The wall in Israel
-
As much as I know I'm going to get a boatload of 1's for this, here's how I see it: 1. It's evident that Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in total peace in proximity to each other at this time - Israelis drive over houses, Palestinians blow themselves up - it's obviously not working on both sides. 2. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of their territories, the Israelis want security from bombers. The wall achieves both of these. 3. I can see the obvious parallels to apartheid policy, but I'm not sure if it counts in this case. From what I can tell, once the wall is complete, the Palestinian Authority will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their areas - unlike SA, for example. Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Discuss.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Same reason as with withdrawal from Gaza. The only thing that keeps Palestinians from killing each other is common enemy. They need Israel; if Israel pulls out of Gaza as planned some sort of hostilities between Hamas and Palestinian authority is imminent. Tomaz
-
As much as I know I'm going to get a boatload of 1's for this, here's how I see it: 1. It's evident that Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in total peace in proximity to each other at this time - Israelis drive over houses, Palestinians blow themselves up - it's obviously not working on both sides. 2. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of their territories, the Israelis want security from bombers. The wall achieves both of these. 3. I can see the obvious parallels to apartheid policy, but I'm not sure if it counts in this case. From what I can tell, once the wall is complete, the Palestinian Authority will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their areas - unlike SA, for example. Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Discuss.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
Didn't the israelies pick where the wall went, who got what land, and demolish palistinian building etc to put it up? They did not ask the palistiians (as usual). Its just a great big mess, that costs lives every day. I can't see an end to it myself, until one side or the other is dead. Roger Allen - Sonork 100.10016 Strong Sad: I am sad I am flying Who is your favorite Strong?
-
As much as I know I'm going to get a boatload of 1's for this, here's how I see it: 1. It's evident that Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in total peace in proximity to each other at this time - Israelis drive over houses, Palestinians blow themselves up - it's obviously not working on both sides. 2. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of their territories, the Israelis want security from bombers. The wall achieves both of these. 3. I can see the obvious parallels to apartheid policy, but I'm not sure if it counts in this case. From what I can tell, once the wall is complete, the Palestinian Authority will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their areas - unlike SA, for example. Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Discuss.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? You are missing that Israel is unilaterally determining boundaries. This includes annexing part of the West Bank, in clear violation of international law. The idea for the wall originally came from the Labor Party opposition. My memory is that, when originally proposed, it was going to run along the pre-1967 boundaries. It is likely that any negotiated settlement would involve the Palestinians giving up some of the West Bank in exchange for some of Israel. That is different from Israel unilaterally deciding on boundaries. In any case, the wall is not going to solve the security issue. It is just another security measure which will have some effect at the cost of further antagonising the Palestinians. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
As much as I know I'm going to get a boatload of 1's for this, here's how I see it: 1. It's evident that Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in total peace in proximity to each other at this time - Israelis drive over houses, Palestinians blow themselves up - it's obviously not working on both sides. 2. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of their territories, the Israelis want security from bombers. The wall achieves both of these. 3. I can see the obvious parallels to apartheid policy, but I'm not sure if it counts in this case. From what I can tell, once the wall is complete, the Palestinian Authority will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their areas - unlike SA, for example. Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Discuss.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
Well, the Israelis are unilaterally deciding where the wall will go, and they're dividing the Palestinian's land up into tiny chunks: separating farmers from their fields, etc. The net result wiil not be very nice for the Palestinians.
-
As much as I know I'm going to get a boatload of 1's for this, here's how I see it: 1. It's evident that Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in total peace in proximity to each other at this time - Israelis drive over houses, Palestinians blow themselves up - it's obviously not working on both sides. 2. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of their territories, the Israelis want security from bombers. The wall achieves both of these. 3. I can see the obvious parallels to apartheid policy, but I'm not sure if it counts in this case. From what I can tell, once the wall is complete, the Palestinian Authority will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their areas - unlike SA, for example. Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Discuss.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
-
As much as I know I'm going to get a boatload of 1's for this, here's how I see it: 1. It's evident that Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in total peace in proximity to each other at this time - Israelis drive over houses, Palestinians blow themselves up - it's obviously not working on both sides. 2. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of their territories, the Israelis want security from bombers. The wall achieves both of these. 3. I can see the obvious parallels to apartheid policy, but I'm not sure if it counts in this case. From what I can tell, once the wall is complete, the Palestinian Authority will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their areas - unlike SA, for example. Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Discuss.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
Israelis and Palestinians should be tied down to a stick and wack their ass. :laugh:
I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill - Dire Straits
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? You are missing that Israel is unilaterally determining boundaries. This includes annexing part of the West Bank, in clear violation of international law. The idea for the wall originally came from the Labor Party opposition. My memory is that, when originally proposed, it was going to run along the pre-1967 boundaries. It is likely that any negotiated settlement would involve the Palestinians giving up some of the West Bank in exchange for some of Israel. That is different from Israel unilaterally deciding on boundaries. In any case, the wall is not going to solve the security issue. It is just another security measure which will have some effect at the cost of further antagonising the Palestinians. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
Ok, after looking around a bit, you are correct in that they have essentially rewritten the boundary lines. That being said, the amount of land that has been pseudo-annexed is less than 6% of the land mass of the West Bank (only number I could find - about 750 acres or so). That's bad. But is it as bad as thousands of ongoing Israeli and Palestinian deaths? To me, it's a better solution than blowing the hell out of each other. Of course, the ideal solution would be a negotiated peace, but again, I don't think that likely.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
