -- it's neither a border that a sane Palestinian could accept as legitimate, and I hear that its enormous length (due to it being meandering as I believe I have mentioned) itself makes it mostly indefensible.

but the fence is staying

If the fence stays as drawn, then so will the war.

Perhaps Israel does have the moral right to recarve (and fortify) a border significantly different than the Green Line, but it doesn't have the moral right to enclave a population and pretend it's creating a border instead, when in reality it's creating an apartheid, enclosing people that'd have no right to vote on the entity governing their lives.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 11:42:21 AM||   2004-07-09 11:42:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 ARIS

No, that's not the real dilemma, the real dilemma is Paleo ghetto or abandonment of Israeli settlements deep in the West Bank. Which is not a tough call at all IMO -- the Israeli settlements there should simply be abandoned.

And how about Jewish populations that are very close to Israel proper? I hope you know that 90% of West Bank Jews live very close to the Greenline. No way should these people be on the wrong side of the security fence.

the real dilemma is Paleo ghetto

The Paleostinians make their own ghettos just fine. Same as the Muslim Arab settlement blocs in France, Holland, Belgium and such. Where the police dare not go. No Jewish help needed. In fact Jews were routed from Arab nations in the 1950s





Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 11:42:41 AM||   2004-07-09 11:42:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 For people who like to read stuff and learn things:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/boundtoc.html

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_geomaps.php

Posted by therien  2004-07-09 11:48:06 AM||   2004-07-09 11:48:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 Anon5072> And how about Jewish populations that are very close to Israel proper? I hope you know that 90% of West Bank Jews live very close to the Greenline. No way should these people be on the wrong side of the security fence.


I have no special desire for the wall to follow the Green Line exactly -- so in the case of settlements that are indeed very close to Israel proper be my guest and carve the new border in order to include them. No particular objections here.

The settlements that I said should be abandoned were the ones *deep* in the West Bank.

You strike me as a pompous ass who has no comprehension of Israeli security problems.

I think I also striked you as an anti-American -- so you keep on failing in your beliefs on me. :-)

Or was that a different Anonymous? Hard to care to remember your number.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 11:48:47 AM||   2004-07-09 11:48:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#42 ARIS

This wall as drawn satisfies neither criterion -- it's neither a border that a sane Palestinian could accept as legitimate, 

Big fucking deal. Muslims will never accept Israel because Jews now rule what was once part of Dar al Islam. Muslims feel they have the right to immigrate anywhere they want in the West, but cannot accept Jews living in Arabia. They treated "their Jews" as Dhimmis for centuries. With the birth of Israel this is finished. 45% of Israelis are Jews who were driven from Arab nations. Used be hundreds of thousands of Jews in Iraq.

and I hear that its enormous length (due to it being meandering as I believe I have mentioned) itself makes it mostly indefensible

LOL! The fence is working very well so far. Israel does not accept security advice from pompous asses.





Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 11:51:26 AM||   2004-07-09 11:51:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#43 From Haaretz:

In building the fence, the court rules, Israel violated international humanitarian law, by infringing on Palestinians' freedom of movement, freedom to seek employment, education and health.

If Haaretz's paraphrase of the decision is accurate, then this is Tranzi-ism carried to its extreme. Your neighboring country is at war with you, opinion poll after opinion poll show that the enemy population wants to see you destroyed or ethnically cleansed, but you still have an obligation to give them freakin jobs. Every time the Israelis close the border check points we hear the same thing. If Palestinians can't get to their jobs inside Israel, then they're being discriminated against. So forgive me, my European colleagues if I get a little worked up about the direction of EU politics and political thinking. It is precisely this sort of upside down logic (I have to give a man a job and bread even though he hates me and wants to kill me) that will destroy Western Civilization, not levelling some hellhole like Fallujah or Jenin.
Posted by 11A5S 2004-07-09 11:52:05 AM||   2004-07-09 11:52:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#44 Aris and AzCat are correct about clarifying which court has ruled on the case-it is the ICJ and not the ICC. I answered #2's question about which countries ratified the ICC without going back to the article to verify that the ICJ is the court in question. I'm not sure if the ICJ is biased against Israel or not because like Aris, I do not know much about it. However, because it is part of the UN and has been around longer[55 years or so] and because the ICJ rulings against a nation can trigger UN sanctions against that nation, it strikes me that for Israel to go against the ICJ's ruling could cause itself greater harm, economically and internally.ie. having Israelis blame the Sharon government for any economic negatives Israel is forced to bear.

