Fence to Protect Big Ben From Terror Attack

[Elisheba]

The famous clock tower on the Houses of Parliament could be surrounded by an electric fence as part of new security measures to shield it from terrorists and publicity-seeking protestors, a report said.

It is likely to be installed as an interim measure around part of the perimeter of the House of Commons to protect St Stephen's Tower which houses the Big Ben bell, considered a trophy target for terrorists, the Times newspaper said Monday.

House of Commons' authorities have ordered security officials to examine the possibility of running an electric current through strengthened fencing, the report said.

"We will look in the shorter term at having better fencing and possibly electrifying it," an unnamed Commons source was quoted as telling the paper.

"It would give you a nasty shock and (make you) jump off but would be at a height where if you fell off it wouldn't kill you."

In March, two protestors from the environmental group Greenpeace breached security and scaled Big Ben, unveiling an anti-Iraq war banner next to the clock face.

The incident caused acute embarrassment to police and parliamentary authorities.

Other measures under review include the possibility of diverting traffic away from parliament and floating booms in the River Thames, adjoining the building, to guard against water-borne attacks.

A full review of security at the Houses of Parliament is expected to be delivered next month, the Times said.

(People's Daily -- China)



Note: A Wall around Big Ben? Why, why, --- why, that's genocide. We are not sure against whom, but confident the UN will find a victim they can form a committee around to protect. We urge readers to write to Mr. Blair and ask him to re-route the wall so Moslem terrorists could gain access to Big Ben just like the Brits. Remember to put these words in your letter: Occupiers, NAZI, Genocide, so-called terror, and Freedom Fighters, otherwise the BBC will never report it.

[Justcurious]

Don't know about the need for electric fences yet, but at least we may see another new security measure in the coming years. Towns and cities of the future may be flat again. That will take years, though. As we can see, another high-rise building is being erected in New York for instance.

[Elisheba]

Don't know about the need for electric fences yet, but at least we may see another new security measure in the coming years. Towns and cities of the future may be flat again. That will take years, though. As we can see, another high-rise building is being erected in New York for instance.


Understood. Sorry I forgot to turn on my 'sarcasm font.' My point in making the post is how there are fences all over the world (granted, this one not yet in place ... but plenty are!) and yet only Israel is excoriated for having one.

:mad: :rolleyes:

[Independent]

How could a fence along the green line not provide self-defense?

[Independent]

Understood. Sorry I forgot to turn on my 'sarcasm font.' My point in making the post is how there are fences all over the world (granted, this one not yet in place ... but plenty are!) and yet only Israel is excoriated for having one.

:mad: :rolleyes:

There is only once fence that is beyond one's property and this fence is being criticized.

[Gilgamesh]

How could a fence along the green line not provide self-defense?

missile and morter attacks, and inflintration of jewish civilian concentration beyonned the green line.

[Gilgamesh]

There is only once fence that is beyond one's property and this fence is being criticized. There is no meaningful critisim of the fence within Israel, most of Jews in Israel support the fence along it current and planned path, and this is the only opinion that counts.

Critisism of foreigners is immoral, hypocritical and over all ignored in Israel.

[Elisheba]

There is only once fence that is beyond one's property and this fence is being criticized.


hmmmmm

I just read a similar 'seemingly' sincere post from you.

Clearly, after looking at this thread, however, somebody please hand me the "TROLL" button. I would like the one with the designation of 'terrorist' for this person on trial member status please.

[Elisheba]

Yoo hoo, trial member from Eurabia: see if you can get anything out of this:

http://www.mideastweb.org/israelfence.htm


And, just to show how unbiased I am here ( :rolleyes: ), read these two sentences:

The fence aroused opposition from right-wing Israelis and settlers, because it would "define" the green line as the approximate border, and leave most of the settlements outside. The Palestine National Authority opposes the fence the fence as well.

:cool:

[Independent]

missile and morter attacks, and inflintration of jewish civilian concentration beyonned the green line.

Violence towards innocent civilians is certainly a terrible thing and anyone who would practice such must certainly be punished. Nevertheless, one must ask, why where the settlements not constructed after the conflict was resolved? I mean, it doesn't make sense to perform activities which increase hostilities when one is trying to reduce such hostilities. Why couldn't the settlers have waited for a final solution to the conflict before immigrating to Judea, Gaza and Samaria?

I think that it would have been better to build the settlements after the people living in Judea, Gaza and Samaria received Israeli citizenship and equal rights in Israel or after the people in Judea, Gaza and Samaria gained independence.

From this perspective, I don't think that the wall that does not follow the green line is a good idea, because the final state of Judea, Gaza and Samaria has not yet been defined, causing the people who live there to become confused. It thus seems to make more sense to create a final solution or to remove the settlements if a final solution is not possible.

[Justcurious]

Another independent outsider agrees with Independent. We've already seen the "benefits" of the Berlin Wall, why do they have to be repeated? Are Israelis trying to "learn" from the Germans?

[Elisheba]

Another independent outsider agrees with Independent. We've already seen the "benefits" of the Berlin Wall, why do they have to be repeated? Are Israelis trying to "learn" from the Germans?


Check it out: on this forum, almost everyone located in Israel and the US is pro-Israel and almost everyone located in Eurabia and NZ is pro-Terrorist. :rolleyes:

[Independent]

Another independent outsider agrees with Independent. We've already seen the "benefits" of the Berlin Wall, why do they have to be repeated? Are Israelis trying to "learn" from the Germans?

The main question is, I think, if the Israeli wall is a wall of expansion or a wall of defense. Given that it is believed that Judea, Gaza and Samaria belong to those Semites who did not convert to Islam or Christianity, one can only wonder why the wall does not follow the approximate path defined by the talks of Taba 2001, the Arab Peace Plan, the Road Map or the Geneva Initiative.

[Ahava]

Check it out: on this forum, almost everyone located in Israel and the US is pro-Israel and almost everyone located in Eurabia and NZ is pro-Terrorist. :rolleyes:

Yeah it's indicative. I'd like to present myself as an exception though. I do not think they're "pro-terrorist" by the way, just inexplicably hard on Israel. I don't quite understand, the comparisons to the Berlin Wall for example. I mean, how blind must one be to make that comparison?

[Independent]

Yeah it's indicative. I'd like to present myself as an exception though. I do not think they're "pro-terrorist" by the way, just inexplicably hard on Israel. I don't quite understand, the comparisons to the Berlin Wall for example. I mean, how blind must one be to make that comparison?

I think that the idea behind the "Berlin Wall" means separating Semites from each other with a wall. Most folks just wish that Semites should stop fighting against each other and live together in one Country under equal conditions rather than dividing their homeland with a wall. Or, most folks just wish that Semites would create two countries along the green line with a wall along it, if it must be, for the purpose of ending conflict.

