Kerry defends Israel security fence

[Freddie Stubbs]

US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel's construction of a security barrier as a "legitimate act of self defense" after Sunday's suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, "We don't need another barrier to peace."

"It is ironic that this act of terror takes place on the eve of consideration by the International Court of Justice of Israel's security fence. The court does not have and should not accept jurisdiction over this case," Kerry said in a statement released by his campaign Monday.

"Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense," he added. "No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel."

It has been rare for Democratic candidates to issue statements on incidents like bombings in Israel over the past few months. Kerry's statement, highlighting the justification for the fence, came a week before the crucial March 2 "Super Tuesday" primaries, which include New York with its high concentration of Democratic Jewish voters, some political observers noted.

more: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1077608445534

[donsu]

1. Kerry doesn't get my vote

nt

[CWebster]

5. mine either. nt

[papau]

2. I agree with Kerry -No nation can stand by while its children are blown up

This fence is not a UN problem - in my opinion

[mmm]

3. Can you say 'pitiful sell-out.'

[Democat]

4. Who supports tearing the fence down?

And what chance do they have of beating Bush?

This is a year for being realistic.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. The suicide bombers do

But I don't think that many of them will be voting in the election.

[molly]

9. Damn right!

[BL_Zebub]

60. I do.

So does God. It's one of the very few things we agree on.

[Deaner1971]

64. Are you Pat Robertson?

Just curious about the direct communications from God.

[BL_Zebub]

72. I'm the Devil. I've known God longer than anyone.

We don't talk very often, for obvious reasons, but there's still a business relationship between Heaven and Hell which requires the occasional communication.

[Jim Sagle]

129. I could - but it would be wrong.

[littlejoe]

6. I support the wall. It isn't Israeli suicide bombers who are going

into the West Bank and blowing Palestinians up. When the Israelis go into Palestinian occupied territory, it is in justifiable retaliation for Palestinian atrocities.

Keep the wall, until they learn how to play nicely with each other.

[Sandpiper]

12. Is that a fact?

When the Israelis go into Palestinian occupied territory, it is in justifiable retaliation for Palestinian atrocities.

Could you please tell me then why 3 times as many Palestinians have been killed by the IDF during the intifada than Israelis by Palestinian suicide bombers? :eyes:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Indiana Democrat]

26. For one...

Because when the Israelis strike back, they STRIKE BACK HARD!

And who can blame them?


If the Palestinians don't like it, they can put a stop to terrorist activities.

[_Jumper_]

28. Sadly, not hard enough

n/t

[Sandpiper]

39. Who is occupying whose land?

When did oppressive, hostile occupying armies become the forces of good?

[Indiana Democrat]

42. Ever read the bible?

How many times does it mention Israel? How many times does it mention "Palestine"?


Now...For bonus points, how old is the bible?

[_Jumper_]

51. No

I don't read works of fiction like the Bible, Torah, and Koran.

[Indiana Democrat]

81. You can snidely call it "Fiction" all you want...

...and you may just be right...But that's beside the point.

The point is, it's a historical document of the land in question. Israel is the land of the Jews. And that's unarguable.

[Forkboy]

84. if it's fiction

it isn't much of a historical document.

[Indiana Democrat]

96. Please...

The historical existance of the bible, regardless if it's the literal word of God or not, is undisputed.

Of course you knew that, didn't you?

[edzontar]

109. By any modern analysis

The Bible is a collection of sacred texts of various dates and authorship, derived from oral and written tradtions, and assembled in various versions in antiquty.

Some of these texts are pure myth (Genesis, Job). Some are sacred history and origin stories, enlivened by legend (Exodus, Kings, Judges). Some are devotional texts and/or poetry (Isiah, Pslams, etc..

Some denominations accept some parts that others don/t.

I have the utmost respect for the book and the various faiths that accept it as the sacred word of God.

But I don't want a public policy based on some zealot's interpretation of the books' "meaning."

That's what we have now, in the White House.

