Isareli left to ISM: Photos of fence by LSM 9:10pm Tue Jul 29 '03 Freethe peeps asked if I post photos of the fence. Here is one add your comments Source file

LSM commnets on photo by LSM 9:12pm Tue Jul 29 '03 print comment This is a photo of the fence not far from Qalqilia. You can clearly see the Fence route (The road is the patrol road) the Fence separates between the olive grove (outside the fence) and the orange grove (inside the fence on Qalqilia side) Let me be clear. The fence should not be where it is. This picture was taken beyond the green line. If this is a discussion about a route I fully support moving the fence to the green line. But this is not what ISM wants. They do not want the fence since they object the notion of two states. In other words they object Israel right to exist. Bottom line about the Fence/wall terminology: You can see the fence, actually it is so faint you can almost not see it. Obviously there is no wall. (there only a wall in 3 short segments of the fence route – one of them a 1.5 mile streach ON THE GREEN LINE where Qalqilia border the trans-Israel higway. add your comments

One more thing by LSM 9:19pm Tue Jul 29 '03 print comment In this photo you can see a water passge under the fence (look for it - it is there) it let water flow from the outer side (the "Israeli" side of the fence) into the Qalqilia basin. Why is this important ? Because in ISM and pengon documents you will find all those lies about Israel trying to steal palestinian water. nonsense. Israel is only trying to get security and Sharon is using the genuine desire of Israelis for security to choose the route of the fence that suits him. add your comments

ISM is still not a mono-thought clique by freethepeeps 10:11pm Tue Jul 29 '03 print comment "But this is not what ISM wants. They do not want the fence since they object the notion of two states. In other words they object Israel right to exist." I think I made it clear that there is no ISM line beyond a committment to seeing an end of Occupation, and that my views on a one state solution do not reflect those of the entire International Solidarity Movement. Thank you for the picture, although I have to say that it does not give much idea of how high it is, what kind of buffer zone there is, and how much security in terms of soldiers there will be. add your comments

The road is a one lane by LSM 10:40pm Tue Jul 29 '03 print comment This should give you a prespective see also: http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il add your comments

Nice link to more lies by John Veldhuis 10:34am Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment Nice link, Looking at the Operational Concept there is one lie again: a picture showing Israel is on one side of it, and the WestBank on the other... To my knowledge for the most part of the wall the WestBank is on both sides of it. Looking at the "route" part more lies appear, I'll only quote one: "Minimum disruption to the daily life of the populations residing on both sides of the "Seam Zone" will occur along its course in several forms: * Narrow agricultural passageways, dozens of which will be located along the route to enable farmers to continue cultivating their lands. * Passage for pedestrians and vehicles, at which inspections will take place to maintain security. * Crossing points, for transfer of goods across the central area and in the Jerusalem region." Then where was all the fuss about, where people had to be shot with rubber bullets by the Israeli Army? If Israel had done what it claims here, the gate would have been opened long time ago... add your comments

Here's a link for you by John Veldhuis 11:29am Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/ add your comments

Maps and ISM Lies by Ben 2:10pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment According to the Gush Shalom map above detailing the path of the security fence, there is no wall around Nablus. Freethepeeps (writing as a member of the ISM) writes "I have spent about 6 months in Nablus, and the only parts I have seen are indeed 8 - 12m high walls." LSM responds that "The Fence is miles and miles AWAY from Nablus. Not sure what you have seen. I have toured many part of the Fence and it is a Fence (except is 3 short segments) Let’s call it what it is from now on: A Fence." Freethepeeps of the ISM is obviously lying. He hasn't seen any walls, he's nowhere near the fence's path. He's using the fact that he is on-site to spew all sorts of nonsense and accusations for the consumption of people who think he is working for peace in good faith. Is this the only time the ISM has lied, or are there other times? Someone needs to apologize for spreading lies. Either freethepeeps should come clean and admit he lied or the ISM must distance itself from the lies told in its name (the title of his post was "An ISMer responds.") Either way, the ISM's credibility is in doubt until someone steps forward. add your comments

