Settlments - the begining of the end.... by LSM 8:12am Wed Jul 30 '03 Israelis cannot agree to indirectly annex Palestinian territory. print article Israel's dispute with the United States has a positive side. When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon agrees to change the route of the fence - and he will agree - it will serve as a clear sign from him to the Israeli public, and especially to the settlers, that Israel cannot agree to indirectly annex Palestinian territory. When the Americans refuse to back down on their demands concerning the fence's route, this will send a clear message to Israel that there can be no return to the tricks carried out after the Oslo agreements were signed: the creation of facts on the ground that affect the outcome of the negotiations. By taking the stand he is taking on the fence's route, President George Bush is in fact saying that he views the 1967 border as the future border, more or less, between Israel and the Palestinian state. This does not mean that the Americans fully support the Palestinian stance on the fence issue, because the Palestinians want the area to remain open, so that tens of thousands of Palestinians from the territories can move in and settle in Israel. The Palestinians are right when they claim that the fence will create new injustices for farmers living in the areas through which it will pass and that it creates new facts as far as the border is concerned. But neither they nor the Americans have the right to demand that Israel refrain from defending itself from terror attacks or from the mass migration of Palestinians into its territory. The settlers have demonstrated a great deal of ingenuity in this dispute. When the idea of the fence began to take shape, they opposed it, just like Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. They realized that it represented the beginning of the separation of Israel within the Green Line from the settlements. At that time, the large-scale terror attacks were at their height. It was clear that the Palestinians were planning to send car bombs carrying hundreds of kilograms of explosives to carry out a huge terror attack inside Israel. The settlers quickly understood that if they remained adamant in their opposition to the fence, the gap between them and the public in Israel would grow much wider. Therefore, instead of opposing the fence, they changed their tactics and demanded that the fence include them, too. By doing so, they brought about a change in the fence's route and the creation of enclaves within Palestinian territory. Sharon supported them - and when Israel's position crossed the line, it caused Washington to come out against Israel. Israel's public relations campaign concerning the fence was poor from the outset, and it became inapplicable once the fence began to encircle the settlement blocs and connect them to Israeli territory in order to perpetuate Israel's hold on these areas. The deviation in the fence's route made Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen's first journey to the White House easier. It shifted the discussion from the issue of the terrorist infrastructure and the failure to carry out reforms in the Palestinian security organizations that are still controlled by Yasser Arafat to the dispute between Israel and Washington. However, the positive side of this dispute will manifest itself if Bush insists that Israel change the route of the fence. In a letter sent to Bush this week, Brigadier General (reserves) Uzi Dayan, the former chair of the National Security Council, did what Israel's official information experts have not been able to do. Dayan explained that a continuous security fence is not only part of Israel's war against terror, but also a necessary condition for the success of any political initiative - because any peace initiative will be doomed to failure if even one suicide bomber manages to blow himself up in Israel and murder dozens of Israelis. Since there is no way of knowing how the current cease-fire will develop, the building of the fence should be accelerated - providing that it is indeed a security fence built more or less along the Green Line that causes a minimum of damage and injustice to the Palestinians living nearby. add your comments Source file

Stance? by Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt 2:28pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment How nice. But as usual Dubya is not taking any stance at all which could have offended the Israeli's. Why don't they just be honest about it and have American elections in Israel next time? add your comments

Antisemitism is as old as the jews by LSM 3:42pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment Your comment show that you subscribe to those who think that the jews run the whole world. You must be with the ISM - Don't you ? add your comments

unfounded accusations of it as well by John Veldhuis 4:32pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment Hey, LSM, you unfoundedly accuse ISM of being anti-semitic. You must be a zionist brown shirt. add your comments

Forgot to ask... by John Veldhuis 4:34pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment I should have added: or aren't you? add your comments

People who accuse the Jews by LSM 6:35pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment I have been a member of the Israeli left when you were still an embrio. Do you remember when the road from Tel_Aviv to Jerusalem was full with a live chain of protestors holding signs calling on Begin to make peace ? Well I do, I have been there is Sha'ar ha'guy. Any how don't accuse those whm you do not know. Nothing I wrote here can lead you to accuse me the way you do. On the other hand the one who wrote: "Why don't they just be honest about it and have American elections in Israel next time?" Is clearly an International who subscribe to the idea that jews rule the world. Hence, he/she is with the ISM. BTW, if you bring Ann Gweene as an example, better read all her writings and radio shows - she sais Hammas have never hurt any Israeli civilians. This is the most creadiable statment I have ever heard. Maybe she is freehtepeeps. add your comments

I am sorry to accuse you, but by John Veldhuis 7:01pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment When I was an embrio, most of the Israeli's were still "left", or so I am led to believe. I agree with you that it is idiotic to believe that "Jews rule the world", and that such an opinion may even be considered anti-semitic. But I fail to see why such a statement makes him/her a member of the ISM, and therefor I fail to see any reason why you should accuse ISM of being anti-semitic. I think (unfounded) accusations of anti-semitisme are a standard tactic of zionists, and, as I am in favor of giving people a taste of their own medicine, I made a (yes, unfounded) accusation myself. I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings, that was truly not my objective. All I used the Ann Gwynne link for, is showing that Nablus and Qalqilya are not as far away from each other as was presented. As for Hamas, it has a military branch, capable of violence, which I am sure has been directed to Israeli's in the past. I always condemn violence directed to civilians, and to children in particular. But Hamas also has a humanitarian component, which is all too often denied, or placed in the same category as the militants, which to me is like placing the Red Star of David people (Magen David Adom isn't it?) into the same category as the settlers, who to me are as bad as any Palestinian militant organisation. add your comments

Oh Great, defend Hammas by LSM 10:57pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment You can defend Hammas as much as you want. Does it really matter if an organization that call for Ethnically Cleansing all the jews from Israel has a political wing or even a charity wing ? It is a racist, fascit, extrem religious organization that uses force against civilinas - yet for Anne Gwyeene it is an organization of saints. Nothing but deep antisemitism can briing people who are prgressive to be pro-Hammas. In Europe and the US thwere are many coropration who rob the people all over the world - yet those corporations give some money to charity - does this make them nobel ? Is this your argument about Hammas ? Look, no one is happy about the occupation (other then few settlers). Most Israerlis are still left wing in the sense that they want to end the occupation - but this can only be done in agreement not under terror threats. add your comments

boring... by ,,, 11:08pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment are you anti hamas because they are not pacifists? are you one of the refusniks? and if not, what gives you the right to judge your victims for using violence to secure them and their loved ones? all people have a right to self denfense even those who must resort to defending themselves against individuals as your elected leader, mr. nazi leftist... add your comments

LSM... by ,, 11:17pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment you either renounce all forms of violence or you don't. you cannot use violence and condemn others for attacking back... it is counter productive to do so. do as I say not as I do, is easier said than done. if you renounce violence than you must be a pacifist... easier said than done? add your comments