[Ahava]

I think that the idea behind the "Berlin Wall" means separating Semites from each other with a wall. Most folks just wish that Semites should stop fighting against each other and live together in one Country under equal conditions rather than dividing their homeland with a wall. Or, most folks just wish that Semites would create two countries along the green line with a wall along it, if it must be, for the purpose of ending conflict.

The reason behind the Berlin wall was completely different from the reasons behind the Security fence and that's what it's all about. You can talk about all Semites living together in peace, blue sky and birds flying high, but the reality is that the situation is everything but peaceful and that isn't gonna change any time soon. The lives of Israelis are endangered. This is a fact that must be dealt with. No time for dreaming now, a temporary effective measure against terrorism would be much more helpful. Well there ya go - the fence!

[Elisheba]

Yeah it's indicative. I'd like to present myself as an exception though. I do not think they're "pro-terrorist" by the way, just inexplicably hard on Israel. I don't quite understand, the comparisons to the Berlin Wall for example. I mean, how blind must one be to make that comparison?


Yes, I deliberately included "almost" because, of course, no generalizations are true (including that one ... ba da bing!).

As to 'how blind' must one be? ... only blinded by hate; it's age old ...

be'ahava, Elisheba ;)

[drexpert]

...Most folks just wish that Semites should stop fighting against each other and live together in one Country under equal conditions rather than dividing their homeland with a wall. Or, most folks just wish that Semites would create two countries along the green line with a wall along it, if it must be, for the purpose of ending conflict.



Use of the term Semites bonds the Jews and Arabs together. This is only valld in some far removed historical context.

The Jews and Arabs have virtually nothing in common, except for geography!

As long as the Arabs cling to their useless ideology of the destruction of Israel, which is in their political documents, charters, and taught in every Arab school, there will be no peace!

This situation is in the hands of the Arabs. Once there is a country housing the pseudo-palestinians, there must be peace, with the Arabs. If the Arabs fail to ensure peace, then Israel will send in tanks and their army, and destroy every Arab that refuses to live in peace.


I'd like to know what 'Independent' is posting on the Arab boards to convince them that they must make a legitimate peace with Israel?

Also 'most folks' are not educated enough to analyze this situation, nor do they care to take the time necessary to understand the complexities.

So pack that Semite word into your overnight bag! The bus is waiting!



Jeffrey

[Elisheba]

... create two countries along the green line with a wall along it ...


You arabs have over 20 countries.

Why can't you let Israel just have all of Israel ... which is still about the size of, what, Rhode Island?

:rolleyes:

[Independent]

You arabs have over 20 countries.

Why can't you let Israel just have all of Israel ... which is still about the size of, what, Rhode Island?

:rolleyes:

In order for Israel to include Gaza, Samaria and Judea within its borders, it would have to eithier give the people who live there equality and citizenship or it would have to forcefully remove them, which is known as racial cleansing and is a crime against humanity.

As Sharon understands, racial cleansing is not an option. One must look at things from a realistic perspective.

[Elisheba]

In order for Israel to include Gaza, Samaria and Judea within its borders, it would have to eithier give the people who live there equality and citizenship or it would have to forcefully remove them, which is known as racial cleansing and is a crime against humanity.

As Sharon understands, racial cleansing is not an option. One must look at things from a realistic perspective.

No, it doesn't.

As the Israelis have taken in Jews from ANYWHERE, so should the arabs take in those they left behind as propaganda tools in 1948 when they thought they'd drive the modern state of Israel into the sea.

Unfortunately for the arabs, Jordan doesn't even want them AND they are mostly Jordanian!

However, surely out of more than 20 arab countries, the arabs could attempt to behave in the exemplary manner of Israel and take in those they leave to use for dupes like you.

[Independent]

The reason behind the Berlin wall was completely different from the reasons behind the Security fence and that's what it's all about. You can talk about all Semites living together in peace, blue sky and birds flying high, but the reality is that the situation is everything but peaceful and that isn't gonna change any time soon. I agree totally.
The lives of Israelis are endangered. This is a fact that must be dealt with. No time for dreaming now, a temporary effective measure against terrorism would be much more helpful. Well there ya go - the fence!
If Israelis are endangered, then it is only because the talks of Taba 2001, the Arab Peace Plan, the Geneva Initiative and the Road Map have all been ignored by Israel. Certainly Palestinians are to blame for some things too, but accepting the 1967 border can't be all that bad. A fence along the green line is a perfect solution.

[Independent]

No, it doesn't.

As the Israelis have taken in Jews from ANYWHERE, so should the arabs take in those they left behind as propaganda tools in 1948 when they thought they'd drive the modern state of Israel into the sea.

Unfortunately for the arabs, Jordan doesn't even want them AND they are mostly Jordanian!

However, surely out of more than 20 arab countries, the arabs could attempt to behave in the exemplary manner of Israel and take in those they leave to use for dupes like you.

You are correct that racial cleansing is not racial cleansing for some. It is really a fact that if people recognized that racial cleansing was really racial cleansing, then they would not practice such and they would not be punished for doing such.

[Mediocrates]

I imagine you think we really don't need countries anymore; such as Pakistan and India who, apart from the massive amounts of killings on both sides really, since they're all more or less the same ethnicity should simply be forced to live with each other. Am I close?

[Elisheba]

If Israelis are endangered, then it is only because the talks of Taba 2001, the Arab Peace Plan, the Geneva Initiative and the Road Map have all been ignored by Israel. Certainly Palestinians are to blame for some things too, but accepting the 1967 border can't be all that bad. A fence along the green line is a perfect solution.


Thanks for proving what I suspected.

Israel has bent over backwards time and again to make the so-called Road Map work. The nutso terrorists have ended that each time.

The rest of what you mention shows what you are: a pro-terrorist troll sent to this forum to disrupt.

No wonder you never sent me a private message about your background. It would have been a lie anyway.

So, who pays your salary? CAIR?

[Independent]

Use of the term Semites bonds the Jews and Arabs together. This is only valld in some far removed historical context.

The Jews and Arabs have virtually nothing in common, except for geography!

As long as the Arabs cling to their useless ideology of the destruction of Israel, which is in their political documents, charters, and taught in every Arab school, there will be no peace!

This situation is in the hands of the Arabs. Once there is a country housing the pseudo-palestinians, there must be peace, with the Arabs. If the Arabs fail to ensure peace, then Israel will send in tanks and their army, and destroy every Arab that refuses to live in peace.


I'd like to know what 'Independent' is posting on the Arab boards to convince them that they must make a legitimate peace with Israel?

Also 'most folks' are not educated enough to analyze this situation, nor do they care to take the time necessary to understand the complexities.

