Skip to main content

This is a very interesting developement because as anyone who has debated an Israeli apologist on this site, or on others knows, they always claim it was just done to stop terrorists, and that does not represent annexation.  The Israeli government is also backing off the claim that the fence is temporary, or that it can be moved.   More from Haaretz.

Israel has acknowledged for the first time that not just "security" considerations were instrumental in determining the route of the West Bank separation fence.

Responding to a petition brought to the High Court by the residents of the Palestinian village Azun in the northern West Bank, the state asked for the fence to be left on its original route, previously ruled to be unsuitable, as it would be very expensive to move.

The state's position marks a fundamental change in its legal arguments. Initially, the state claimed security concerns were the sole motivation for erecting the fence, and there were no other considerations..........

The state's new stance also highlights a major policy change regarding the "temporary" nature of the fence. Until now, the state has claimed that the fence was a short-term measure, and it was possible to move or dismantle the barrier. ............

Please bookmark for future reference, since they also still claim that disengagement in Gaza is only a prelude to desisengagement on the West Bank despite the fact that both Dov Weisglass and Ariel Sharon admitted that it is being done as a prelude to annexation.  Also if anyone still has an account at "Democratic Underground, you should post this there, Admittedly such post might tend to get you kicked off the site.  It is run buy prolikud dlcers, and they won't even coutenance true stories coming from Haaretz.  I have been kicked off for posting stuff about the Temple Istitute's threat to the Dome of the Rock.  An article written in Haaretz no less.

Originally posted to NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 06:30 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sigh... (none)
    Yeah, anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is an "Israeli apologist."  

    And I'm really amused that you think you were kicked off DU because it's run by "pro-likud DLCers."  

    Of course the only explanation is the discredited beliefs of others, and it could never be your conduct...

  •  Haaretz (none)
    An article written in Haaretz no less.
    What are you insinuating about Haaretz?

    "What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin' on here?" -- Slim Pickens in "Blazing Saddles"
    "I have more than 2 problems." - the Coach Z

    by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 06:37:16 PM PDT

  •  These nefarious other considerations (none)
    According to the Haaretz article, these nefarious other considerations seem to be:

    1. Related more to changing the location of existing portions of the barrier, rather than to the choice of the original route, and

    2. characterized as "cost-related," meaning the government just doesn't want to spend the money.

    As for the rest of your diary, I really must thank you for calling me an "Israeli apologist."  Courtesy prevents me from returning the favor.

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 06:56:09 PM PDT

  •  Author reads too much into the petition (none)
    There is absolutely nothing in the article indicating that the fence is not temporary, that it cannot be moved or that the security concerns were not the only considerations for the fence route (although personally I am sure that political considerations were taken into affect, the Israelies would be stupid not to).

    There is absolutely nothing in the article to insinuate that the fence represents annexation, the palestinians will get the land back as soon as they establish peace with Israel, negotiate fair and secure borders and crack down on terrorism.

    •  saying that the route wasn't made (4.00)
      for security reasons and that it is too expensive to move is pretty good evidence of permenantness.  Also Dov Weisglass has stated that disengagement was done to put the peace process on formaldehyde, and also to annex the settlements on the West Bank. formaldehyde, and also to annex the settlements on the West Bank.

      "Arik doesn't see Gaza today as an area of national interest. He does see Judea and Samaria as an area of national interest. He thinks rightly that we are still very very far from the time when we will be able to reach final-status settlements in Judea and Samaria."

      Does the evacuation of the settlements in Gaza strengthen the settlements in the West Bank or weaken them?

      "It doesn't hurt the isolated, remote settlements; it's not relevant for them. Their future will be determined in many years. When we reach a final settlement. It's not certain that each and every one of them will be able to go on existing.

      "On the other hand, in regard to the large settlement blocs, thanks to the disengagement plan, we have in our hands a first-ever American statement that they will be part of Israel. In years to come, perhaps decades, when negotiations will be held between Israel and the Palestinians, the master of the world will pound on the table and say: We stated already ten years ago that the large blocs are part of Israel."

      The Agreement Sharom made with Bush was for disengagement in reture for annexation of the West Bank settlements.  This is why Sharon said Oslo was doa.

      Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

      by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:15:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what're you talking about? (none)
        saying that the route wasn't made for security reasons and that it is too expensive to move is pretty good evidence of permenantness.