ICJ handles cases where one nation takes another nation to court, and the whole nation ends up bearing the burden of UN sanctions if any are incurred. Whereas, the ICC handles cases against individuals, and a negative ruling only affects the individual found "guilty."
Posted by rex 2004-07-09 11:52:18 AM||   2004-07-09 11:52:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#45 The whole idea of the wall should have been the enforcement of a border.

Decided by whom?

Perhaps Israel does have the moral right to recarve (and fortify) a border significantly different than the Green Line, but it doesn't have the moral right to enclave a population and pretend it's creating a border instead...

I doubt any of this will be resolved until we factor in MUTUAL population redistributions. It will be interesting to see whether any countries besides the US will put their money where their mouth is and fork up some cash for the relocations.
Posted by jules 187 2004-07-09 11:53:40 AM||   2004-07-09 11:53:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#46 aris the only settlement thats inside the wall, thats not close to the Green Line is the large block at Ariel. And even Ariel is west of the main spine of Pal population in the northern West Bank - the Jenin-Nablus-Ramallah line. Its widely assumed that Ariel would remain Israeli in a final settlement - the main question being would the Pals receive hectare for hectare compensation elsewhere (the "dovish" position) or something less (the "hawkish" position) There really isnt much dispute over the course of the boundary. Its more over what Israel has to concede to get there, and the extent to which facts on the ground like the fence mean Israel will have to give less.

As for indefensible, theres plenty of evidence that the fence has been very effective over the last several months.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-09 11:54:17 AM||   2004-07-09 11:54:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#47 I have no special desire for the wall to follow the Green Line exactly -- so in the case of settlements that are indeed very close to Israel proper be my guest and carve the new border in order to include them. No particular objections here.



That's exactly what's going on with the security fence. In a de facto way of course. Silly you are complaining that Israel does not formally annex parts of the West Bank thus inflaming the Muslims. So stop yer bitching and moaning. Those remote settlements were intended as early warning trip wires for Arab invasions. Go read up on the history
Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 11:55:56 AM||   2004-07-09 11:55:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#48 LOL! The fence is working very well so far.

The fence hasn't been built yet, idiot. Only bits of it have been built and *those* bits aren't yet insanely meandering. The insanely meandering part is yet to come.

Muslims will never accept Israel

Turkey has accepted Israel. Egypt has accepted Israel. Jordan has de facto accepted Israel (not sure about de jure status).

They treated "their Jews" as Dhimmis for centuries

And so did the Christians. For centuries. When you say "never" you reveal your own shortsightedness. Never is a *very* long time, it doesn't extend only as far as *your own* horizon -- which is probably the tip of your nose.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 11:56:33 AM||   2004-07-09 11:56:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#49 Egypt has accepted Israel. Jordan has de facto accepted Israel (not sure about de jure status).

Aris, you're a smart guy--come on. They "accepted" Israel because they have been bribed to do so and had the hell beaten out of them more than once. Their populations never accepted a damn thing (not that that matters so much--this is the Middle East), and the governments barely have (and use their hatred of Israel as a sop to those populations).

I want the wall built because I don't believe Israel will be accepted anytime soon.
Posted by BMN 2004-07-09 12:01:30 PM||   2004-07-09 12:01:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 The fence hasn't been built yet, idiot. Only bits of it have been built and *those* bits aren't yet insanely meandering.

For something that "hasn't been built yet", it seems to be working pretty damn good so far...
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-09 12:04:12 PM||   2004-07-09 12:04:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Katsi, you are arguing to argue...dragging in the supposed historical treatment of Jews by Christians.
We Christians here in America treat the Jews just like everyone else and always have.
While the surrounding Arab countries pay lip service to "accepting" Israel, they have continued to fund and send jihadis to the Paleo areas with the aim of wiping Israel off the map for 60 years.
It's only the realpolitik of President Bush that has gotten them to "play nice" with Israel in the last year or so.
And Jordan and Egypt are terrified that when the fence goes up, the "Palestinians" will be forced back into Jordan and Egypt where they came from in the first place!
Posted by Jen  2004-07-09 12:06:13 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-07-09 12:06:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Turkey has accepted Israel. Egypt has accepted Israel. Jordan has de facto accepted Israel (not sure about de jure status).

