I just read an editorial in US News & World Report, August 2 2004, by M. Zuckerman that struck a nerve, so I must comment. The article is a story justifying Israel's construction of a security barrier around the West Bank. What strikes a nerve with me is not that the author portrays one side as a benign host and benefactor who is only responding to the security needs of it's citizens, in stark contrast to the other sides' violent and corrupt nature. What strikes a nerve is the typical one-sided defense of a single group based on over-simplifications of the current situation and the complete lack of reference to how the current situation came to exist. That is to say: propoganda. The Editor-In-Chief of this respected periodical unfairly used his podium for defenseless propoganda.

The central position of the editorial is that the International Court in The Hauge Netherlands ruled that the wall is illegal, and a hindrance to a Palestinian state, without understanding it's nature as security device and that Israel has been more than fair and patient in dealing with the Palestinian body politik. The three claims made in supporting the argument is that Palestinians are inherently terrorists and cannot form a stable government on their own, that Israel needs a deterrent to prevent the Palestinian terrorists from endangering it's citizens, and that Israel's supreme court offered evidence that they will overrule security actions when it encroaches on the best interests of Palestinian farmers by moving where the wall will run.

First off, I do not deny that the citizens of Israel have a right to self-determination and self-protection. In other words, the right to form a national government whose primary objective is to provide for the security needs of it's constituents. To put it as succintly as possible, I do not deny that Israel has a right to exist, nor do I deny that Israel has the righ to protect itself. One cannot deny that a group of individuals with a common heritage and ethnicity exists on the ground in that part of the world. Consequently, they have the right to form a legislative institution that enacts laws and social programs that benefit and improve their society. Arguing against this is akin to ethnic cleansing carried out with dictatorial authoritarianism.

The above having been established, the same logic must be applied to the Palestinians. My counter position to the Editor's statement is that it is exactly this denial of the right of a Palestinian state to exist and the denial of the right of the Palestinian state to self-improvement that leads to conditions supportive of the Editor's first two arguments in support of his position. Unfortunately, I must look at the long and complex social situation that led to the instability in the Palestinian region to defend my position.