US warns Israel over 'separation'

[aaminion00]

Originally posted by Enemy Ace
Fine, then I am a trigger-happy facist. Whatever I must do to protect my people.

Protecting your people would be establishing firm borders and defending yourself. Going on a massive manhunt and detaining an entire populace while launching nuclear attacks on countries that are probably uninvolved would just be stupid.

But I'm glad you've come to accept it.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by G-Man


But why should we bring these 200,000 people into Israel? Both sides realize it's only logical to keep most of the settlment blocks. You can't rebuild entire cities. And I see no reason for Israel to do so. What will this act of removing hundreds of thousands of people give us in return? Stronger terror organizations?

I do not follow you. How does moving 200,000 people behind your security wall going to make stronger terror organizations? What cities need to be rebuilt? I'm talking about bringing them into Israel proper.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Benderino


I do not follow you. How does moving 200,000 people behind your security wall going to make stronger terror organizations?

It won't. But moving these 200,000 into Israel will make the terror organizations stronger, as it'll be a great achievment for them.

Originally posted by Benderino
What cities need to be rebuilt?

Ariel, for example.

Originally posted by Benderino
I'm talking about bringing them into Israel proper.

I'm talking about bringing Israel proper to them.

 

[bigfatron]

It's getting a bit boring to keep repeating it, but everytime you consider whether to do something in a counter-terror situation, ask yourself if the terrorists WANT you to do it.

If the answer is "Yes" then it is probably a stupid idea.

In this case the benefits to the terrorist groups - illegal annexation 'justifying' their cause, increased extremism and significant weakening of moderate voices an views, increased economic hardship, removal of any chance of a negotiated peace - probably outweigh the negatives - somewhat harder to inflict terror attacks across the border.

My guess is whilst vocally opposing the concept the Hamas leaders will be quite happy with the development - Israel will have a more physically secure border but with an fervently opposed Palestinian dependency on the other side of it.

One question - if it is such a good idea, why not build it on Israeli territory where there can be absolutely no argument about its legality? Why this deliberately provocative approach?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by bigfatron
It's getting a bit boring to keep repeating it, but everytime you consider whether to do something in a counter-terror situation, ask yourself if the terrorists WANT you to do it.

If the answer is "Yes" then it is probably a stupid idea.

Here's a better idea: Everytime you consider doing something ask yourself if it'll be good for your country and for your people.

Originally posted by bigfatron
In this case the benefits to the terrorist groups - illegal annexation 'justifying' their cause, increased extremism and significant weakening of moderate voices an views, increased economic hardship, removal of any chance of a negotiated peace - probably outweigh the negatives - somewhat harder to inflict terror attacks across the border.

Hardly. You're forgetting that the goal of the hamas and PIJ is not to exist, but is to destroy Israel.

Originally posted by bigfatron
My guess is whilst vocally opposing the concept the Hamas leaders will be quite happy with the development - Israel will have a more physically secure border but with an fervently opposed Palestinian dependency on the other side of it.

We already have that. There are two options: A fence, or a fence replacement in the form of IDF soldiers and tanks. Which do you think will make the Palestinians angrier? And which do you think will give the hamas more power, when it can fight soldiers but not fences?

Originally posted by bigfatron
One question - if it is such a good idea, why not build it on Israeli territory where there can be absolutely no argument about its legality? Why this deliberately provocative approach?

I said it before. A fence built on the 67' border ("the green line") will have no effect. It'll leave outside the most vulnerable population and will create no seperation.

 

[Sarevok]

you know, technically the gaza strip and west bank ARE part of israel, it was these damn terrorist organizations who launched attacks then arafat went to the UN to make his case then suddenyl their terrorism is justified. IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TRESSPASSING ITS THEIR OWN DAMN TERRITORY!!!

 

[bigfatron]

Originally posted by G-Man
Hardly. You're forgetting that the goal of the hamas and PIJ is not to exist, but is to destroy Israel.

Is it? Are they the only political group in history not to be interested in power? Do you think if they succeeded in their objective they would fade away happy?

Power is what every leader in the world wants, for good or ill - this is as true of Hamas as any other political group - the fact that they use abhorrent terrorist tactics doesn't change that.

If you want to stop them killing your people only one of two paths will succeed - weaken their powerbase amongst their people so that they become ineffectual, or persuade them to give up violence.

Sharon knows this; the argument is over the best METHOD of achieving the goal. He appears to think that he will weaken the militant powerbase by intimidating Palestinians into withdrawing support, or by killing all the militants - it's an approach, but I'm not aware of a single terrorist campaign that has been ended in this way.

Originally posted by G-Man
I said it before. A fence built on the 67' border ("the green line") will have no effect. It'll leave outside the most vulnerable population and will create no seperation.

But still it makes no sense - that population are vulnerable because they have chosen to make themselves vulnerable. As a country you are choosing to have your policy dictated by the most militant and confrontational groups.

This is as senseless as Palestinian support for Hamas, yet your nation is in a position of strength where change is not equivalent to surrender.