ISM in doubt by say it ain't so 3:30pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment True . I tend to listen to ISM accounts, and give them credibility, but this raises doubts. Are ya'll just creating truth to suit your politics? IF so, then you're doing exactly what corporate media and the Bushonauts do as well - telling lies to suit your agenda. Say it ain't so! If you are just using the supportive platform that Indy Media provides for your own evil designs, then we're all fucked aren't we. Means that this whole enterprise failed - We just created a new hegemony. You've got some explaining to do ISMer. Are you really just full of shit, or did you make some kind of explainable mistake. If you were in Nablus, and seeing walls that wern't there, keep that acid to yourself please. No need to spread more bad shit in the world. So cut it out! add your comments

He did not say that by John Veldhuis 4:22pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment "I have spent about 6 months in Nablus, and the only parts I have seen are indeed 8 - 12m high walls." It doesn't say at all that he saw those walls in or close to Nablus. As Qalqilya is near to Nablus, he might even have seen those walls, maybe when travelling to or from Nablus. You were all quite (too) happy to dissmiss the credibility of the whole of the ISM by misinterpreting the words of an (alleged) ISM Member. I hope freethepeeps makes an end to this misunderstanding. Nice try again, Ben! add your comments

Do you care abou the truth john by Ben 4:47pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment You are only making it worse, John. Who appointed you defense council for the ISM or for freethepeeps. How do you know what he meant? The simple reading of his line is that he saw these imaginary walls in Nablus. If there is a mistake, it is for them to solve, not you. You talk about things like you know what you are saying, like you have some insight into freethepeep's intention, when in reality your head is up your ass so deep I can't believe you could still breath that way. You are only proving that people will defend lies blindly if they are politically motivated enough. By the way, according to the handy little map you posted, which was invaluable for catching the lie in the first place, Nablus and Kalkilya are very far apart. Half the Wast Bank divides them. We can make all sorts of excuses for freethepeep's lies and distortions. We could say the walls he was seeing had nothing to do with the Israeli security fence. Maybe they were the walls to his house! That's about as likely as your stupid little excuse. I guess you are not concerned about the truth, but peace-oriented people are. You are proudly defending lies and distortions - just for political reasons. Someday you will look back on this episode in shame. add your comments

Fence or wall, it is not about security by Bryan Atinsky 4:48pm Wed Jul 30 '03 bryan@indymedia.org.il print comment Ben and others are merely arguing a largely semantic difference to avoid the deeper questions about the path and implications of the fence/wall. I have been to several parts of the fence/wall and it is true that part of it is a very solid wall of sevaral meters in height and most is a high electronic fence with razor wire on top army roads on either side and another set of razor wire on the outer sides of the roads. From one side of the razor-wire to the other must be 30 meters or so. It is not really that important whether the barrier in the middle is of concrete or steel mesh, as we are talking of the same result. We are talking about a 30 some meters wide barrier snaking deep over the green line and isolating villages, blocking villages from their farmland, uprooting trees and crops, etc. Whether it is is of concrete or steel mesh has nothing to do with its permanence. It could be made of only fence and be there for years or it could all be of concrete and be knocked down tommorow as so many Palestinan homes have been knocked down by the Israeli authorities. Perhaps it is more aesthetic for the villagers to be able to see their stolen fields through the fence...is that the difference? Stop obfuscating the real issues here by arguing fence or wall, it is Aparthied either way. Bryan add your comments

Bryan, you misunderstand by Ben 5:09pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment Bryan, While I disagree that it doesn't matter if you call it a fence or a wall, that isn't really what I am arguing here. I'm pointing out that freethepeeps writes as a member of the ISM and lies about what he sees. According to the map posted above, there is neither a fence nor a wall around Nablus. The ISM claims one of its functions is "witnessing" Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians. ISM members regularly write horrible things about Israel in their reports, many of which end up in newspapers or magazines and reach readers who take them for eyewitness accounts. But if freethepeeps is one of these witnesses and he is "witnessing" an 8-12 meter wall of concrete that isn't there, he is abusing the position of the ISM, and placing the whole organization's credibility on the line. Just like when you read a set of lies in a newspaper that goes uncorrected, you start to doubt the veracity of everything you read in that paper, the ISM or freethepeeps himself must admit the blatant lie he was caught making. I don't see what is so controversial about this. Why are ISM members allowed to lie when they report Israeli atrocities? Why don't you care about the truth? You are right in saying that the real debate should be about the wall's path. But that is assuming no one is making bold-faced lies about what is happening. The philosophical debate you propose should only take place among people who respect the truth and don't exploit the fact that they are in a place while others aren't. I don't see how a meaningful debate about anything could take place in an environment where people in Nablus are allowed to make lies that are then believed by fools in Holland, and then used as part of the debate to make other points. I would hope, Bryan, that your position at this website would compel you to take a stronger stand on this issue. Perhaps there is some sort of explanation. But as it stands, no one has come forward to clarify anything. Is this they type of thing you want happening on Indymedia? add your comments