-
Will the wall do any good? Seems to be working already.[^] The blue section is probably a lot of speculation but the red section is certainly illuminating. Dave
Interesting...and it seems to confirm what I thought: it does seem to be "working", despite the ethical and legal ramifications of the act.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
-
Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Same reason as with withdrawal from Gaza. The only thing that keeps Palestinians from killing each other is common enemy. They need Israel; if Israel pulls out of Gaza as planned some sort of hostilities between Hamas and Palestinian authority is imminent. Tomaz
And the problem with that is? Jeff Martin Triple20 Software
-
Israelis and Palestinians should be tied down to a stick and wack their ass. :laugh:
I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill - Dire Straits
See Jeremy's reply, it applies here. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Chris Maunder wrote: "I'd rather cover myself in honey and lie on an ant's nest than commit myself to it publicly." Jon Sagara replied: "I think we've all been in that situation before." Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
Ok, after looking around a bit, you are correct in that they have essentially rewritten the boundary lines. That being said, the amount of land that has been pseudo-annexed is less than 6% of the land mass of the West Bank (only number I could find - about 750 acres or so). That's bad. But is it as bad as thousands of ongoing Israeli and Palestinian deaths? To me, it's a better solution than blowing the hell out of each other. Of course, the ideal solution would be a negotiated peace, but again, I don't think that likely.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Ok, after looking around a bit, you are correct in that they have essentially rewritten the boundary lines. That being said, the amount of land that has been pseudo-annexed is less than 6% of the land mass of the West Bank (only number I could find - about 750 acres or so). 750 acres sounds like the area taken by the wall itself (including ditches and the like on each side). The amount of the West Bank that will be on the Israeli side of the wall is much larger --- I found one source claiming 43% but am too tired to come up with something reliable (I am about to go to bed). This land is not being formally annexed, but the position of Palestinians on the Israeli side will be very difficult. A lot of communities are going to be split in two. People will be separated from their places of work, farms etc. Jeremy Kimball wrote: That's bad. But is it as bad as thousands of ongoing Israeli and Palestinian deaths? To me, it's a better solution than blowing the hell out of each other. I think it is a continuation of the policies that have led to people blowing the hell out of each other. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
As much as I know I'm going to get a boatload of 1's for this, here's how I see it: 1. It's evident that Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in total peace in proximity to each other at this time - Israelis drive over houses, Palestinians blow themselves up - it's obviously not working on both sides. 2. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of their territories, the Israelis want security from bombers. The wall achieves both of these. 3. I can see the obvious parallels to apartheid policy, but I'm not sure if it counts in this case. From what I can tell, once the wall is complete, the Palestinian Authority will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their areas - unlike SA, for example. Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Discuss.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
Because it will give Israel half of the west bank. And do you really think they will stop excursions like todays into Gaza ? The tigress is here :-D
-
Ok, after looking around a bit, you are correct in that they have essentially rewritten the boundary lines. That being said, the amount of land that has been pseudo-annexed is less than 6% of the land mass of the West Bank (only number I could find - about 750 acres or so). That's bad. But is it as bad as thousands of ongoing Israeli and Palestinian deaths? To me, it's a better solution than blowing the hell out of each other. Of course, the ideal solution would be a negotiated peace, but again, I don't think that likely.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
I looked at a map, the 43% figure looks about right. The tigress is here :-D
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Ok, after looking around a bit, you are correct in that they have essentially rewritten the boundary lines. That being said, the amount of land that has been pseudo-annexed is less than 6% of the land mass of the West Bank (only number I could find - about 750 acres or so). 750 acres sounds like the area taken by the wall itself (including ditches and the like on each side). The amount of the West Bank that will be on the Israeli side of the wall is much larger --- I found one source claiming 43% but am too tired to come up with something reliable (I am about to go to bed). This land is not being formally annexed, but the position of Palestinians on the Israeli side will be very difficult. A lot of communities are going to be split in two. People will be separated from their places of work, farms etc. Jeremy Kimball wrote: That's bad. But is it as bad as thousands of ongoing Israeli and Palestinian deaths? To me, it's a better solution than blowing the hell out of each other. I think it is a continuation of the policies that have led to people blowing the hell out of each other. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
Bizarre: looks like various sources can't agree on where the damned wall actually *is*... http://www.palestinemonitor.org/maps/wall_phase_1_2.htm[^] http://stopthewall.org/maps/45.shtml[^] http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/[^] http://www.nad-plo.org/images/maps/jpeg/lgmapapril.jpg[^] Also note most of these maps are from anti-Israeli interests, just FYI. There also seems to be some difference of opinion betwixt sources about what has actually been approved as the "path" of the wall.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
-
Because it will give Israel half of the west bank. And do you really think they will stop excursions like todays into Gaza ? The tigress is here :-D
As far as the excursions go, hell if I know, but according to some stats, it's already helped cut down the bombings. As far as the size of the land grab, I can't honestly tell how much is being taken - check above in my response to John about the maps. Again, I reiterate, it is not a "good" solution, but it does seem to be having an effect. Whether it's worse in the long run or not, I have no idea, but as a short-term goal goes, it's still better than mass bombings and flattening of helpless villagers.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
-
As much as I know I'm going to get a boatload of 1's for this, here's how I see it: 1. It's evident that Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in total peace in proximity to each other at this time - Israelis drive over houses, Palestinians blow themselves up - it's obviously not working on both sides. 2. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of their territories, the Israelis want security from bombers. The wall achieves both of these. 3. I can see the obvious parallels to apartheid policy, but I'm not sure if it counts in this case. From what I can tell, once the wall is complete, the Palestinian Authority will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their areas - unlike SA, for example. Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Discuss.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
The UN should give Israel and Palestine an ultimatum: Make peace now, or Israel will be transformed into the largest parking lot in the middle east. Someone ought to grab Sharon and Yassir by their ears and give them a good spanking. -- Booohoo!