        Huh? It the author of the article who was saying that the route wasn't made for security reasons. Neither the state's petition and nor the court said that at least based on the information and quotes provided in the article.

        The quote in article said "very expensive to move", you're shamelessly lying when you distort it to "too expensive to move". And if you're equating "expensive to move" with "permanentness" you're hopeless.

        •  Can I vote? (none)
          A) Hopeless
          B) Permanently Hopeless
          C) All of the Above

          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:28:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  spin spin spin (none)
          "very" is very different from "too" in bizarro world.

          Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

          by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:30:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (none)
            That's what I am talking about, stop lying and spinning. When the original quote said "very expensive" your changing it into "too expensive" is disgusting and shameless.
            •  Whatever (none)
              !  rolling eyes?

              Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

              by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:37:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Zionists (none)
                love to quibble about the details to obscure the larger truths.

                As soon as the Palestinians stop resisting Israel, then they will get what they want.

                Notice the circular reasoning.

                Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:01:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  why am i not surprised that (none)
                  You're twisting a suggestion "to crack down on terrorism" into "the Palestinians stop resisting Israel".
                  •  Because they don't accept even peaceful resistence (none)
                    to the wall for one thing. They treat people who protest the wall ezactly like terrorist and they shoot and arrest themn without trial due process.

                    Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

                    by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:41:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  the whole quote (2.25)
                    There is absolutely nothing in the article to insinuate that the fence represents annexation, the palestinians will get the land back as soon as they establish peace with Israel, negotiate fair and secure borders and crack down on terrorism.--dvo

                    You put the burden of establishing peace on the Palestinians. Why not equally on both parties?

                    "Negotiate fair and secure borders": what does this mean?

                    dvo, you are setting up a totally unrealistic threshhold for Palestinians that amounts to giving Israel everything it demands.

                    How's this for a starting point?

                    • 1967 borders.
                    • Israel respects int'l law vis-a-vis right to return.
                    • Israel gets military out of Palestine permanently.

                    Then the Palestinians will renounce the use of coercive force.

                    What's that you say? It sounds like capitulation as a precondition to negotiation? Sorta sounds like your demands of the Palestinians, especially your cryptic demand about giving Israel "secure" borders.

                    The more I think about it, dvo, the more you piss me off.

                    Israel is not annexing a small amount of Palestinian land to rectify some security problem with the 1967 borders. It is annexing land to give to Jews while Palestinians are displaced.

                    The settlements don't enhance Israel's security, they create more targets. But the Zionist movement needs fresh victims to justify it's blood-thirsty annexation. You, dvo, support ethnic-cleansing. Zionism is ethnic cleansing.

                    Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                    by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:45:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If all zionism is ethnic cleansing how do you (none)
                      account for those zionist that support the two state solution as proposed by you. The broad brush on zionists is very alienating.  Couldn't you say religious zionist, because we are talking about the "Greater Israel" crowd.  Admittedly there are people, probably professional pr types hired by Israel, who pose as liberals and moderates that claim to support two states but really don't, as evidenced by the lack of support for any action that could create two states, like the kind we are debating with here, but it still isn't good to broadbrush.

                      Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

                      by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:53:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  "Zionism is ethnic cleansing" is beyond (4.00)
                      the pale. Until I read the sentence, I was going to ignore your comment. The Zionist Yahad Party, uniting Meretz and Yossi Beilin's party, is is not for "ethnic cleansing." So far as I know, the Labor Party is not for "ethnic cleansing." Zionist Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), the mainstream peace movement in Israel, is not for "ethnic cleansing."

                      I could go on, but those who understand will understand.

                      f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                      by another American on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:57:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  be honest (2.00)
                        Do you deny the ambition to acquire land?

                        Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                        by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:34:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No. I'd like to be able to acquire a vacation (4.00)
                          home on Cape Cod or, perhaps, a pied a terre in Cambridge.

                          If you mean to ask whether I have territorial ambitions for Israel, then I'll have to admit to that, too: I want Israel to get the "secure and recognized borders" mandated as part of a peace settlement by U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. And, I recognize that that will happen -- at least vis-a-vis the West Bank -- only in the context of a definitive peace settlement with the Palestinians, which I recognize will have to be more-or-less along the lines of the Clinton Parameters.

                          Carl, be honest yourself: Hand on your heart: Would you be happier if Israel didn't exist?