So pack that Semite word into your overnight bag! The bus is waiting!



Jeffrey

The term 'Arab' is not used properly by some. Some people seem to unfairly lump all Semites into one group and wrongly accuse them of different activities that they are not responsible for. It would be more appropriate to criticize the different cultures of Semites individually.

[Independent]

Israel has bent over backwards time and again to make the so-called Road Map work.

Did not the Road Map require for no new settlements to be constructed? Israel has yet to fullfill its part of the bargain.

[Elisheba]

You are correct that racial cleansing is not racial cleansing for some. It is really a fact that if people recognized that racial cleansing was really racial cleansing, then they would not practice such and they would not be punished for doing such.

Okay, now say that out loud really really fast, for oh, say, 50 times. :D :rolleyes:

[Elisheba]

The term 'Arab' is not used properly by some. Some people seem to unfairly lump all Semites into one group and wrongly accuse them of different activities that they are not responsible for. It would be more appropriate to criticize the different cultures of Semites individually.


No. Jeffrey is correct. You are wrong. Please go away now. Thank you.

[Elisheba]

Did not the Road Map require for no new settlements to be constructed? Israel has yet to fullfill its part of the bargain.

Have you been reading of Gush Katif?

You really make me tempted to sink to your level ... but, I won't ... yet. :cool:

[Independent]

I imagine you think we really don't need countries anymore; such as Pakistan and India who, apart from the massive amounts of killings on both sides really, since they're all more or less the same ethnicity should simply be forced to live with each other. Am I close?

Exactly. That's why the Road Map, the talks of Taba 2001, the Geneva Initiative and the Arabs Peace Plan all make a lot of sense and that's why the wall that does not follow the green line does not make any sense. If people can't live together, then they must live seperated from each other. However, racial cleansing is never an option. In my opinion, the settlers can either become Palestinian citizens or move west of the green line.

[Mediocrates]

Did not the Road Map require for no new settlements to be constructed? Israel has yet to fullfill its part of the bargain.


It said no new 'settlements' it didn't say they couldn't expand or enlarge the suburbs that were already there. And for the most part so called illegal settlements are still illegal. In fact today it was announced that electricity services would be cut to these illegal settlements.

BTW who are the Jews of Yesha? Mostly they are secular suburbanites in and around Jerusalem who are closer to the 'real' Israel than you travel to Starbucks for a cup of coffee. About 70% of them live in 7 cities or suburban areas. Out of 198 communities over a hundred of them have fewer than 60 people or so. About half profess no relgious alignment whatsoever. Many were Russian oilm who were offered discount housing because they couldn't afford anything else. That's you invasion. It's for the most part mothers and children and farmers and commuters. And at best they represent 9% of the total population of Yesha. A Yesha if you ever saw it you'd be amazed at the big brown open spaces of rocks and rolling nothing. You could plunk down 10 Palestinian cities of 150,000 each and not notice it. But of course they'll never do that because that would involve getting off their asses and stop killing women and children for a spate.

[Elisheba]

Not all that long ago, in the more openly twisted days of Rabin and Peres, everything in Israel began to be turned on its head. As Israelis who had been practicing the most peaceable forms of civil disobedience against national suicide were thrown into jail, citizens and citizen-soldiers who agreed to "follow orders" supporting Oslo surrenders were lauded as patriots. What was most perplexing of all, especially in this democracy, was that the manifestly peaceful demonstrations against Oslo were designed only to protect Israel from a genocidal war while the government "orders" being followed to support Oslo were propelling the Jewish State TOWARD genocide and war. These facts were assuredly obvious then; they are even more obvious today.

In their own time, Mohandas Gandhi was regarded by the British authorities as a lawbreaker, and Adolph Eichmann, of course, by the German nation, as an exemplary German, one who was deeply committed to the law.

Today the "civilized" world understandably acknowledges that Gandhian civil disobedience was authentically law-enforcing while Eichmann's obedience was incontestably law-breaking. What has happened, with the passage of time, is a gradual reawakening of the ancient idea of a Higher Law, of a True Law that is timeless, immutable, and universal. Such Higher Law is always the perpetual standard against which all particular commands, statutes and norms must be measured. When there is a contradiction between what is perpetual and what is momentary, it is necessarily the momentary expectations that must be subordinated.

We know now that Gandhi was certainly not a criminal and that Eichmann was certainly not law-abiding. We also know now that governments which choose to elevate politically-driven needs of the moment over jurisprudentially-supported principles of perpetuity are never entirely femocratic. Such governments may opt to call themselves fully democratic, but this self-naming is, at least in part, a convenient fiction - one that exploits language to disguise intimidation and sometimes even brute force.

In the time of Rabin and Peres, the situation regarding criminality and law-enforcement in Israel was an expression of such fiction. What is more, this situation was remarkably ironic. After all, what we witnessed then was a Jewish State - the institutionalized surviving remnant of a people destroyed by those reflexively "following orders" - denouncing those who chose to disobey for reasons of Jewish survival and celebrating those who chose to follow orders that would inevitably undermine Jewish survival. In the Jewish State led by Rabin and Peres, the Gandhis were criminals and the Eichmanns were law-enforcers.

Sadly, in the present Jewish State led by Sharon, a similar inversion of law and justice may now be at hand. The precipitating issue will be the terrible failure of Oslo and the impending catastrophe of the "Road Map."

Under Sharon, Israel must now take careful note: Every state, including Israel, has the right to set limits to public protest and civil disobedience.

But no state in the world, including Israel, has the right to deprive its citizens of the most minimal forms of free expression or to order its police and army to assist in such deprivation. This point is underscored by the increasingly dire security circumstances in present- day Israel, conditions wherein the Sharon government could soon feel compelled, following the Rabin and Peres precedent, to violate the INTERNATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS with respect to Jewish citizens who take seriously their obligation to disobey. This same government (a) could also likely seek to reward those Jewish citizens who fail in this obligation and (b) would likely limit its response to Palestinian terrorists who already make a daily mockery of Israeli justice and a graveyard of Israeli bodies.

There are, of course, important differences between the system protested by Gandhi and the system soon to be challenged by anti-apeasement.

Israelis. Similarly, there are very great differences between those who were following orders of the Third Reich and those who are currently following orders of the government of Israel. No sane scholar would fail to note these factual and moral differences. Yet, the pattern of British colonialism objected to by Gandhi was certainly no more sinister or nefarious than the Road Map pattern of government concessions leading directly to impending destruction of the Jewish State.

The net effect of those in Israel who choose obedience to authority in all cases involving the Road Map may also be genocide and war. There is, in the Israeli case, no mens rea, no criminal intent. Each side clearly "means well," but the final consequence of banal compliance in these matters could just as surely be another Final Solution of the Jewish Question.