To repeat for the naive among us. The Muslim world will never accept Israel. Given explosive Muslim demographics and Jihadist mosques & madrassas what you cite are temporary "peaceful" situations. Go read up on Islamic doctrine. Once a land has been ruled by Mohammedans they will not accept a roll back to where this land is once more ruled by non-Muslims. They do not accept losing Al Andalus which is peripheral to the Muslim center of Al Arabia/Mecca/Medina.

They accept Israel even less since Israel is a lot more proximate to the Arab Muslim center of gravity.
Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 12:10:28 PM||   2004-07-09 12:10:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 That acceptance was forced on Egypt and Jordan, doesn't make it less of an acceptance I think. Most borders in the history of the world have after all indeed been forced on a neighbour, who has been forced to accept them. Few borders have been made by peaceful agreements.

It's difficult to know what the stance of an elected government in those countries would be, and whether they'd be all populist against Israel or whether they'd support sanity and realism and accept it.

But I also mentioned Turkey, which is a muslim country that has clearly accepted (and allied itself with) Israel. And not been forced into it, either.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 12:11:27 PM||   2004-07-09 12:11:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Now you're babbling about Turkey, which is frigging miles from Israel...!
Give it up, Parthenon boy!
You're defending the indefensible.
The fence is going up--what's the ICJ, the UN and the Arab League gonna do about it?
Bupkis, as they say in Yiddish!
Posted by Jen  2004-07-09 12:14:45 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-07-09 12:14:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Aris--

I didn't mention Turkey on purpose. I would say Turkey has accepted Israel as an ally except I keep reading that the current government is reevaluating the policy.

If the mode in which Jordan and Egypt fits your definition of acceptance, OK, then I guess we agree. The wall is simply an extension of this principle in that case. That's not the same as what Turkey did, of course.
Posted by BMN 2004-07-09 12:16:31 PM||   2004-07-09 12:16:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 But I also mentioned Turkey, which is a muslim country that has clearly accepted (and allied itself with) Israel. And not been forced into it, either.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris
Amusing coming from you with the Greek name. Islamism is bubbling just under the surface in Turkey. Turkey killed off how many Greeks & Armenians in the early 1900s and these were the so called modern, secular Muslims? I will agree that the Turks are marginally better than the Mohammedan Arabs. BUt they won't give the Kurds a homeland. You should be railing with others at the UN over this outrageous supression of national self determination.
Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 12:16:50 PM||   2004-07-09 12:16:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 They do not accept losing Al Andalus which is peripheral to the Muslim center of Al Arabia/Mecca/Medina.

Most muslims *have* accepted the loss of Spain, I'm quite certain. That you choose to focus on the lunatic fringe is irrelevant. A lunatic fringe always exists -- the Greek lunatic fringe for example hasn't accepted the loss of Constantinople or of shores of Asia Minor either.

That's irrelevant. "They" do indeed accept losing Al Andalus, if by "they" you mean the Muslim world in general.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 12:17:11 PM||   2004-07-09 12:17:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 And so did the Christians. For centuries. When you say "never" you reveal your own shortsightedness. Never is a *very* long time, it doesn't extend only as far as *your own* horizon -- which is probably the tip of your nose.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris


Actually despite Islamic doctrine I would have hopes for peace if it weren't for Muslim Arab demographics and Muslim demographics in general. For example: Birth rates in Gaza are about the world's highest. Never will there be peace with Islam as long as Jihadist mosques and madrassas proliferate and spew madness and hatered. Mostly due to Saudi petro dollars. Jihadist ideology plus insane birthrates make Muslim irridentism a permanent feature of world politics.
Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 12:23:39 PM||   2004-07-09 12:23:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 "Most muslims *have* accepted the loss of Spain, I'm quite certain."
Gosh, they must have blown up the Metro in Madrid and killed 200 Spaniards just for laughs!
"A lunatic fringe always exists -- the Greek lunatic fringe for example hasn't accepted the loss of Constantinople or of shores of Asia Minor either."
Better count His Holiness the Pope in that "lunatic fringe" because he just apologized for all of Christendom for the sacking of Constantinople.
Doesn't matter if it's a "lunatic fringe," you *IDIOT* because that's all it takes to commit mass murder as we saw with those 19 members of the "lunatic fringe" that hit America on 9/11.
The IslamoNazis war on the Dar al-Har'b is ongoing to conquer it for Islam, starting with the old "Caliphate" which would include Spain.
Doesn't matter to them if they have to go back hundreds of years, their dream of making the entire world the Dar al-Islam is as vivid to them today as it was 1200 years ago, probably more vivid as the Internet, TV and airplane travel has opened up the globe to them, whereas previously they were limited only by their ships.
Posted by Jen  2004-07-09 12:25:24 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-07-09 12:25:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 As far as ANY agreements that Israel has with the paleshitians.....they are all null and void. If only one party obeys the agreements and the other party violates them with impunity, the agreements are null and void....PERIOD!

