Sure. Just a few kilometers so only 50,000 Israeli citizens will have to leave their homes instead of 250,000.
Alessan to those of us on the outside, this looks like just another land grab by Israel.
Please, don’t be surprized when you discover that this wall doesn’t bring you the “peace” you were searching for. However, I have a feeling that when you discover this you will place the blame squarly on the Palestinians.
50,000 Israeli citizens on illegal settlements.
I have nothing against Israel building a fortified wall. Many countries do the same, along contested borders or borders which create difficulties even between friendly countries due to illegal immigration or smuggling. Add “active terrorism” to the mix and you have all the legitimacy required for a big, ugly wall.
Naturally, where the wall goes is a different story. There is quite a legitimate arument that the position of the wall, and hence the border, ought in any normal situation be worked out via agreement and negotiation between the parties.
The problem is, in this case, the Palistinians have no negotiating power, which works out to mean a deal that is highly unfavorable to them - one unilaterally imposed by the other side. In fact, the recent failure of the various Palistinian militant groups and the PA to reach an agreement in Cairo on a cease-fire plan indicates that they by no means speak with one voice, and to an extent, cannot come to a collective decision.
In this situation, it is inevitable that any plans made unilaterally by the Israelis will favour themselves.
The solution is not to express some sort of ritual condemnation for Israeli greed, but to find a way to support a united Palistinian government able to suppress the rival sources of authourity within the Palistinian ranks, and work towards nation-building. Such a government, speaking with one voice and having actual concessions to give, would have more bargaining power (not least, if it commanded US support), and would be able to negotiate a more favourable border.
Until that happens, I predict that the Palistinians will continue to be the victims of unilateral decisions made by Israel for the benefit of Israelis. Why would that be surprising to anyone?
To answer the OP, I predict that the wall will, in fact, increase security for Israelis. I think it will be irrelevant to the issue of long-term peace (after all, the Palistinians could hardly dislike the Israelis more than they appeared to do pre-wall).
I have nothing against Israel building a fortified wall. Many countries do the same, along contested borders or borders which create difficulties even between friendly countries due to illegal immigration or smuggling. Add “active terrorism” to the mix and you have all the legitimacy required for a big, ugly wall.
Naturally, where the wall goes is a different story. There is quite a legitimate arument that the position of the wall, and hence the border, ought in any normal situation be worked out via agreement and negotiation between the parties.
The problem is, in this case, the Palistinians have no negotiating power, which works out to mean a deal that is highly unfavorable to them - one unilaterally imposed by the other side. In fact, the recent failure of the various Palistinian militant groups and the PA to reach an agreement in Cairo on a cease-fire plan indicates that they by no means speak with one voice, and to an extent, cannot come to a collective decision.
In this situation, it is inevitable that any plans made unilaterally by the Israelis will favour themselves.
The solution is not to express some sort of ritual condemnation for Israeli greed, but to find a way to support a united Palistinian government able to suppress the rival sources of authourity within the Palistinian ranks, and work towards nation-building. Such a government, speaking with one voice and having actual concessions to give, would have more bargaining power (not least, if it commanded US support), and would be able to negotiate a more favourable border.
Until that happens, I predict that the Palistinians will continue to be the victims of unilateral decisions made by Israel for the benefit of Israelis. Why would that be surprising to anyone?
To answer the OP, I predict that the wall will, in fact, increase security for Israelis. I think it will be irrelevant to the issue of long-term peace (after all, the Palistinians could hardly dislike the Israelis more than they appeared to do pre-wall).
Only if I feel that’s what’s best for Israel. Frankly, I no longer give a rat’s ass what’s better for the Palestinians. I used to, but they have bombed that sentiment out of my mind. (Well, actually, I do care, but only in the sense that what makes them happy will generally make them more likely to leave me alone).
The real problem with the green line is two fold: [ol]
[li]It’s militarily indefensible (under 10 miles between the Mediterranean and the Green Line around Netanya!). It will have to move in some places.[/li][li]OK, for the sake of argument let’s say the vast majority of settlers shouldn’t have been allowed to be where they are. But there they are. Why should you force 10-year-olds to leave their only home ever? Especially when you seem to be expecting the solution to allow every single Palestinian to stay in their place…[/ol][/li]Also - Since some changes to the border will have to be made, why not offer the Palestinian State something for something else. Rearrange the borders so that, say, Ma’ale adumim and Ariel stay within Israel. Instead, let Palestine have Kafr Qasem and Um El Fakhem. Try running that idea by any Israeli Arab living there - and they wouldn’t even have to leave their homes! They’d get to live under the rule of their beloved bretheren!
I can’t get preview to work (d*** hamsters!), so I hope my coding isn’t TOO snafu-ed… I’m hitting “submit” blind 
Dani
NS, your eminently reasonable suggestions of a little “wiggle-room” are the kinds of proposals which should be on the table, rather than a simple grab of farmland and water resources (would that most of Israel thought like you). However, I hope that one day your indifference to the suffering of all Israeli Arabs just because of the murderous and desperate actions of a few might decrease.
Of course the plight of the 10 year old settlers must be considered, but I venture that the examples of Palestinians being denied the very food for their table because their fields, towns and provinces are cut off from them forever (such that if every Palestinian did “stay in their place” they might never see their families again) perhaps overbalance the scales in the other direction.
Perhaps the debate should progress to what kind of wall-enclosed state would be truly “independent” in terms of water/farmland/road/electricity/telecomms/airspace resources, and whether an outlet to a neighbouring country or the Dead Sea would be essential for the viability of a future walled state?
I guess the parents of said 10 year old have to explain how the home they have made is really stolen.