No, Gandhi was not a criminal and Eichmann was not a law-abiding soldier. Gandhi, understanding the difference between true law and contrivances of law, was a genuinely law-abiding figure. As for Eichmann, his pattern of unquestioning obedience represented the very antithesis of true law and the very essence of criminality. These conclusions will not be startling to anyone, least of all to citizens and citizen-soldiers of a Jewish State. What will be startling to many is the unanticipated awareness that Israel's heroic anti-appeasement activists would constitute Israel's truly law-abiding citizens while those Israelis who follow "loyally" to implement the Sharon government's Road Map policy would be Israel's true law-breakers.


By: Louis Rene Beres, Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science, Purdue University
West Lafayette IN 47907, USA BERES@POLSCI.PURDUE.EDU
TEL 765-494.4189, FAX 765-494.0833

[Mediocrates]

However, racial cleansing is never an option. In my opinion, the settlers can either become Palestinian citizens or move west of the green line.

The first sentence does not mesh with the second sentence. Racial cleansing is bad I guess unless and until you threaten and pogrom the Jews out of their own homes because it's.......voluntary?

[Independent]

The first sentence does not mesh with the second sentence. Racial cleansing is bad I guess unless and until you threaten and pogrom the Jews out of their own homes because it's.......voluntary?

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong or bad with becoming a Palestinian. Rather, it could be very beneficial. Those who can't accept such because of racist or religious values will move to places where they will feel more confortable. But, one should not force the settlers to leave. Thus, I disagree with Sharon on this topic.

[Elisheba]

In my opinion, the settlers can either become Palestinian citizens or move west of the green line.

What is a "Palestinian citizen?"

The palestinians are simply those arabs left behind when the arab states figured they would quickly drive Israel into the sea in 1948.

You are an ignorant ... oops, almost stooped there ... :D

[Independent]

It said no new 'settlements' it didn't say they couldn't expand or enlarge the suburbs that were already there.
The US government does not see things the same way that you do, but you have a right to your opinion. :)

[Elisheba]

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong or bad with becoming a Palestinian. Rather, it could be very beneficial. Those who can't accept such because of racist or religious values will move to places where they will feel more confortable. But, one should not force the settlers to leave. Thus, I disagree with Sharon on this topic.


ARGH!!!!!

How can you become something that doesn't exist?

Oh, wait, now you are advocating some sort of cleansing, aincha? :D

[Independent]

What is a "Palestinian citizen?"

The palestinians are simply those arabs left behind when the arab states figured they would quickly drive Israel into the sea in 1948.

You are an ignorant ... oops, almost stooped there ... :D

Given that you support forcing millions of people into Jordan, I understand your point-of-view.

[Independent]

ARGH!!!!!

How can you become something that doesn't exist?

It is true that many don't want for such to exist and they work hard to prevent such.

[Ahava]

This thread is moving way too fast and I'm getting increasingly impatient with people like Independent, therefore only a short comment.

I agree totally.

If Israelis are endangered, then it is only because the talks of Taba 2001, the Arab Peace Plan, the Geneva Initiative and the Road Map have all been ignored by Israel. Certainly Palestinians are to blame for some things too, but accepting the 1967 border can't be all that bad. A fence along the green line is a perfect solution.

Ignored by Israel?? Who walked away from the Taba talks? Who has initiated the Intifada? Who's to blame for the countless suicide bombings of the past 3 years?
What can a country do when its citizens are being attacked infinitely? Does Israel not have the right, no, plight, to secure its citizens? Isn't a fence one of the most peaceful means in trying to do this? WTF are you expecting from Israel?
Geneva Initiative? Has never been an officially accepted plan, has been dismissed on both Israeli as well as Palestinian side.

Oh and by the way: of course you can't just lump Jews and Arabs together as being both "semites". Arabs and Jews are like opposites in most ways.

[Elisheba]

Given that you support forcing millions of people into Jordan, I understand your point-of-view.

You understand NOTHING.

I do not support 'forcing millions of people into Jordan.'

What I support is ... now, read very slowly and use a dictionary if need be ... the arabs act in the exemplary manner of Israel and take in those they left behind as propaganda tools in 1948 when they thought they'd drive the modern state of Israel into the sea by repatriating their very effective propaganda tools to their lands in more than 20 countries.

Israel belongs to Israel: the UN said so. :D

How much do you want? Don't answer: that was a rhetorical question. I know you want the world to be Islamofascist ... I already know.

[Mediocrates]

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong or bad with becoming a Palestinian. Rather, it could be very beneficial. Those who can't accept such because of racist or religious values will move to places where they will feel more confortable. But, one should not force the settlers to leave. Thus, I disagree with Sharon on this topic.

So killing your own citizens because they happen to be Jews is ok?

[Mediocrates]

Given that you support forcing millions of people into Jordan, I understand your point-of-view.

67% of all Palestinian 'refugees' live in Jordan in an amongst other Palestinians in camps owned and operated by Palestinians and surrounded by Palestinian neighborhoods. We call those 'refugee camps' bad neighborhoods and the non 'refugee' Palestinians are slumlords. If they want another country to improve the conditions of their Palestinian slums in Jordan they should talk to the Jordanians.

[Mediocrates]

It is true that many don't want for such to exist and they work hard to prevent such.

non sequitor, talk to Arafat and ask him why.

[Elisheba]

non sequitor, talk to Arafat and ask him why.

Oh, great, now I have to go amend my thread in the Lounge ... :D .

[Mediocrates]

Violence towards innocent civilians is certainly a terrible thing and anyone who would practice such must certainly be punished. Nevertheless, one must ask, why where the settlements not constructed after the conflict was resolved? I mean, it doesn't make sense to perform activities which increase hostilities when one is trying to reduce such hostilities. Why couldn't the settlers have waited for a final solution to the conflict before immigrating to Judea, Gaza and Samaria?

I think that it would have been better to build the settlements after the people living in Judea, Gaza and Samaria received Israeli citizenship and equal rights in Israel or after the people in Judea, Gaza and Samaria gained independence.

From this perspective, I don't think that the wall that does not follow the green line is a good idea, because the final state of Judea, Gaza and Samaria has not yet been defined, causing the people who live there to become confused. It thus seems to make more sense to create a final solution or to remove the settlements if a final solution is not possible.


But you already said that there should be only one state that's predominately Palestinian Arab Muslim. Your final solution is an arab state with small Jewish enclaves who are allowed to live at the sufferance of their muslim masters.

[Mediocrates]

Oh, great, now I have to go amend my thread in the Lounge ... :D .

Well, otherwise it's like ending the US Civil War and never asking the Confederacy why it seceeded, isn't it? Palestinian lives are sunk in squalor largely because of the criminal Palestinian gangs the world allows to rule over them. That's the other cost of terrorism. If a small number of people can wreak havoc on Israel then they are also wreaking havoc on the lives of ordinary Palestinians themselves.