Israel owns the land, but has been under immense pressure for years to give it away. In the Israelis desire to live in peace, they have given away lots of their land, (and their security), to the filthy paleshitians......Only to have their citizens murdered almost daily by those same paleshitians, with whom they want to live in peace.

It is the filthy arabs single mission in life, to destroy Israel. They profess it daily.

Israel has no such national policy toward the filthy paleshitian arabs.

arabs are filthy animals.
Posted by Halfass Pete 2004-07-09 12:27:26 PM||   2004-07-09 12:27:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Islamism is bubbling just under the surface in Turkey.

And chauvinistic pan-Orthodoxy was hugely bubbling under the surface in Greece during most of the 90s, when our "orthodox brothers" were fighting in Bosnia. Much more so, in fact, than Islamism is bubbling in Turkey. Almost half of the Turkish parliament voted in favour of allowing American troops through its ground in the road to Iraq, but I doubt you'd find 20 out of 300 Greek MPs willing to allow American plane to launch themselves from Greece in order to bomb Serbia.

Islamism has been bubbling and will keep on bubbling for a long time -- but Turkey has been improving, not worsening, in the matter of democracy and human rights.

Turkey killed off how many Greeks & Armenians in the early 1900s and these were the so called modern, secular Muslims?

A few millions. And those were secular but hardly "modern" Muslims. Unlike what stupid people think, there exist some pretty horrible secular dictatorships, which is why Turkey's recent improvements are because of its move towards secular democracy, not its move towards "secular" full-stop, as if that would have sufficed.

But they won't give the Kurds a homeland.

They are not giving them an independent homeland but they *are* giving them the right to a vote, and the right to be elected to the Turkish parliament. Which means that Turkey treats them as citizens.

How many West-Bank Palestinians have the right to vote in the Israeli elections?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 12:27:55 PM||   2004-07-09 12:27:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 How many Paleos have the right to vote in West Bank elections for President? None since '94
Posted by Frank G  2004-07-09 12:30:52 PM||   2004-07-09 12:30:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 


Sort of true for the moment only. But Jews ruling a Mohammedan land (Israel) will never be accepted. This is going on right now and much closer to the Muslim heartland of Arabia. (Mecca and Medina)

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=4/b/iii/archives/280720035

What the West fails to understand, however, is that the Palestinians are not truly driven by the letter of international law, but rather by another force – Islam.

The tenets of Islam will never allow the Arabs to view Israel as an entity that may actually have a legitimate claim to the land, but is nonetheless willing to trade that claim for peaceful coexistence.

Israel must, according to Islam, be viewed as the conqueror of a land that once was, and therefore must always be, under the Dar el-Islam – the House of Islam.

This is the starting point, in the Arabs’ minds, of any negotiations with Israel, irrespective of historical right or the letter of international law.

With this in mind, it is little wonder that the Palestinians – 10 years into the peace process – continue to view Israel as an enemy and teach their children to do the same.

Nor should it be surprising that the Palestinians view violent acts of brutality against the Israeli conqueror as a perfectly legitimate means of regaining a land that - while it was never a sovereign Palestinian Arab entity - was once firmly in the grasp of Islam.





Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 12:31:57 PM||   2004-07-09 12:31:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 Frank G> Keep in mind that I never once said or implied that the Palestinian Authority is one-bit democratic.

Anonymous' own implied comparison was between Turkey's treatment of the Kurds and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 12:35:39 PM||   2004-07-09 12:35:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 Anonymous' own implied comparison was between Turkey's treatment of the Kurds and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris


20% of Israel is Palestinian and fares a lot better under Jews than the Kurds do under Turks.The Gaza and West Bank Paleos do not live in Israel. They live in buffer zones against Arab invasions. Arabs warred against Israel once too often. Yet the world's meshuganas say there should be no penalty when they lose. That Israel should just retreat back to the Greenline. So the Mohammedans can build and equip a better terrorist base against the Jews.
Posted by Anonymous5072 2004-07-09 12:43:44 PM||   2004-07-09 12:43:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 The Gaza and West Bank Paleos do not live in Israel. They live in buffer zones against Arab invasions.