                          f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                          by another American on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:44:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  What annexation? (none)
                      While I agree with you that both sides have to compromise, it has so far been Israelis who did and it was the palestinians who refused to compromise. Remember failed Barak/Arafat/Clinton deal when Arafat walked away from a very generous offer without even a counter-offer. Remember prince Abdullah's proposal - exactly like you describe, Israel capitulates and then the Arab countries will think whether to recognize it.

                      At any rate Israel is committed to 2 state solution, the borders and security guarantees need to be negotiated of course, the right of return is not negotiable. The Palestinians are still not recognizing Israel's right to exist.

                      As far as annexation is concerned Israel is not annexing anything, it's just building a wall. In all fairness if Israel wanted to annex palestinian land it would not need any walls to do it and no wall will be an issue if/when both sides eventually reach a peace agreement.

                    •  Uncalled for: (none)
                      But the Zionist movement needs fresh victims to justify it's blood-thirsty annexation. You, dvo, support ethnic-cleansing. Zionism is ethnic cleansing.

                      Making blanket statements about the defenders of Israel is uncalled for. Just because they support Israel's interests does not mean they support ethnic cleansing.

                •  I would append this to right wing zionists (none)
                  because even the two state solution supporters are zionists, but I otherwise agree.

                  Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

                  by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:39:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If I meet a pro-peace Zionist (1.75)
                    I'll add the descriptor "pro-peace".

                    From my perspective the loud-mouth Dem Zionists tell themselves they wouldn't vote for Likud so it's OK if they support ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

                    Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                    by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:47:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Mark Twain quote (none)
                      that I posted below. Read it. Take it to heart.  

                      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                      by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:51:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Ury Avery is a pro-peace zionist (4.00)
                      so is Eric Altermen and most of the folks at the Israeli Policy Forum as well as Tikkun.  Anyway, you will have to elaborate on the rest so this doesn't turn into a silly pissing contest rather than a discussion.  Paul is already attempting to do this.

                      Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

                      by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:56:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Credit where credit is due (4.00)
                        I have to give you credit, NA, for pointing out that there are many pro-peace Zionists, many people who support Israel and also think that the Palestinians should have a state of their own. Kudos.  Sincerely.

                        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                        by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:01:09 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  This is ratings abuse. (none)
                      Carl Nyberg is a great, important contributor to this site.  This was not a trolling comment, and rating him less than a 3 or conversely not rating for this comment is completely inappropriate.
                      •  Ratings abuse? (none)
                        I rate comments, not people.

                        Here are some of Carl's "great, important contribut[ions" to this discussion.

                        The Zionists love to quibble about the details to obscure the larger truths.

                        "The Zionists?" Every one of us?
                        You gave this indiscriminate generalization a 4.

                        Zionism is ethnic cleansing.

                        Carl has not bothered to try to justify this blanket statement. NoAlternative was being kind in writing: "The broad brush on zionists is very alienating."
                        You gave it a 4.

                        If I meet a pro-peace Zionist I'll add the descriptor "pro-peace".

                        From my perspective the loud-mouth Dem Zionists tell themselves they wouldn't vote for Likud so it's OK if they support ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

                        You gave this a 4.

                        Are you trying to insult me, you racist Zionist?

                        You are racist against Palestinians.

                        the Zionists

                        This is what your Zionism has become: racist and blood-thirsty.

                        And you support it.

                        You gave this a 4.

                        f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                        by another American on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 04:26:35 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't know what has gotten into him. (none)
                        He has done a lot of good things in the past, but lately, he has gotten so full of hatred for the pro-Israel people here that he makes blanket statements condemning them instead of trying to understand where they some from.

                        Just about everything he has posted here in the last month has been about his vendetta against Israel.

                        Defending Palestinian interests here is one thing; accusing posters or Democratic politicians of supporting ethnic cleansing crosses the line.

                    •  Wrong. (none)
                      Democratic politicians do not support ethnic cleansing.
                •  Polls of Israeli public opinion consistently (4.00)
                  have shown that, the more comfortable the Jewish public feels about the security implications of withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, the greater the majority supporting or accepting such a peace settlement.

