Israel and the wall

Great Debates
1

In light of the never ending discussion about the crisis in M E I am just wondering why Israel does not try build the security wall around its 1967 Green Line (not an inch inside the Occupied Territories). Erect the wall around its 67 border, pull back the settlements, pull back the troops, and keep a tight watch on it. Sit tight and see how things work out after that.

Now I know this seems too simplistic. But it would be difficult to argue that in this case, Israel can really show that it wants peace and that what it really wants is to protect itself. Israel can then isolate itself from its enemy totally. With the wall built around its 67 borders, international community shouldn’t have as much ammo to criticize as it is not encroaching on the Occupied Territories.

Let the Palestinians have their own state and see how things develop. With its superior technology and military, it should not be too difficult to secure the wall. This can be done unilaterally and it would somewhat show the Arab world that Israel isn’t in the land grab mode as it is perceived in the Arab world.

I do realize things are more complicated and this mess is probably unsolvable. But why not just float this idea and put the ball in the Palestinian’s court. Show them Israel is content with its current territory and is willing to defend it at all cost, yet it does not want anymore bloodshed.

2

It’s a land grab. Israel will never be content until it controls all the land it says God gave them. Regardless of who lives on it.

3

Such discontent is matched, if not exceeded, by Palestinians who’d like to see the Jewish population exterminated.

4

Agreed… But the Palestinians are not matched very equally.

But that still doesn’t give the Israeli’s the right.

5

But why not float this idea around? Build the wall within the 67 border and show that Israel does have good intentions. Security with the wall and the tight military patrol around it is not that inconceivable to achieve. If any country can do it, surely Israel can. I think that type of isolation wouldn’t be so offensive to the international community and it can show that Israel does want peace.

6

The '67 borders don’t include East Jerusalem, though, and Israel isn’t about to give control of East Jerusalem up. The '67 borders also result in Israel having a very narrow ‘waist’ which, in the event of another outright war with neighboring Arab states, leaves the country very vulnerable to being cut in two. So I doubt the Israelies would be willing to return to those borders for security reasons as well as religious ones.

7

The '67 border is very difficult to defend as it makes it easy for hostile forces to cut the country in half.

Marc

8

Sharon can’t even pull out of Gaza (even given a variety of assurances by the US that go beyond anything given in the past) without his own party revolting on him. On the other side of politics, Barak’s 2000 peace plan was widely cited as a colossal compromise / back-down on the Israeli side, but even this involved Israel hanging on to some post-67 territory, including some settlement areas, some of East Jerusalem (very complicated) and some semi-held ‘security zones’.

Noone in mainstream Israeli politics is advocating a total pull-out from all the occupied territories. It would be political suicide for any Israeli leader.

9

Because good intentions are completely useless in the Middle East.

Personally, I think a better Israeli strategy would be to offer high- and trade-school educations free of charge to every Palestinian woman. That’ll put a dent in the macho bullshit.

10

\

You know what gives Israel the right? Victory. If you try to kill me and I beat you up and take your coat, do you really think that I’m going to be inclined to give it back? Ha.

11

That begs the question, who those hostiles forces be? is not as if such forces would spontaneously appear following a withdrawal; besides, in the past conflicts Israel has shown good kick-ass skills to repel agressions, and that was before they got nukes…
Who would, then, be willing to start a fight against very effective military, backed up by the largest military and equiped with nukes? Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, who´s willing to take the risk of nuclear war?

12

No, but given the past behavior of their neighbors I don’t see them going back to the '67 borders. They may not launch an attack tomorrow but what about 10 years down the road?

Marc

13

What if you stole the coat in the first place?

14

Unfortunately, jayjay, the Jews didn’t “steal” anything. They were placed there. The disinfranchisement of the Palestinians was not the fault of Israel, and since that was as much their homeland as anyone else’s, they had a claim anyway (albeit disputed).

Don’t blame the dog for fighting back when he gets dropped in amongst the bulls.

15

I actually don’t have a side in this. The whole situation has me torn both ways. I can’t condone suicide bombings. But I think the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance based on how it all came down in 1948.