What's the difference between living in Israel and living in "buffer zones", besides the fact that the people in the "buffer zones" don't have the rights they'd have if they were living in Israel?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 12:56:36 PM||   2004-07-09 12:56:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 A fair amount, actually. It means that Israel acknowledges those in the buffer zones do not and won't have any allegiance to Israel as a nation, unlike the (putative) allegiance of Arabs who are Israeli citizens.

The third option - live in Israel w/o citizenship, has been proven to be too dangerous for Israel to allow. I know several Israelis who regret that.
Posted by rkb 2004-07-09 1:28:06 PM||   2004-07-09 1:28:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 Aris: Just because a wall is "meandering" doesn't mean it's militarily useless. The pockets could be used to create fire sacks in case of an attack and the salients could be used to launch raids or attacks.

Also, the Islmists may be a "lunatic fringe" but never underestimate the effectiveness of a lunatic fringe in a socially fragmented population transitioning to modernism. Certainly you've heard of the Bolsheviks, Nazis, Facists, and the Japanese military clique?
Posted by 11A5S 2004-07-09 1:46:24 PM||   2004-07-09 1:46:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 The fence hasn't been built yet, idiot. Only bits of it have been built and *those* bits aren't yet insanely meandering. The insanely meandering part is yet to come.

Aris, they've been building the important parts first, and even it small length has allowed IDF security forces to concentrate on the areas where the wall ain't.
There has been an huge drop in successful attacks... do you figure it's the the wall or the targeted killings?

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-09 2:11:49 PM||   2004-07-09 2:11:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Probably the IC of J's decision is fairly consistent with international law given the assumptions the court made (the court I think ruled the territories were 'occupied land' which I believe to be the wrong classification since the territories were captured from Jordan which itself occupied them without international sanction).

The problem here is that international law is utterly useless as a means of combatting islamic terrorism.

Just like the nearly universal condemnation of bombing of the Osirak (it was called the O'Chiraq by some at the time because of the French $ involved) reactor, the IC of J says more about the condemners than the condemned.
Posted by mhw 2004-07-09 3:31:27 PM||   2004-07-09 3:31:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 An observation;

Aris repeatedly holds up Turkey as his "shining star" example of what's right in his world. He also has a huge beef with Greece's pseudo-religious "Orthodox" politics. Always the same story. Is Aris a Turk raised in Greece?

Other than that, he can be interesting at times.
Posted by ex-lib 2004-07-09 3:55:48 PM||   2004-07-09 3:55:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 regarding Turkey,

I wonder how well their anti corruption campaign has been going.
Posted by mhw 2004-07-09 4:24:42 PM||   2004-07-09 4:24:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 Aris gets a lot of Rantburg readers blood up, that is for sure. I find his posts interesting as they reflect the Euro opinion of what is going on. I don't see the point of bomb throwing at a guy who does listen to reason/is not antiwar.
Posted by remote man 2004-07-09 4:27:45 PM||   2004-07-09 4:27:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 I agree, ex-lib!
Every Greek I've ever met hates the Turks with a purple passion but not "*our*" Aris...!
Posted by Jen  2004-07-09 4:42:44 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-07-09 4:42:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 ex-lib> I was just recently accused of having a bias (an understandable one according to rkb :-) AGAINST Turkey. Ofcourse in that thread I had to remind people that I had been recently accused of being too *pro*-Turkey.

Now the wheel turns again and I am accused again of being too nice about Turkey, so I have to remind y'all that I was recently accused of being biased against it. :-)

And just so I answer your question -- as I once had to tell to Jen when *she* was questioning my ethnicity because I wasn't fitting in her mental image of the stereotypical Greek, yes I'm ethnically Greek, born of Greek parents in a Greek city, and still living on Greek soil. I have travelled (but never resided) throughout the rest of Europe, but have never been in Turkey, nor even known personally any Turks.

Shipman> I must confess I can't know the specifics -- since I don't know where exactly the attacks happened (walled, non-walled areas, West Bank, Israel proper, etc, etc) I can't even start estimating say how much the bits that have been built so far have been helping. But yeah, my own guess had been that the targetted killings of Hamas leaders had had more to do with the reduction in bombings.