                  So, yes: The more the Palestinians

                  • adopt a negotiating position that reassures Israel of their peaceful intentions, e.g., by stating, as does Sari Nusseibeh, that realization of the Palestinian Right of Return will have to be limited to the (future) State of Palestine,
                  • and the more they employ  peaceful methods of struggle and show a strong effort to prevent or limit violence,

                  the closer they will get to having a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

                  Notice the interactive reasoning.

                  f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                  by another American on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:47:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why didn't lull in violence in the 90s even (none)
                    result in a freeze on the settlements?  Why did the Israeli public respond by electting Netenyahu?

                    Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

                    by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:01:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  cult of victimhood (4.00)
                      Cuz both Palestinians and Israelis are obsessed with seeing themselves as the victims.

                      Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                      by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:05:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They are though (none)
                        Victims of governments that denied their interests, just as we all are.  There are plenty of non-Likud Israelis, who do not to die b/c of their government's willingness to sacrifice them for the "greater good" and the desires of greed and power.
                        There are plenty of Palestinians who want no part of this BS, who want their homes intact, their land unmolested, their children alive, and they are also unfortunate victims, of a lack of government protection.
                    •  Which lull in violence? (3.00)
                      The key time in the 1990s was under Rabin and Peres; Netanyahu, after all, was against Oslo and against a Palestinian state. (He's also against the currently contemplated disengagement.)

                      My point is proven, I think, by Netanyahu's close victory over Peres. The consensus is that Peres lost because of a series of suicide terror bombings inside Israel, i.e., the Green Line.

                      f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                      by another American on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:12:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There was definately a decrease in violence in (none)
                        90s.  What concensus would that be?  The settlers had committed terrorism against Rabin and on the Palestinians at the Temple Mount, but it didn't phase Israeli public opinion enough to put in a peacemik.  Suicide bombing should stop because they are wrong, but most Israelis fundamentally don't care about a Palestinian state enough to make one, and terrorism has little do with it.

                        Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

                        by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:18:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Israeli vs. American Zionist perspective (none)
                          I can understand the Israelis getting psychologically messed-up in response to the drawn out conflict. It has psychologically messed-up the Palestinians.

                          But the American Zionists just don't have a good reason to be unable to see the situation clearly. American Zionists aren't getting killed.

                          Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                          by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:39:08 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  They don't live there and (4.00)
                            alot of maistream Jewish Orgs that give out antisemitism alerts are run by neocon types now.  Foxman, the President of ADL is definately probush.  You'll also note  how little is being reported about the current settler violence in America's papers.  You have to read about it in Harretz.

                            Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

                            by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:43:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's not true (4.00)
                            Actually Carl, that's not at all true. Many Americans have been killed by Palestinian terror attacks.  More than 50 Americans in just the past 10 years, including:

                            -John Branchizio, Mark Parson, and John Martin Linde, who were part of a US diplomatic convoy that Palestinian terrorists bombed in Gaza

                            -Dr. David Applebaum, a highly respected American doctor, and his daughter Nava, who were killed by Palestinian terrorists at Jerusalem's Cafe Hillel the day before Nava was supposed to be married

                            -Alan Beer, a native of Cleveland, killed when Palestinian terrorists bombed the bus he was riding on

                            -Marla Bennett of California, David Gritz of Massachusetts, Benjamin Blutstein of Pennsylvania, and Janis Coulter of New York all died when Palestinian terrorists bombed the Hebrew University cafeteria

                            -Shoshana Greenbaum, a New Jersey tourist, was slaughtered in the horrific Sbarro pizzeria attack of August 2001

                            -Three months earlier, 14-year-old Kobe Mandell of Silver Spring, Md., was one of two boys stoned to death in the cave where Palestinian terrorists found them hiking

                            -April 1995, when Brandeis University student Alisa Flatow was murdered in a Gaza terror attack

                            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:53:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  if you stay our of Israel you're fine (1.66)
                            And you having all these names at your fingertips is basically creepy.

                            Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                            by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:57:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What's creepy is what you said (2.00)
                            "Just stay out of Israel and you're fine" -- that's genuinely creepy. It sounds like a fucking threat, Carl. You really need to take a breath before you click on "post".

                            All I did was run a Google search on "Americans killed by Palestinian terrorists".  I would've just posted a comment advising you to do that, but I think that with respect to the people that always have a ready excuse for Palestinian terrorists, it's more of an eye-opener to list the names of Americans killed by Palestinian terrorists. Rachel Corrie isn't the only American that has been killed over there.  

                            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:07:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Is Israel a foreign country at war? (2.00)
                            If you stay out of Chechnya your less likely to be killed by Chechen rebels too.

