McQ, over at Q&O, makes mention of a Jeff Robbins bit in the Boston Globe today, and notes:

“Peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict requires both sides to work toward it. The Palestinians have shown very little if any desire to participate in such a process. They’ve done little to stop attacks against Israelis. This unwillingness on their part to stop the violence leaves little in the way of choices for Israel.”

If you need confirmation of McQ’s statements, might I suggest a look down a couple posts to a picture of a couple small Palestinian boys, about 8 to 10 years of age, with AK 47’s… at the Palestinian version of the Summer camp..

Dick Morris, in his column in the NY Post this morning, agrees:

“The fact is that a multilateral peace in the Middle East is clearly impossible. At the end of his tenure, President Bill Clinton negotiated a treaty with very generous terms only to watch it be rejected by Yasser Arafat and the PLO delegation. It is fanciful to believe that the cessation of a few miles of territory to an independent Palestinian state is going to prevent suicide bombings and other acts of terror by deranged fanatics.

Nor is it realistic to expect to deter suicide bombers by threatening to kill them. Unilateral Israel military action, occupying Palestinian territory and rooting around for terrorists, just antagonizes the world and does little to protect Israel or deter attacks.

A fence, which I have urged for years, is the best ? and only ? way to protect Israel. It is a unilateral way to make peace. ”

Peter Berkowitz, in a Weekly Standard column of last March, makes the point that the fence is one thing that the wildly divided Israeli voters, agree upon.

“IN ISRAELI POLITICS, contentiousness is the norm and consensus is rare. This makes all the more striking the broad and deep consensus that has formed among Israelis around the conviction that the country, without delay, must complete the construction of the security fence separating it from the West Bank and the Palestinians who live there.

The cause of the consensus is terror. In the old days, before September 2000, it was a mark of the country’s national security challenge that almost every adult Israeli had served in the military, and every Israeli had friends and loved ones in the army. These days, the distinguishing mark of the country’s national security challenge is something grimmer: Almost every Israeli knows somebody who has been wounded, maimed, or blown to bits by a suicide bomber. For Israelis, the front line is now at home, and it is this transformation of their struggle with the Palestinians that has produced an overwhelming majority–perhaps two thirds of the citizenry–in favor of the security fence.”

And the fence is performing to expectations, as Morris notes:

“No Israeli has been killed in a terrorist attack in an area where the fence has been completed in all of 2004 and terrorist attacks are down substantially from the rate of previous years.”

So, what’s the International Court’s problem? Apparently, the idea that Israel can defend herself. But think, now… Isn’t this the same end of the world political spectrum who along with their amen chorus in the Democratic Party, here in the States, can’t figure out why Americans would want, much less use, their second amendment rights?

McQ addresses this concern rather well, suggesting in part that:

“This travesty points to why it is so important that the US retain its sovereignty and reject such institution as the International Court. The concept of a “fair and benevolent world government” may be an enticing utopian vision, but current attempts fall far short of that goal. Justice demands equal treatment, fairness and impartiality. It demands that the arguments of both sides be heard and weighed and a fair decision be rendered. It requires that the political realm be banished from that of justice.

The current International Court decision against Israel’s fence points to an international institution that is not ready for prime time and does not deserve to be supported by the US. The IC chose politics over justice, and that’s simply unacceptable. The decision also underscores the fact that the US should continue to resist participation in or submission to the rulings of such institutions. ”

Amen, McQ.
But let’s also remember, that there is one Presidential candidate who wants us to become more subservient to this travesty called the ‘International Court”…. John Kerry.

Oh… Maybe it’s the Palestinian leadership who wants Kerry in and Bush out… The ones who since the 9/11 attacks have killed over 1000 people… And are now training the kids in the picture I’ve posted below….Perhaps THOSE are the leaders he spoke of and never identified, huh?