| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2003/12/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:11414 Activity:nil |
12/11 Why not give the fence a chance?
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031209-085525-4213r.htm
\_ Because the wall basically divides the West Bank Palistines into
two enclaves where Isreal controls movement between the two. It
also assumes annexation of 50% of West Bank (the part with access
to water and Syria) to Israel.
\_ Yay! Moonie Times link! Why not post a freeper link and a
national review online link while you're at it?
\_ It is an opinion piece. Are you so threatened by the moonies
that you cannot stand to even read their opinions?
\_ There are conservative opinions worth considering, like
William F. Buckley, William Safire, George Will, and
Chief Justice Rheinquist. Then there are conservative
opinions from uninformed whackos like the Moonies that aren't
even worth the effort required to stomach them. They make
great birdcage lining, though. --motd liberal
\_ Safire, Will, Rehnquist: all dumbasses. -motd moderate
\_ This editorial does not address at all the very good reasons to
not have a wall, which a motd poster has summarized.
\_ Question: What's Israel's justification for building the part of
Wall that separates West Bank cities from Jordan, thus separating
the West Bank from the only Arab neighbor? Does Israel expect to
annex that strip of land?
\_ perhaps trying to cut off west bank palestinian terrorists from
support in other arab land?
\_ Wasn't the wall supposed to prevent the terrorists from
crossing into Israel? Besides terrorist support, this wall
cuts the west bank from its only link to Arab world and this
will certainly have big economic and cultural ramifications
for West Bank. Keeping West Bank people poor and desperate,
will only breed even more hate and terrorists.
\_ Yes, it's for security reasons. It's certainly not
vengeful collective punishment or a land grab.
\_ Actually, Sharon is waving the implied threat of
"If you Palestinians continue to act this way,
then you don't deserve this land, and the land will
end up as a negotiating chip at least."
\_ Q: Why should Israel worry about the economic or cultural
ramifications of this move on a bunch of people who's main
desire is to kill Israelis? The Palestinians have shown no
desire to settle on any peace other than making all the Jews
dead.
\_ And we all know that the actions of a society's most extremist
members accurately reflects the wishes of that whole society.
Timothy McVeigh blew up the OK Federal Building, and all white
midwesterners want to violently overthrow the federal government.
\_ I believe by this point the entire palestinian society is
geared towards the destruction of israel and killing of jews.
There are certain individual palestinians who do not advocate/
support/participate in this, of course, but this doesn't
change the facts. Just google for some information on official
palestinian schools, and the kinds of things their children
are being taught. It's simply a monstrous situation.
\_ Red Herring. The difference is obvious. The chosen
leader of midwesterners is not quoted as encouraging
midwestern children to strap bombs to themselves and blow
up washington.
\_ Which leader is that? Arafat renounced terrorism
years ago.
\_ And all the murders in jail claim innocence, what's
your point?
\_ People are not allowed to change? Circumstances
don't ever change? It would seem odd to me that
you would not want to bring your enemies over
to your side. Maybe you prefer to have enemies.
\_ That would be fine if it were possiable.
It's pretty obvious that Arafat is not
working for peace. Or he would have signed
the numerous agreements he's had. Besides
if the Palestinians wanted a peaceful
leader, they would switch leaders. Not keep
the same one who's "changed."
\_ Which is more dangerous, an enemy on the
other side of a wall, or an enemy on "your
side?"
\_ ^The Palestinians^the radical Palestinian elements
\_ Yup. Sang niggers the lot. Just nuke em and get it over with. |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031209-085525-4213r.htm Good fences make safe neighbors By Tony Blankley In a few weeks it will be time to celebrate Peace on Earth, goodwill to man, so I wanted to get this column topic assessing the Middle East peace process in print before that theme period starts. Almost every week on television I and the other pundits are asked to assess the fine points of the latest Mideast peace plan. Inevitably someone on the panel intones that everybody knows the outlines of a successful peace plan. The remaining pundit panelists nod their heads in quiet, knowing assent. If the peace in the Middle East could bedecidedby Americanand Europeanexperts, we could wrap it all up by Christmas. And they have never seen a peace plan they both like simultaneously. The United States leans on Israel to give up land, while Israel hopes that the Arabs living on the West Bank and Gaza will say thank you very much, we are now satisfied and will stop killing Jews. Then the two peoples would cheerfully give up their historic, biblical and Koranic claims on Jerusalem, forget about the Arabs desire to return to the pre-1967 Israeli lands they were driven from or left voluntarily, depending on whose history you read a half-century ago. Then, with a few minor adjustments of various lines of demarcation and after resolving some pesky water rights issues, we will have two happy peoples living in viable states next to each other hugger-mugger, dropping in for tea on each other like good suburban neighbors. It is pitiful to see grown, well-educated and presumably worldly experts discussing this fairy tale as if it were remotely plausible in the next several years. The Middle East Jews and Arabs are ancient peoples with ancient grievances and damnably excellent if selective memories. While the Israeli Jews have repeatedly proven their willingness to reach a genuine peace agreement, they can be as stubborn as a Dutchman, or a company of American Marines or any other proud group of humans in refusing to sign their own death warrant by agreeing to a phony deal. And with the recent recrudescence of 1930s-style anti-Semitism across the planet particularly in bloody old Europe, Israelis are even more motivated to cling to their tiny scrap of a survival redoubt on the edge of the Mediterranean Sea. Nor can one blame the Israelis for not trusting in the good faith of the Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere particularly now. With the jihadist temperament still in its upsurge, the prevalent if not dominant mood amongst the Saracens right at the moment is clearly On to the Mediterranean. Under these regrettable conditions, a helpful world might better serve the peoples of the Middle East by encouraging mutual isolation between the Israelis and the Arabs. Instead of browbeating the Jews as they build their fence or wall, if you prefer, we should encourage it. Five thousand years of brutal and hate-filled history have ingrained in the Jews a profound sense of the practical. They have learned that well-intentioned, bright new ideas or utopian visions tend to lead to more dead Jews. On the other hand, a sensible, well-built wall might result in fewer dead Jews. Genuine peace will only be possible, if at all, when the jihadist fire has been extinguished in millions of Muslim hearts. To that end, we must persist in our democracy project in Iraq and beyond. It would help that project if we were smarter than we currently seem to be. Perhaps in five or 10 years we will be able to find two genuine peace-seeking negotiating partners. Until then, a sturdy, electronic and gun bristling wall-fence is probably Israelis best temporary salvation. If such a wall kept East Berlin Germans in, it might keep West Bank Arabs out. |