[Elisheba]

Well, ...

Absolutely.

um

Apparently, you haven't seen my thread in the lounge ... ROFLMAO!

[NewsGuy]

Violence towards innocent civilians is certainly a terrible thing and anyone who would practice such must certainly be punished.

Yes, of course they should be punished and made to suffer the same fate as their victims. But when Israel punishes the Palestinians who provide the fields and orchards from which the mortar shells are fired into Israeli population centers, and when Israel punishes those Palestinians whose "donations" pay for the mortars used to kill innocent Israelis, the Europeans pass UN resolutions calling this punishment "war crimes." How do you explain this?

Nevertheless, one must ask, why where the settlements not constructed after the conflict was resolved? I mean, it doesn't make sense to perform activities which increase hostilities when one is trying to reduce such hostilities. Why couldn't the settlers have waited for a final solution to the conflict before immigrating to Judea, Gaza and Samaria?
This brings us back to a very basic fact: The land of Israel is the Jewish homeland, and Jews are entitled to live in the Jewish homeland. It's really that simple.

As for waiting for a final resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, that probably won't happen any time in the near future. For hundreds of years the Arabs massacred the Jewish inhabitants of Israel and the end is nowhere in sight. Certainly there will not be real peace between Muslims and Jews in Israel as long as the current generation of Muslims is still alive. Maybe the next generation will be able to make peace.

So, the Israel, having won several wars with the Arabs, is entitled to move on with its national life as would be expected from any nation. Jewish families are perfectly entitled to live i any part of the Jewish homeland.

If, however, the Palestinians would have made peace with Israel, the Jewish suburbs would have not have been created in the first place.

Instead of asking why the settlements were built before a peace agreement was reached, I would ask why the Palestinians won't leave the Jewish homeland until there is a final peace agreement in place.

[Independent]

But you already said that there should be only one state that's predominately Palestinian Arab Muslim. Your final solution is an arab state with small Jewish enclaves who are allowed to live at the sufferance of their muslim masters.

Incorrect. I support a one or two state solution without the practice of racial cleansing where everyone in a one or two state solution will have equal rights and citizenship of the country that they live in. From my observations, people can live together under equal conditions regardless of race or religion, assuming that enough people on all sides are willing to work together. This is demonstrated around the world and was even practiced in the area known as Palestine prior to the second wave of immigration in 1904. I also understand that a one or two-state solution can only be achieved by working with each other or against each other. Working with each other means discussing many of the peace agreements such as the Road Map, the Arab Peace Plan, the Geneva Initiative or the talks of Taba 2001. Unfortunately, the wall that does not follow the green line seeks more conflict.

[Independent]

This brings us back to a very basic fact: The land of Israel is the Jewish homeland, and Jews are entitled to live in the Jewish homeland. It's really that simple. Land belongs to the people who live on it, not the people who want to take it from the people who live on it. That is a very basic fact.

Because of this very basic fact, the UN expresses the desire to punish those who do not recognize this very basic fact:
Yes, of course they should be punished and made to suffer the same fate as their victims. But when Israel punishes the Palestinians who provide the fields and orchards from which the mortar shells are fired into Israeli population centers, and when Israel punishes those Palestinians whose "donations" pay for the mortars used to kill innocent Israelis, the Europeans pass UN resolutions calling this punishment "war crimes." How do you explain this?
Obviously, if people respected the people who live on the land that they want to have, then the people who live on the land would not have to defend their land. The usage of violence is terrible and must be avoided at all costs. The best way to avoid this violence is to respect the people who live on the land and let them have the land that they live on.
As for waiting for a final resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, that probably won't happen any time in the near future. For hundreds of years the Arabs massacred the Jewish inhabitants of Israel and the end is nowhere in sight. Certainly there will not be real peace between Muslims and Jews in Israel as long as the current generation of Muslims is still alive. Maybe the next generation will be able to make peace.
Like you said: This brings us back to a very basic fact: The land of Israel is the Jewish homeland, and Jews are entitled to live in the Jewish homeland. It's really that simple., the conflict exists because the people who live on the land are not respected. It is incorrect to blame others when one has this attitude.
So, the Israel, having won several wars with the Arabs, is entitled to move on with its national life as would be expected from any nation. Jewish families are perfectly entitled to live i any part of the Jewish homeland.War does not justify racial cleansing. One must always respect the innocent civilians who live on the land and let them continue living on the land.
If, however, the Palestinians would have made peace with Israel, the Jewish suburbs would have not have been created in the first place.
This theory is incorrect because, as you said: This brings us back to a very basic fact: The land of Israel is the Jewish homeland, and Jews are entitled to live in the Jewish homeland. It's really that simple.
Instead of asking why the settlements were built before a peace agreement was reached, I would ask why the Palestinians won't leave the Jewish homeland until there is a final peace agreement in place.
That is the wrong approach. Racial cleansing is not the solution. If one wants to immigrate to a new place, then one must learn to live with the people who live there.

[abu afak]

Incorrect. I support a one or two state solution without the practice of racial cleansing where everyone in a one or two state solution will have equal rights and citizenship of the country that they live in. From my observations, people can live together under equal conditions regardless of race or religion, assuming that enough people on all sides are willing to work together. This is demonstrated around the world and was even practiced in the area known as Palestine prior to the second wave of immigration in 1904. I also understand that a one or two-state solution can only be achieved by working with each other or against each other. Working with each other means discussing many of the peace agreements such as the Road Map, the Arab Peace Plan, the Geneva Initiative or the talks of Taba 2001. Unfortunately, the wall that does not follow the green line seeks more conflict.

"..One OR two state solution..." Huh???? Which?

"...From my observations, people can live together under equal conditions regardless of race or religion, assuming that enough people on all sides are willing to work together..."

Very Touching. So if we get a 'one state solution'.. you trust the eventual [soon after] Palestinian Majority to be fair to the Jews?

Like they have in Lebanon? .. or the territories Cleansed of Christians by the PA just since Oslo? (Bethlehem, etc)

The only 'Racial Cleansing' proposed is the New Palestinian MUSLIM state which will prohibit Jewish Residents.. Unlike Israel whic is 20% enfranchised Arabs. (one can just imagine equality like this in the New 'Palestine')

Your history is also wrong, of course. There was violence against Jews.. Before Israel, before 1904, Before Zionism.
Resolution 242 allows, indeed invites, an adjustment in Israel's favor to the 'Green Line'.. despite Revisionist 'common knowledge' to the contrary.

Perhaps you should go listen to John Lenin's Imagine again.. but Please.. this is the Real world.. Spare us the misinformed dreamer platitudes.

