In the Letters to the Editor section of the New York Times of July 22, Mubashir Hassan argues, regarding Israel's justification for its security wall, that "One can argue similarly that if there were no occupation, there would be no terror"
He thus ignores the fact that even before Israel was accused of being an "occupier" in administering the disputed territories post-1967, there was Arab terror, which, between 1949-1967, was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis.
His suggestion that Israel should erect a wall "on its own land and not on land belonging to the Palestinians" is insidious because until 1967, all the land that was then Israel was claimed by the Arab Palestinians, Israel having no right to exist.
Moreover, one needs to follow Hassan's path backwards. Since indeed there was Arab terror prior to the so-called "occupation", the ending of such, including dismantlement of Jewish civilian communities, etc., will not bring about peace. For if the terror existed, which it most certainly did, and the "occupation" didn't, what else, then, was causing the terror? The very existence of the state of Israel! What "Palestine" were Arabs trying to "liberate" prior to 1967 if not the state of Israel?