                            If Israel won't make peace with the Palestinians and Americans go to Israel and get caught in the crossfire, how's that the U.S. gov't's problem?

                            Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                            by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:18:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My last rhetorical question of the night (none)
                            So by your reasoning, there should be no investigation into Rachel Corrie's death, or punitive action taken on account of it?

                            Again, it's a rhetorical question. Again, Mark Twain.

                            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:21:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  which entity allied with U.S. gov't? (2.00)
                            Rachel Corrie was killed by a U.S. ally that receives a bunch of money from the U.S. gov't.

                            Americans that go to a war zone and get killed by hostiles that are not allied with the United States is different.

                            Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                            by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:28:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL (none)
                            Really Carl, you are getting more and more absurd with each comment. Let me explain the meaning of the Mark Twain quote to you, because you really seem impaired. Basically, it means quit while you're behind.

                            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:32:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  here's one to Google (2.00)
                            Palestinians killed by IDF

                            Or don't Palestinian lives matter?

                            Bloggin Blagojevich's Blunders: do you want to see Roddy B challenged in the Dem Primary?

                            by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:20:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh Please Paul. (none)
                            There's nothing in there thats threatening implied or otherwise.  AT ALL.
                            It's amazing to me that someone who loved his dog (or cat) so much could be such a dick.
                            Israeli's are dying b/c they have kept another country under occupation since '47.  They have played hawks since then as well, choosing to invade Lebanon and Syria.  All in an effort to steal more land, more land than was bequeathed to early Zionists by France/England.  
                              SO If you are against the occupation in Iraq by the US, perhaps you should analyze the similarities of the Palestinian occupation and see that occupation ALWAYS fails in the end.  
                            Americans that drive the Palestinian occupation to continue through donations and support indeolgically would be better served, and better serving Israel by encouraging withdrawl, peace, and independance for both states.
                          •  Check your facts, please. (none)
                            Israeli's are dying b/c they have kept another country under occupation since '47.

                            Israel did not come into existence until 1948. Until 1967, Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip; Jordan annexed the West Bank.

                            In 1967, Jordan attacked Israel (even though Israel had asked Jordan to stay out of the war)

                            In 1993, the PLO, "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," agreed to resolve disputes with Israel peacefully.

                            Israelis are dying because people choose to kill them.

                            f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                            by another American on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 04:23:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Check YOUR facts, please (3.00)
                            The UN resolution that set up a Jewish state in Palestine was in 1947.  Isreal declared their independence in 1948 (which is when the British left), but the land had already been given to their control in 1947.

                            Israel pre-emptively invaded the Sinai in 1956 (with the help of Britain and France).  The Six-Day War was started by an attack by Israel on Egyptian units on Egyptian soil.  Jordan attacked Israel only after Israel attacked its ally, Egypt.  Jordan then offered to make peace in return for the West Bank and holy places in Jerusalem, and was turned down (even though the war was started by Israeli invasion of Egypt, not the other way around).

                            Before and after the wars, Irrael has intentionally attacked its allies (the Lavon affair, perhaps the USS Liberty), assassinated a British leader during the British mandate (Lord Moyne, 1942), and commited terrorist bombings of Arab civillians (1936, perhaps many other times).  They have acted covertly against American interests (the Pollard incident, among others).

                            Anyone who says that the Zionist movement in general is a peace-loving movement that has only fought in self-defense and has always used acceptable methods is an apologist.  Yes, the Jewish Israelis have been the targets of atrocities, but their hands are certainly not clean.

                            "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw

                            by Shygetz on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 05:58:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (none)
                            The UN resolution that set up a Jewish state in Palestine was in 1947.  Isreal declared their independence in 1948 (which is when the British left), but the land had already been given to their control in 1947.

                            The British did not withdraw until 1948. The Jewish political authorities who were to become the provisional Israeli government in May, 1948, accepted the partition resolution; the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab states rejected it, both in word and violent deed.

                            Israel pre-emptively invaded the Sinai in 1956 (with the help of Britain and France).

                            Irrelevant to the discussion of JessicaDrewSW's claim that "Israeli's are dying b/c they have kept another country under occupation since '47." For this reason, I don't feel the need to discuss the justification for the Sinai Campaign. Israel did not attack or occupy the West Bank; it soon withdrew from Gaza. (In all events, it would be more accurate to say "in conjunction with," neither the British nor the French participated in the fighting.)