16

Trying to answer the original OP. Two main points:

  1. Unilateral withdrawal from all area taken in 1967 is not tenable for a variety of reasons: [ul][li]Real military strategy (the pre-1967 borders leave us with a country that is under 10 miles wide from sea to border at the narrowest point, which is smack dab in the middle, to boot; it also brings the border to within 15 miles of Tel-Aviv, and in a hilly terrain that offers a great observation platform for launching Katyushas and seeing where they hit).[]Political suicide - Sharon couldn’t even get the Likud party to agree to quitting Gaza, let alone all of the West Bank, including the old city of Jerusalem (add the pre-1967 border going through Jerusalem to the top bullet, too, by the way)[]Real-politik - You just don’t make your best and final offer before even sitting down to the negotiation table… building the Fence where we are is, on the whole, a ploy to tell the Palestinians “you had better come and negotiate in good faith, or we’re creating a new situation on the ground, and you won’t like it”[/ul][/li]
  2. The Palestinians aren’t accepting this as a valid solution, either. You’d think that they would welcome Isarel leaving Gaza - ALL of Gaza - as a good first step in the right direction, but noooooo… Much of the Palestinian leadership and population won’t accept less than the annihilation of Israel. That is the sad fact. Anything that goes toward creating a tenable situation in which Israel exists in (roughly) pre-1967 borders and they get their state on the rest is just not enough for them. Given that mood, what incentive does that give us to go the extra mile?

Also, these points are intertwined. Give good faith (that is - a real crackdown on terrorism, for starters) on the Palestinian side, get an Israeli public opinion far more amenable to making the tough compromises (as they are perceived) that it will take on our side. Give more suicide bombing, get an increasingly entrenched and right-wing Israeli public, and 50 more years of Likud…

Dani

17

The wall at this point, around the prison-town of Qualqilya, has already been built. Why spend so many billions of it is to be moved further West? Building the wall here appears to have discarded the “narrow point/military defensibility” argument once and for all.

If the path of the wall, by enclosing illegal settlements in the heart of the West Bank like Ariel, encompasses so much fertile land and water resources that any state would be non-viable, one can understand why this or any of other of “Barak’s Generous Offers”[sup]TM[/sup] is not enough.

18

Again, who would set forth an invasion that could probably end up on a (asimetrical) nuclear war? There´s not much to gain in that bargain, Muslim leaders in the region (I think) are not too happy with the idea of beign nuked, and the existance of Israel gives them a good political tool to rise support among the population. I can think of this as a Cuba-USA situation, the USA is not going to invade and depose Castro because electors at home are kept militant rallying against him behind the powers that be. So, since Cuba remains on it´s own soil, and doesn´t really do anything to the USA it´s a convinient, and tacit political tool.
That analogy sure enough has many holes, I´m just trying to convey the idea that, to muslim leaders Israel serves a purpose, they shout “we hate the zionists!!” and the people cheer, but I don´t see any leader starting a war that would wipe them off the face of Earth.
A withdrawal to the 1967 borders wouldn´t, probably have an immediate change on the animosity of the region towards Israel, there are enough hardcore militants that won´t consider that enough and wouldn´t like anything short of the extermination of the country. However, in the long run those extremists will see that their ranks grow thin, if you remove the most important irritation factor, the (illegal) occuptaion of Palestine and Israel simply let them be the Palestinians eventually won´t be inclined to blow thmselves up to fight a non-existant enemy

[QUOTE=Noone Special[/QUOTE]

Real military strategy (the pre-1967 borders leave us with a country that is under 10 miles wide from sea to border at the narrowest point, which is smack dab in the middle, to boot; it also brings the border to within 15 miles of Tel-Aviv, and in a hilly terrain that offers a great observation platform for launching Katyushas and seeing where they hit).

[QUOTE]

There´s always going to be an Israel city/settlement 15 miles off the border, and closer I would dare to say, unless you´re proposing the right to build a DMZ a la South/North Korea I don´t see how that premise holds.
Besides it´s interesant to see how the idea of Israel cut in the middle is presented as something mightly undesirable (understandably so) while that´s exactly what Israel has done with Palestine, not a possibility of a future event, it´s happening now, so go ahead and read mi sig and make the mental exercise.

I agree with you with most part of your post, it´s all political, but that leads to a conclussion: there´s a conflict, people are dieing everyday, the whole friggin region is a powder keg in great measure for that reason; yet the politicians (both sides) won´t take meaningful measures to end the conflict because it´s against their interests. How can that be defensible, scrap that, how can that be allowed?

19

Again, given the past history of invading neighbors I would not withdraw to the '67 borders. I’d want to maintain strength in order to prevent any of them from thinking they might have a chance of overrunning me. I would not rely on threat of nuclear retalitation alone. Nor would I rely on the “need” of certain mideast governments to use Israel as a scapegoat for reliable protection.

Israel has a past history of being invaded and doesn’t wish to be so vulnerable.

Israel has made honest efforts for peace while the Palestinians have not.

Marc

20

Attacking Arab countries knew about the nuclear reactor at Dimona during the '67 war and probably suspected they had nuclear weapons then, and in '73 they must’ve known there was a strong chance that Isreal had a several bombs. So then the answer to Ale’s question is: Isreal’s neighbors would, at least twice within recent memory.