Most Israelis support the fence, despite Palestinian suffering

The construction of the separation fence is overwhelmingly supported by the Israeli-Jewish public, despite the internal debate and the international pressure against it. The support for the fence is based on the widespread assessment that it can significantly reduce terror attacks, though only a small minority believe it can prevent them completely.

A majority also believe the route of the fence should be determined according to security considerations of the government and should not necessarily follow the Green Line, even if the route causes suffering to the Palestinian population.

cut

In the context of a unilateral separation, a majority support the evacuation of all the settlements in Gaza and of the small, isolated settlements in the West Bank, but only a minority support the evacuation of all the West Bank settlements.

The targeted-assassination policy also enjoys great support today, even though it involves harming innocent Palestinians. The reason is the widespread assumption that the assassinations reduce terror that kills innocent Israelis.

cut

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/402996.html

Wonderful news. Israelis are being pragmatic in their views.

at the suffering of a people.

the Israelis are pragmatic in defending their interests while realizing the Palestinians are responsible for improving their own lot.

The hate is so ugly I cannot respond

he's concerned about protecting the live on innocents
against mindless terrorist murder.

Is there anything more "democratic" than that?? :shrug:

thats no way to speak od Sharon the Thief and madman.

Why would you say that ??

The Palestinian lot has not been improved by the Intifada. Yet they continue to support Arafat. That is probably the least recognized of your problems.

the wall is an obstacle to a peaceful and just two-state solution.

to Palestinian homicide bombers seeking to murder Jews.

How can any progressive support it?

yet, if it were moved to the Green Line, it could be an obstacle to terrorism but not to peace.

The "settlements" which are actually suburbs of Jerusalem or adjacent to the Green Line, and inhabited by thousands of Jewish civilians, would be vulnerable to attack. Security means protection.

Those who oppose the fence around these communities, claim that the security issues are not being addressed. This is to take the Palestinian view that Israel is trying to grab land with the fence. That is as though avoiding the facts and reality of the situation as it exists. Ma'ale Adumim has 27,000 Jewish inhabitants and Ariel 16,500. Leaving these families vulnerable would be unconscionable. Until an agreement is reached and a border established, where the settlements are either evacuated or included in Israel, there is a need to protect those persons.


A fence is a far better solution than bombs. Australians can pass laws to prohibit immigration, place persons in camps for years, but Israel is not an island, and thus needs to erect a barrier for protection.

How is it moral for a few thousands settlers to use the overwhelming majority of water while the remaining fraction is divided among millions of Palestinians? In Hebron, reportedly, 600 settlers use 6/7 of water while the remaining 1/7 is divided among 240,000 Palestinians. How is that not apartheid? How is that moral? How can America support this?

for the Israelis is Israel's concern, while the Palestinians have to rely on what the PA does, which is little to supply their needs. In Jerusalem, for example Arabs enjoy the water system set up by Israel, while in the territories, the distribution is antiquated.

...as an occupying power?

They are NOT benign communities, and if there was a shred of concern about the safety of Israeli citizens living in Israeli-only settlements in territory occupied by Israel, then the Israeli govt should evacuate them. They have no right to be there, and what's unconscionable is using settlements which are illegal under international law as an excuse for Israel to violate more international law. btw, it's the view of a great many people who aren't Palestinian that the route of the fence is a land-grab by Israel, and that it is a land-grab is something you yrself have just admitted in yr post, though what you do is try to justify it....

Uh, what on earth does whether a state has land borders or not have to do with terrorists trying to gain entry? There's these new-fangled inventions called planes that sort of make that tack a null and void argument, plus the huge majority of asylum seekers arrive by boat. So, maybe we should whack up a fence after all, hey? But let's follow the example of Israel and not construct it on our borders, but build it so it takes a fair chunk of PNG and New Zealand ;)

Restrictions on immigration and mandatory detention of asylum seekers are disgusting and unjustifiable policies, and the latter is violating a few UN Conventions that Australia's signed. The fence taking it's current path is also a disgusting and unjustifiable policy...

Violet...

As someone I knew well has often said, ill-eagle is a sick bird.

for Arafat's terror network. If they wish to enter Israel, they will either have to go through checkpoints or find some massively creative and difficult way to enter Israel.

ahead of their own? Every other peace plan and strategy to defeat terror has failed. If they think that the wall is the the only way to stop terrorism, then that's up to them. I gotta say, if I had to worry about being killed or maimed every time I got on the bus I wouldn't have too much sympathy for the other side either.

can't seem to get there act together,but the defenders of their cowardly acts continue to spew their BS in defense of their inhumane acts.

Why should the Israelis expect the rest of the world to put Israelis safety and interests above that of other people? They don't give a stuff about the suffering of Palestinians, so why should anyone give a stuff about their suffering?