So that's a point to you, I guess.

And sorry for the delay to respond, but I decided to go watch a movie instead of spending all my time in the forum. :-)
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 4:51:11 PM||   2004-07-09 4:51:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 Jen> Every Greek you've met is a nationalist then.

How many *liberal* Greeks have you known? And by liberal I don't mean left-wing, I mean liberal as opposed to authoritarian. People that preferred Manos and Andrianopoulos to Papathemelis, Karatzaferis, or Papariga?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 4:58:40 PM||   2004-07-09 4:58:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 Aris-What is the etymology of your name, may I ask? Did you know that the breakdown of your name Aris Kats-Aris leaves the initials AKA, meaning also known as in English?
Posted by jules 187 2004-07-09 5:05:37 PM||   2004-07-09 5:05:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 *Katsi*, this is the internet--You could be a pimply, obnoxious 12-year-old named Andy Panda with a permissive mother that lives in Pacatello, Idaho.
As Antiwar often says when she's not spewing "suck dog dick,"
WHATEVER.
You're still wrong about the Israeli fence...and lots of other things.
Posted by Jen  2004-07-09 5:11:41 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-07-09 5:11:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 "Aris" spelled Alpha Rho Eta Sigma, which english speakers most commonly transcribe as "Ares", same as the god of war. I prefer to transcribe it Aris, because "Eta" (in modern Greek atleast) is pronounced as a short-i.

In my case however it's short for "Aristotelis", my maternal grandfather's name, which is the Greek version of that name which in English is usually called "Aristotle".

It's coincidence that my last name also ends in "-aris". But in Greek it doesn't really rhyme because my first name is accented in the first syllable, while "Katsaris" is accented in the last.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 5:11:55 PM||   2004-07-09 5:11:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 Of all the Greeks I've met, 50% were named Aristotle and the other 50% were named Spiro or Plato.
But they all hated Turkey.
Ergo, in AKA's world, they are all evil, but chauvinistic nationalists!
Read Plato's Republic again, why don't you?!?
Posted by Jen  2004-07-09 5:15:16 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-07-09 5:15:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 Jen> I don't believe there are many 12-year old in Pacatello, Idaho that have email addresses in Greek ISPs and Greek universities, and speak perfect Greek.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 5:20:31 PM||   2004-07-09 5:20:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 all the Greeks I've met, 50% were named Aristotle and the other 50% were named Spiro or Plato

I very much doubt it. Spiro is common enough, but I've never known a single person called "Plato".

I think you lie.

they are all evil, but chauvinistic nationalists

Nationalism is more often just like racism: a question of blind stupidity and ignorance rather than intentional evil.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 5:26:07 PM||   2004-07-09 5:26:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 Aris,
I think your basic mistake is that you think that we Israelis have the luxury of treating the palestinians with logic justice and according to "international Law". You are wrong my friend, those times are over.
Because of the atrocities they have perpetrated we now have no choice but to inflict unavoidable calamities on them, including on the "silent majority" who are not included in the "lunatic fringe". Because this silent majority has not utterly condemned, jailed and stopped the abominable fringe within them, they have now lost in my eyes any right they had to be treated justly.
Damn, our previous attempts to peacefully settle things with them had nealy cost me my personal precious (at least to me) life, as one of these """heros""" exploded himself near my house !
In my mind these people do not deserve a fair treatment untill they rise up on their own initiative, grab some pitchforks and drive Arafat and his thugs out of their land.
Until they aquire some cochones(balls) to do just that, the wall stays !!!!

Please tell me Aris, would you be willing to die personally in order to treat some palestinians fairly ?????? I am not ready yet.
Posted by Socrates of Jerusalem 2004-07-09 5:59:47 PM||   2004-07-09 5:59:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 I think it's spelled cojones.

As a basic note, I'm not interested in replying to anonymous people with shifting names. Is "Socrates of Jerusalem" your one-and-only-nick or are you just using it to mock and you'll abandon it to pick up another afterwards?

And since too much fuss has been made by rampant idiots who've doubted my identity, I'm free to discount every tidbit of personal experience you share here, until you provide me proof of being who you are, I guess.

But tell me -- what guarantees would the Arabs have that grabbing those pitchforks and getting rid of Arafat would mean not only that the wall would go down, but they'd be allowed an actual state of their own with actual borders? Personally, would you be willing to dismantle the Ariel settlement (and all the rest of them) for *anything* the Palestinians would do?