Truth is very important to me by John Veldhuis 5:26pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment "Who appointed you defense council for the ISM or for freethepeeps. " Nobody. Should I have been? "How do you know what he meant" I don't, and neither do you. I hope he explains himself better. I think the 30 Km between Nablus and Qalqilya is not that far. (http://www.counterpunch.org/gwynne03152003.html) I think you're much too happy to be able to accuse someone (you obviously don't agree with) of lying, than to really consider what he might have wanted to say. He didn't literally say: When I was in Nablus I saw the big Apartheid Wall there. That is what you make of it. Too bad fools from Holland are sometimes what it takes to show the poisoning by zionist propagandists in Israel. add your comments

Still, move the argument to substantial issue by Bryan Atinsky 5:38pm Wed Jul 30 '03 bryan@indymedia.org.il print comment Ben, I understand your argument, but I think John point actually seems a bit more likely of a reading of the ISMer's statment. Can't know either way unless the guy happens to enter Indymedia and notices your question to clarify. But it is futile to carry out the argument on conjecture either way. I searched the archives and he wrote articles from back in Jan 2003, which say that he was in Nablus at the time. I know ISMers travel around the Occupied territories a lot, so it is very likely that he did see the wall he talks about at one point or another. Anyway, move on to more substantial issues about path and implications of the Apartheid-Electronic-Razor-wire-Fence, because this 'he said she said' is gettin' dull. Bryan add your comments

Move it to the green line by John Veldhuis 6:00pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment The picture makes me think of the former border between East- and West Germany, which by the way made me sick to my stomach as I drove along. Anyone claiming the Apartheid FenceWall should not be seen as an attempt to "establish (new) facts on the ground", and therefor as not political, should have his head examined. I still think Israeli civilians are as much entitled to security as Palestinian civilians, but this wall does not do it. Now it is like a shopkeeper that out of fear of shoplifting helds hostage the family of an alleged or even former shoplifter. A 'bit' out of proportion... add your comments

Pro-ISM Indymedia Strikes Agian by Ben 6:07pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment Thanks for your "understanding" Bryan. I also understand your deep connection to the ISM that blinds you to the truth when it doesn't fit your politics. I also see that you are bothered by this "insubstantial" discussion about being able to trust the people you debate with and argue in good faith. I understand you think these are worthless topics. If freethepeeps travels through the West Bank so much, I'm sure that he has seen many parts of the fence. So when he writes "I have spent about 6 months in Nablus, and the only parts I have seen are indeed 8 - 12m high walls," it really sounds like he hasn't seen much at all. You yourself said most of it is wire fencing. He made this comment in the midst of a discussion with LSM about the terms "wall" vs "fence" so his use of the term was not random. He also asks for pictures of the wire fence, suggesting he hasn't seen too much at all. I'm not the first to point out the fact that he lied in this case. LSM already did that, and freethepeeps has responded to her since and did not deny the charge. I only got on this when I looked at the Gush Shalom map and realized that the proof of the lie was right there in front of me. I didn't need to take LSM's word for it. More importantly, how does someone who lives far away and has no direct experience of the fence, Nablus, or anything, likely to understand his statement? Are you saying the most reasonable reading of his statement is that he lived in Nablus, which is unimportant except that it is in the West Bank, and that he travels and sees things, but only in the several miles where the fence is concrete? That is what you think he's saying? That is what you think everyone will think he's saying? I think he knew that most people reading his comment would not know that there is no fence in Nablus, and they would take him at his word. Are we really to believe "the only parts I have seen are indeed 8 - 12m high walls?" If ISMers are so sloppy with their facts that they could be misunderstood so easily (to Israel's detriment, of course) why should we believe a word any of them say? It's too bad, Bryan, that you don't show more concern about this issue. The most important asset of a news source is credibility. You are in danger of losing it here. add your comments