                            The Six-Day War was started by an attack by Israel on Egyptian units on Egyptian soil.  
                            And if Poland had attacked German forces massing on Poland's borders at the end of August, 1939, would you say that Poland started the war? (And if you did, would you also say that Poland's preemption was unjustified?) Egypt's closing of the Straits of Tiran, an international waterway, was an act of war. Egypt also procured the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai. etc. etc.

                            In other words, the occupation of the Gaza Strip resulted from a war that Israel did not seek; and the occupation of the West Bank resulted from Jordan's foolish (at best) decision to attack Israel in the face of a request that Jordan stay out.

                            Of course, as I've written elsewhere many times, the defensive nature of the Six-Day War and the permissibility of holding onto the acquired territory pending a definitive peace settlement consistent with U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not justify capital "O" Occupation. (That's one of the reasons I early on became active in support of Shalon Achshav (Peace Now), the Israeli peace movement.)

                            In all events, since at least 1993, the Palestinians have had a peaceful avenue for achieving statehood alongside Israel. And, since 1993, the supposedly solely authoritative Palestinian representative expressly foreswore violence in favor of a non-violent resolution of the conflict.

                            So, paying attention to the point to which I was replying: The statement that "Israeli's are dying b/c they have kept another country under occupation since '47" is simply not true.

                            f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                            by another American on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 06:14:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Paranoid much? (none)
                            Are you afraid that puppet master Carl Nyberg is going to GET you if you go to Isreal? To interpret his comment as a threat is ridiculous, and either a willful distortion or an instance of the same paranoia that the conspiracy nuts are consumed by.

                            Searching for the cure for cognitive dissonance.

                            by spitemissile on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 12:33:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  When did I bring up "Paul from Berkley" (none)
    in my diary or call "Paul from Berkley" an "israeli apologist?

    Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

    by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 06:58:34 PM PDT

    •  Oh please (none)
      First of all, it's spelled "BERKELEY"

      Second of all, don't try to be disingenuous -- you know darn well that you were referring to anyone here that dares to speak up in support of Israel.  And you know that I'm one of those people. So do you really think we believe that when you said "Israeli apologists," you meant "everyone at DailyKos that speaks up in support of Israel, except that pesky Paul from Berkeley"?

      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:02:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And has anyone else noticed? (none)
      And has anyone else noticed that since the redesign, there's this tendency for comments that are intended as replies to other comments, to appear as comments to the diary/article, instead?  It's happened to me, and it's happened here to NA, and I've seen it happen to a bunch of other people in other places at this site.

      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:05:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nothing (4.00)
    in your diary indicates that the Israeli Court "admitted" to anything -- any revelations you've uncovered appear to be in filings from the Executive branch.

    George W. Bush -- It's mourning in America.

    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:15:04 PM PDT

    •  Ok so they were admissions from the executive (none)
      branch.  That would be more damning in fact.

      Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

      by NoAlternative on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:24:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When dealing. . . (none)
        . . . with controversial issues, especially when trying to convince people pre-disposed against your ideas, it's generally a good idea to get all your ducks in a row.

        Also, you original headline suggests that the Israeli Court system is involved in setting government policy, and biased in trying cases about the fence.  If you believe either of those things, you did not support them in your post.

        George W. Bush -- It's mourning in America.

        by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:40:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  No Alternative (4.00)
    Excellent diary.
    You will find way more Likud supporters here than you think, and sadly, it is not even worth it to try to discuss the sitch.  Have you been over to Palestine yet?  It's pretty much the only way to actually effect anything, at this point.  It's very difficult to reason with Americans on the subject, and the majority of left identified folks in the US are paradoxically overwhelming and unwielding in their support of the Likud's, the occupation, Palestinian genocide and apartheid.  I can't quite figure out why, as it makes no sense at all.
    It was a great attempt to shed some light on whats going on in  Israel/Palestine right now, but this diary was destined to be hijacked.  A++++++++ for effort though.:(
    •  I don't have the money to go to Palestine (none)
      unless I pretend I am fundamentalist christian and get one of those free trips.

      Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

      by NoAlternative on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 12:06:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where are the death camps? (none)
      Palestinian genocide

      f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

      by another American on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 04:26:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Go over the wall sometime (none)
        The West Bank is THE death camp
        Gaza is The OTHER one.
        If you don't go and check it out for yourself, nothing I can tell you will make you see the truth.  The best part of Israel, to me, was meeting so very, very many like minded jews, LEFTIST jews, who are AGAINST the occupation and the drive to eliminate the Arab people and identity from their own homeland.

        Americans are morons, over and over agin.

        Also, I am interested on your feelings re: Hassidim, Likud, and Othodox jews stabbing, bludgeoning, and shooting Israeli leftists and queers at Jeruselem's Gay Pride parade this month.  How can you support these people??????????????

        •  If you seriously believe that the West Bank (none)
          and the Gaza Strip are "death camps," so as to justify your allegation of "Palestinian genocide," then I fear you have lost touch with reality.

          Equally, if you had used the dKos search function to find and read my comments discussing my affirmative views, you would have learned that, far from supporting the terrible things your concluding paragraph alleges that I support, I am a firm supporter of a Palestinian state adjoining Israel, along the lines adumbrated in the Clinton Parameters, the People's Voice, and the Geneva Initiative.

          f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

          by another American on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 09:41:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ummmm. I've been there (none)
            You have no idea of the horror that goes down, on a daily basis.
            •  I'm far from denying the evils of the (none)
              Occupation. But that's a far cry from saying, as you did, that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are "death camps." That comment alone, and even more so when combined with your claim of "Palestinian genocide," attempts to equate (i) the plight of the Palestinians with the Shoah (Holocaust) and (ii) Jews with Nazis.

              I gave you an opportunity to withdraw it. You chose not to. I have nothing further to say to you.

              f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

              by another American on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:11:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I love when (none)
                people try to own the German lead holocaust.  It's quaint in it's denial that anyone else was killed en masse.  Before they went after the jews they went after MY people.  The gays.  They also  killed Roms, Serbs, and intellectuals and communists  first.  No one tried to step in then, did they?  Oh and my other people, the Aremians, were also victims of our own country's genocide. My grandfather on my dad's side lost basically his entire family, and never spoke of them, or his country, ever again. So I do not use the term lightly.  I have spent 2 months in Palestine, in the West Bank.  I couldn't even gain entry to Gaza.  So don't tell me, and the hundreds of other aid workers what is going on there, as you sit idly by here.  And don't undermine the amazing work of Israeli leftists who are fighting against the horrors prepetrated by the Israeli rightwing.  Do you think those people want Israel to collapse?  To you think they want their country to not exsist?  They just want some peace, without  nonstop war, without dispatching others that they would rather co-exsist with.
                •  Eucalyptus's Jerusalem Artichoke Soup (none)
                  with Lemon and Saffron

                  Yield 6 to 8 servings

                  2 medium onions, diced in 1/2-inch pieces
                  2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
                  1 clove garlic, minced
                  1 1/2 pounds Jerusalem artichokes, peeled and quartered
                  4 cups chicken broth
                  Salt and freshly ground pepper
                  10-12 blanched almonds
                  2 tablespoons water
                  Pinch saffron
                  Juice of 1/2 lemon
                  2 tablespoons chopped fresh Italian parsley with stems

                  1. Using a heavy casserole with a cover, saute the onions in the olive oil over low heat, covered, about 20 minutes. Uncover, add the garlic and the artichokes, and increase heat. Continue to saute for a few minutes.

                  2. Add the chicken broth and salt and pepper to taste. Bring to a boil and simmer, covered, for 30 minutes.

                  3. Grind the almonds in a spice grinder and mix with the water. Whisk the mixture into the soup along with the saffron strands and the lemon juice. Reheat, sprinkle parsely on top, and serve.

                  f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                  by another American on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:07:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Shut Your Pie Hole Cherry Pie (none)
                    And I guess Trolls are the only ones to call you on your shit.  So back at ya:
                    1lb Ranier Cherries, Organic Please
                    1lb Regular Cherries, Organic Please
                    1 Lemon, Juiced, Organic
                    1/4 c organic sugar
                    Pit your cherries and coat in lemon jiuce and sugar
                     Buy a pie shell at whole foods, b/c I would NEVER give the likes of you my secret family crust recipe.

                    Bake at 425 til filling is bubbly and crust is browned

                    Absolutely delicious
                    Better when you do it a la mode...

        •  Try holding a gay pride parade... (none)
          ...in Ramallah.

