The penny will drop sooner or later

[tinnypriv]

The penny will drop sooner or later
Maariv International, 22 February 2004

* The security fence is just another example of the Israeli way of doing things. do the right and smart thing last, after making every possible mistake first. *

In the end the fence will be constructed adjacent to the Green Line. The final fence will not have any significant enclaves. And the route taken by the final fence will be rational, humane and non-invasive. As always, this will only occur at the end. The problem now is that we are still at the beginning of the process and a long way away from the bottom line.

As always, this is the time for us to make all possible mistakes, to do everything that can be done to ensure that we are banished from the city (The Hague) in shame and disgrace.

The first to realize that there is no way we can justify the present fence route, either in the Hague or in our High Court of Justice (not necessarily in this order) was Justice Minister Tommy Lapid. Many things can be said about Tommy, but he has a lot of common sense. He studied the issue thoroughly, created a new route and presented it to Sharon. The Prime Minister squirmed uneasily in his seat. As we know, he is a good reader of maps, recognizes routes and understands problems quickly. Sharon, contrary to Lapid, was not interested in changing the fence route before the Hague hearing. A face-saving tactic – not to appear as if folding in the face of external pressure. It is preferable to fold against opponents from within, and this is exactly what is going to happen now, today, tomorrow, in the coming months.

In the end the fence will be a rational one, simultaneously attempting to create order and justice for all, separating as many Israelis from as many Palestinians as possible and returning home safely.

In the meantime, the damage will have been done. The Apartheid campaign against Israel is making waves. Images of the supposedly intimidating (my note: appears to be "terroristic" in the Hebrew) wall are adorning Europe. We could have prevented all this if only we had acted from the start as if this was the final stage. In Israel, however, the shortcut is never taken and nobody learns from previous lessons. A top-notch officer at IDF headquarters compares the Israel experience to a long journey on a slow local train. Passengers ride uncomfortably the whole way, stopping at every station and paying the full fare to boot (my note: +"and bleed to the last drop" in the Hebrew), instead of taking the shortest route between A and B. Instead of shortening the separation fence.

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=3407
http://www.maariv.co.il/channels/0/ART/653/035.html (Hebrew, extremely minor word order differences + Hague byline)

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. What crap

God, Jim is getting to me. :)

Still, this paints a future that won't happen. No matter the scenario, Jerusalem will be on the Israeli line of the fence when all is said and done.

[tinnypriv]

2. Caspit

Is a defender of the fence, for Jerusalem as well.

He just happens to be a rational and serious commentator (IBM issues excluded - don't ask).

I'm surprised you didn't poo-poo his using of the word "Apartheid". Given some comments on maariv's site (admittedly not representative), the cotvim page must be buzzing...

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. I think, "What crap"

Pretty much said it all.

[tinnypriv]

4. Well

Let me add: even the IDF wants a shorter fence.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Muddle, you can steal my lines verbatim. I won't even charge royalties.

:hi:

[sushi]

6. Whether it is because of pressure

from outside or from within (Lapid), they are changing the route of the fence, aren't they?

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. I don't really care

As long as the Peace Fence includes Jerusalem. The rest is up to Israel.

[sushi]

8. I'm glad for you

that you don't really care! Then you won't be too disappointed if the two sides end up sharing Jerusalem.

Btw, I've seen pictures of that fence. It's terribly ugly, it ruins the scenery, and whatever you call it, it is a fence for apartheid.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Yes, I would be

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That must remain unchanged.

I also don't care if the fence is an eyesore or an artistic achievement. It's goal is safety, not aesthetics.

[sushi]

10. I have read

that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, and that foreign embassies, including the US embassy, have refused to move to Jerusalem. Has it changed and I missed reading it?

[MikeGalos]

11. It hasn't changed. You read it wrong in the first place.

(or you didn't read it since 1950)

Israel established the temporary seat of government in Tel Aviv upon independence in 1948 and moved to the permanent capital in Jerusalem in 1950 following the cease fire that ended the war of Independence.

The current Knesset building (the Israeli parliament) was constructed in 1966 in Jerusalem.

Israel's Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are all located in Jerusalem and have been for roughly half a century.

The US passed the The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act on 10/23/95 by a vote of 93/5 in the Senate and 374/37 in the House.