[MAlibdem]

97. It is a cultural document at least

Which shows Jews lived in the land of israel before the palestinians. It shows how the jews were forcibly removed twice (first by famine and held in bondage in egypt, and second in babylon) both times returning to the land of israel. the modern return is simply the third episode of this apparent cycle.

There is a difference between "fiction" and "devoid of truth or truthful things. While miraculous events may be doubted by many, and should be by secular society, that does not mean that other events, such as things as simple as jews living in Judah and Israel, should be discounted (clearly)

[Sandpiper]

103. Sorry Charlie, but there is

(first by famine and held in bondage in egypt, and second in babylon) both times returning to the land of israel.

Nil historical or archaeological evidence for the captivity and exodus story. Likewise, there is no evidence to indicate that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were anything more than just characters from Bible stories.

[MAlibdem]

116. My name also isn't charlie (n/t)

[Indiana Democrat]

105. Very sell said...

...of course those who you said this too knew that is what was meant in the first place. They're just grasping for straws with their arguments to the contrary.

[_Jumper_]

111. So what?

No group has a right to a piece of land. Can you imagine if we reset the world's borders to their state in ancient times???? How can you espouse such a view and then live on land that belongs to Native Americans under your logic, not you?

[MAlibdem]

115. I think the native american and jewish situations are vastly different

But both fascinating.

If you would like to discuss the native american situation in a separate thread, i would be happy to oblige. But I think it is irrelevant, or at least distantly removed, from the israeli/palestinian situation

[_Jumper_]

127. Not as far as principles are concerned

If we are going to say that the West Bank and Gaza belong to the Jews because they lived there first we need to apply that standard across-the-board. To do otherwise is fundamentally racist because it confers a special privilege upon one group over everyone else.

[Sandpiper]

132. But don't you understand

The Jews are God's chosen people. The bible doesn't confer any special status on Native American peoples.

[Sandpiper]

92. It's sad that the best support you can muster for your argument

Is a book of mythology.

Since the Bible is a valid historical document regarding the land in question, are the histories of the creation and Noah's ark equally valid?

Just let me know what parts of the bible we should consider valid and which ones we should disregard.

[Indiana Democrat]

101. I'd like to see people like you when you're on your death beds...

...Just to see if you're still so confident in your beliefs.

But that's beside the point...

The only argument is whether the bible is the literal word of God or not...That argument will NEVER be resolved. That's why they call is "Faith". The FACT that it's a historical document of the happenings of Israel is not arguable.

[Forkboy]

113. it's very debatable

just not to true believers.

[_Jumper_]

93. It is as historical as "Green Eggs and Ham"

No group is entitled to land. History has proven that time and again. Do you think Native Americans own America?

[Sandpiper]

56. Ok, so that's what this is about

You're one of the Armageddonites who supports the Israel's right of occupation due to their being "God's chosen people."

I mean, the Palestinians have only been living there for about 20 successive centuries, but it's time for them to pack up and get the hell out because the book of Hebrew mythology says that the land belongs to the children of Israel. :eyes:

Well, my god told me that I should evict you from your house because it actually belongs to me.

[Indiana Democrat]

87. You don't know anything about me and yet...

...YOU tell ME what I am?

Typical.


Go find someone else to flame.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Cassandra]

133. God's Chosen People

do not believe in Armageddon.

[edzontar]

80. How many times does the Bible mention America?

Or China and Japan, etc.

Not once.

So we should make our foreign policy based on what countries are or are not mentioned in it?

I think not.

[Indiana Democrat]

110. What does that have to do with the FACT that it mentions Israel?

[_Jumper_]

114. Read the post

"So we should make our foreign policy based on what countries are or are not mentioned in it?"

[edzontar]

140. Notice that there is no reponse.

nt.

[littlejoe]

53. It is a known fact that when the Israelis retaliate, they hit back

twice as hard as they were hit.

[Sandpiper]

62. And it is an equally known fact

That people will rise up against a common oppressor, which in this case, is Israel.

[littlejoe]

75. Are you saying that Israel does not have the right to defend itself

against cowardly acts of violence?

