Posted on 08/02/2004 9:25:48 AM PDT by anotherview
Uri Yablonka
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has said the barrier will not be routed along the Green Line, even after its route is changed according to the HCJ's (High Court of Justice)criteria.
He said that in some parts the barrier would be closer ot the Green Line than originally envisaged, and that the amount of Palestinian lands expropriated for the barrier will be reduced almost by half, from 3,500 acres to just under 2,000.
He said that Ma'aleh Adumin and gush ezion would remian witihn the security barrier.
(2004-08-02 18:18:14.0)
ping
Here we have Israel stating that they will only expropriate 2000 acres of Palestinian land instead of the planned 3500 acres. Almost a 50% reduction!
Do the Palestinians appreciate this concession, this act of kindness? Not one bit! Ingrates.
I swear. There's no negotiating with these people. Why does Israel even try to be nice to them?
Oh gee, let's see... Israel shouldn't appropriate land to build the security barrier. Instead they should just let Palestinian terrorists come into the country and kill Israelis as before. Would that seem more just to you?
Yesterday evening channel 2 news (that's channel 2 in Israel) broadcast a piece about a drama broadcast on al-Manar television in Lebanon and beamed to all of Europe via satellite. The scene showed a man strapped to a stone slab, another man over him with a knife, and someone dressed as a Chassidic or Haredi Jew saying "We want the blood. We need the blood of a Christian for Passover". Hizbullah produced this fine dramatic work.
The Palestinian Authority give their children textbooks that claim every inch of Israel is part of Palestine. They teach arithmatic with such uplifting problems, "If you have five Jews and kill two, how many Jews are left to be killed?"
The Palestinian leader before Yasser Arafat was Haj Amin al-Husseini. He openly called for the extermination of the Jewish people. At Nuremberg he was found to be a Nazi war criminal. He was given sanctuary in Egypt and elected head of the Palestinian National Council. Yasser Arafat refers to him as "our hero".
Four years ago Israel offered the Palestinians a peace agreement which Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia strongly urged Yasser Arafat to take. So did a number of Arafat's advisers, including former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and current Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia. Not only did Arafat reject the offer, he made no counter offer. Instead he started a war of terror.
So yes, in order to stop terrorism Israel is expropriating land that the Palestinians would have had under a peace agreement. They do so to create a non-lethal method of stopping violence against it's citizens. Would you prefer the alternative: stronger IDF action and more deaths on both sides?
Oh, the official position of the Sharon government is to negotiate with the Palestinians once they begin to do something to stop terrorism as the Palestinians themselves agreed to do when the accepted the Mitchell plan, again when they accepted the Tenet plan, and once again when they accepted the Roadmap. They have done nothing. U.N. Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, who has called Ariel Sharon a "man of vision" for the disengagement plan, also criticized the P.A. for failing to take even step one of the Roadmap. Mr. Larsen was hardly known as a friend of Israel, was he?
Of course, all the facts in the world won't dissuade you of your long held view that Israel is evil and the Palestinians are poor, misunderstood victims. Tell me, will you qoute electronicintifada.org again to refute me? That was my favorite I must say.
You disgust me. We really should name you the official voice of the Palestinian Authority on Free Republic.
Now, was that so hard?
To quote it to you for the 500th time or so, Lord Caradon, the British Ambassador to the U.N. who was one of the primary authors of UN Resolution 242 had this to say about it:
And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary..
The Peel Commission recommendations were to divide Western Palestine (what we now call Israel and the territories) along demographic lines. So did the U.N. in General Assembly Resolution 181. As President Bush has made clear the conditions have changed since 1967. The only just border, in addition to being secure (which the armistice lins is not) must be based on demographics.
Shock of shocks: the security fence was drawn with demographics as the main consideration. It would make a far better and more just border than the Green Line.
Of course, displacing a quarter million Jews means nothing to you does it?
Even the late Abba Eban, no right-winger he, called the Green Line the "Auschwitz Line". Only suicidal maniacs like the (thankfully) late Rabin, Peres, and Beilin want to insure Israel be penned inside these lines of doom.
Actually, even Yitzhak Rabin never would have accepted the Green Line, and Yossi Beilin's "Geneva Accords" would have kept Ma'aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion in Israel.
Shimon Peres position has changed so many times it's hard to keep track of what he stands for. He may well support going back to the Green Line now, but then again, at age 81, I sometimes wonder if senility is affecting his judgement. It says something tragic about Avodah (Labour) if they cannot find a younger leader and had to return to a five time election loser to lead the party.
And a ping for those on Alouette's list, she's away from her computor.
"Secretary of State Colin Powell said a nation is within its rights to build a border fence. But he said when a fence "crosses over onto the land of others," and is built in a way which makes it more difficult to move forward on the "road map" to Middle East peace, this as he put it, "causes us a problem."
A rogue Secretary of State going against the wishes of the President of the United States?
"... they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized."
-- Lord Caradon
So the Israeli wall is for security? Here's the big question: Who recognizes the path of the wall (besides Israel)? Name for me one country in the world that recognizes the current path of the wall? Hey, no recognition, no security, right?
So, why does Israel say they are building it for security purposes? They're not. It's a land grab, numbnuts. Open your eyes.
My eyes are open. We cannot "grab" land that is already ours.
The world community, for the most part, is biased against us? Yes, what else is new?
Where the fence follows the Green Line it is strictly because that is the best place to separate demographic groups. The route of the fence places 99% of the Palestinian population outside the fence and something like 89% of the Jewish population inside the fence. No arbitrary line determines the route. Demographics do.
The fence (which it mostly is) is strictly for security. That you are so blind with your pro-Palestinians views is NOT my problem.
We need no permission to defend ourselves. We need no approval from any nation for the route of the fence.
"They will not be secure unless they are recognized."
-- Lord Caradon
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.