The Israeli Security Fence
(archived broadcast 
)
It is credited with a four-month lull in terrrorist attacks, saving hundreds of lives. Not a single terrorist has gotten past the fence, and more than 80% of Israelis support it. But the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered that the route of the fence take into account Palestinian property concerns. And the United Nations’ World Court — a political body controlled by the UN General Assembly — has ruled that the fence must be taken down completely.
What is the history, the facts, the law behind the fence? How does it compare with other border fences? Is it justified to block a farmer from his orange grove to save hundreds of lives? If not, is there a better solution?
What are your views on the Israeli security fence, the UN security fence, the US-Mexican border fence and other border fences around the world?
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
steve June 24, 2005 11:44 am
My personal view of the Wall is that it is a poor choice for dealing with security problems. An equitable peace agreement would be much better. The wall was unanimously condemned by the ICJ at the Hague as illegal under international law and a gross human rights violation. Even the US Judge, a man of Jewish background, concurred with many of the legal arguments of his peers but refused to vote with them on the technical grounds that the ICJ was beyond its legal competence in making many of its judgements. The Wall cuts deep into Palestinian territory and makes those caught between it and the green line aliens in their own homes subject to permits and constant survaillance. They have lost access to land, jobs, businesses, and other property. The wall is three and one half the length of the green line itself and will ultimately and effectively absorb more than the 8% of Arab land claimed by Sharon. Ultimately it will impose a unilateral final status on the Israel/Palestine border and create a large discontiguous cluster of bantustans in about half the total area of the West Bank as intended by its Israeli advocates.
Juniper July 28, 2004 3:18 am
I grew up thinking that homes with large pourches and encouragement of interaction with the people walking by created a stronger community. Fences are a symbol of fear and weakness in the entire human race. When we continue to section ourselves off from each other we encourage and foster the lack of tolerance of others. The fences around our homes here in America are strongest indicator of the unrest of a supposedly peaceful society. How can we begin to educate ourselves enough of our neigbors so that we can understand and respect them as we need them to respect us.
Overwhelming power inspires terrorism. Fences encourage intorlerance
Gen. Custer July 23, 2004 8:59 am
Injuns could never understand how the white-man could put lines on a piece of paper and call the land his
John Rybon July 22, 2004 5:15 pm
Mark, Good For You for tackling this issue. Unfortunately you missed the heart of the debate: Noone disputes the right to build a wall, but rather WHERE. Anger is created when one country takes land from the other.
The Crazy Cat Man July 22, 2004 2:08 pm
Ben, your desperation is showing–you seem to feel the need to find weapons of mass destruction–GW has already by-passed this requisite for war–Saddam is a bad guy, a very,very bad guy–remember–the world is safer without him–the world is safer with a Saddam-less Iraq–America is safer–Ben, don’t you feel safer–oh, by the way–all Republicans are being ordered to register with the Department of Defense for Baghdad convoy duty–don’t you feel safer, Ben? I’m a PTSD, agorophobic, manic-depressive, and I feel about the same–welcome to my world.