Justifying the Fence: A Surprising Source

Israel & Aliya (blog) ^ | 25 July 2005 | Caitlyn Martin

[anotherview]

Monday, July 25, 2005

Justifying the Fence: A Surprising Source

The New York Times is often harshly critical of Israel. OK, not all the time. Much of their reporting is factual. Some, however, does seem to have a bias. Today, however, there was a truly excellent article titled In Most Cases, Israel Thwarts Suicide Attacks Without a Shot. Yes, there are successful attacks, most recently on July 12 in Netanya. To quote a relevant point:

Israel is also building a separation barrier - an electronic fence and in some places a huge concrete wall - to make it harder for would-be bombers to enter Israel.

That, of course, is the whole point of the fence: to stop terrorism and save lives. "Unilateral separation", as former Prime Minister Barak termed it, or "disengagement", to use current Prime Minister Sharon's preferred term, is all about making the conflict nearly impossible by keeping the two sides apart. Ehud Barak's famous line "Us here, them over there" is often portrayed by apologists for Palestinian terrorism as racism. It is the Palestinians who want the territories to be Judenrein and Israel is accommodating that wish, at least in Gaza. It is portrayed as an "apartheid fence" yet Israeli Arabs, who comprise 18% of the population, are full citizens of Israel. The Palestinians wish to expel the Jewish population from the territories much as Jordan and Egypt did in 1948. Gush Etzion was Jewish before 1948 yet it is unacceptable to the Palestinians that there are Jews there now.

Of course the Palestinian leadership opposes separation because it prevents their armed struggle. It saves lives on both sides but the Palestinian leadership, who could have had a state in 1967, in 2000, and could have one in short order now, seem to be more interested in terrorism. The PA website still shows all of Israel as part of "Palestine". Who is guilty of apartheid? Who is guilty of terrorism? Of racism?

I commend the New York Times for portraying the fence correctly for a change. It's about time. To quote Ariel Sharon: "If there was no terrorism there would be no need for a fence."

The real victims, of course, are ordinary Israelis and Palestinians who would like nothing better than to live in peace and get on with their lives. Who is responsible for this victimization: those who try to stop the violence by building a fence or those who carry out terrorist attacks and can't accept the existence of Israel?

[anotherview]

Regarding the New York Times, even a broken clock is right twice a day. See also: here for the FR thread on the NY Times article.

[anotherview]

pinging the pingers

[Salem]

---

If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me ~
    
MikeFromFR ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Warnings ~
A student told his professor he was going to "Palestine" to "fight for freedom, peace and justice,"—Orwellian leftist code words that mean "murder Jews."

A Stab In The Heart [Video]
IsraelNationalNews - A Video on Gush Katif [Video]
The Nature Of Bruce ~

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

..........................................

[American in Israel]

The only reason for the fence is to surrender half of Israel for "Peace" again. So it is no wonder the Slimes praise it. Israel has a perfectly good fence around it's borders, with a catapult installed on the Israeli side and a bucket seat for terrorists I see no problem with enforcing the visa laws like every other country in the world.

If you are not born here, or your parents were not born here and you are an Arab, you do not belong here. Go live in the other 99.5% of the Middle East under Muslim domination.

If you are here as a hostile without a visa, you should be executed as under the Geneva Conventions as an Insurgent or a Spy. Period.

That's International Law and high time it was enforced.

[John Filson]

How are the liberals doing in Israel these days? They're still getting massive support for their divide and sellout plan from our state department, I see.

[Convert from ECUSA]

"Israel has a perfectly good fence around it's borders, with a catapult installed on the Israeli side and a bucket seat for terrorists I see no problem with enforcing the visa laws like every other country in the world. If you are not born here, or your parents were not born here and you are an Arab, you do not belong here. Go live in the other 99.5% of the Middle East under Muslim domination. If you are here as a hostile without a visa, you should be executed as under the Geneva Conventions as an Insurgent or a Spy. Period. That's International Law and high time it was enforced."

