Okay, let's nuance this one. It is legitimate self-defense AND a barrier to peace. Agreed. Can anyone articulate Kerry's expected handling of this situation? He contradicted himself, no he didn't. Who cares? Where does he stand? What's his voting record? American jews should want to know.

This isn't a contradiction. The barrier being erected along the green line divding the West Bank from Israel proper is a barrier to peace and it is an act of self-defense. The legitimacy of the wall is questionable however, being that the precise location of the boundary is rather arbitrary and varient according to the interests of the Israelis rather than taking into account Palestinian land claims. Ironically enough, this wall actually will make Israel even less safe in the long run. By cutting off the Palestinian economy, they're breeding a huge social crisis in the Arab communities that is going to spill out in the form of terrorism and potentially all out war if external political circumstances merit it. Israel has every right to defend herself, but the regime they have in place essentially encourages an apartheid regime. Likud's ultimate goal is the establishment and preservation of a Jewish state, but history reveals that when they've occupied the land of Israel, they have always had to co-exist with others, that's the nature of living in the Middle East. A wall cannot keep terrorists out because they live all over Israel proper. That barrier only divides families and property, and it puts a stranglehold on the Palestinian economy, thus creating more poverty and repression, the two immediate causes of the Intifada. This isn't a political or even a security/military solution; walls have always failed in their objective, from the Great Wall of China to the Berlin Wall. Bottom line, the Palestinians and the Israelis have to learn how to deal with each other and not allow extremist elements within their political establishments get the best of the situation.

One can't be the other when defining yourself on this issue as a candidate for the presidency. Those two descriptions contradict one another. On one hand it's a barrier to peace, and on the other it is self-defense, yes. As a candidate, however, you can't lean one way and then the other. It causes you to appear indecisive, and that is not a sign of an effective leader.

I happen to agree that it IS a legitimate act of self-defense.. AND a barrier to peace. One does not negate the other.