Considering there's far more likelihood of being shot and killed in the Occupied Territories than travelling on an Israeli bus, I guess you mustn't have any problems at all with Palestinians who wouldn't have too much sympathy for the other side, eh?

Violet...

i.e. rather than Jewish mothers.

You agree with this?

Well,duh!

Two ways to look at it.

It is quite obvious why Israelis support the peace fence.

Do they prefer having it built on the Green Line? If they don't, then their support of it is not completely security-based.

"land grabbing fence" is more like it.

Mortars will still fly over the "peace fence." So will Israeli attack helicopter gunships and rockets.

This is official Israeli nomenclature.

It's just a meaningless soundbyte. If the purpose of the wall was actually to deter terrorist attacks in Israel, it would have been built along the Green Line. Of course Sharon was opposed to it when the plan was to build it along the internationally recognised border because it would put a big dent in his expansionist dreams of filling the West Bank with Israeli settlements. There are quite a few things the Israeli govt could do if it was honestly trying to deter attacks on its citizens, but stealing Palestinian land, informally annexing chunks of the West Bank, and destroying Palestinian homes and orchards isn't one of those ways of going about it. All that does is make a whole bunch more people enraged and pushes them into the arms of extremists...

Violet...

They could easily be met by artillery or jets.

I think putting up the Peace Fence will limit the ability of Palestinians to get into Israel and do harm. That is a natural desire of any state -- to protect its citizens.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You misunderstand my comment. It was not a threat, nor was it advocacy. It was simply a statement of fact. If the Palestinian terrorists escalate the battle, then the response will similarly escalate.

The PA and Palestinians in general need to bear responsibility here. If ANY NATION OR GOVERNMENT allowed terrorists to attack a nearby state and let them operate without even trying to shut them down, then they themselves bear responsibility. And most states would respond far more aggressively than Israel has.

As for the Peace Fence, it is only a wall in a relatively small area -- mostly the higher populated areas. I can't recall the actual percentage, but I think it was about 5% wall and the rest fence.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And have him make a short speech at the wall using that famous phrase. That would be a PR coup for them.

of course this is the Israeli fence and there is no intention to tear it down as long as the threat of terror continues. A suicide bombing once a week is unacceptable.

Mr. Arafat, stop sending psychotic murderers into our communities to kill men, women and children.

support locking up refugees in the desert...doesn't make it right

Most German's supported Hitler, Most frontier Americans supported genocide against Native Americans, Most Saudi's support women's second class status.

The old "might is right" argument...again (sigh)

that's what makes it right. Australians and Europeans obviously don't see that need. If you had high levels of terror over a few months time, I can assure you, you would act to prevent it.

n/t

There is not border agreed upon. Therefore, a fence on the Green Line saying this is the border would pre-empt negotiations. That, apparently is what Qureia wants. However, there are difficulties with that border marking also, as it doesn't follow matural or human demarcations. It is very arbitrary, and does not follow the best defense for Israelis. Therefore, a fence along the Green Line, would not be for defense, but for political reasons only.

The intent of the fence/wall is defensive. Why, therefore, leave thousands of Israelis exposed to terror? The final negotiations are already under way for unilateral withdrawal. That will leave the question of the fence irrlevant. Once a border is agreed upon, the fence will comply with that parameter.

but ramping up the violence and land theft wont prevent it.

This may come as a bit of a shock, but other states do hold a need for self-defence. It's the long-held invasion anxiety and fear of the 'Others' that plays a part in Australia's mandatory detention of asylum seekers and a reason why the continued practice is peddled as a national security issue. The fears that lead to those sort of appalling policies all come from the same place as the fears that lead to the appalling policies of the Israeli govt towards Palestinians. They're all equally valid to the govts that hold them, and just because you decide one is valid while another isn't doesn't mean diddly-squat...

I can assure you that if there were 'high levels of terror over a few months time' in Australia, the typical redneck facists would be braying for innocent (insert name of 'Others' here) blood, but if there wasn't a conservative govt in power, there'd be action taken to prevent it that wouldn't brazenly violate international law and ignore the human rights of innocent civilians. btw, haven't seen anyone here say that Israel has no right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. The whole issue is that people quite rightly believe that Israel is crossing the line in a big way and using the excuse of self-defence in order to steal land and commit war crimes...

Violet...

The obfuscation of issues concerning the wall (or fence, for those who prefer) never ceases to amaze me.

Israel has a need to do something for security. Building a fence is a possible solution. The problem arises in exactly where Israel is building this fence.

The Green Line has been the extent of Israel's sovereignty for over fifty years. No state has the right to unilaterally claim territory taken in war, which is essentially what Israel is doing by building the fence inside occupied territory.

In short, those who say that by building the fence where she is in order to establish a point for future border negotiations are admitting that building the wall inside occupied territory is in violation of international conventions.