Put the shoe on the other foot. If there were suicide bombers that attacked the CITIZENS of you7r community on a regular basis, wouldn't you retaliate forcefully?

[edzontar]

86. Israel does not have the right to occupy and steal other peoples' land

Although Kerry seems to think this is OK.

Not surprizing.

[littlejoe]

100. Are you aware of the fact that it was the Syrians who kicked

the Palestinians out of what was once their land? They, in fact have been kicked out of three different countries.

[MAlibdem]

67. a known "fact"

"fact"? "fact"? "fact"?

no israeli soldier has gone out of his or her way to specifically target palestinian civilians. Never.

On the other hand, palestinian gunman and genocidal bombers go out of their way to harm israeli civilians.

Though I believe Israel has responded to genocidal attacks with excessive force in the past, a "twice as hard" charge, even if true (which i doubt) isn't relevant.


If a genocidal palestinian attack kills 10 people, 100% civilians (10)

and an israel attack kills 20 people, 20% civilians (4), who is more at fault?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[littlejoe]

90. You are reading things into my response that aren't there.

Believe it or not, you are actually agreeing with me.

[MAlibdem]

112. Then I apologize

wasn't my intent to agree with you, lol. (or was it?)

[MAlibdem]

117. Yet those people died

as israeli troops persued palestinian terrorists or militants.

And the israelis died as the palestinian genocidal bombers persued civilians.

[RichM]

21. Oh really. And why do you suppose those Palestinians commit such

atrocities in the first place? It wouldn't have anything to do with what Israel has done to them, would it? Do you think the whole story started with suicide bombings?

And you support the wall? Do you know that it's being routed along lines that deprive Palestinians of territory previously ceded to them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/opinion/23CHOM.html

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Deaner1971]

73. Does anyone else get to have an opinion?

Everytime someone disagrees with anything you believe, you trump out the charge that we all work for the DLC or are robots of the DLC or are "republican democrats". Why don't you bring facts to the table instead of slandering everyone else with Rove-esque attacks?

I am so sick of the way that this board slants. Between being called wacko Commies by the powers on the far Right and being called "Republican light" by a lot of the people on these boards, I sincerely wonder where I should land. These boards seem dominated by people who have to impunge someone else's character if they threaten to disagree with them.

The Democratic Party should be a party of inclusion. we have always allowed the Repubs to be the party of the lilly-white, male, aristocracy (at least so they were always portrayed) and we always claimed everything from the center to the left. Now it seems like these boards are reserved for people who see themselves as the only torch bearers of the Democratic Party and everyone else is some kind of traitor. What happened to being a united group working for a more Progressive America? It seems to me that many people want to replace one group of narrow minded people with another. Sorry, my opnion.

[Indiana Democrat]

35. Why do the Palestinians do it?

Because at a young age they are taught to hate Jews, and that if they kill Jews while killing themselves, they will spend eternity in paradise.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[MAlibdem]

85. oh boy

and here ive been called a bigot...

I supposed you've joined the bandwagon, calling zionism racism (the UN) or equating it with all sorts of mean-nasty stuff.

zionism basically states that jews should return to and live in their ancestral land. zionist propaganda? hmmmmmm that comment sort of pisses me off as someone who formulates my view objectively, logically, and independent of so-called "propaganda"

[Indiana Democrat]

91. Calling people "Bigots" is all the idiots have.

Their hatred betrays them.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[Indiana Democrat]

142. Yeah...It's all the Joooooooos fault, isn't it?

Typical...

[Sandpiper]

126. And it's that very same view

zionism basically states that jews should return to and live in their ancestral land.

That causes Israel to think it has some sort of right to the west bank and view the Palestinians who've lived there for centuries as squatters on what is "rightfully" theirs.

[_Jumper_]

98. He has a point

110+ suicide bombings in three years is a product of a widespread campaign to promote hatred and terrorism. Why don't you see young male Tibetans committing terrorism so they can perpetually have sex with 72 virgins?

[littlejoe]

106. Do you support state sponsored terrorism?

That's what your defense of the Palestinians sounds like to me.

