פרסומים אחרונים במדור "חדשות"

All you are doing is “claiming”…

Fact: Where there is a “fence” the terror has declined.

Fact: The Palestinians are opposing the “Fence” in any rout (On the Green Line or away of it), whatsoever.

Fact: The Current intifada has started two years before the “fence” was erected.

Is it not the time revising yours “claims”?

There is and should not be any argument about the facts, the dispute is about the “Fence” rout and the balance between the security and humanitarians measures, not about its utmost need and efficiency, this already being proved.

Unless of course you insist on burying your head in the sand….

It is a waste of time even to start with that.

Most of the Palestinian declarations (hundreds of them in the past two years) are talking against the “Fence; they are not and barely added (what you are claiming) “No Fence in this rout but nevertheless it is accepted on the Green Line”.

If you heard some Palestinian friends talking about the validity of the “fence” on the Green Line I should accept that. Nevertheless, official Palestinian authorities are strongly against A “Fence” in any form of it (The proof is in too many places even to bother and bring links for that – sure enough I will not bother).

If you are referring to Abu-Ala’s declaration “We will help Israel building the Fence if it will be running on the Green Line” you are distorting the truth. First he said that for the sake of argument, second this phrase was left almost all alone.

After all the Palestinian opposition to the “Fence” should not be surprising us. Facts pointing to the decline in terror acts wherever the “Fence “was erected and it is obvious that the “Fence”, by that, is eliminating the Palestinians’ strongest strategic asset against Israel namely: The Terror. If I was from the Phatah-Tunis I would behave the same.

The Claim at Hague (decision is due two weeks from now) is not talking about the “Fence” on the Green-Line it is talking against a “fence”, any “Fence” period.
The Palestinians asked the court there to examine the validity of A Fence, not only the “fence” in its existing rout.

Israel needs the “Fence” badly. I would say further, the Palestinians needs the “Fence” badly as much. Our chances for suppressing the terror are relying much on the “Fence”. Declining in the Terror acts will initiate a peace process that ultimately will lead into some kind of agreement between us and the Palestinians (I am reluctant of calling it a peace agreement, not in the fist period). Those agreements will benefit the Palestinian population as much as Israel (Though definitely not the Palestinian leadership).

If it is sound like I am claiming that the Palestinians do not know what is the best for them I will reply: “They do” only that those (about roughly 1/3 – 1/2 of the Palestinian population) supporting a peace with Israel are lacking of commanding critical mass to influence the other extremists parts in the Palestinian society.

The “Fence” rout and its location is an important matter but I leave this debate for the experts.

I answered you already as clearer as possible and have no intention to reuse the same words.
I do not have available any links right now but hey, I did not see any link that supports your claim either.
In time I will find the links that are supporting my posting.

The egg and the chicken, who can tell?

In the Middle East’s reality while Israel perceived as the modern Crusaders it is not a sure thing defining the egg from the chicken.

You may be perfectly correct, but you may be wrong as well…You are not recommending us to become the modern Prometheus, right?

“Respecting and suspecting” (Others may call it “Risk Assessment”) is the survival's mantra in the Middle East (Even God will not help us if we have forgotten this mantra). Sure enough we want peace, but let’s make sure that our throat is left intact in the process, the “Fence” is one of those protective measures.

Now that you have clarified yours approach I do not think that major disputed issues left here, at least from my side.

Basically that is my approach as well namely: we do need the “Fence” but we have to make sure that it is creating as little inconvenience as possible to the Palestinians while keeping our utmost important security issues intact. After all we do not having a war with the Palestinian population at large.

We definitely do have a war with the Palestinian terror organizations and Phatah-Tunis guys that pushing and encouraging them from behind. Our survival is depending on such realization.

Just to clarify this point, our worst enemy is actually not the Palestinians, even not the Arab countries. Our worst enemy is our broken unity. A united Israel is having no trouble standing firm against any external enemy…and to the otherwise without it.

Our real “Security Fence” is our unity.

I would like to believe that pluralism is my second name, I do believe in possessing open mind, opinions’ exchange and debates. Our democracy, any democracy is fundamentally based on pluralism and debates.

Having said all that, the magic word here as in any other issues is the balance between the public needs and the individuals’ freedom. Here lies the problem. The term “Unity” is may well be related to the public “rights” and that may stand in some instances in the opposite to the individual rights. A careful balance between the two may satisfy both, though that may be coming pretty rare, admittedly.

On its face it seems that Nation’s unity must come on the full expense of the freedom of the individual but that may not being correct in all circumstances.

The difficulties in achieving the said balance is stemming from the difficulty in defining the Public “Rights” meaning namely: who is defining the public “rights”, needs and to what length?
It is relatively easy to come up with the individual rights definitions, when we are dealing with the public, Nation, National “rights” here we may open a full scaled Pandora box.

To answer to that if then it must not lead us into the “petty cash” arguments; we have to jump straight onto the basic of our political form of life namely: our democratic system principles.

Luckily, or unluckily (it is upon the viewer), the task in our case is easier. Any nation that is finding itself under threat to its survival is finding itself defining the National “rights” easier to define and we are in no exception. On the other hand this situation is facing hidden danger in bending the individual right too far. That is exactly the situation with some dictatorships that taking advantage of the threat to the public issue to impose anti individuals or minorities laws.