I'm not talking about the "luxury of treating the palestinians with justice and according to international Law". I'm saying that one day you're gonna have to decide if all the talk about two-states is something you mean or not. The settlements go against that. They were built for the exact opposite reason.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 6:18:52 PM||   2004-07-09 6:18:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#85 President Bush told the Paleos that they weren't getting a state until they abandoned their pursuit of terror.
(And they never will, so NO, THEY'RE NEVER GETTING A STATE.)
And the Israelis have already dismantled over 80 settlements with 21 left to go...so that the Paleo areas can be completely isolated from Israel with the help of the fence.
The success of the fence speaks for itself..and I might take my tired middle-aged butt over there to defend it for the Israelis, too, if the PA gets the UN and the EU to try and take it down!
AM YISRAEL CHAI!
Posted by Jen  2004-07-09 6:36:25 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-07-09 6:36:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#86 Thanks, Aris.
Posted by RWV 2004-07-09 6:58:43 PM||   2004-07-09 6:58:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 Aris,
Good questions which I will answer in the order they were asked.

1) I am for real, I am Israely, and indeed I use a nickname and not my real name (I am ccationally
known here as the "Dodo" or sometimes when I am in the right mood as the "Elder of Zion") I do not see any problem in using nicks as long as I am honest in what I say and I do not mean to troll or mock people) So now you know who I am and I even promise not to use any other nick so you know I am for real. BTW what would you like as proof of my identity, a copy of my drivers licence ?? Does it really matter ?? Why should I lie to you, a total stranger?

2) Sorry for the misspelling of the spanish term
though I think my point was clear enough.

3)I will tell you exactly what guarantees that if the palestinians truely oppose the beastes among them they will get a fair treatment. I personally (as an Israely voter)guarantee that. I voted for Yizhak Rabin and the labour party in the hope of seeing the Oslo agreement go through. After that, and before the second intifadah started, I voted for Ehud Barak and the Labour party with the hope of reaching some sort of reasonable agreement and a peacefull arrangement of two countries for two people. At that time I meant and believed that every word of those agreements should be implemented. After Arafat decided to use violence again I have reevaluated the situation and now I dont believe a single word uttered by the Palestinian leadership. Consequently I voted for Sharon and I intend to continue doing so in the future.
In my book, the burden of proof now lies in their domain. I am not willing to make a single concession on blind faith any more. I now demand that they show clearly and for an extended period of time that they have abandoned violence as a means to settle the dispute.
Since I know that I was responsible (together with more than 50% of Israely voters) for electing a government that wanted a two-state solution, I know that we can togeter repeat this provided we are convinced that they have truely changed their ways.
Neverthless, looking at the palestinians I am very pessimistic about anything good coming from their direction in the forseeable future.
I deeply suspect that the settlements are not the real issue here. (remember we have already dismantled all the settlements in Sinai and returned all the land to the Egyptians). The real problem is that they are full of hatred and they hope they can swindle us again and again until they manage to destroy us.

4) You still have not answered my question would you Aris Katzaris be willing to sacrifice your life in order to make another (perhaps futile?) gesture for the palestinians ?? Until you answer that I assume it is a little unfair on your side to ask me to do this thing again.
So please consider your response seriously before you answer as I have done with my voting in the past, and as I was willing to pay a price as a direct consequence of my vote, a price that I am now refusing to pay again barring irrefutable proof (in deeds and not words)of good intentions on the palestinian's side.
Posted by Socrates of Jerusalem 2004-07-09 7:07:42 PM||   2004-07-09 7:07:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 Socrates raises a difficult issue we all deal with to one degree or another: how can a liberal society (in the sense of openness, representative government and rule of law) fend off terrorism effectively without losing its soul in the process?

It's an uneven struggle since the terrorists have no such ideals to constrain their actions.

Aris' memory is good (at least regarding my comments on Turkey LOL) so I'm sure he also remembers my comments about experiences doing business in the Middle East in the 80s - specifically in 1987, when Palestinian terror networks bombed airport ticketing counters several times, hijacked planes and killed several Americans in cold blood, at random. He probably also remembers my saying that there were many things about Israel and its choices I didn't much care for, but that I deeply understand the reasons for those choices.