Moving the US Embassy has been requested since 1950, made official US policy since 1995 and has been blocked by executive order every six months since the 1998 deadline for moving the Embassy (on "National Security" grounds which are the only ones allowed under the act).

[MikeGalos]

12. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995

Full Text

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995."

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1)Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

(2)Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

(3)The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.

(4)The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

(5)From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

(6)In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

(7)Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel,and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

(8)This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.

(9)In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress "strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected".

(10)In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.

(11)The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for the resolution of "final status" issues, including Jerusalem.

(12)The Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area was signed May 4,1994, beginning the five-year transitional period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.

(13)In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging "planning to begin now" for relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of Jerusalem.

(14)In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem "should take place no later than....1999".

(15)The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country exceptin the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.

(16)The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.

(17)In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David's entry.

SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.

(a)Statement of the Policy of the United States.—

(1)Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;

(2)Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and

(3)the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

(b)Opening Determination.—Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal year 1999 for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened.

SEC. 4. FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997 FUNDING.

(a)Fiscal Year 1996.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" for the Department of State in fiscal year 1996, not less than $25,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

(b)Fiscal Year 1997.—Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" for the Department of State in fiscal year 1997, not less than $75,000,000 should be made available until expended only for construction and other costs associated with the establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

SEC. 5. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.

Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate detailing the Department of State's plan to implement this Act. Such report shall include—

(1)estimated dates of completion for each phase of the establishment of the United States Embassy, including site identification, land acquisition, architectural, engineering and construction surveys, site preparation, and construction; and

(2)an estimate of the funding necessary to implement this Act, including all costs associated with establishing the United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

SEC. 6. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS.

At the time of the submission of the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request, and every six months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on the progress made toward opening the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.

SEC. 7. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

(a)Waiver Authority.—(1) Beginning on October 1, 1998, the President may suspend the limitation set forth in section 3(b) for a period of six months if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

(2)The President may suspend such limitation for an additional six month period at the end of any period during which the suspension is in effect under this subsection if the President determines and reports to Congress in advance of the additional suspension that the additional suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

(3)A report under paragraph (1) or (2)shall include—

(A)a statement of the interests affected by the limitation that the President seeks to suspend; and

(B)a discussion of the manner in which the limitation affects the interests.

(b)Applicability of Waiver to Availability of Funds.—If the President exercises the authority set forth in subsection (a) in a fiscal year, the limitation set forth in section 3(b) shall apply to funds appropriated in the following fiscal year for the purpose set forth in section 3(b)except to the extent that the limitation is suspended in such following fiscal year by reason of the exercise of the authority in subsection (a).

SEC. 8. DEFINITION.

As used in this Act, the term "United States Embassy" means the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and the residence of the United States chief of mission.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. You've read correctly...

Tel Aviv is the internationally recognised capital of Israel, and foreign embassies are all based there, including the US Embassy, despite any acts passed by Congress....

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

38. Nope

The Capital of Israel has been Jerusalem since 1950

US Law recognizes it as such as well.

[tinnypriv]

39. For the facts:

The position you ascribe to the U.S. government was taken for the first time in Nov 2003, and it doesn't just apply to "Jerusalem", it applies to Greater Jerusalem (since that is the operative definition; as anybody familiar with Israeli land plans is aware).

[MikeGalos]

40. Didn't even read this thread before replying?

You didn't even bother to read post 12 (or the rest of this thread) since it is the text of the US LAW passed in 1995 that declares Jerusalem the capital of Israel and orders the State Department to move the embassy or lose funding.

[tinnypriv]

41. Sigh

Do you want the correct interpretation of the law explaining or not?

[MikeGalos]

42. Gee

I posted the actual text of the law and the results vote that passed it overwhelmingly.

But, I'm sure we all are dying for the chance to understand how you know so much more than several hundred Representatives and Senators and that only your unique "correct interpretation" can teach we lowly mortals.

So, please, feel free to explain to all us poor DUers who can't read for ourselves what the "correct interpretation" of a 1995 law is that changes it into something that didn't exist until 2003. Really. And explain that time machine as well...

[tinnypriv]

43. As any one of those reps will tell you

The law was passed only in order to exert pressure on Clinton to enact an executive decision reflecting the Jerusalem Law in the foreign policy area (i.e. instruct the UN ambassador, issue a national security directive, presidential finding etc).