As well, we should not forget that working for the common public interest is benefiting the individual in the process as a by-product and even more. A few examples: improving the national economic situation is benefiting the individual. Improving on the security and safety of the public is benefiting as well the individual, improving the national education system will result in the same benefit for the individual and those only in naming a few.

Nevertheless, we may put obvious “Red Lines” that crossing them in time of a threat for the national survival and therefore to the individual security may well be able to be considered as working against the public and individuals interests alike.

A few examples may clarify the meaning behind the term “Crossing the Red Lines”:

1. Some professors, academics or public servants that are making there living from the public taxes are appearing abroad and advocating/trumpting against the state of Israel and its democratic elected government in an utmost unbalanced manners presenting the Palestinians misery only, while ignoring Israel’s.
2. Accepting (joyfully) contributions from unidentified sources and sometimes very much identified ones such as Saudi Arabia, France and other European countries for the “New Fund for Israel” that is serving a definite one sided political agenda in Israel against Rightist opponents. An anti democratic act that is in no doubt crossing the border in being Antidemocratic and criminal act alike. This issue is calling for immense investigation and prosecution. Is anybody having the answer why such an investigation was not opened by now?
3. Allowing Knesset members to advocate against the Israeli democracy by being the long and advocators arm of Arafat and Syria. Yes, Azmi Bishara and his chorus of Knesset members’ supporters.
4. Joining a definite Anti Israel Palestinian ISM (read Palestinian not International) organization. Some bunch of Israeli anarchists already joined and are aiding Israel haters in actually destroy Israel from within (sure enough they lured initially to believe in “Human Right” activity but they should know by now who is who there).
5. Advocating against the “Separation Wall”, calling it an “Apartheid Wall”, hundreds of “Peace” (what a joke) activists interfering in erecting this wall, using anarchistic means ignoring completely the value and the diminishing in confrontation between Israelis and terror organization as a result of the ‘Fence”. Some admittedly advocating against the “Fence” it its current rout but many are advocating against a “Wall” any “wall” in any rout.
6. The phenomenon of set-up “Files” against opponents from the other side of the political spectrum as being done by the Law authorities in the “Praklitut” is disgusting. More over it is an anti democratic act and sure enough a criminal one. That issue is requires intense investigation and prosecution.
7. Those cases of refusing Knesset and the military orders - the legitimate rulers in a democracy - should not occurred and happen.
8. The inclination of broadcaster that are funded by the public to insert there personal opinion taking advantage of the stage provided them by the public is insane. Broadcasters and journalist that reporting news should do that in the utmost care and balance. Independent journalists can do their job more freely but then again with and eye towards the public interest and “Unity” requirement in time of war.
9. The Judicial system should take utmost careful steps and appear to the public as balanced as possible. This system should see just and balance as its utmost goal and not let strange consideration being involved in judicial decisions. Unfortunately that is not the case in some instances.
10. The IDF is the only barrier between free Jewish, democratic, existing at all Israel and total disaster and elimination. Nevertheless, just watch the demonization many of our media means are performing against the young soldiers that were send by our legitimate democratic system to do their job and protecting us all. Remember the same demonization done against the American soldiers in Vietnam? If you think that the current Iraqi war is not related, think again, it is. We do not wish the same to happen here.

To summarize it all we could say that almost any debate, on any national issue is legitimate as long as it is done WITHIN the frame of the democratic system using democratic means.
If we to recognize those principle then the road is open for national unity while keeping the individual Human right intact within a reasonable range.

On its face the Supreme Court decision seems to be correct (considering the lack of precise details I have on the issue).

There is an interesting question arising from this decision.

By defining the principle of “Weight” to security measure the Supreme Court put itself, practically, as the ultimate guardian of the Israel’s security.
Though the court asserted that the security decision is yet stayed with the military commander, the court practically took the Israeli security measures in his own very hands.

This situation may get into a bizarre turn. For example: the next killing/murder along the rout of road 443, whose responsibility is that? The Supreme Court perhaps?...and if then, is the judges are to be sentence as an accessory for murder?

Another bizarre turn? Any military activity or The “Fence” rout should go first to the Supreme Court review prior to its execution.

The implication from this Supreme Court decision may alter, practically, the ultimate, Long run security of the Israeli public and eventually may put under question the very existence of the state of Israel.

The solution: The Israeli Knesset, as the Israeli ULTIMATE RULER should define the boundaries, by law, between the Army/military decisions and the Law system responsibility.

To those that making a correlation between road accidents and the security against terror act it should be said that if the road motorists were get on the road in the deliberate INTETION of killing their fellow motorists then you are correct…..
The same could be said about foods loaded with cholesterol or even smoking, it all should be examined to the light of the deliberate, innocent or criminal intention behind the act of the initiators.

That exactly is the difference between our activity against the terror and the terror itself. On it face we both killing people/civilians of the other side, regretfully even kids. The difference, then again, is in the deliberate intention behind…We do not have it, they do.

After reading the actual verdict (Brought by “Easy”) of the Supreme Court on the issue I can not get away of the feeling that the verdict was done the way it was done in order to get in line with the expected (against Israel) verdict of the International court in Hague due two weeks from now.

The nice words about the “court sensitivity for Israel security needs” came to satisfy Israeli readers, the final verdict result came to satisfy International readers, this and that are not entirely related to our security needs.