          Tell me how it works out.  Really.

          •  I wasn't talking about Ramallah though, was I (none)
            The question is this:  You support the Likud party
            In June, the Likud party, Hassidim, and Orthodox turned out at the Jeruselem Gay Pride Parade and proceeded to stab, bludgeon, and shoot fellow Israelis, gay and straight, all leftists, as they marched in their annual Gay Pride Parade.
            While they were arrested, they killed 2 people and seriously wounded many, many more.  YOU ProLikud, ProZionists support these people.
            How do you defend supporting right wing extremists in a place you DON'T LIVE IN when you support a leftist agenda here?
            Just answer the ACTUAL question.  I know you love to slither out of that, and turn everything I asked of you on its head.  No one answered yet as to if they have BOTHERED to go to Isreal and work along side the Israelis promoting peace and integration, or even peace and separation.  No one as bothered to answer if they have traveled into Palestine to see for themselves the horrors that the Palestinians experience.  No one as done anything but scream about a lot of BS that is so easy to do from lovely, safe American livingrooms.  So find your balls and answer the questions.  Or just be the cowards that you all obviously are.
            I could care less at this point.
            •  The question is this: You support the Likud party (none)
              That's not a question, you idiot, that's an accusation.

              I am not Israeli and therefore do not have the right to vote in elections.  Had I been in the country or able to vote, I would either vote for Labor or Meretz.  I have generally been more aligned with Meretz's position, but they have not been a credible opposition.  Heck, Labor has not been a credible opposition, but there really is little other alternative.

              "In June, the Likud party, Hassidim, and Orthodox turned out at the Jeruselem Gay Pride Parade and proceeded to stab, bludgeon, and shoot fellow Israelis, gay and straight, all leftists, as they marched in their annual Gay Pride Parade."

              A few haredim disrupted the parade and stabbed three marchers, they were promptly arrested.  The Likud party had nothing to do with it.  I also don't know what you mean by "Orthodox" because in Israel almost everyone is Orthodox.  It doesn't mean the same thing as it means here, but I'm guessing you had no clue what you were talking about anyway.

              "How do you defend supporting right wing extremists in a place you DON'T LIVE IN when you support a leftist agenda here?"

              I don't, dingbat.

              What I will say is this.  The relationship between America and Israel is not dependent on which political party in either country happens to be in power at a particular time.  Our special relationship with England does not change depending on whether the Tories, Labour or Lib Dem is in power.  We didn't pull out of NATO simply because Jacque Chirac and Gerard Schroeder were actively opposing U.S. foreign policy goals, and everyone recognizes that to pull out would in fact be laughable.  So while I may prefer one political party to another, that doesn't change the fact that I have great admiration for the country.

              In any event, I truly do not see how having Labor or Likud in power would have made too much of a difference.  Most Israelis, left or right, pretty much agree that the current course of action, unilateral withdrawal, and continuing to defend themselves vigilantly, is the only course.

  •  Regarding the initial subject (none)
    Unfortunately, this thread has once again been turned into a general free for all about Israel, with revisionist history and everything.

    To the original topic, No Alternative seems to think that he has discovered some sort of holy grail, and that this is "proof" that the fence is a land grab.

    All the article says is that, in court, the Israeli government defended the current route by saying it would be too expensive and inconvenient to move it again.  The argument is a lame one and will most likely be rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court (one of the best high courts in the world).  But in any event, it is not a claim that the barrier is "political" in any regard.

    As for the fence, despite my initial trepidation, I have to admit that there have been virtually no successful (as opposed to attempted) suicide bomb attacks.  So I can't argue against it too persuasively.

    No Alternative also misquotes (or doesn't quote, he just paraphrases) both Sharon and Weisglass.  But that's panot much of a surprise.

    Finally, I am not sure what No Alternative means when he talks about "Israeli apologists" on dKos.  I know plenty of pro-Israel ADVOCATES.   But as was pointed out above, "apologist" implies that there is something to apologize for.  I don't think there is.

  •  Thanks for the link (none)
    While your post has several weaknesses, you raise a valid issue.  I would have liked to see more analysis and fewer generalizations in the diary; your comments certainly reveal more background that could have been brought to the diary.

    "... I love watching you work. But I've got ... my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Gilder to frame for it. I'm swamped." The Princess Bride

    by Rusty Pipes on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:36:23 AM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site