Oh my gawwd...New Republic says the Wall is necessary in Israel

OK people...I have written about the evils of the New Republic. If anything, they are probably Republican, not Democrat.

Well, what do they have on their website? That the wall is sad, but necessary.

OK People, these people are supposed to be the liberal counterpart to the National Review?

They are just too stupid. They have idiots like Andrew Sullivan who screams off his head but wouldn't be able to think because his head is shoved so far up his a$$.

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20031110&s=halevi111003
(paid subscription only)

JERUSALEM DISPATCH
Fenced In
by Yossi Klein Halevi

Post date 11.05.03 | Issue date 11.10.03
The fence that Israel is building along the length of the West Bank should appall me. Fencing in the Jewish state, after all, mocks Zionism's promise to free the Jews from the ghetto. And fencing out the Arab world violates the hope that Israel will one day find a cultural and spiritual place in the Middle East--a hope that once took me on a yearlong pilgrimage into mosques in Israel and the West Bank, as a way of connecting to my neighbors' prayer lives. The fence ends more than three decades of Israeli attempts to reach out to the Middle East, from the "open bridges" policy across the Jordan River in the 1970s to the "good fence" on the northern border in the 1980s, through which Lebanese workers daily crossed into Israel. Finally, as a Jordanian acquaintance sympathetic to Israel recently warned me, the fence actually reduces Israel's deterrence by sending a message of weakness to the Arab world, reinforcing the popular Arab notion that Israel's demise is just a matter of time....

A necessary part of Sharon's plan to annex most of the occupied territories, that is. With our money.

that one day the Wall will be unnecessary. but for now, doesn't it beat having little Israeli children blown up, and Palestinian juveniles blowing themselves up? when the Arabs are willing to live in peace with Israel, and give up their hopeless demand to remake the Jewsih state into an Islamic theocracy, then the Wall can come down. Mr. Arafat, tear down this Wall!!

...if it was built on Israeli land. But that is not the case.

Don

the wall.

I think it is nessecary to help stop killing (and maybe will get some settlers back in to israel proper.)
If i lived in israel, i would want the wall.

The reaction would be the same. Many in the Palestinian and Arab worlds consider ALL of Israel to be Palestinian land. Even if Israel built the wall along the Green Line, there would be pressure to allow travel from Gaza to the West Bank and back. Until there is peace, there should be no such travel and no Palestinian visits or work visas into Israel.

about where the wall is. When I first heard of it, I thought (stupid me) that Israel would build it on Israeli land, to separate themselves from Palestinian land. After all, that's what the Warsaw Pact did when building the Berlin Wall. Fair enough, I thought. Sad it has to be that way, but it's a pragmatic solution to infiltration.

Then it turned out to be a buttress to the settlements, ruining Palestinian crop land, and dividing Palestinian farmers from their fields. It really was when I saw where it was being built that I was convinced that there can never be peace or fairness while Sharon is in power in Israel. I so desperately hope he'll be arrested for corruption, and thrown out in disgrace. He's worse than Bush.

Imagine if Khrushchev and UlbrichtÊhad tried to build the Berlin Wall annexing 55% of the UK, French and US territory into the Soveit sphere.
The reaction of Kennedy would have been interesting, to say the least.

because they become flamefests. Here goes, anyway. :) I agree with you about "No matter where it was built" the reaction would be the same. Except, I think the Israeli's would be so much better off if they built the wall along the Green Line and called the bluff of the Palestinians. THEN, what would the argument be against Israel? Call their bluff. Give them back the land. Do everything except grant "right of return" (that would be suicide for Israel) and show the rest of the world, who is so hell bent on blaming Israel for everything, exactly what the Palestinians will do with their newfound victory. We already know there will be some "other" demand upon Israel...but show the world the result.

I also think Sharon needs to go. He's exasperating the situation. Anyone who supports Bush can't be a good leader for Israel. JMCPO

I hope people realize that the only reason the Chritian Right are supporting Israel is because they believe Israel must exist for the return of Christ and the Jews shall die unless they "walk with him"? Their reasons are sinister. Again, JMCPO

How many times do we have to go through this concession by the Israelis, war by the Arabs thing before peple learn that the Palestinians cannot be trusted, do not want peace?

The world will not see because the world does not want to see.

Though that has little relevance to this discussion....

too many damn times...unfortunately.

it seems to BE Israeli land. Israel will not, and cannot, go back to the 1967 borders. They have lost too many men to give up defensible borders for a PROMISE of peace. A promise from those who have again, and again, showed themselves to be liars of the same caliber as, say, George W. Bush.

Anyway, the Arabs, in this case, are the agressors, and the agressors should always be made to pay a price.

So we can all rest easy on that one.

women have equal rights, all citizens can vote, elections change the people in power. Muslims and Christians are free to practice their religion in Israel. This is not really the case elsewhere in the MidEast. The Isralies are not trying to kill thousands of Americans. Yes, I think that you are correct.

Would you favor a Christian theocracy in the US?
In the words of John Ashcroft - (In America) "We have no king but Jesus."
Of course Jews and Muslims would still be allowed to vote.

n/t

They are pro-choice, pro-gay neo-conservatives, which isn't a stretch, since the Republican neo-cons don't much care about these issues in the first place. Lieberman and Rumsfeld are united in their foreign policy perspectives, however, and New Republic is a neo-con agent in the Democratic Party.

last several years. The owners/managers of the magazine are staunch pro-Israel supporters, which at the moment, means they are also staunch Sharon/Likud supporters, which also means the support PNAC's ME plans, and also means they indirectly support Bush.

This is what I have been screaming about for months now here at DU! NR is not the exception to the rule either. Israel has many friends and supporters among this nation's media elite and ownership. It has led to a rightward tilt in their politics, and their reporting.

Combined with Israel's influence on our foreign policy (including the staunch pro-Israel neocons in PNAC), and on our Congress vis-a-vis their powerful PACS, like AIPAC, and with their friends in the media, "little" Israel is having a profound influence on this nation, and in my opinion, not a good influence either.

If these people have their way, Bush will be "re-elected" (Sharon calls Bush Israel's best friend ever!), they'll get the U.S. to invade Syria and expand its role in the ME even more, and get Congress to approve however many billions they ask for.

Did you know it is against our constitution to allow a foreign nation this much influence on our government?

"...A journal of politics and the arts. Liberal tradition though more recently has developed a neo-liberal bent."

"Marty" Peretz thinks the Palestinians should be turned into "just another crushed nation", like "the Kurds", because their plight is "beginning to be boring". :shrug:

With such a clusterfuck as editor, the articles they run ain't any surprise.

The New Republic became a right-wing Likud shill many years ago, when Marty Peretz took over. Where have you been?

Build the wall on Israel's real borders and dismantle the settlements and international sympathy for the Palestinians would fade. Then Israel could continue military operations against military targets, and mute any public outcry by saying "Hey, we complied with UN resolutions and gave Palestinians what they said they wanted. Now we're just defending ourselves."

Plus, contrary to Sharon's propaganda, there are some moderate Palestinians who would accept a two-state solution. Keeping Palestinians under occupation and in abject poverty only gives Hamas more recruits.

Expansion and annexation are not self-defense.

International sympathy for the Palestinians would fade if Israel did everything you said and they would still have suicided bombers killing Israelis. If that would stop (which I believe it would) then they would pretty much still have the sympathies of many people around the world IMHO

Subject line does not equal article headline/title.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground