DescentBB

Ford Prefect wrote:In this modern world expanding your nation's borders by conquest is condemed, and rightly so, as unjust.

The rest of your post rests on this point.

I think it's sufficient to note that Israel's expansion-by-conquest was done in a *defensive* war. Israel did not go out and attack other nations to take their land. Israel was attacked, and in response, it pushed back its attackers and siezed military control of nearby lands. I see no reason to condemn such a response.

Simply put, Israel has every right to take control of the land it conquered *from its attackers* as long as it has reasonable claim that controlling that land will protect it from further attacks. It has every right to create security fences, checkpoints, etc. within those conquered lands -- and it can continue to do so until such time as an authority steps up to govern the lands in such a way that Israel's security remains protected.

Israel cannot permanently claim the extra land inside the fence. But it can build the fence around land it does not own (but controls as a result of a war in which it was attacked by other nations) in order to ensure its own security. If the Palestinians ever get a government that actually helps them build a legitimate civil society, and security forces that stop suicide bombers instead of aiding them, Israel should take the fence right down. As soon as the Palestinians get a non-terrorist government that keeps the peace with Israel, tear the wall down. But right now, the Palestinians have a terrorist government -- so right now, Israel has every right to build a wall to keep them out, even if it means cutting them off from some of their "own" (heh) territory.

If that wall comes down in my children's life time I would be shocked. If Israel gives up one square kilometer of that land I will be shocked. You will see constant expansion of the settlements inside the wall until finally the land is part of Israel. You heard it here first.

Lothar why could Israel not subdue it's attackers and then withdraw back to it's borders?

I think Israel has sinned here three times.

1. They coveted their neigbours property
2. They stole the same property
3. They murdered many innocents in trying to subdue conquored territory. (Winning the war is the easy part. Occupying your enemy's land is hard. Just ask the US military.) And no I am not counting those who died while attacking or even ploting to attack Israel. You send a missle to blow up your enemy's car and kill innocent passersby and you have murdered them.

That is 30% of the most basic teachings of their own god.

Please feel free to disagree with me, after all I disagree with you.

And yes that site is very one sided but I don't think the pictures of the wall are all photoshop jobs. The official Israeli site shows you barbed wire and ditches giving the impression that it would be easily removed. 2.2 Billion dollars to build. It is not going anywhere soon.

Ford i think you completely missread the mind of the Israeli people. Granted, there is a big right wing religious vote (notice the word "vote) that is for expanding the settlements, but there is also a massive group that dosn't want to be there. I think you'll be shocked sooner than you think.

1.I believe that the majority of Israelis want peace rather than the bits of land your currently talking about.

2. As Lothar correctly pointed out. The land was taken in responce to an invading force, not stolen whatsoever. No! Israel should not be there, i agree with you. But Israel is going bloody nowhere untill they we have peaceful borders. (like sinai for instance)

3.The missiles killed terrorist leaders, and unfortunatly innocents as well, granted. The quassam rockets that are fired practically every day kill only innocents because innocents re targeted. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/444558.html As soon as they figure out to attatch some dodgy stuff to the rocket, do you think they will??

But i hate this tit for tat king of argument, this is one of the reasons for the new stalemate we are in at the moment. I live in optimism though if not then i would have gone back to the UK years ago. Ok i'm off to pick up me sister and family from the airport in a couple of hours, as i pass the wall ill be thinking of the good old DBB.

FC

edit:....note to self....must stop saying "granted" all the time.

Ford Prefect wrote:If that wall comes down in my children's life time I would be shocked.

The wall will come down if and when the Palestinians get some legit leadership that will help them live at peace with their Israeli neighbors. If that's not in your lifetime, don't blame Israel.

why could Israel not subdue it's attackers and then withdraw back to it's borders?

1) Because its borders are in the middle of Jerusalem.

2) Because, when it took that land and pushed its attackers back, and then later offered to return a large part of that land, the offer was rejected.

3) Because destroying the attackers and then letting them build up 2 inches from your borders again is just not a good plan for success

I'll be glad if Israel eventually gives over the West Bank and Gaza strip to a legitimate governing authority. Unfortunately, no such governing authorith has stepped up to the challenge of taking care of those lands.

As for Israel sinning 3 times... that's pretty debateable. Coveting their neighbors lands? I think you misunderstand Israel -- for the most part, her people do not seem interested in taking that land. Stealing? It's not stealing if someone attacks you, you beat the crap out of them, and they drop their stuff when they run away and then refuse to take it back when you offer it. Murder? Possibly, if you consider getting caught in the crossfire "murder".