Critics of the fence (or wall, for those who prefer) are often answered with the refrain "Israel needs the wall for security." We critics of the fence know that. That's not the issue. However, no matter how many times we say that's not the issue and that issue is whether Israel has the right to build the fence inside occupied terrorist, the same answer is given: "Israel needs the fence for security."

That Israel needs a fence for security does not justify building the fence inside occupied territory. It justifies building a fence on the boundary established by the armistice of 1949.

Israel's need for a fence does not justify this fence.

It's a variation on the standard 'Israel needs the fence for security' line. This time the answer is: 'Israel needs the fence for security and the reason it's being built inside occupied territory is to protect Israeli settlements.'

I see lots of obfuscation surrounding the issue of the barrier. One of the other biggies seems to be where people take a lot of time and effort to point out that it's a wall in so many percent and a mere fence for the rest. I don't really see what difference it makes. It's still a barrier being built on territory that isn't Israel. Whether it's a two-foot Lego wall built by toddlers or a massive construction that puts the Berlin Wall to shame, it's still trying to achieve the same purpose...

Violet...

It's based on the idea that somehow the GOI has the right to displace Palestinians and build settlements in which the displaced people cannot live accessed by roads on which they cannot travel in territory that is beyond Israel's borders.

This has been said often enough: If the GOI were really interested in the security of Israeli citizens, it would not encourage or even allow parts of her own population to settle territory beyond Israel's borders among a population hostile to their presence, but would withdraw Israeli citizens inside a defensive perimeter within Israel's borders and fortify it. That does not even take into account that the settling of occupied territory is a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It just recognizes that it's a bad idea and has been since Mr. Begin said that the West Bank and Gaza were an integral part of Israel.

This also has been said often enough: The only "dispute" about the occupied territories exists in the minds of the Israeli right wing and their supporters abroad. To even claim there is a dispute is not to state a fact; it is a propagandist's obfuscation. The West Bank and Gaza are not now nor ever have been part of the modern state of Israel. They were territories seized in war; as noted by UN Resolution 242, acquisition of territory through war is inadmissible. Begin's pronouncements to the contrary didn't prove that West Bank and Gaza were part of Israel; it suggests that he either couldn't read a map or that there was some part of the statement The acquisition of territory through war is inadmissible that he didn't understand.

Meanwhile, the Sharon government and the Bush junta talk about what parts of the Palestinian territories, territory acquired in war and to which Israel has no valid claim, shall be claimed by Israel. This decision is being made in the absence of any representative of the Palestinian people. Apart from there being something odious about two states dividing up territory that belongs to altogether different people, this is in violation of the spirit if not the letter of Resolution 242.

Israel has good reason to occupy the Palestinian territories. Palestinian militants are a threat to Israel's security and to the lives of Israeli citizens; no Palestinian authority has demonstration the willingness or the ability to reign in private militias that carry out these attacks. However, that justification for occupation does not give the GOI carte blanche to do whatever it pleases in the territories. The Fourth Geneva Convention was established in 1949 as a legal document to outline the rights of people living under a hostile military occupation. When the GOI displaces Palestinians to make way for Israeli settlements, those rights are being violated.

For Israel to say that a fence is needed to fortify her borders from terrorist attacks is fine and well. I agree that such a fence is needed. For Israel to say that there is a need for a fence inside the occupied territory to give security for settlers living on the land of displaced Palestinians and to allow for the expansion of those settlements, which would necessitate the displacement of still more Palestinians, is another. That has nothing to do with protecting Israeli citizens from terrorist attacks in Israel; it is the perpetration of an injustice based on the absurd notion that Israelis have more rights in the Palestinian Territories than the Palestinians do.

Consequently, the fence as it is being built is not about security, to which Israel has a right, but about territorial expansion, to which she does not. In this, Israel is being neither moral nor pragmatic.

It is a bigger wall than the one that separated East and West Berlin.

If Israel really cared about security and justice, it would build the wall on the Green line and abandon all the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and withdraw from East Jerusalem.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If Israel OR the Palestinians cared about peace and security, they could just move away and let the other side have everything.

And it's not a wall, it's a fence.

Picket, cyclone, etc...

Unless you are Superman, you can't see through a concrete wall.

It is a wall.

a chain link fence

The wall hasn't been completed yet.

In Berlin, the DDR and Soviets erected barbed wire fences almost overnight and only later built a permanent wall with automated machine gun tripwires and manned towers containing guards with automatic weapons. Oh, and they mined the area around the wall.

And clearly mark the area as a mine field. No one should be allowed to approach the Peace Fence except through entry points.

The areas where you see a wall, as around Jerusalem where there isn't the space to build a fence with a couple of hundred meters of land on either side, and a mote to prevent would-be hackers and climbers. In it's final form it also electronically monitored, not a wall.

If it's "needed for security reasons" then a chain link fence is totally and utterly useless, if it's a land grab on the other hand...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.