-
The UN should give Israel and Palestine an ultimatum: Make peace now, or Israel will be transformed into the largest parking lot in the middle east. Someone ought to grab Sharon and Yassir by their ears and give them a good spanking. -- Booohoo!
Your suggestion is extreme, but sensible at its core. Seriously - it's a damn shame that world peace is so dependent on what this relative handful of people are doing, and their inability to get along. It might make more sense to.. * Arm both sides to the max and tell them to call us when it's all over; * Take a map of Israel, divide it down the middle, and give one half to each side; then either level Jerusalem or give it to the UN. * Give the Israelis full rights to the Moon and start a massive relocation program. My tongue is firmly in cheek; but nothing else sems to be working.
-
As much as I know I'm going to get a boatload of 1's for this, here's how I see it: 1. It's evident that Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in total peace in proximity to each other at this time - Israelis drive over houses, Palestinians blow themselves up - it's obviously not working on both sides. 2. The Palestinians want the Israelis out of their territories, the Israelis want security from bombers. The wall achieves both of these. 3. I can see the obvious parallels to apartheid policy, but I'm not sure if it counts in this case. From what I can tell, once the wall is complete, the Palestinian Authority will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their areas - unlike SA, for example. Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? I realize it may not be a perfect solution, but it definitely seems to be a workable one... Discuss.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
They are building the wall through Palestinian territory and carving up the Palestinian area into seperated islands. If they would just build the wall on Israeli territory and remove all of the settlements I would be happy. Then Israel could wait for the Palestinians to cross the wall and send full scale military strikes against the nation of Palestine instead of beating up on an occupied people.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37 Be afraid of the One who can kill the body and also has the power to throw you into hell. Luke 12:5 In other words - If you don't love god more than your own family you will be tortured forever!
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Am I missing something here? Why is there such a furor over this? You are missing that Israel is unilaterally determining boundaries. This includes annexing part of the West Bank, in clear violation of international law. The idea for the wall originally came from the Labor Party opposition. My memory is that, when originally proposed, it was going to run along the pre-1967 boundaries. It is likely that any negotiated settlement would involve the Palestinians giving up some of the West Bank in exchange for some of Israel. That is different from Israel unilaterally deciding on boundaries. In any case, the wall is not going to solve the security issue. It is just another security measure which will have some effect at the cost of further antagonising the Palestinians. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: You are missing that Israel is unilaterally determining boundaries. To the victor go the spoils. Somehow everyone conveniently forgets that Israel's neighbors instigated five wars with Israel since it's founding and in each war, except 1982, Israel kicked ass and got more territory. (Yes, Israel launched a preemptive attack in 1967, but the intentions of the Arab countries was very clear.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Jeremy Kimball wrote: Ok, after looking around a bit, you are correct in that they have essentially rewritten the boundary lines. That being said, the amount of land that has been pseudo-annexed is less than 6% of the land mass of the West Bank (only number I could find - about 750 acres or so). 750 acres sounds like the area taken by the wall itself (including ditches and the like on each side). The amount of the West Bank that will be on the Israeli side of the wall is much larger --- I found one source claiming 43% but am too tired to come up with something reliable (I am about to go to bed). This land is not being formally annexed, but the position of Palestinians on the Israeli side will be very difficult. A lot of communities are going to be split in two. People will be separated from their places of work, farms etc. Jeremy Kimball wrote: That's bad. But is it as bad as thousands of ongoing Israeli and Palestinian deaths? To me, it's a better solution than blowing the hell out of each other. I think it is a continuation of the policies that have led to people blowing the hell out of each other. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: I think it is a continuation of the policies that have led to people blowing the hell out of each other. Exactly.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