[littlejoe]

120. Zionist propaganda? WOW!

[edzontar]

94. Because Israel steals and occupies their land.

You would probably do the same thing, under the cicumstances.

[littlejoe]

95. Israel HAS to protect itself. The Palestinians simply refuse

to negotiate peace. It is obvious that they would rather promote chaos.

[_Jumper_]

102. I concur

However, using that as an excuse for a land grab and to create a semi-apartheid system is immoral. Israel should build the wall on the Green Line.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[MAlibdem]

118. It would be preferrable

If you did not equate the actions of jews with the actions of hitler.

It creates an odd juxtaposition that is offensive to most jews.

[AntiCoup2K4]

135. You would think so, wouldn't you?

You would think that Jews, of all people, would know enough about hatred, oppression and genocide to never want to inflict such a thing on someone else. And for the majority of the Jewish people, I have no doubt that is exactly the case. Yet Sharon, Likud, and the IDF are indeed Jews, as is much of PNAC. So it would appear that some Jews choose to ignore their own history and pursue a course of action not far removed from the one Hitler used against their grandparents.

[MAlibdem]

137. explain that to me

equate systematically rounding up 6 million people and killing them is the same as having people live in an occupied territory. You'll find it's very hard.

I want to know when palestinians have been enslaved in work camps, when israeli officers can at random shoot captives palestinians (alas, there are few except those suspected of terrorist related activities)

I think not far removed does not fully speak to the VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST distance between the actions of hitler and any actions israelis have taken.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[Toronto Ron]

7. The fence...

in itself is not a bad idea. Its route is problematic in places (e.g. splitting a Palestinian town in two), but I think the Israelis are tearing down or re-routing a big chunk of it.

[The Magistrate]

14. Indeed, Sir

It is not the erection of a security barrier that is any problem, but where this one is being erected that is problematic.

[_Jumper_]

23. Exactly

I was shocked to read Noam Chomsky's op-ed about the fence. Sadly, Sharon is using the legitimate right of self-defense to justify a land grab.

[redqueen]

33. Sadly, yes. Surprisingly? n/t

[EXE619K]

10. The fence/wall creates more problems.

As demonstrated by recent bombings that bypassed the barrier by simply cutting through the fence.

Kerry's not winning any liberal votes on this issue.

[Jim Sagle]

130. He'll get mine if he's the nom.

:thumbsup:

[MAlibdem]

11. Good

Accomodating Palestinian terrorism is stupid. The fence is a common sense solution for peace. Is the border perfect? No, none are.

Never have I seen a country with so much power concede so much to a terrorist-infested genocidal society, if it was the US in a similar circumstance, those against the fence in the US would be singing a much different tune.

This was originally a Labor idea btw.

Edited for more thoughts

[Sandpiper]

16. Ok, since you support an Israeli security fence

Through the middle of Palestinian territory, would you also support the US building a wall about 100 miles into Mexico to stem the flow of illegal immigration? A better question would be, do you think Mexico would support it?

[MAlibdem]

27. Illegal immigrants don't blow themselves up in buses or cafes

Or busy marketplaces

or bar mitzvahs

Your analogy sucks

[_Jumper_]

30. Do you support land grabs?

Security is fine. They should build one on the Green Line but they are building it to create a semi-apartheid situtation.

[MAlibdem]

38. Israel has sovereignty over the so-called "occupied territories"

It isn't a "land grab", israel is willingly given land to the palestinian people to create a state they were denied by fellow arabs during and immediately following the Israeli war of independence in 1948-1949.

The green line is unacceptable to a final and lasting peace, it does not provide adequately for israel security (at points the country between its two major population areas is only 16km wide, which is undefendable).

[Sandpiper]

43. Israel's so-called "sovereignty"

over the occupied territories is self appointed and is not recognized by the UN or international law.

[MAlibdem]

48. That doesn't mean it isn't real (n/t)

[Sandpiper]

Maybe you should read up on international law

Because that's exactly what it means.