Yes Move it to the green line by LSM 6:10pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment I am more sick seeing dead bodies than from seeing a wall or a fence. Moving it to the green line is the right thing to do. This was my original question to ISM: Are you against the route of the fence or the idea of ANY fence. Or in otgher words: Do you recognize Israel right to exist ? add your comments

Probably no ISM stance on that by John Veldhuis 7:14pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment I am lucky not to have been confronted with dead bodies as much as you have. What made me sick then was the willingness to shoot or blow up people, for nothing more than wanting freedom. It is indirect, but "We call for immediate international intervention to protect the Palestinian people and ensure Israel's compliance with International Law." (http://www.palsolidarity.org, about ISM) is not exactly a call to remove Israel from the face of the earth. Maybe they just don't give a damn whether Israel exists or not. Also probably: it is no issue to them. The existance of Israel has become a fact of life on this planet. I do give a damn, as long as there are decent Isreali's counterbalancing the settler terrorists and their supporters. But then again, I'm no ISM-er. As long as there are Israeli settlements outside the green line I would refuse to go to Jerusalem and ride the bus. add your comments

If ISM was for peace by LSM 7:31pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment Riding a bus, this is a good idea. Can you envision ISM sending delegates to ride Jerusalem bus with a megaphobne and a sign: "I am an intenational. Do not commit war crimes on this bus" Of course the sign has to be in Arabic if it meant to stop thwe war crime of exploding a bus - but the ISM has "no postion" on this issue. Exploding buses and resturant is not in outer space. It is the heart of the conflict. add your comments

Really banal conversation here Benny by Bryan Atinsky 8:10pm Wed Jul 30 '03 bryan@indymedia.org.il print comment Ben, I am not in ISM, and not really one way or the other about them, but I have met some and know what type of actions they do, what type of places they go. My point is that instead of conjecturing whether or not you can interpret what he said one way or the other, to move beyond that issue to what I believe are more substantial issues about path and implications of the fence/wall. John IS correct when he says: "He didn't literally say: When I was in Nablus I saw the big Apartheid Wall there. That is what you make of it." One doesn't need to be in Jerusalem to understand that freethepeep's grammer was ambiguous. From my first statement I have clarified that from my knowledge, the majority of the barrier is an electric fence and razor wire structure...so you have no issue with me on this. And for you to continue to project definite meaning into the ambiguous statement is getting annoying. One can take it to mean that he was living in Nablus and at some point or other during the six months saw only parts of the barrier that were wall. or Your opinion that he was saying there is a high wall one can see from Nablus, which would be completely incorrect and he would know it and would probably know that it was easily verifiable by anyone, so he would have to be really stupid to have meant that. But we cannot know which of the two readings is correct unless we get a clarification, so I said go on with other issues instead. Which I still think is the best route. But you seem stuck Ben. So continue your arguement, but without me, I have a Master's thesis to write... add your comments

To Ben by HAHAHA 9:06pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment I understand your deep connection to Zionism which apparently keeps blindin' you to the truth when it doesn't exactly fit your politics. add your comments

to the self proclaimed leftists... by Yo 9:42pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment who the fuck cares if the wall is two inches to the left instead of five inches to the right. the wall is an abomination because it robs people of their livelihood in the name of security. you are denying people security by building a wall on their territory against international agreements and it is time zionism was held accountable for its mis-actions. it is time people stood up and said we will not achieve security by denying the basic living conditions to others living on the other side of the wall. it is time we grant them security in order to deserve it as well! add your comments

the consequence of the Apartheid wall by ... 10:55pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment Israelis have no more right to security than Palestinians do. For that reason the wall should be built on a location that is accepted by BOTH parties and their repected sponsors. If the wall is indeed for security than building it on others peoples property will endanger the very folks it intends to protect unless of course that is the original intention behind the wall,i.e securing and perpetuating the on going conflict as an excuse to continue confiscating their land. add your comments

h by jn 11:01pm Wed Jul 30 '03 print comment If the world advocated building a fence on Israeli property, seperating Jewish cities from one another ... most peace activists would be just as Adamant that the wall be built on the green line. Jews should not get away with actions gentiles would not be getting away with, add your comments