[Independent]

Very Touching. So if we get a 'one state solution'.. you trust the eventual [soon after] Palestinian Majority to be fair to the Jews?
Racial, cultural and religious tolerance is very fair for Semites. Racial cleansing is not fair for Semites.
The only 'Racial Cleansing' proposed is the New Palestinian MUSLIM state which will prohibit Jewish Residents.. If that is the case, then a wall along the green line makes a lot of sense. It is a conspiracy theory to assume something about something which may not necessarily become true.
Your history is also wrong, of course. There was violence against Jews.. Before Israel, before 1904, Before Zionism. I was not talking about the situation in Europe or other locations, but rather focusing on the area known as Palestine.

[abu afak]

Racial, cultural and religious tolerance is very fair for Semites. Racial cleansing is not fair for Semites. HUH?
You are incoherent .. try again


If that is the case, then a wall along the green line makes a lot of sense. Again Incoherent/ NON-responsive.


I was not talking about the situation in Europe or other locations, but rather focusing on the area known as Palestine.I was too.. IN >Palestine< .. NOT Europe etc.
You remain wrong... the Violence predates all the times I said.

[Gilgamesh]

Violence towards innocent civilians is certainly a terrible thing and anyone who would practice such must certainly be punished. Nevertheless, one must ask, why where the settlements not constructed after the conflict was resolved? I mean, it doesn't make sense to perform activities which increase hostilities when one is trying to reduce such hostilities. Why couldn't the settlers have waited for a final solution to the conflict before immigrating to Judea, Gaza and Samaria? Several reasons:
1. Judasim (our religion-nationality-culture) and our right of self determination allow us to settle our lands. Different from popular Arab propaganda, most of Judea and Samaria are empty. The lands the settelers live on are either bought in full money from Arab owners, or were never owned by anybody.
2. Believe it or not, there are security consideration for creating frontier civilian centers. This is the best way to hold on land, which otherwise would be grabbed and abused by the enemy for addional terror attacks on bigger population centers. We are talking about moving the fortier AWAY of Israel main industiral-civilian centers.
3. Waiting for a solution, may take all eternity. We cannot wait that long. None-Zionist Jews, still claim that Jews should have waited till next kingdom come and the end of days to restore Jewish sovereignity. We Zionist say they are wrong. We can not wait that long. We Jews have needs and rights needed to be answered.
4. Facts on the ground. Not building settelments, means ideal or better advantage point for the Arabs. Vice versa is also true. By advantage points I mean both in this state of war, and in future theoretical peace talks.
5. Jerusalem. Jews living in east Jerusalem (about 250,000, 5% of Israel's Jewish population, and 2% of the world Jewish population) are considered "settlers" by the Arabs. As I explained before, Jews have rights too, to live and worship in Jerusalem, which her easteren side is even more important then the western quarter. In other words, it is not allways obviouse to determind who is a settler and who isn't.

I think that it would have been better to build the settlements after the people living in Judea, Gaza and Samaria received Israeli citizenship and equal rights in Israel or after the people in Judea, Gaza and Samaria gained independence. Since Israel is a democracy, we Jews would loose our demographic superiority once all Arabs would get a vote for our parlament. We will become a minority in our own country. With this, we would loose the rest of our rights, like freedoms, freedom of worship and right to live. Israel would become a full Arab state, just like Lebanon (who has a christian minority greatly oppressed by the muslems). Jews, have national rights like any other nation of the world. We can't risk losing these rights.

On the other hand, Arabs don't want to become citizens of a Jewish state. In the last elections Israeli citizen Arabs boycotted the electoral process in protests for Jewish sovereignity in the land of Israel.

The current situation is, that the Arabs got THEIR OWN administration headed by Arafat. Their own justice system, their own police, their own army, their own everything. All thier daily life everyday Arab citizen needs are supposed to be answered by Arab's Palesinian Authority goverment.

The only different between the PA and any other Arab full state are the rights Arabs will never have in the PA: 1. forbiding Jews freedom of worship 2. Inviting foreign army into thier territory 3. purchasing heavy weapons 4. Getting in men and goods without Israel's supervision. 5. having a soverign air space 6. Having a soverign neval territory.

The only reason for these denail of rights every other country has and the PA will never have, is security. These concerns arrive from the unimagionable (too non Israeli) extrem samll size of Israel, the long range of modern weapons.

It thus seems to make more sense to create a final solution or to remove the settlements if a final solution is not possible. Although I know you didn't mean it , the phrase "final solution" is a bit touchy in these parts.

For us Jews, every word has much more then it's immidiate meaning, and exists also in a world of associations. Carful selecing of one words is a highly evolved art among us Jews. (often not practiced enough, I am afraid).

Israel wants the final settlement of future teoretical peace talks, on different lines then what the Arabs may demand. This is the reason peace talks are nessary. We have a need and a right to create facts on the ground that would force the Arabs accept our terms, in away that will gaurentee Jewish rights and freedoms.

[Independent]

I was too.. IN >Palestine< .. NOT Europe etc.
You remain wrong... the Violence predates all the times I said.

Interesting. :) Then, explain to me why were Sephardic Jews and Palestinians getting along so well prior to 1904? Why did the situation change in 1904? What did the second wave of immigrants do differently from anyone who immigrated to the area?

Like I said, racial, cultural and religious tolerance is very fair for Semites. Racial cleansing is not fair for Semites.

[Independent]

Since Israel is a democracy, we Jews would loose our demographic superiority once all Arabs would get a vote for our parlament. We will become a minority in our own country. That is not a bad thing. It could even be a very good thing. Living together with people of other cultures has many benefits.

With this, we would loose the rest of our rights, like freedoms, freedom of worship and right to live. Israel would become a full Arab state, This is a conspiracy theory which can't be proven. I think that Palestinians are dreaming of becoming free of occupations so that they can experience democracy.

[Elisheba]

I think that Palestinians are dreaming of becoming free of occupations so that they can experience democracy.

Really? Do you think that? You are even crazier than I had first believed!

[Mediocrates]

The only people who are obsessed with race are generally racists.

[Elisheba]

The only people who are obsessed with race are generally racists.

uh huh

And the only person to whom that applies on this thread is Independent.

[abu afak]

"..One OR two state solution..." Huh???? Which?

"...From my observations, people can live together under equal conditions regardless of race or religion, assuming that enough people on all sides are willing to work together..."

Very Touching. So if we get a 'one state solution'.. you trust the eventual [soon after] Palestinian Majority to be fair to the Jews?