[_Jumper_]

55. It does provide for real security

Israel will never have peace until that dispute is settled. It will never be settled until it returns to the 1967 borders. Don't let religion fool you on this. Moreover, Israel has nuclear weapons. Once terrorism is stopped, it will live in peace thanks to MAD.

[MAlibdem]

70. I'm confused

What does having nuclear weapons have to do with anything?

just another charge, just something to throw in to stir the pot? I dont get it...

[Forkboy]

77. "I'm confused"

Finally,something I can agree with!

[MAlibdem]

121. Ah, personal attacks...

:eyes:

I was asking for clarification of someonelse's views, I am quite confident in my own.

[_Jumper_]

88. Security, read what you said in post #38

Charge? LOL

[Sandpiper]

37. So, therefore

Israel has the right to erect a security barrier through land that is not theirs?

I've heard that good fences make good neighbors, but I don't think they meant that you should build a fence through your neighbor's yard.

Apparently you have no problem with this, and my "analogy sucks" because I threw your faulty logic back into your face.

[MAlibdem]

61. Your analogy sucks because

you equate the violation of immigration law with the violation of human rights.


In fact, the quote "good fences make good neighbors" is from a ironic/sarcastic poem by Robert Frost, who thought otherwise, but he's just a luddite poet from NH who i find unispiring (and irrelevant at the moment)

If you lived in a country that experienced weekly genocidal bombings, you would feel that your country has the right to build a security wherever the hell it needs to. In fact, one can rightly critize the course of the fence in certain cases, such as through towns. And I am not an apologist or supporter of Ariel Sharon. However, the fence as a concept is good, and if it needs to go into territory that previous to 1967 was not part of Israel to be effective, to save one life, then it should.

edit for diction

[_Jumper_]

63. Read Chomsky's op-ed

Sharon is taking a great idea and the legitimate right to self-defense and using it for a land grab and creating a semi-apartheid situation.

[Sandpiper]

65. Your logic sucks because

In every post you gloss over the fact that the Palestinians are an oppressed people living under the military occupation of a hostile foreign invader. What about this is so hard to understand?

If you lived in a country that experienced weekly genocidal bombings, you would feel that your country has the right to build a security wherever the hell it needs to.

And if you lived in a country that was in military occupation of a foreign neighbor, and the same foreign neighbor's citizens were in the habit of lashing out against your occupation, maybe you would connect the dots and realize that your problems with your neighbor were largely of your own creation.

[MAlibdem]

122. I qualified that myself

When I explained that I am no Sharon apologist.

I recognize there is a good deal of reaction on both sides, which is why a "cool down" period a fence would provide is ideal.

In every post you gloss over the fact that the Palestinians are an oppressed people

I don't gloss it over, it just doesn't seem to be what people are talking about. I think the state of the palestinian people that has been created by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and neighboring arab states is horrible. This does not, in my view, excuse genocidal acts.

I also believe that in the past the palestinian authority has been greedy and outright stupid, especially with respect to the dignity and livelihood of its people. For example, at the Wye River Accords, Israel offered much, more than the palestinians should have hoped for, but still arafat was arafat, clutching to his relevancy by sabotaging the peace process.

[Indiana Democrat]

41. It's not Palestinian Territory.

Israel annexed the land in the 1967 war.

The only reason the Palestinians are allowed to remain there is because Israel is a compassionate nation, as a whole.


If the most recent Middle East wars had happened 500 year ago, there would be no "Palestinians" and very few would care.

[Sandpiper]

44. Ok, so it's Israeli territory

Because they grabbed it in a war?

If the most recent Middle East wars had happened 500 year ago, there would be no "Palestinians" and very few would care.

And if a pig had wings, it would be a bird.

[_Jumper_]

54. So we now own Iraq forever?

Sweet! Let the SUV's roll!

[Darranar]

124. No, Israel did nothing of the sort...

if it had, the act would have been illegal (as was Jordan's annexation of the same territory) and it would have likely not been recognized.

[_Jumper_]

19. Genocidal society?

A few nuts kill about a thousan people in four years and you smear an entire ethnic group as genocidal????

