On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, SA wrote:
> You think Rahm Emanuel would publicly declare that the route of Israel's
> fence is unacceptable because it leads to the annexation of Palestinian
> territory?
The passage you quoted from Peace Now didn't say anything like that:
> Peace Now supports Israel's right to build a security fence along the
> Green Line. However the actual fence continues to be constructed deep
> within Palestinian territory. The current route of the fence is intended
> to destroy all chances of a future peace settlement with the
> Palestinians and to annex as much land as possible from the West Bank.
> Thus the method of creating facts on the ground by annexing land to
> existing settlements continues, this time by using the route of the
> fence. The current fence may currently save lives of Israelis but in the
> long run will only deepen the conflict between the two peoples.
In other words, they are arguing for a fence that steals less territory. They aren't even explicitly calling for it to to track the Green Line. Just that it should not go "deep." And they aren't opposing it on justice grounds, but purely on the efficiency grounds that a better fence would be more efficient in lessening conflict.
Never mind Rahm, that's the official position of the Bush adminstration. So is opposing settlement expansion.
I think you overestimate Peace Now's radicalness.
Michael