Still do.
Posted by rkb 2004-07-09 7:39:38 PM||   2004-07-09 7:39:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 One is reminded when the Nazis and Heydrich headed INTERPOL...bad guys CAN take over int'l organizations...just say no to entangling alliances...
Posted by borgboy 2004-07-09 7:45:41 PM||   2004-07-09 7:45:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#90 Aris,
you may have gone to sleep by now but I at least ecpect you to honestly answer #4 on my list ! would you or wouldn't you die for a pali ?????????

Aris ? Aris ? ARISSSSSSSSSS ??????
Posted by Socrates of Jerusalem 2004-07-09 7:51:14 PM||   2004-07-09 7:51:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#91 Not asleep yet. I tend to be a nightowl.

Socrates> The problem isn't nicknames themselves, the problem is shifting identities. I have maintained a constant identity (which is easy since it's my real one) and never pretended to be someone else to create support for my views, nor have I ever anonymously mocked anyone, so I expect (but have not always received) the same courtesy from others. Apologies for singling you out but the use of the name "Socrates" soon after a discussion of my own name ("Aristotle") made me believe that this was a case of a shifting identity yet again, meant to mock anonymously from a previous regular participant.

On your point 1, no it doesn't really matter -- this was me being annoyed at Jen again. Point 3, I agree that the Palestinians have the biggest share of the blame by far -- still the settlements are an issue that is going to have to be resolved before a true peace comes along, even if the Palestinians became *saints*.

And now for your insistent Point 4 --- that's a quite dishonest trick-question on your part. I did *not* ask you to do anything that I personally saw as meaning the sacrifice of even a single Israeli life.

So it's both manipulative and demeaning to say in retort to my arguments "Would you be willing to sacrifice your life in order to make another gesture for the palestinians. Until you answer that I assume it is a little unfair on your side to ask me to do this thing again."

I never asked that of you. Until I've actually made such a demand, it is more than a little affair to pretend that I did. This kind of question that assumes stuff not in evidence is only answered by the sound of crickets chirping.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-07-09 8:15:23 PM||   2004-07-09 8:15:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#92 yes I have
Posted by OJ Simpson  2004-07-09 8:52:31 PM||   2004-07-09 8:52:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#93 The Israelis would have never constructed a national security protective barrier if the Arabs controlled those wishing to kill themselves and as many Jews as possible in the process!

I say until the Arabs can stop their own terrorist gangs from butchering Israelis, build it higher, deeper and electrify it!
Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-07-09 9:52:58 PM||   2004-07-09 9:52:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#94 Israel is currently experiencing a momentary reprieve in what is essentially a war of mutual annihilation. Up until now the Arabs have not had the means to destroy Israel. But that situation will not last forever. Perhaps the final showdown will come as early as the time when Iran develops a few nukes. From the perspective of people living under that threat, the ruling of the court must seem, well, shall we say, of a lower priority of concern.
Posted by virginian 2004-07-09 10:10:24 PM||   2004-07-09 10:10:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#95 Virginian,

No, its a war of attempted annihilation on the part of the Arabs, and a refusal to be annihilated on the part of Israel. Nothing mutual about it.
Posted by trailing wife 2004-07-09 11:07:53 PM||   2004-07-09 11:07:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#96 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Antiwar 2004-07-09 6:20:28 AM||   2004-07-09 6:20:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#97 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Antiwar 2004-07-09 8:49:09 AM||   2004-07-09 8:49:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#98 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Antiwar 2004-07-09 9:06:04 AM||   2004-07-09 9:06:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#99 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by therien  2004-07-09 11:45:02 AM||   2004-07-09 11:45:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#100 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by therien  2004-07-09 11:45:02 AM||   2004-07-09 11:45:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#101 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by therien  2004-07-09 11:47:34 AM||   2004-07-09 11:47:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#102 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by therien  2004-07-09 11:47:34 AM||   2004-07-09 11:47:34 AM|| Front Page Top

11:49 Antiwar
11:45 Antiwar
16:37 Faisal
16:37 Faisal
14:57 Liberalhawk
14:57 Liberalhawk
14:52 11A5S
14:52 11A5S
14:44 Liberalhawk
14:44 Liberalhawk
14:13 Liberalhawk
14:13 Liberalhawk
13:39 Faisal
13:39 Faisal
13:32 Faisal
13:32 Faisal
13:15 Faisal
13:15 Faisal
11:47 therien
11:47 therien
11:45 therien
11:45 therien
11:40 Antiwar
11:31 Antiwar









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com