[MAlibdem]

29. I never said the "ethnic group" was genocidal

I said "society"

Polls show a majority of palestinians support genocidal bombings and that palestinians also support continued genocidal bombings after an independent state is created.

So i think genocidal is applicable to the society.

[_Jumper_]

57. Do you consider Israeli's genocidal?

They supported terrorism when they fought the British "occupation". In fact, they elected two terrorists (Begin, Shamir) prime ministers. I am curious as to whether you are consistent...

[Sandpiper]

66. Of course not

They have the right to be there because the Bible says so and they are God's chosen people. Everyone else is just a squatter on the land that rightfully belongs to the children of Abraham. :crazy:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[MAlibdem]

46. oh pleez

if a majority of a population supports a genocidal act, would you not label that society genocidal. Was nazi germany genocidal-many germans claimed they didn't even know what was going on. But at that time, it is fair to say german socitey was genocidal. That doesn't mean germans are innately genocidal, in fact, that would be silly. Indeed, I think the conditions created by Israel, the palestinian authority, and arabs states involved in conflicts with israel have contributed to the creation of attitudes in both israel and among the palestinian people that can only be labeled as genocidal.

I think peace requires an end to this attitude, and thus a disengagement, a "cooling off" so that daily people's genocidal and hateful feelings are not stirred up.

Labeling someone a "bigot" is a classic excuse to ignore or supress their views.

Pssst, your logical fallacy is showing, you name caller you

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[MAlibdem]

107. Well wasn't that snide

:shrug:

:boring:

[BL_Zebub]

13. Anybody have any doubts left that Kerry is fully on board

with the Likud/PNAC agenda??

[EXE619K]

17. Doesn't Bush support the Wall also?

Sick!

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Walt Starr]

15. Mr. Kerry, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!

:puke: I hate the fucker just slightly less than I hate *.

[redqueen]

20. And he gives how many more people a reason to stay home in Nov?

I'd rather a republican govern like a warmongering a$$hole than a democrat, quite frankly.

[Uzybone]

22. Does anyone know what the other candidates positions are?

I think the wall is a bad bad BAD idea. But sending bastards to blow up children and other civilians leaves me with very little love of the Palestinian radicals.

[_Jumper_]

25. The wall isn't the issue

The issue is where the wall is. Here is part of what Noam Chomsky said in a recent NYT op-ed (the link can be found in post #21):

<What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also — as the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described Israel's war of "politicide" against the Palestinians — helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.

Even before construction of the barrier was under way, the United Nations estimated that Israeli barriers, infrastructure projects and settlements had created 50 disconnected Palestinian pockets in the West Bank. As the design of the wall was coming into view, the World Bank estimated that it might isolate 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians, more than 10 percent of the population, and that it might effectively annex up to 10 percent of West Bank land. And when the government of Ariel Sharon finally published its proposed map, it became clear the the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state.

The wall has already claimed some of the most fertile lands of the West Bank. And, crucially, it extends Israel's control of critical water resources, which Israel and its settlers can appropriate as they choose, while the indigenous population often lacks water for drinking.

Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands. "Hiding behind security rationales and the seemingly neutral bureaucratic language of military orders is the gateway for expulsion," the Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote in the daily Haaretz. "Drop by drop, unseen, not so many that it would be noticed internationally and shock public opinion." The same is true of the regular killings, terror and daily brutality and humiliation of the past 35 years of harsh occupation, while land and resources have been taken for settlers enticed by ample subsidies.>

[sangh0]

47. NO, they don't but that doesn't stop them

from pretending that Kerry is the one with the worst position on this issue. I am looking forward to the moment they are enlightened

[Indiana Democrat]

24. He's absolutely RIGHT!

The Palestinians have proven to be terrorist supporters. If they won't change their ways, WALL THEM OUT!

[BL_Zebub]

52. Show me one Palestinian who has murdered more people than Ariel Sharon

and I'll believe you.