Like they have in Lebanon? .. or the territories Cleansed of Christians by the PA just since Oslo? (Bethlehem, etc)

The only 'Racial Cleansing' proposed is the New Palestinian MUSLIM state which will prohibit Jewish Residents.. Unlike Israel whic is 20% enfranchised Arabs. (one can just imagine equality like this in the New 'Palestine')

Your history is also wrong, of course. There was violence against Jews.. Before Israel, before 1904, Before Zionism.
Resolution 242 allows, indeed invites, an adjustment in Israel's favor to the 'Green Line'.. despite Revisionist 'common knowledge' to the contrary.

Perhaps you should go listen to John Lenin's Imagine again.. but Please.. this is the Real world.. Spare us the misinformed dreamer platitudes.

You didn't answer any of the above (The Racially cleansed proposed new Palestinian State, Israel can have 1.3 million Arabs but the new Palestinian state is to be devoid of Jews; the Green Line; a one OR 2 state solution?; The cleansing of Bethelem/Lebanon/Lebanonization); .. only saying there was no violence before 1904 andf they 'got along.

Interesting. Then, explain to me why were Sephardic Jews and Palestinians getting along so well prior to 1904? Why did the situation change in 1904? What did the second wave of immigrants do differently from anyone who immigrated to the area?

Like I said, racial, cultural and religious tolerance is very fair for Semites. Racial cleansing is not fair for Semites.

as TO 1904: Nothing DID change then.. It's a date you pulled out of hat like all the other claims in all your other posts.

""""The First Hebrew Book Printed in Jerusalem The

AZULAI, Hayyim Yosef David. Sefer Avodat Hakodesh. Jerusalem: Israel Bak, 1841. Two title pages, [5], 222pp. Five-line manuscript inscription on front pastedown. Original tree calf. Fine copy. Modern 1/2 morocco burgundy case.
$ 6500

THE FIRST BOOK PRINTED IN JERUSALEM BY THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK. Published in Jerusalem in 1841, Avodat HaKodesh was the first Hebrew book ever published in the Holy City.
This volume was published by Rabbi Israel Bak, ten years after coming to settle in the Holy Land. Bak originally made his home in Safed, in the upper Galilee. There he established a publishing house and published a number of books.
In 1834, local Safed Arabs revolted against the governor, Habaashe, of Egypt. During the uprising, Safed was attacked and all of the Jews were robbed. Rabbi Bak's home and the publishing house were destroyed. The Jewish community was saved by a large military contingent sent from Egypt. The Jewish community was only beginning to recover, when in 1837, an earthquake leveled the cities of Tiberias and Safed, killing several thousand people.
What little remained was taken from the Jewish community by force, a few years later, when the local population rebelled against the Egyptian regime a second time. In response to the destruction and the plundering, Bak traveled to Alexandria to entreat the governor to intercede.
(How well they were getting along.. eh? ....abu)
While Bak was in Alexandria, word of the blood libel being directed against the Jews in Damascus reached the Egyptian capital. Bak took it upon himself to collect letters from a good number of Jewish communities, describing what was taking place. He sent them directly to Sir Moses Montefiore in London. As a result of his actions, Montefiore came to Alexandria, personally, to offer political and financial assistance to the beleaguered Jewish community. Being embroiled in an escalating conflict with Constantinople, Habaashe would not see him and the mission ended in failure, forcing Bak to return to Safed with nothing. Unable to return home to Safed, Bak spent three months in Jerusalem, where with the aid and encouragement of Daniel Alkalai, he sought and received the endorsement of both the Sefardic and Ashkenazic leadership to establish the first Hebrew press in the Holy City. The financial backing for the project came from Hayyim Abraham Gagin and Benjamin Mordechai Navon. The first work chosen to inaugurate the landmark publishing house was Avodat HaKodesh. Until 1863, the Bak Press was the only Hebrew press in Jerusalem, printing over 130 books within a 22-year period.... (description of essays in the book)

,... At the time of printing of Avodat HaKodesh, the Jewish population of Jerusalem numbered approximately 5000 souls, the overall population being about 11,000 inhabitants. Palestine at beginning of the 19th century was but a derelict province of the decaying Ottoman Empire. The economy was primitive, its population sparse, its standards low. It was not a place of thriving culture and learning, of excitement and opportunity as it had been in ancient world or as it has become in the 20th century. It was not until the 1840's that physical changes began to take place in the Holy Land, that development occurred—geographical exploration, transportation, postal services, buildings. It is for this reason that no books were printed in Jerusalem pre-1841, while for three centuries books poured out of the other world centers of printing. Jerusalem remained backwards, undeveloped, and no printing press. The Hebrew printing press established by Rabbi Israel Bak serves as a symbol of the rebirth of the Holy City. Avodat Hakodesh, then, in addition to being the first book printed in Jerusalem, also symbolizes the renaissance of Jewish life in the Holy City in modern times.""

www.historicana.com/ (Bookseller)

[Gilgamesh]

That is not a bad thing. It could even be a very good thing. Living together with people of other cultures has many benefits. 20% of the population of Israel are Arabs. Some of them are good (like most Druze and some Badawin), some are evil, who support and aid terrorism against our civilians.

This is a conspiracy theory which can't be proven. I think that Palestinians are dreaming of becoming free of occupations so that they can experience democracy. Your theory has no support of fact in reality. You theory is childishly naive. I do apretiate though, your good heart wishes.

There is no single Arab country or organization which are democratic. Coming to think of it, there is no ONE single Muslem country which is REALLY democratic. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Independent]

Your theory has no support of fact in reality. You theory is childishly naive. I do apretiate though, your good heart wishes.

There is no single Arab country or organization which are democratic. Coming to think of it, there is no ONE single Muslem country which is REALLY democratic. Sorry to disappoint you.

This is incorrect, but you have the freedom to believe as you wish. :)

[Gilgamesh]

Another independent outsider agrees with Independent. We've already seen the "benefits" of the Berlin Wall, why do they have to be repeated? Are Israelis trying to "learn" from the Germans?

It is stupid to assume any relation between the Berlin wall and the fence that protects Israeli road driver from Arab sniper fire.

Other then cement, there is no single thing in common between the fence and the Berlin wall.

It is interesting, the ease the speed in which you adopt Arab propaganda and spit it out. It is interesting how you choose to compare Israel's security fence to the Berlin wall and not any one of a thousand other fences, walls and baricades ever built in human history.

But if you insist on analogies, here are a couple for you:
Israel's fence, is like the great wall of china, and Adrian wall in Britain and other locations, designed to keep the barbarians OUT. in China case, the wall kept the barbain out for 12 centuries till Gingis Han arrived the scene. In Roman empire, the all worked, but the empire disintergrated from with in as a result of lack of morals justice and rule of law. as as a result of uncontrolled migration of uncivilized Barbarian Europeans (forefathers of modern Europeans).

Israel is no Rome and the Arabs are not mongols. So the fence is good for peace.