Here is the Security Fence reasoning by AMR 1:59am Mon Sep 1 '03 print comment Due to some one sided, unbalanced voices here against the Separation Fence, it is time to put this issue in its place. First is first… The Separation Fence (factually more then 90% of the fence is a fenced system and only slightly more then 5% is a Wall) is having the biggest chance of Israel to achieve a peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Fence, as well, has the biggest chances of bringing peace and independent homeland to the Palestinians. Let’s proceed and say that those that are opposing the fence are divided for three camps: 1. The Israeli far Left. 2. The Palestinians – the militants of them 3. The world hallucinated Left I would like to say upfront that based on the opposeres’ kind of people it obvious, up front, that Israel must be doing something very positive due to the opposeres’ tendency to omit the Israel’s security reasoning behind the Fence all in all. You could call the Fence many names but you can not ignore the simple fact that its existence will improve much Israel’s ability to defend itself. The Far-Left’s people that are opposing the separation fence showing up clearly their opposition to the Israel’s security needs. Those people are that much occupied with their own misconception that only proving a point, their point, eliminating the Israeli state for the sake of “One state for Two Nations” concept, they are willing to advocate for the killing of more Israeli citizens people On that later on… The notion that the “””Occupation””” is the reason for the terror attacks on Israel is long already unwarranted. It is only a nice reasoning by Palestinian terrorists and their Israeli supporters to justify their murderous acts. Never mind that on the same talking they are advocating for the total elimination of Israel. “Occupation” and the “Elimination of Israel” are mixed together and are representing the desires of the Palestinian militants to destroy Israel first and foremost. The “Reasoning”: The “Occupation” is portrayed and absorbed very “nicely” on the mind of Israel inherited haters, like some very known European countries, and by the majority of the world soft-minded hallucinated Left that is funded openly by the leader of the “Free World”: Saudi Arabia (and not so long ago Iraq as well). For those who may forget already I would like to remind the 30th, 40th, 50th and 60th Palestinian murderous acts against uninvolved Israeli civilians (30th and 40th in then Palestine). The reasoning? The number of Jews during the 30th and the 40th was small in compare to the Arab population, further; Jews were settled only on lands that were purchased legally from Arab inhabitance of Palestine. Yet Arab militants (Read…Muslim militants) were attacking Jews… The Jews were perceived as the New Crusaders therefore it was the Palestinians Muslim leaders’ ‘Patwa-call’ for their elimination. It is clear that the Palestinian leadership is marketing the “Occupation Reasoning” for internal and external proposes. It is obvious that they are very successful in playing the “Western Conscious” that is pretty sensitive to the connotations of occupation (The Nazi trauma among others). Nevertheless the “Occupation” in fact is only one face of the real Palestinian problem. In reality the Palestinians are and always been the spear-head of the Arab countries’ concept of eliminating Israel. Israel is posing a big threat on the totalitarians Arab countries. Israel is the constant reminder in the Middle East that “It” could be done differently. That Democracy is not a bad word…. that democracy is inheritantly with better chances to flourish and act to the favor of its people. Israel is the sword in the hand of the Arab intelligencia against its inconsiderate rulers. Israel is the red cloth in front of the Muslim bull. Therefore Israel must be eliminated….and who is better then the Palestinians to be used against Israel. The refugees’ problem created on 1948 by (if to measure “Guilt” here) about 90% Arab countries (That invaded Palestine in a declared intention to throw ALL Jews in Palestine to the sea) that encouraged the Palestinians to leave Palestine until the elimination of the Jews there…. and about 10% of Palestinians that were forced to leave Palestine by the victorious Hagana, the pre-IDF Jewish military organization. In numbers we can estimate the problem as…out of 600.000 Palestinians refugees about 60.000 were forced out by the Hagana and about 540.000 left on their own. it is true that the Palestinians did not like it either, they have left from the fear of their leaders that , directed by the Arab countries – primarily Syria, Jordan and Egypt , ordered them to evacuate, but that is not the Israel’s problem. The Arab countries kept the Palestinian refugees on the world agenda for more then 50 years in one goal in mind….preserving the Palestinian Problem as the spear head of Israel’s destruction. The funny thing here is that I do not believe that the Israel’s destruction is on the Palestinians’ population majority’s minds, though it is on the Palestinians organization militant’s minds, that is a sure thing. The destruction of Israel is definitely on the Palestinians leaders’ minds, directed by the Arab Leagues and others militants’ organizations within the Arab world (Primarily Muslim organizations). Israel’s stay in the Palestinians territory is bad for Israel as well as for the Palestinians… that is a sure thing. Sooner or later (Israel has to get out of the territories). Most of the Israeli population and its leadership are in agreement about this point. Sure enough, the militants among the Israelis, the far Right are opposing this notion but they are already in the minority. Israel has recognized about 10 years ago with Oslo Accord that the Palestinians territories has to be evacuated from the IDF presence. Unluckily that Oslo accord was not supporting the original notion of certain Arab countries of the destruction of Israel. The rest is well known, the Palestinian militant organizations open in terror offensive that dismantled the Oslo Agreement and was throwing the Middle East into another circle of violence. Prior to that and after those events, Israeli and Palestinians moderates were trying to come to some sort of agreements to end the violence and open the gate for peace talks. It is well known, again, that “The Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity”, it seems that the pressure of the Palestinian militants and the opposing Arab countries was too heavy to bear by the moderate peace seekers among the Palestinians. So here we are, a dead lock, a circle of violence,,,Right? WRONG. It is not have to be that way. If terror will diminish then the Israeli government will be free of making concessions to the Palestinians. Sure, some time period free of terror must be carry on; a mutual trust period must be maintained for a while. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the IDF will have no reason to stay in the West Bank and the Gaza strip once no Palestinian terror is in existence, Right? Well, almost correct, but not entirely…. Israel can not afford to expose it Soft-Bally, the flat shores of mid-Israel to the Palestinians militants’ terror attack that as it was going up to now and considering that the basic Israel’s elimination intention by some Arab countries remained intact, it is sure to come one way or another. The terrorists already showed and proved that nobody can take their word for granted. We must add more then a grain of salt to anything they are saying. If Israel will evacuate the Palestinians territories without making sure that the Palestinian Terror attacks will face hard times bombing Israel, then, naturally, Israel now will have the same militant terror much closer to Tel Aviv and other Israeli major cities. This time the terror organizations will be much better equipped to infiltrate the worse terror inside Israel. Israel will become most likely an hostage in the hand of its worst enemies…The Muslim militants Palestinians terror organizations. NOW we are coming at last to the Separation Fence. Assuming (and I am urging Israel to take this initiative) that the separation Fence is going along side the Green Line (with some minor, compensated corrections), then what is the reason to oppose the Fence? UNLESS…OBVIOUSLY… you are trying to infest terror inside Israel…. That exactly the point, that exactly the reason the militant Palestinians and the Palestinian leaders are opposing the Fence and advocating its elimination over the whole wide world. It is clear to any Palestinians strategists that the ability of the Palestinian terror to move the terror and bombing over the fence into 1967’s Israel will be crippled severely. The Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad will loose their validity in the Palestinian street. The Palestinian leaders will loose their grip on Israel, loosing many, many points in the future negotiation. Make no mistake here; I am explicitly saying that the Palestinian leaders, even of those considered moderates, are in a full realization that the Palestinian terror is giving them hand-over, “Nice” advantage over Israel in their effort to achieve better terms from Israel in any existing and future boarders and rights negotiation. Some of them are supporting it openly, like Arafat, and some behind the curtains like Dahlan. We have established the key issue that is preventing peace’s progress in our region – the Palestinian terror – and immediately after that the evacuation of the IDF from the Palestinian territories. We have established as well that the IDF can not evacuate the Palestinian Territories without the minimal means to prevent this terror of returning in much larger droves. The obvious mean that will help Israel to maintain reasonable quality of life after the IDF evacuated the territories is the SEPERATION FENCE. Do not misunderstand me, I am not claming that the Fence is the ultimate solution to the Palestinian terror, of coarse not, claiming that is a nonsense. In our time Missiles and mortars are very much available and the Fence will not stop those, that is a sure thing. One thing for sure, the Fence will diminish and high chances that it may stop entirely the suicide bombing. Evacuating the IDF from the Palestinians territories will present a higher validity of the Palestinian Government. Governments are able to stop missile and mortars firing, governments hardy can and could stopping determined militant suicide bombers, the Fence could…. The Fence, therefore, is having the chance to diminish the most crucial issue that is rocking the Israeli society, the suicide bombing. The fence will contribute much more then halting suicide bombing. The fence will open the Israeli government options to be more generous to the Palestinians, creating better momentum towards peace by easing hardships on the Palestinian population….and making the Palestinian more open for concessions, essentially creating the Snow-Ball’s momentum towards peace. Eliminating the terror will narrow to Nil the Israeli need in retaliation in response to the suicide bombing, saving Palestinian and Israeli lives as a result. As I hinted above, the Fence may narrow down some other options of the Palestinian government, primarily, its ability to press Israel for more concessions that Israel did not meant doing for the Palestinian in the first place. Well, if our choice is between eliminating Palestinian terror and saving Israelis lives and narrowing choices to the Palestinians, our choice is clear, dump the terror. To all those among us the Israelis and the International community alike that are fantasizing about eliminating the Separation Fence all in all…….. Yes, in a perfect world we do not need fences, we may not need even states and we could live without national desires, religions, sects and others. This is not a perfect world, the reason is simple: our world is assembled with PEOPLE. As long as we have to deal with people we can not expect a perfect world. After all we can not destroy the human race in order to achieve our utopia: the perfect world. Therefore we have to accept some voids with our human race, remembering that the advantage of our race topping ten times our voids. In this perfect world we do not need the Separation Fence; we are forcing to erect it due to the facts of life, the Palestinian terror. We have no chance, whatsoever; to change our nature or our neighbors’ nature, therefore we have to take all means possible in our hands while recognizing those voids. One of those means is ERECTING the SEPERATION FENCE. The Separation Fence is creating misery among some Palestinians, we know that and wishing this suffering will not be ignored. Israel should compensate those that being damaged by the Fence erection. Israel should make all arrangements to ease the burden on those Palestinians In those cases where no compensation is possible. Israel should stretch the Separation Fence along the 1967’s Green-Line. add your comments