Of course, Clinton refused, given that the policy of his administration was to abstain on all important UN resolutions pertaining to I/P and maintain Israeli/US control over the negotiations.

As I said (accurately), the first time that this changed was with Bush, and not at the beginning of the adminstration either.

The reason being, Congress did the exact same thing with Bush as they did with Clinton - in this case the instrument of pressure was Section 214 of some expropriations bill (I forget the exact reference, you can find it on the web).

Bush refused to accept the provision, and maintained the same policy as the previous adminstration, right up until Nov 2003. Then (and only then) did U.S. policy from the fifties (and esp after 1967) through to the present change, when the United States voted against the annual resolution on the illegality of the annexation of East Jerusalem at the United Nations.

Before Clinton, the U.S. always voted in favor. When he was in office, it abstained. When Bush was in office, it abstained then voted against.

Those are the facts.

Now, of course, the accuracy of the above has no bearing on whether or not these decisions and votes are the right position to take. I suspect you'd say that the Nov 2003 vote of the Bush adminstration was the correct thing to do, and should have been done under Clinton. Fair enough, but there is no point pretending Jerusalem was recognised as the capital of Israel by the United States up until that point, because it wasn't.¹

-----

1. In fact, you could make a complicated legal argument that perhaps even the Nov 2003 vote was non-binding, and not a clear identification of U.S. state policy. There has been some discussion of this by legal scholars, though I see no reason to go into any of it here.

[MikeGalos]

44. Uh huh

Yep. They overwhelmingly and bipartisanly passed a law, Clinton didn't veto it but it really doesn't count because some unknown people told you so...

[_Jumper_]

14. Do you want peace?

Peace is impossible unless Jerusalem is shared due to religious fundies who worship that piece of land.

[MikeGalos]

15. Religious sites administration

When Jordan ran it:

Moslem sites - run by the Waqf
Christian sites - run by the Waqf
Jewish sites - run by the Waqf

Since Israel ran it:

Moslem sites - run by the Waqf
Christian sites - run by the individual churches
Jewish sites - run by the Jewish Antiquities ministry
Shared Temple Mount site - run by the Waqf

When Jordan ran it:
Moslem sites - expanded
Christian sites - ignored
Jewish sites - destroyed

Since Israel ran it:
Moslem sites - preserved and expanded
Christian sites - preserved and expanded
Jewish sites - preserved and expanded

As a further comparison - Jewish historical and archaeological sites inside the PA governed lands have been destroyed.

[_Jumper_]

16. Religion

This is about religion and a "holy" building, not reason and facts. If Jerusalem is not made an international city under UN control there will not be a permanent peace.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Guess what

Either way, there won't be a permanent peace. Peace is never permanent, especially in the Mideast.

[sushi]

18. Muddle, I think you prefer

permanent war to the two sides sharing Jerusalem. Why?

[_Jumper_]

21. Religion?

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. I want peace

It won't happen. Not in my lifetime. No matter what Israel does, unless it completely surrenders and flees. Frankly, even then, those Hamas bastards would hunt them down elsewhere.

In the meantime, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The saying used to be, "Next year in Jerusalem for hundreds of years." Israel and Jerusalem are intertwined.

[_Jumper_]

25. Look at your avatar

I'm glad MLK didn't lose hope in face of long odds. Peace is possible--look at Europe.

You are claiming that Jerusalem belongs to Israel due to an ethnic slogan and religion. The Palestinians have those too. So do Christian Arabs. Books of fables cannot be used to decide this issue.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. "Books of fables?"

Your anti-religious comments don't add to your argument.

Dr. King was a realist. Look at Ireland if you doubt how long it takes to sort out something like this. And they aren't even done yet even with the EU.

Israel was the capital of Israel. It is again. Doubt that? Look under that wonderful Dome of the Rock. You will find the Temple.

[sushi]

27. Jerusalem

Don't the Muslims also have places in Jerusalem that they consider holy? If that is correct then it makes sense to share. If that is correct, it would be selfish of Israel to claim it 100%.

I really think it's high time to compromise. Before the Israeli citizens of Arab descent overtake the Israeli Jews in numbers. Before Israel feels the need to use nuclear weapons so close to home.