[Gilgamesh]

The main question is, I think, if the Israeli wall is a wall of expansion or a wall of defense. Given that it is believed that Judea, Gaza and Samaria belong to those Semites who did not convert to Islam or Christianity, That will be us Jews. Only we jews fit the defenition of "Semites who didn't convert to Islam or chirstianity".

one can only wonder why the wall does not follow the approximate path defined by the talks of Taba 2001, the Arab Peace Plan, the Road Map or the Geneva Initiative. The purpose of the talks was to bring peace and stop terrorism. The Arabs hadn't stopped terrorism, there was no peace, the bargin lost all value once one of the sides, the Arabs couldn't keep the agreement they agreed and signed on. Israelis lost all trust in the Arabs ability or will, to make peace and honour thier signature.

Taba 2001, was produced no written docuement. The talks were held mostly as an unfortunate election trick, which fired backwards.

If all the above, is a "conspiracy theory" because you won't believe the real facts it's your problem. I can't care any less.

I post with you, because you ask question and you wish to know. Once you would wrongly decide you already know everything and we can't tell you anything more, then we will get upset with you.

If you'll convince your self that your opinions matter anything, then we will get angry with you.

Keep considering us as information service, and we all be happy.

[Elisheba]

This is incorrect, but you have the freedom to believe as you wish. :)


Yo, pinhead, Gilgamesh is NEVER incorrect: deal with it. :cool:

[Mediocrates]

http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=4032

Ted Belman weighs in


Israelis Have Been Had, Again
by Ted Belman
August 09, 2004

Israel National News reports in an article entitled "New Decree: No Expansion Allowed in Judea and Samaria":

"...Yesha Council head Bentzy Lieberman understood the dangers. On April 18, he said that Israel was supposed to be submitting to the Americans up-to-date aerial maps specifying the precise construction boundaries of each and every Jewish community in Judea and Samaria. 'What this means is that not only are we giving up Gaza,' Lieberman warned, 'but the entire future of the remainder of the settlements is in doubt. As usual, the Prime Minister is hiding certain parts of the agreement, and is in fact deceiving us - and the ministers are ignoring this. Contrary to the impression that he has safeguarded the future of the settlement blocs, they are actually in grave danger.'"

Notwithstanding, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assured us that by retreating from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, Israel would ensure its ability to keep the settlement blocks. It now appears that we have been had. But it is not the first time.

When Israel was agreeing to the Oslo Accords, it negotiated for many commitments from the Arabs, which made the Accords more palatable to the Israelis. Unfortunately, that's all they were for, for they were never enforced. For instance, to this date, the PLO has not amended their Charter as agreed.

When Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to the Wye Accords, Bill Clinton was supposed to release Jonathan Pollard. Never happened.

When Ehud Barak decided to withdraw from Lebanon, America promised considerable additional financial aid. Never happened.

Although the Israeli public has always been against relinquishing the Golan Heights, Yitzchak Rabin, Barak and Netanyahu, who all stressed their support, negotiated the release of virtually all of it.

When Israel agreed to the outrageous Roadmap, in which it agreed to freeze settlement growth, the main consideration was that the "Palestinians" would be required to become democratic and to disarm. Never happened. But Israel is being forced to adhere to its commitments, though the Palestinians are in fundamental breach of theirs.

When the Cabinet endorsed the Roadmap, it was subject to fourteen red lines. They have never been heard from since, even from the Cabinet members who demanded such red lines. Once again, Israelis were had.

When the last election was being contested, then-Labor party candidate Amram Mitzna argued for unilateral disengagement from Gaza and Ariel Sharon vehemently opposed it. The Likud was elected. It didn't take long for Sharon to gravitate to the Labor's position on disengagement, in disregard of his own mandate.

When the Cabinet approved the "Disengagement Plan", they insisted that there would be no evacuation without another vote. This was also a con job, because the disengagement train left the station immediately thereafter. Once again, the Israeli public was had.

And the piece de resistance, George Bush is now enforcing the commitments in the Roadmap as though the exchange of letters changed nothing.

The High Court of Israel betrayed Israel by putting the rights of its enemy ahead of its own rights. But at the same time, it validated the building of the fence for defensive purposes only and required a different route for the fence. It was concerned that some Arabs were being separated from their land. Many in the IDF have charged that the new proposed route leaves Israel defenseless.

Rather than go back to the Court with this evidence, Sharon totally capitulates and takes the path of least resistance to assuage the High Court, the State Department and world public opinion. He is ready to move the proposed route further to the west, to Israel's security disadvantage security- and land-wise. In fact, the High Court was only against separating some Arabs from their land; they left it open to move the fence to the east to include these lands. After all, it's for defensive purposes only, isn't it? But Sharon preferred not to push the envelope.

When was the last time you heard from Israel's leaders that Judea, Samaria and Gaza are disputed lands and that Israel has a claim on them? Instead, from the beginning of the Oslo era, Israelis were assured by Bush and Israeli prime ministers that they would never jeopardize its security, but there was never any talk about Israel's claim on the land. Now it appears that Israel's only claim to keep the major settlement blocks is because they exist. Bush goes so far as to describe them as bargaining chips. Sharon goes so far as to refer to Judea, Samaria and Gaza as occupied land. In fact, the High Court noted in its decision that Israel has agreed that the lands are held in belligerent occupation and that the Geneva Convention applies. This formed the basis of its decision on the fence.

Barak was willing to offer some of Israel's land in exchange for some of the "territories", thereby accepting the notion that the territories are Palestinian lands. The Saudi Peace Plan that was behind the Roadmap also talks about an exchange of land. Sharon himself is also pursuing such an exchange and leaking ideas like ceding some of the Negev or even some of the Galilee with its Israeli Arabs in exchange. The US has for the longest time taken the position that the settlements were illegal. More recently, it has taken the position that if not illegal, they are an "obstacle to peace". Either position is premised on the notion that the territories are Palestinian lands and Israel must offer something in return.

In so doing, they are ignoring United Nations Resolution 242, which provided, according to everyone's understanding at the time, for Israeli withdrawal from some of the occupied territories to secure and recognized borders. I might add that this resolution never contemplated a new state being created, but rather contemplated that the existing border states, namely Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria, would divide up the territories in some fashion between them. Because these lands did not belong to another state, the Geneva Convention did not apply and the land could be settled by Israel.

Both Oslo and the Roadmap reference this resolution, but ignore its context and meaning. And each of them represented a diminution of Israel's interests, including the right to settle the land, with nothing but death and destruction in return. And what's worse, Israel agreed to them.

Israelis have no one to trust. They are constantly being betrayed and misled, even by their own leaders. What ever happened to responsible government? Whatever happened to accountability, honesty, transparency and fair dealing?