The Economist - Israel's security barrier. A safety measure or a land grab?

I took some amount of crap a while back for saying that terrorism was popular among the general Palestinian population. I don't think this is controversial anymore. Certainly, unquestionably, terrorism is popular among the Palestinian leadership and officialdom. There is no discernible peace party in the West Bank or Gaza, and terrorist leaders mix more or less freely with gen pop.

Unless we take the highly unrealistic position that Israel should not target terrorist leaders, then we have to accept that Israel is treating the West Bank and Gaza far more kindly than the Union treated the Confederacy. If the situations are not both civil wars under the conventional definition, I'd like to know what else would qualify.

So, taking the land might be a crime. But it's as legal as it could possibly be, because the intifada gives the IDF legal carte blanche to seize whatever they please in the name of security. We can debate the moral and strategic necessity of those moves, of course. Certainly putting civilian settlements in the West Bank and Gaza in the name of "security" doesn't pass the laugh test.

But that's not the point. Palestine is fighting a particularly vicious uprising while simultaneously asking for quarter from their alleged fascist, genocidal opponents is not just low comedy. It gives Israel a blanket justification for everything short of outright genocide, as well as zero incentive to show good faith.

Which is why I think the fence is a brilliant idea. If the West Bank doesn't want to lose land for its potential state, then it can sit and negotiate. Otherwise, this is the probably the kindest outcome of the sort of war they've been fighting.

 

I think you have your cause and effect reversed. There is no Palestinian peace party because it can't be reasonably argued that negotiation with this Israeli government would produce any benefit. It is weakness and desperation that makes terrorism popular among a general population.

As long as Israel has the economic and military choke hold on the West Bank and Gaza that it does now, the greater responsibility for peace will always fall on the Israeli government. The only choices the Palestinians have are about responding to situations that they don't control. It is truly unfortunate that the various power centers in the West Bank and Gaza have made some bad choices, but Isreal hasn't left them many good ones.

 

To be fair, Israel is not alone in its "choke hold" on the Palestinian people. Arafat, the PA and the surrounding Arab nations have done their share to keep the Palestinians in a perpetual "refugee" state. As long as it serves their purposes, you will not see Palestinian refugee camps turning into permanent settlements, nor opposition groups demanding cooperation with Israel.

 

With great power comes great responsibility.

You are, of course, absolutely right. However, Israel clearly has the greatest amount of power, and therefore, the greatest amount of responsibility for moving towards a peaceful settlement.

 

Re: With great power comes great responsibility.

I'll buy that. I do believe the situation would improve if Israeli leadership felt that way too. However, they always manage to get suckered into berzerker rages instead.

 

History and the governments of Egypt and Jordan would disagree with this statement.

 

Re: Re: The Economist - Israel's security barrier. A safety measure or a land grab?

A point that seems to be forgotten by the anti-Israel people. Adding to it is the fact that the Palestinians will not stop the suicide bombers for any serious length of time and see if Israel is serious about the peace process.

 

Please note that I said this Isreali government. Not only was I alive, but I was paying attention when the events you refer to took place. Even though it was a Likud government that negotiated the Camp David accords, it wasn't Ariel Sharon's government, and it wasn't the same coalition of parties. Sharon also has an obvious personal animus towards Arafat that colors everything he does with regard to the Palestinians. He also has a history that suggests he doesn't believe in negotiating unless it's defined as him dictating terms.

 

It wasn't Sharon's government, but Sharon was part of that government. In fact, it was Ariel Sharon who oversaw the evacuation of the Sinai settlements, crucial to the implementation of the peace accord.

Before signing, Begin needed assurances from Sharon that the settlements could be evacuated. Had Sharon wanted to derail a peace agreement, he could have simply said "No can do, chief." It was Sharon's promise, backed up by Sharon's actions, that allowed Camp David to be signed.