Peace can come in the near future. It all depends on a few stuborn men. For there to be peace, neither side can get everything on its list.

[sushi]

19. I think you're right

If they can't agree then have Jerusalem under UN administration and both sides can worship there.

[_Jumper_]

20. It is the only viable solution

We can't argue with two groups that worship that piece of ground because of what is written in books of fiction. They will never accept the other side having it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Books of fiction?

Thanks for that horribly anti-religious bit of garbage.

[_Jumper_]

26. Don't hate me, hate the facts

There is zero evidence to support those books of fiction. Did you know that they were pro-slavery? Aren't you glad they weren't the basis for US policy regarding slavery?

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Pro-slavery? Fiction?

There is TONS of historical evidence pointing to all sorts of events in the Bible. This is not the venue for this debate. Perhaps you might try the Internet for a while and broaden your learning.

As for pro-slavery, so that whole bit about God bringing the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt -- "Pharoah, let my people go." -- didn't happen?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Pro-slavery and anti-woman...

It's all there in the bible, Muddle. There's a lot of horribly disgusting things in the bible. In fact slave-owners in the US used the bible to support their arguments that god was on their side....

Violet...

[_Jumper_]

46. www.skepticsannotedbible.com

It has some "entertaining" quotes from the Koran too.

[Forkboy]

32. That bit of truth is painful to many

I understand your anger.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I'm just grateful...

I didn't refer to that book of fables as the Holy Babble. There's only so much anger this atheist can handle ;)


Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I agree with you, Jumper...

It is the only viable solution. But isn't there three groups that Jerusalem holds a special significance for? I'm not big on religion, but isn't it important to Christians as well? Anyway, because it is such an important place for more than one religion, I don't think it should be the capital of any state and making it an international city is the only reasonable solution....


Violet...

[_Jumper_]

47. Yes

Who is to say that Christians won't one day cite their book of fiction to take back Jerusalem? We have three groups claiming that land with "my book's bigger than your book!" arguments. Making it an international city under UN control is the only viable solution.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. The UN is wildly anti-Israel

And can't be trusted to ever be fair on this issue. Take a quick count of how many Arab and Muslim votes there are.

[sushi]

29. It's mind-boggling how big

the Muslim group is, but they're not the whole UN! On the other hand Israel is tiny. I really think rather than being alone with one powerful country behind it, and ignoring the UN, tiny Israel should try and be friends with all nations in the world, not ignore the UN and recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

At the moment most of the world doesn't feel very sympathetic towards Israel, and it could have something to do with Israel's rather arrogant attitude. Maybe having so many nuclear weapons makes them feel powerful, and they don't feel they need anyone, but they'd have to think hard before using these weapons so close to home.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. This post is so naive, it's almost humorous

No, the Muslim group is not the whole UN. Neither is the Arab group. However, combine them with the oil-needy West and you have most of the votes in the General Assembly.

"Tiny Israel" can't "try and be friends with all nations in the world" when many of them wish it destroyed.

At virtually any moment, "most of the world doesn't feel very sympathetic towards Israel." They didn't feel very sympathetic to Jews when they were marched to the ovens either. So? Most of the world doesn't like the Jewish people. This is not news.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Thanks for warning us...

"Tiny Israel" can't "try and be friends with all nations in the world" when many of them wish it destroyed.

I'd call that comment absolute garbage rather than naive, though. Unless the merest whiff of criticism of Israel's occupation is being seen as wishing Israel to be destroyed, all these many states don't exist...


Violet...

[sushi]

45. Only extremists want Israel to disappear

Most of the world doesn't feel sympathetic towards Israel because of the occupation of Palestinian territories. Why do you think only three countries, including the US, back Israel in the UN? Three countries out of about one hundred and ninety! Not all of the remaining 187 are Muslim, Arab, and oil-needy western countries.

Tell me, Muddle, is Israel perfect, and everybody else has to change? Is there absolutely nothing Israel could do to get the votes of other nations?

Actually, they are re-routing parts of the apartheid wall, but that is not what is necessary for peace, and you know it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. There are extremists in abundance who wish to do so

And some even have hung out here.

