Reply #51: What makes you think this? [View All]

It's not protecting Israelis, it's protecting settlements.

Why does one exclude the other? The fence has done an excellent job as a barrier to terrorism. Terrorist attacks have dropped almost 100% in the areas that the fence is erected.




The Israelis could be protected far better by a wall on Israeli territory, if they were willing to abandon the illegal settlements.

What makes you think so? How much better would the wall work than it is working now? (Would it block over 100% of terrorist attacks?)

The issue of the settlements is not going to be resolved as a rection to terrorism. The fact is that the settlements are not illegal and have been validated by the Palestinians via Oslo. Whether they will all stay or partially stay or whatever is to be decided by negotiations.

The fact that the wall has been built on Palestinian land is, I think, strong evidence that its route was chosen to cement the occupation, not to protect Israeli lives.

There is no such thing as Palestinian land. The west bank is unclaimed territory right now. The route was chosen to encompass as many Israeli citizens as possible. I don't know what "cement the occupation" means. The issue of the settlements and of the future border has nothing to do with the fence. The fact that the fence encompasses areas where Israelis live seems to be pretty solid evidence that their main concern is protecting Israeli citizen's lives. If it was a land grab then why did they wait 40 years to do it?

Also, what would your view be on a non-Israeli nation adopting a policy of "kill or destroy the lives of as many Israelis as it takes to protect our property"?

I have no idea what this is referring to. The fence is entirely about protecting lives. If Israeli terrorists were infiltrating Jordan on a regular basis and they wanted to put up a fence that severly inconvenienced many Israelis they would still have the right to do so.