 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
Update 2003.10.17 – EU foreign-policy chief Javier Solana has claimed that 'de fence' & expropriation of property in Samaria isn't "consistent with international law." In addition to the logical fallacy of begging the question of who owns the land and who is the occupier, the Fourth Geneva Convention – the supposed legal basis he cites for his assertion – explicitly permits the expropriation of land in occupied territory when it is justified by military necessity. Nothing is more militarbily necessary to a nation than protecting the lives of its civilian non-combatant citizens. Solana's argument is demonstrated even more absurd by one of de fence's main bulges into Samaria – to protect Ben-Gurion International Airport from Arab terrorists with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles like they've used elsewhere attempting to shoot down Israeli civilian passenger aircraft. These are considered vital military goals for everyone in the world – except Israelis / Jews.
US Sec. of State Colin Powell argues repeatedly that Israel is building 'de fence' on 'Palestinian' land. This assertion has been proven false on several counts (see in our Israel Archives: Israel, Title to the land; Media Bias, "Occupied?" parts 1-6 and 'Palestine,' Name and Where).
Sec. Powell's most ludicrous argument, however, is that consturcion of de fence would "prejudge subsequent negotiations" over the borders of a future Arab Muslim regime in Samaria and Gaza. "That might actually be a valid argument, had the entire world not already prejudged [assumed, begging the question] the negotiations by declaring this land to be [Arab]" (Evelyn Gordon, Wall Street Journal & Jerusalem Post, 2003.10.14).
"Yet now, with not only Europe but even Powell insisting that this is [Arab] territory, for Israel to stop building [de fence] would be tantamount to acknowledging that it accepts their definition of these areas as part of the future [Muslim Arab] state... Thus the world has created a situation in which not building [de fence] would prejudge the negotiations' outcome far more than its construction would" (Gordon). Update 2003.09.16 – "As [Arabs of Gaza, Judea & Samaria] find themselves isolated in pockets next to [residents of] Jewish [villages] – who have the rule of law, the right to vote, welfare, jobs, etc. – and as hope for a contiguous Palestinian state fades, it's inevitable that many of them will throw in the towel and ask for the right to vote in Israel.
"Khalil Shikaki, a[n Arab of Gaza, Judea & Samaria] pollster, has already found 25 to 30 percent of [Arabs of Gaza, Judea & Samaria] now supporting this idea – a stunning figure, considering it's never been proposed by any [Arab of Gaza, Judea & Samaria] or Israeli party" (Thomas L. Friedman, New York Tibmes Supplement to The Jerusalem Post, 2003.09.14).
The answer to Mr. Friedman's supposed dilemma (which is the goal driving Yasser What-sis-face to orchestrate terrorism) is to give Arabs of Gaza, Judea & Samaria voting rights – in Jordan where 'Palestinians' are the majority; not in Israel, which must retain its integrity as a Jewish state.
Update 2003.09.14 – See article by Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post 2003.09.12)
2003.08.17 – Both of the most recent terrorist suicide bombers attacked south of the lower end of the security fence that Israel is constructing. The terrorist attack on Ariel amply demonstrates the need for the fence to dip east to protect Ariel, a major Jewish city (18,000+).
 |
|
 |