Someone has to make the first move....

 

[Sarevok]

it is their goal to kill jews and christians. when wasnt that their goal?

 

[aaminion00]

Originally posted by Sarevok
it is their goal to kill jews and christians. when wasnt that their goal?

Of the terrorists?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Sarevok
you know, technically the gaza strip and west bank ARE part of israel, it was these damn terrorist organizations who launched attacks then arafat went to the UN to make his case then suddenyl their terrorism is justified. IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TRESSPASSING ITS THEIR OWN DAMN TERRITORY!!!

And what are the DAMN legal bases to back your DAMN argument ? and let suppose it is true, than every one living there should be Israeli citizen, I rellay don't think a lot of Israeli will accept your DAMN offer.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by G-Man


It won't. But moving these 200,000 into Israel will make the terror organizations stronger, as it'll be a great achievment for them.

Well, of course, and we cannot move anywhere without a true, pluralistic Palestinian government/legislature (that hates Arafat). Once that happens, then we can continue the process. But hasn't there been a continuation of settlement growth? If so, couldn't that at least be put to an end?



Ariel, for example.


Explain, please.


I'm talking about bringing Israel proper to them.

Yeesh. That sounds a little harsh and creepy. Sounds like something Sauron would say (if he could talk). It all sounds too much like "Lebrensraum" (or however you spell that German word) or "living space" to me, and that scares me.

 

[Capulet]

You could say that the wall was meant to save lives. That makes sense. But what doesn't make sense is to completely redefine the borders of a would-be Palestinian state and Israel. This is a land-grab. I believe that the Palestinians would whole-heartedly support a wall that would keep them out of Israel and Israelis out of Palestine. A wall will not stand forever, as was true with the Berlin Wall and the wall that divided East and West Jerusalem. G-Man says that a wall based on 1967 borders wouldn't protect the most targeted places. Actually, yes it would. The Palestinians have a right to attack any IDF solider, any Israeli settler, anyone from a foreign country that is illegally in their land. The same is with the Israelis. Imagine if a couple thousand Palestinians packed up their bags and opened up a settlement in Israel. I bet that wouldn't make too many Israelis happy. Now more and more people are realizing that Israel must go back to the 1967 borders, and its beginning with the Army. Already many soldiers are refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories. Surely they aren't spies or Arabs.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by bigfatron

Is it? Are they the only political group in history not to be interested in power? Do you think if they succeeded in their objective they would fade away happy?

Power is what every leader in the world wants, for good or ill - this is as true of Hamas as any other political group - the fact that they use abhorrent terrorist tactics doesn't change that.

You're forgetting that their very base of power is based on attacks against Israel. The more attacks they manage to carry out into Israel the more support they get. And this was also true in the days after the Oslo agreement. You have to realize that the people who support them are people who opposed to peace process to begin with, and they're people who oppose any agreement that'll allow Israel to exist.

Originally posted by bigfatron
If you want to stop them killing your people only one of two paths will succeed - weaken their powerbase amongst their people so that they become ineffectual, or persuade them to give up violence.

Neither is possible.

Originally posted by bigfatron
Sharon knows this; the argument is over the best METHOD of achieving the goal. He appears to think that he will weaken the militant powerbase by intimidating Palestinians into withdrawing support, or by killing all the militants - it's an approach, but I'm not aware of a single terrorist campaign that has been ended in this way.

That isn't the method. The method is not to allow the terrorists to commit terrorism by blocking them with security measures. BTW There were quite a few guerilla/terrorism campaigns brought to a hault through the use of the method you talk about - only after WW2 did this method become obsolete.

Originally posted by bigfatron
But still it makes no sense - that population are vulnerable because they have chosen to make themselves vulnerable. As a country you are choosing to have your policy dictated by the most militant and confrontational groups.

It doesn't matter what they chose to do or what they didn't, what matters is that Israel's policy is one of seperation from the Palestinians, and if we'll leave the settlers and Jerusalem outside the fence we'll have a 3$ billion worth of fence that doesn't stop most terrorists

Originally posted by bigfatron
This is as senseless as Palestinian support for Hamas, yet your nation is in a position of strength where change is not equivalent to surrender.

It's not sensless at all.

Originally posted by bigfatron
Someone has to make the first move....

We made the first move, the second move and the third move and look where it got us to.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Benderino
Well, of course, and we cannot move anywhere without a true, pluralistic Palestinian government/legislature (that hates Arafat). Once that happens, then we can continue the process. But hasn't there been a continuation of settlement growth? If so, couldn't that at least be put to an end?

There aren't new settlments created if that what you mean.

Originally posted by Benderino
Explain, please.

I don't think there's much to explain here....

Originally posted by Benderino
Yeesh. That sounds a little harsh and creepy. Sounds like something Sauron would say (if he could talk). It all sounds too much like "Lebrensraum" (or however you spell that German word) or "living space" to me, and that scares me.