I don't think the pictures of the wall are all photoshop jobs.

Um, no, probably not. What's your point? It's a really big wall meant to solve a really big problem called an "intifada". It probably won't go away for quite a while. Palestine needs a regime change, and it needs a culture change, and those don't happen overnight.

But, in the end, I don't think Israel will keep the wall and keep those lands if Palestinians don't keep doing their best to attack.

History will tell. In 20 or 30 years, come back and find me, and we'll see who was right.

Ford Prefect wrote:There might be a smidgeon of support for the wall if it was built on the 1967 borders of Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 890839.stm

I think theyre trying Ford

Basically, emotion is good and all, but this isn't what solves problems. Ford: realize that this isn't a one sided issue. Realize that the stories that the two sides give you are very different. Realize that the wall is there to protect civilian human life. Realize that both sides have screwed up and taken civilian life. (Pointing fingers, as FC said, is something thats already happening way too much there, and is part of what is keeping peace from happening)

Well Flabby Chick you are much closer to the situation and I guess I have to bow to your knowledge. Given the problems that the government of Israel has had trying to get the settlers in the West Bank to abandon their settlements and return to Israel I don't know how it is going to happen. So many of those people swear they will give up that land only over their dead body. And after spending 2 and a half billion dollars to build that divider I just can't see any political party winning a majority in the Knessit with a platform of abandoning the settlements, knocking down the wall and retreating to the green line. I honestly think what we see is the defacto new western border of Israel.

But I will be pleased to be proven wrong.

By the way it is kind of hard to become a governing authority of Palestine when you can't do or say anything the Israeli's don't want you to say. Nor can you form a military to subdue the subversives in your own land since that military would be seen as a threat by Israel. Not to mention that you would be as popular as the Vichy government was in France during WW2. All of these things make you less than representative of your peoples wishes and we know what happens if you have goverment without representation. Sadly this mess is not going away soon.

Nor can you form a military to subdue the subversives in your own land since that military would be seen as a threat by Israel.

Huh? The Palestinian Authority has more than enough security personnel to get the job done. What it lacks is the will.

People who attack the World Court for its July 9 opinion on the Israeli wall in the Occupied Territories should beware.

In doing so, they are calling into question the United Nations Charter, and the whole foundation of international law and humanitarian conventions and treaties: which in the end are the legal basis of the state of Israel's international recognition, and, in a broader sense, everyone else's best hope for a global order that does not rely on anarchistic violence and force majeure.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG14Ak01.html

That's quite the statement there, Ferno... supporting the wall is now equated with, essentially, being an anarchist against international law. Heh.

The Hague claimed the wall "severely impeded" Palestinian right to self-rule -- though I fail to see how shrinking the amount of land available to them does that. Yasser Arafat and Hamas "severely impede" Palestinian right to self-rule, and IMO, this wall will help remove that impediment. Like I said before... as soon as the Palestinians get an established government that rules them like civilized people, Israel is going to stop building the wall and start bringing it down.

The article *says* the international court took into account Israel's need to protect itself, and conclused that Israel could do so by building the wall on the Israeli side of the green line... but that would allow Israel to protect itself only in a weak sense. As long as we're accusing people of being "economical with the truth", it's pretty "economical with the truth" to suggest that Israel could protect itself by building a wall on the green line through the middle of Jerusalem... and it's even more "economical with the truth" to suggest that such a wall would be less of an inconvenience or less of a violation of international law than a wall that goes around Jerusalem.

I also find it funny that the article accuses the US of "picking and choosing" which laws to support -- as if the rest of the world isn't just as guilty. That's what having a UN veto gives you -- the ability to pick and choose what rulings to support. France chose not to support the UN resolution to remove Saddam; the US chooses not to support a UN resolution condemning Israel for the wall. That's the way it is. Is that a vote against the very foundation of the UN? Maybe it is -- but it's not a vote against international law, it's simply recognition that the UN was a poorly designed body that doesn't do a very good job of creating or enforcing international law in the first place.

Ford Prefect wrote:All of these things make you less than representative of your peoples wishes and we know what happens if you have goverment without representation.

The wishes of what Palestinian people? The ones that take it upon themselves to suicide bomb in Jerusalem, or the ones who live in Jerusalem and just want peace? Of course noone in the world will support the former. What the world is asking for is someone who will support latter.