Well put, AiI!

[anotherview]

Most of the current Palestinian population was born in Israel (including the territories). Most of their parents were. Most of the migration into what was then British Palestine happened before the Second World War. So, by your definition, they have a right to be here. That, my friend, is the problem.

Since when is Gaza half of Israel? The fence is not a border and Israel has never claimed it is. It simply follows demographic lines to keep terrorists out. Since you have yourself stated that the Palestinians have a right to be here do you have a better solution?

[anotherview]

Since when is Likud defined as "liberal"?

[John Filson]

Since when is Likud defined as "liberal"?

Since they agreed to round up Jewish settlers, and cart them off of their land in the name of "peace."

[anotherview]

Separation or disengagement is not "in the name of peace". It is doing what is strategically necessary to survive the facts on the ground as they exist today. It is about making it difficult for the Palestinians to continue their terror war.

Nobody seriously believes disengagement will lead to any sort of peace agreement. OK, maybe a few real leftists do, but they are few and far between.

Likud, for those who don't know it, is roughly the equivalent of the Republican party in Israel with Labour (Avodah) being the closest equivalent to the Democrats.

[John Filson]

It is doing what is strategically necessary to survive the facts on the ground as they exist today. It is about making it difficult for the Palestinians to continue their terror war.

It could be done by removing the Palestinian Arabs from the problematic regions they currently occupy. As America and Commonwealth countries try to figure out how to handle the threat to security posed by their domestic Islamic populations, I suggest we not follow Israel's tolerant example.

[E Rocc]

Separation or disengagement is not "in the name of peace". It is doing what is strategically necessary to survive the facts on the ground as they exist today. It is about making it difficult for the Palestinians to continue their terror war.

The fence and disengagement are actually quite complementary and sensible strategies. As anyone who's ever tried to prevent a bar fight knows, the most important first step is separating the contending parties. Otherwise, the troublemakers from each side get in the face of their counterparts, gaining sympathy from their own group.

Indeed, once separation has occurred, calmer heads on each side often get irked with their troublemakers and handle them themselves. Israel is already doing this in both word and deed, the Palis are doing it in word and are beginning to in deed as well, or so it seems. The jury's still out there to some degree.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

It is doing what is strategically necessary to survive the facts on the ground as they exist today. It is about making it difficult for the Palestinians to continue their terror war.

It could be done by removing the Palestinian Arabs from the problematic regions they currently occupy.

In other words, remove over a million people instead of a few thousand?

-Eric

[anotherview]

It could be done by removing the Palestinian Arabs from the problematic regions they currently occupy.

I seem to remember Serbia deciding to remove Muslims from a problematic region called Kosovo. Do you remember how the world responded, including the United States? If Israel tried to remove the 3.5 million Arabs in the territories the response would be the same and the end result would be truly disasterous for us.

As America and Commonwealth countries try to figure out how to handle the threat to security posed by their domestic Islamic populations, I suggest we not follow Israel's tolerant example.

I would suggest that what makes America and Israel morally superior to our enemies, and indeed what makes Israel worthy of support in the eyes of most Americans, is the fact that we are so very different from our enemies. Israelis and Americans value all life and believe in human rights for all peoples.

Much of America's domestic Muslim population is where they are because they were escaping Islamic fundamentalism and/or totalitarian police states. I suspect most are grateful to be in the U.S. and are really not a problem at all. It is a small minority that are indeed a problem. Do you want to punish all American Muslims for the beliefs of a relative few? If so, how? Expulsion? Of citizens? Internment camps? Is that the road you want to go down? If it's American citizens who happen to be Muslim today who will it be next?

Similarly, in Israel, we have Israeli Arabs who would not want to live in a Palestinian state and are very much loyal to Israel. Should we punish them? Some even volunteer for service in the IDF. Should we not be grateful for this? Beduin Muslim Arabs are some of the IDF's best trackers. They perform invaluable service to our country and help us fight Palestinian terrorism. Should we get rid of them just because they are Muslims?