I've never really been a big fan of Sharon, and still am not. Nevertheless, he was crucial to the success of the Camp David accords.

As for Sharon's animus toward Arafat, that animus is shared by virtually every Israeli at this point. Even "Peace Now" types recognize that Arafat is a) a compulsive liar, b) one of the most corrupt "government officials" on the planet, and c) not competant to plan a picnic, much less implement a peace treaty.

The question is no longer "do you negotiate with Arafat?" The questions are, 1) if Arafat is around, can one still negotiate with other officials without the Egyptian born "leader" of the Palestinians screwing things up, and 2) If he is gone, would there be resulting anarchy and infighting that would be worse.

In any event, there is no serious dealing with this guy. The fact that he says "I support the Geneva accord" is meaningless. That being said, no Israeli official has presented a credible alternative. About all you hear are Avignor Liberman's "bomb the Aswan dam" and Effi Eitam's "transfer to Jordan" proposals. Neither of those have exactly inspired the Israeli public.

 

If anyone even looks at maps in either Palestine or the Middle East, they would notice that it doesn't show the state of Isreal. This has nothing to do with a Palestinian state.

Any independent Palestinian state would also mean that they would forever abandon any claims to land before the 1948 Arab Invasion.

Yasser has done a great deal to screw his people, and he isn't finished yet.

 

So removing him is bad why? Let's hear it gang, don't let me down.........

 

Imaginary lines of a state that currently doesn't exist (and never has in countless millenia)?

 

There is only one reason why forcing Arafat out is a bad idea, but it's a deal breaker, unless of course you see the Palestinians as a sub-human nuisance, as many rabid pro-Israel types seem to.

Ousting Arafat will do absolutely nothing to increase the chances for peace unless there is no visible participation by Israel and the USA. Otherwise, he will become at worst a martyr figure and at best a strenghthened focus of anti-Israel sentiment.

But this thread isn't about Arafat and his numerous failings, it's about the much greater obstacles to peace that are Ariel Sharon, the settlers and this security fence. You can try and hijack this thread all you like, but it won't change the fact that Ariel Sharon has far more power to move towards or away from peace than Arafat ever had.

Irrelevant non-sequitur. There is now a distinct Palestinian people, and unless you plan to blame the majority of them who are under 25 for events that took place before they were born, then they deserve an economically viable state.

 

They may or may not "deserve" a state, but until that happens one is not obligated to include that in A F-ING MAP.

 

Re: Re: Re: The Economist - Israel's security barrier. A safety measure or a land grab?

As they should, but they're occupied from Jordan and Egypt, not a fictitious Palestinian state.

 

If a "Palestinian" state is supposed to exist (which never has) then it would have to include Jewish people as part of it's population. "Palestinians" are not purely Arab or Muslim.

No one can come up with what defines a true "Palestinian", if there is such a thing.

 

Yet another irrelevant non-sequitur.

I think you're dead wrong on that one. The people who fled Isreal in 1948, along with their decendents, are Palestinians, as are the other people who were living in the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. As I freely conceded earlier, these people had no distinct identity before 1948, but recent history has certainly given them one. The argument that Israel's arab neighbors should have excepted them as citizens has always been a false one. Not only did Israel (by which I mean the government and the army) forcibly eject a significant fraction of them, but for Egypt, Syria et al to accept them permanently would have been to concede the very point they were trying to make. Regardless of the ethical details, it was never going to happen.

So, we are left with a situation in which there are a couple million people who regard themselves as Palestinians but who are governed by a state that defines itself as Jewish and that has shown little or no interest in the economic or political welfare of Palestinians. In the long run, their animus towards Israel will only be defused when they are no longer impoverished non-citizens of a country they don't regard as their own or when they are fully assimilated into the state of Israel, and which do you think is more likely in any of our lifetimes?

 

Re: Re: The Economist - Israel's security barrier. A safety measure or a land grab?

I feel the same way about "black" people...sigh...