[MAlibdem]

138. Arafat

[redqueen]

31. Here it is...

"Kerry's statement, highlighting the justification for the fence, came a week before the crucial March 2 "Super Tuesday" primaries, which include New York with its high concentration of Democratic Jewish voters, some political observers noted."

:puke:

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. Kerry, that's like saying leave the walls up at a concentration camp

Because that's what's happening. The Palestinians are being coralled. Like Jews. Japanese. Native Americans.

Of COURSE we need to do something about the bombings, but forcing Palestinian women to DIE in CHILDBIRTH at checkpoints is beyond wrong. So, too, is it wrong for a wall to be used to cut towns off from their water and food supplies.

And Kerry, how is that investigation into the death of Rachel Corrie coming along??


You are SO lucky I am ABB and holding my nose and voting dem this time. So very lucky.

[Freddie Stubbs]

104. The Jews were not killing civilians with suicide bombers

Rachel Corrie buring a mock American flag.

[Sandpiper]

125. No, the Jews were killing civilians with the IDF

n/t

[moondust]

45. The fence is a last resort.

They've tried everything else and nothing has worked. Now it's down to physical separation. If peace and harmony prevail there someday then it can be removed. Right now the only question is where to place it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. Tried everuthing else? Where is the Palestinian state, cause

I missed that part.

[moondust]

68. They've had plenty of offers.

But the terrorist groups won't accept anything. Maybe after a decade or two without access to Israeli civilians they'll begin to see things differently. :shrug:

[Sandpiper]

71. They've had plenty of offers

Entirely on Israel's terms.

[moondust]

76. Not really.

I think Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter among millions of others would disagree with you. The terrorists' terms are all or nothing. That's a dead end.

[Sandpiper]

79. And Israel is unwilling to give up even a centimeter

Of Jerusalem. Where Palestinians have been living for the past 2000 years.

The only Israel Prime Minister that was willing to make some genuine concessions got assassinated by one of his own people.

[MAlibdem]

123. No

Ehud Barak was offering far more than Rabin would have.

[_Jumper_]

59. The placement of the fence is what the debate is about

If it were placed on the Green Line only hardcore pro-Palestinian people would oppose it.

[Deaner1971]

82. I agree

The issue with the wall is that it is a land grab under the auspices of self-protection. If Israel wants a wall, let them put it inside their own INTERNATIONALLY recognized (not self-appointed) borders and then it's their call. But, don't use it as a way to take more land from people who have precious little to call their own as it is.

[sangh0]

50. Lots of very simplistic ideas here

The idea of a wall is NOT inherently good or bad. In this case, the devil is in the details, and campaigns are not the place to get detailed policies.

[GreenPartyVoter]

58. The Geneva Accord is the way to go, not the "road map"

to nowhere.

It's not perfect, but it's a start. Now if only they could hammer out those devilish details you mentioned.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-05.htm

[Scott Lee]

78. Kerry supports New Apartheid. What a shocker

But then again what do you expect from a business-as-usual Democratic establishment insider?

[littlejoe]

83. Well, Scott, at least you are consistent, if not well informed.

[_Jumper_]

108. Notice how Kerry implied that he opposed it when he spoke to Arabs

n/t

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[_Jumper_]

128. We've had several of them arrive recently

n/t

[tinnypriv]

134. Fucking hell, Kerry looks just like Clinton

Er, carry on. :7

[AntiCoup2K4]

136. Just like Clinton? Not even close.

Clinton had Rabin and Arafat close to peace and Likud murdered Rabin so it wouldn't happen (shades of JFK). He tried again with Barak and again was making progress. Clinton truly was looking for a peaceful solution.

Kerry's endorsing this monstrosity of the Berlin Wall mixed with South African - style apartheid. This bullshit ain't "peace".

[waldenx]

139. Why isnt this posted in GD Primary forum?

Because its a real issue?

[edzontar]

141. It was. But the mods mover here, because this is place

.....to which any discusion of the I/P issue is inevitably banned.

It is a terrible policy IMHO, because it isolates this very fundamental problem from he other issues that relate to it--like the election!