The Supreme Court of Israel is forcing a modification in the security fence that was designed to increase the comfort of those who have made it necessary to build such a fence, while decreasing the comfort and right to life of those who need the fence to protect them from marauding bands of Islamofacist murderers. An Artuz Sheva article presented the logic that led this Court to defend the "rights" of the enemy in lieu of its own citizens: "The Supreme Court ruled that maximum security can't come at the expense of the people, and therefore there must be only an 'appropriate' measure of security."
Does this Supreme Court ever go beyond the dictates of those around the world to embrace reality, or does this court suffer from some form of mental deterioration? Does this court really take the time to consider the logic that they allowed to become rule of law, or do they just bend over backwards to appease those who have little or no interest in the rights and security of Israeli citizens?
The court's logic that apparently blossomed into this rather masochistic ruling stated, "maximum security can't come at the expense of the people". This conclusion or logic, in the face of war and terror, does not appear to reflect the kind of thought that is rational or sensible. Who are these "people" that the court is willing to defend? It appears that this court is less concerned about the security of the "people" (Israelis) who pay the judges' salaries, than the people (Arab terrorists and their supporters) who kill the people who pay their salaries. Is there something wrong with this picture? Is somebody trying to exercise some kind of twisted notion of equality or fairness in favor of an enemy dedicated to destroying the Jewish nation and its people?
It appears that the "people" the Court is losing sleep over are the very people who contribute to, encourage, support or carryout beheadings, shootings of mothers and their daughters at close range, launching of rockets against kindergarten children (killing one such child), suicide bombings, and the mastering of all manner of satanic-like ritual slaughter designed to destroy Israeli citizens. It seems that the Supreme Court of Israel, along with many from across the Israeli political spectrum, but especially from the Left, are willing to sacrifice the lives of Israeli citizens to make others in the world comfortable; how generous, how noble and how heroic.
Was this judicial decision just an act of outright cowardice, and/or an obsessive dedication to the Left's nearly insane ideas about how to achieve peace with an enemy that prefers genocide against Jews? I think that anyone with a clear mind knows that one of the motivating forces behind the court's decision to make Israel's enemies comfortable, at the expense of the comfort of Israeli citizenry, is to a great degree an appeasement of many in the Bush Administration in the US (recently having expressed concern about the difficulties that Israel's security fence posed for Palestinians), and also it was designed to provide comfort to the likes of the UN and most of the EU - others who are more concerned with Arab discomfort than the Israeli right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If I am not grossly mistaken, was it not an appeasement model by Jewish leaders and citizens, in Germany and elsewhere, coupled with the "wisdom"/cowardice of others around the world, that turned Jews into smoke and lampshades in the mid-20th Century? What in G-d's name has occurred over the past 70 or so years to suggest that appeasing the Palestinians and making them more comfortable and well-to-do (medical care, education, financial help, etc.) will bring peace, security and comfort to Israel or anyone else? Was it appeasement that removed a brutal dictatorship from Iraq? Certainly not! The more that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were appeased by the world, the more he used the appeasement to advance his nefarious plans, and the more corrupt became the dealings between him and the UN/EU. Was it the appeasement of Hitler's imperialism by the Britain that reduced the threat of Nazism? Is it wise, intellectually sound, or rational to pet and comfort a rabid animal with one hand while your other hand is in the animal's mouth?
Yet, the Supreme Court of Israel, in its infinite "wisdom" has seen fit to comfort the enemy of Israel at the expense of its own citizenry. Is this an example of humanitarianism, and if so, where is the humanitarianism for the Israeli Jews, who may very well be torn to pieces by suicide bombers and by other forms of Arab terror, when the security fence/wall is compromised by those who are more concerned about Arab discomfort than about Israelis mourning the loss of their children, their parents, friends and relatives?