Most of the world has never felt sympathetic towards Israel, not because of any "occupation," but because Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Most of the world turned their backs on the Holocaust as well.

You know Israel isn't perfect and I never claim it is. However, Israelis understand that they are fighting an enemy that wishes to totally destroy them. The rest of the world is foolishly naive on this point or they simply want the issue to go away.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeGalos]

53. <sigh>

To equate the systematic ingathering and exterminiation of entire peoples as sub-humans who should be eliminated to improve the human gene pool as a normal part of war is to deny the entire concept of war crimes.

We didn't hold the Nuremberg trials because the Nazis lost a war.

Auschwitz/Birkinau wasn't Stalag 13. The Holocaust (or The Devouring if you're Rroma) wasn't Hogan's Heroes.

That anyone, and apparently more than one, doesn't see this is, frankly, horrifying.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeGalos]

55. You honestly thing

excusing the Holocaust as "hey, it was war" isn't Holocaust Denial?

You honestly think equating the ingathering into death factories of men, women and children for the crime of being a "sub-human race" to the deaths from the fighting of the actual war isn't Holocaust Denial?

Wow. Things have gotten even scarier than I thought.

[Forkboy]

56. No I dont

To deny somnething happened means saying it never happened.Hence the word,"denial".He siad it happened,just gave a sick ass reason why.

and on edit-Things are getting scary.Supposed progressives say Arabs have their own smell,cheer extra-judicial killing as wonderful and proper,mock the rule of law,and use MLK as shield for their own hatred and bigotry.Scary times indeed.

[Lithos]

57. Locking

This has gotten out of hand.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tinnypriv]

13. Yes

They're re-routing the obviously idiotic parts of the fence (parts encircling Ariel, Karnie, Keduminn, Ballut etc).

I very much doubt that they're going to build the eastern section, and the "double fence" ultra-Apartheid sections are out as well.¹

All perfectly predictable at the time, though this should be obvious in retrospect.

The pressure is not much from Lapid incidentially (I personally have been trying to make his opposition known in this forum many times, to little effect I'm sad to say).² The real pressure is from the international arena (Sharon doesn't really care what a Shinui minister has to say) - in other words: the U.S.

By the way, if some here had their way (reflect support of Israel, reflex support of any route of any fence), this wouldn't have happened, and there would be a fence route so obviously a land-grab it would have forever destroyed a two-state solution.

Note: there may still be - plans can change back and will change if Israel feels it can count on U.S. support. That's in large part for you, me and others to determine.

-----

1. (eastern section), see Amir Rapaport, Ma'ariv, 22 February 2004. ("ultra-Apartheid"), see DU, 24 Oct 2003:

"These 'double barriers' are monsterous crimes on the scale of South African bastustans. Probably worse in fact. (link)

2. See DU, 30 Jan 2004:

"Another reason for this tactic is that the Government of Israel's own Justice Minister has decided that the route of the fence is: 'totally indefensible'" (link)

See DU, 28 Jan 2004:

"Moreover, if Israel felt that the fence could be defended beyond the confines of "pro-Israel" hacks, it wouldn't be clearly and explicity trying to make the objections of the relevant authorities (ICJ, Red Cross) irrelevant ... the fact that the current route is "totally indefensible" is conceeded by now by knowledgable Israeli commentators, in reaction to recent events in Israel (Lapid), which is the reason why the GOI decided to adopt a policy of pretending the ICJ has no jurisdiction on the matter" (link)

See DU, 26 Jan 2004:

"Accusations of 'kowtowing to foreigners' by MK Yishai is one recent comment against him, in Israel. No doubt since in internal discussion Lapid has concluded the fence is 'totally indefensible'." (link)

See DU, 20 Jan 2004:

"Oh, and of course, that 24/7 timetable has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact Israel knows (and has essentially admitted, in private) that the current route is indefensible, hence the specific orders to speed up construction to make the ICJ decision irrelevant? The real amusing thing is that Sharon is so worried about the international pressure he's actually ordering his ministers to shut the fuck up about the fence (those orders subtly directed at Shinui Justice Lapid of course)" (link)

See DU, 19 Jan 2004:

"You know, the real interesting thing is that we still have defenders of the fence around here, even after Israeli hawks like GOI Justice Minister Lapid conclude it is 'totally indefensible'" (link)