No, it's not about living space, but simply about dividing the land between Israel and the Palestinians based on the population of each area.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Musa
You could say that the wall was meant to save lives. That makes sense. But what doesn't make sense is to completely redefine the borders of a would-be Palestinian state and Israel.

How can you redefine something that was never defined in the first place?

Originally posted by Musa
This is a land-grab. I believe that the Palestinians would whole-heartedly support a wall that would keep them out of Israel and Israelis out of Palestine.

This is basically what this'll be. The fence's goal is to have as many Israelis in one side, and to leave as many Palestinians on the other side, which will be left to their own control.

Originally posted by Musa
A wall will not stand forever, as was true with the Berlin Wall and the wall that divided East and West Jerusalem.

The fence will exist as long as people will try to cross to Israel in order to spread their terrorism and crimes.

Originally posted by Musa
G-Man says that a wall based on 1967 borders wouldn't protect the most targeted places. Actually, yes it would. The Palestinians have a right to attack any IDF solider, any Israeli settler, anyone from a foreign country that is illegally in their land.

1. The Palestinians don't have the right to attack any civilians. That's a crime against humanity.
2. The Palestinians are legally allowed to attack soldiers, but they should realize this gives Israel the right to wage a war against them.
3. Settlers and soldiers are there legally, as land currently doesn't have a legally defined status.
4. The land isn't Palestinian, it's to be divided between Israel and the Palestinians.





The same is with the Israelis. Imagine if a couple thousand Palestinians packed up their bags and opened up a settlement in Israel. I bet that wouldn't make too many Israelis happy. Now more and more people are realizing that Israel must go back to the 1967 borders, and its beginning with the Army. Already many soldiers are refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories. Surely they aren't spies or Arabs. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Leha]

I applaud to our Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and support his program of separation . ( According to latest polls I'm one of 84% of Israelis ) . I am sure this step will :

1. Force PA to stop terrorists .

or

2. Will stop terrorists with the help of The Fence .

 

[Capulet]

double post X_x

 

[Capulet]

Originally posted by G-Man


How can you redefine something that was never defined in the first place?

After the 1947 War of Independance, Israel withdrawed to those borders, here: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/images/maps/borders.gif Most Palestinians want a state on those borders (with the exception of Hamas and other groups)

This is basically what this'll be. The fence's goal is to have as many Israelis in one side, and to leave as many Palestinians on the other side, which will be left to their own control.

How about you stuff as many Israelis in current Israel rather than making a landgrab? Of course theres going to be more violence if Israel takes more land. Thats the main reason so many wars were started, wasn't it?

The fence will exist as long as people will try to cross to Israel in order to spread their terrorism and crimes.

History shows that it won't.

1. The Palestinians don't have the right to attack any civilians. That's a crime against humanity.
2. The Palestinians are legally allowed to attack soldiers, but they should realize this gives Israel the right to wage a war against them.
3. Settlers and soldiers are there legally, as land currently doesn't have a legally defined status.
4. The land isn't Palestinian, it's to be divided between Israel and the Palestinians.

1. Settlers are being given extra benefits by the government to
move into the occupied territories. This makes the fair game, civilians or not. I've seen alot of settlers starting violence by destroying farms and attack cars.
2. Do you not call the conflict that is going on right now a war? It is one.
3. It does have a defined status, a status defined by the U.N. and so many other countries. The land is occupied.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Musa

After the 1947 War of Independance, Israel withdrawed to those borders, here: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/images/maps/borders.gif Most Palestinians want a state on those borders (with the exception of Hamas and other groups)

Israel didn't withdraw to these borders - these were the borders agreed upon in the cease fire agreements with the other countries involved. Agreements that were later broken by these countries. As to the Palestinians, they're not little kids. They know you can't get all you want. This is why it's called negotiations - you can get, but you also gotta give.

Originally posted by Musa
How about you stuff as many Israelis in current Israel rather than making a landgrab? Of course theres going to be more violence if Israel takes more land. Thats the main reason so many wars were started, wasn't it?

How about if the Palestinians stuff as many Palestinians into Jordan? And what war was started by Israel?

Originally posted by Musa

History shows that it won't.

Gaza shows it will.

Originally posted by Musa
1. Settlers are being given extra benefits by the government to
move into the occupied territories. This makes the fair game, civilians or not. I've seen alot of settlers starting violence by destroying farms and attack cars.

The settlers are citizens in a hostile environment, and therefore deserve govermental support. I don't see how this changes their status.

Originally posted by Musa
2. Do you not call the conflict that is going on right now a war? It is one.

The conflict right now is a low intensity conflict. Israel isn't at a state of war - very few civilians are currently drafted, and even that's for guarding missions. Israel has a lot more abilities than what it's using right now.

Originally posted by Musa
3. It does have a defined status, a status defined by the U.N. and so many other countries. The land is occupied.

The land does not qualify for the legal definition of "occupied" as it was taken over from Egypt and Jordan, yet both countries gave up the land in their peace agreements with Israel.

 

[IceBlaZe]

But the land was not recognized as Egyptian or Jordanian land, so they didn't have any claim to it infirst place.