Remember, it was one of the most effective strategies of Nazism to remove the rights of German Jews, methodically, with the help of many Jews, that reduced the Jews of Germany into sheep-like beings - bewildered, fearful, ready to appease at any cost, and finally vulnerable enough to be herded "peacefully" into the gas chambers and ovens. I understand that there are those in the UN proposing that Israel shed itself of other forms of security or deterrent force. Will the Supreme Court of Israel be ready to appease the UN and others by eliminating other forms of security and deterrence, which prevent Israel from moving one step closer to a final demise? History does have a funny way of repeating itself when its lessons are not learned, and fools keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
Does this Supreme Court ever go beyond the dictates of those around the world to embrace reality, or does this court suffer from some form of mental deterioration? Does this court really take the time to consider the logic that they allowed to become rule of law, or do they just bend over backwards to appease those who have little or no interest in the rights and security of Israeli citizens?
The court's logic that apparently blossomed into this rather masochistic ruling stated, "maximum security can't come at the expense of the people". This conclusion or logic, in the face of war and terror, does not appear to reflect the kind of thought that is rational or sensible. Who are these "people" that the court is willing to defend? It appears that this court is less concerned about the security of the "people" (Israelis) who pay the judges' salaries, than the people (Arab terrorists and their supporters) who kill the people who pay their salaries. Is there something wrong with this picture? Is somebody trying to exercise some kind of twisted notion of equality or fairness in favor of an enemy dedicated to destroying the Jewish nation and its people?
It appears that the "people" the Court is losing sleep over are the very people who contribute to, encourage, support or carryout beheadings, shootings of mothers and their daughters at close range, launching of rockets against kindergarten children (killing one such child), suicide bombings, and the mastering of all manner of satanic-like ritual slaughter designed to destroy Israeli citizens. It seems that the Supreme Court of Israel, along with many from across the Israeli political spectrum, but especially from the Left, are willing to sacrifice the lives of Israeli citizens to make others in the world comfortable; how generous, how noble and how heroic.
Was this judicial decision just an act of outright cowardice, and/or an obsessive dedication to the Left's nearly insane ideas about how to achieve peace with an enemy that prefers genocide against Jews? I think that anyone with a clear mind knows that one of the motivating forces behind the court's decision to make Israel's enemies comfortable, at the expense of the comfort of Israeli citizenry, is to a great degree an appeasement of many in the Bush Administration in the US (recently having expressed concern about the difficulties that Israel's security fence posed for Palestinians), and also it was designed to provide comfort to the likes of the UN and most of the EU - others who are more concerned with Arab discomfort than the Israeli right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If I am not grossly mistaken, was it not an appeasement model by Jewish leaders and citizens, in Germany and elsewhere, coupled with the "wisdom"/cowardice of others around the world, that turned Jews into smoke and lampshades in the mid-20th Century? What in G-d's name has occurred over the past 70 or so years to suggest that appeasing the Palestinians and making them more comfortable and well-to-do (medical care, education, financial help, etc.) will bring peace, security and comfort to Israel or anyone else? Was it appeasement that removed a brutal dictatorship from Iraq? Certainly not! The more that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were appeased by the world, the more he used the appeasement to advance his nefarious plans, and the more corrupt became the dealings between him and the UN/EU. Was it the appeasement of Hitler's imperialism by the Britain that reduced the threat of Nazism? Is it wise, intellectually sound, or rational to pet and comfort a rabid animal with one hand while your other hand is in the animal's mouth?
Yet, the Supreme Court of Israel, in its infinite "wisdom" has seen fit to comfort the enemy of Israel at the expense of its own citizenry. Is this an example of humanitarianism, and if so, where is the humanitarianism for the Israeli Jews, who may very well be torn to pieces by suicide bombers and by other forms of Arab terror, when the security fence/wall is compromised by those who are more concerned about Arab discomfort than about Israelis mourning the loss of their children, their parents, friends and relatives?
Remember, it was one of the most effective strategies of Nazism to remove the rights of German Jews, methodically, with the help of many Jews, that reduced the Jews of Germany into sheep-like beings - bewildered, fearful, ready to appease at any cost, and finally vulnerable enough to be herded "peacefully" into the gas chambers and ovens. I understand that there are those in the UN proposing that Israel shed itself of other forms of security or deterrent force. Will the Supreme Court of Israel be ready to appease the UN and others by eliminating other forms of security and deterrence, which prevent Israel from moving one step closer to a final demise? History does have a funny way of repeating itself when its lessons are not learned, and fools keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.