To those too azy reading the long article here is the summary by AMR 2:01am Mon Sep 1 '03 print comment To Daniella and anybody else that found my previous, detailed article on the Security/ Separation Fence issue too long…. OK, let’s strip the background and concentrate on the core issues. Please follow my logic regarding the need in the Security / Separation Fence…. 1. The terror is the biggest hurdle and first level of interruption for peace chances(it is and always been) 2. The IDF staying in the territories is the second level of hurdling to the peace 3. The IDF cannot evacuating the territories due to concerns about the terror being on the boarders of Israel after the evacuation (in much better position to bomb population this time) 4. The Security / Separation Fence can stop most of the personal terror therefore will provide the justification for the IDF to evacuate the Palestinians territories. 5. Stropping the terror will allow Israel to make more concession to the Palestinian 6. Stopping the personal terror will stop the legitimation the Hamas and Islamic Jihad are enjoying these days in the Palestinian street 7. 8. IDF’s evacuation of the territories will allow the Palestinians to negotiate peace with Israel in a rational manner 9. Stopping the personal terror (Again, by having the Security Fence) will make the Palestinians stopping missile and mortar fire on Israel in a much more efficient manner. 10. The Fence should be stretched along the 1967’s “Green Line” 11. Those that being damaged by the Fence’s built up line should be compensated 12. The Fence is not the ultimate mean for stopping the terror and / or peace; it is the compromise of necessities. 13. At its core, the Security / Separation Fence will contribute much to the chances for peace in our region; this will be the Peace Fence. I hope that will allow of better understanding of the logic behind the Security Fence being built these days. Only those that are interesting in responding rationally and to the point are invited to respond to these points above. add your comments