Personally I put the wall and the unofficial peace plan in the same category. Trying to position for peace and security without actually getting it. Different approaches but similar motivations. Neither invalid, neither complete solutions.
The Fence is needed to protect Israel’s border. No question that if there were no terror infiltrations into Israel, that if there was the ability and/or interest on the Palestinian side to provide for security that there would be no need for Isreal to secure its border, there would be no Fence. But such is not the case. Any American who supports screening those coming into America for possible intent to do harm has little case for objecting to Israel wishing to be able to do the same.
Israel will pick a border that provides best for its security. Period. Once Israel is secure then let the PA have what’s left and learn to get past their perception of past wrongs and look instead to the future. Both sides will still be in the position where a long term settlement is mutually beneficial. Israel would be much better off being able to bring the Fence back down and being able to develop cooperative ventures (tourism as a major industry again and others) with the Palestinian side. Better with a Palestinian labour force and potential market as their economy grows. A nascent Palestine would be better off with negotiated borders (land swaps, etc, probably not far off from the Geneva accord once security is really assured) rather than those decided upon unilaterally by Israeli percieved security interests and better off with Israeli investment in infrastructure and industry. That won’t happen until there has been a period of security if not peace.
The Geneva accord is a peace game, practice for peace just like a war game practices for war. The Fence is an unfortunate requisite for security which is required before that peace process can be played out for real.
Could ypu maybe expalin
Why should 10 year olds be forced to leave their only home ever
Why should 10 year olds be forced to see their only home ever be destroyed by a tank
Why should 10 year olds be forcibly prevented from going to school, to relatives, to a clinic when needed
Why should 10 year olds be forced to see the harvest that must keep them alive in their only live ever bee destroyed
Why should 10 year olds be forced to see the only land they know ever be taken by others
Why should 10 year olds be froced to see their only parents/relatives ever being shot, leaving them wounded or dead
Why should 10 year olds be forced see their own life ever shot to pices, leaving them wounded or dead?
I talk of course of Palestinian 10 year olds. Of course that should make all the difference .
Sorry, forgot.
Shalom. A
Huh? they have plenty of negotiating power!
You have forgotten recent history–a negotiated agreement WAS reached, and formally presented on the White House lawn when Clinton , Yasser Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister Barak all shook hands. It was a tough compromise, with both Barak and Arafat unsure if they had given away too much and received too little. But it was a reasonable agreement, and reasonable people in Israel accepted it.Nobody in Israel even talked about building a border fence back then.
But barely a month later, the Arabs started shooting into Gilo–a solid part Jersualem, one of the contiguous residential areas of the city, built on land that had never been built on by Arabs.
That’s when Israelis realized that the Arabs dont object to a specific border agreement–they object to the very existence of Israel.( Shooting at the controversial West Bank settlements could maybe, just maybe, be explainable. But Gilo was never once raised as a point of contention by any Arab politician. If the Palestinians can’t compromise on Gilo, they can’t compromise on anything.)
So Israel has no choice but to build a barrier.
It would be nice if the Arabs would sit down to negotiate again, and maybe the barrier would be moved. But when terrorists are caught EVERY single day, the most important priority is to protect civilians from being murdered on busses and at pizza parlors.
If the Palestinians want to discuss moving the fence, they have to stop their own terrorists first.
Right now, they are “negotiating” with suicide bombers. Stop the terror, and Israel will gladly stop building the fence.
Once this fence/wall is complete…will there be a movement to eliminate palestinian labor in israel? I would assume that once there is a palestinian state, the development money that will POUR in to the PS, will be enough to keep all of the Palestinian laborers in jobs. Where will Israel secure labor then?
I’m not sure why you are arguing with me - I agree more or less.
If you read my post, you will see that by “lack of negotiating power” I mean lack of a united, consistant voice to negotiate with.
The value of any deal reached with “the Palistinians” (meaning, the PA) must be logically discounted against the fact that the PA is unable or unwilling to exercise internal control over the various other Palistinian organizations. Which means that the PA cannot offer any legitimate concessions worth anything.
Example: say that Israel made a bargain, along the lines of “we will put the wall exactly on the '67 border, and in return, you will give up terrorist attacks”. The problem is that, while the PA may well agree to such a deal, they cannot, in fact, deliver their end of the bargain - that is, that there be no terrorist attacks.
So, they have no negotiating power.
“The solution is not to express some sort of ritual condemnation for Israeli greed, but to find a way to support a united Palistinian government able to suppress the rival sources of authourity within the Palistinian ranks, and work towards nation-building. Such a government, speaking with one voice and having actual concessions to give, would have more bargaining power (not least, if it commanded US support), and would be able to negotiate a more favourable border.” -Malthus
Yes! And thank you. I thought I was the only one who saw it along these lines. Sadly, I don’t think the Palestinians have the ability to unify until after the wall is built. At that point there will be no more negotiating about what property goes to whom. No more arguments about whether or not this piece of dirt belongs to Jacob or Jamil or their grandparents. It will be settled. In the Israelis favor in one sense. In the larger sense it will be settled for BOTH sides. It will act as a sort of break point with the past since it cannot be ignored and cannot be easily undone. They may scream and rail about it for weeks, months or even years. But at a certain point they will be start to get on with their suspended civilization on the Palestinian side. If you look at divided Germany you see the same thing. Yes the politics were different, but life went on in East Germany just as it did in West Germany, and over time things normalized and relations (at times frosty, at times more friendly) became the state of affairs.
Is it a “land grab”? Partially. Does it represent the best path to more peaceable relations? Quite probably. Is that a sad state of affairs? Undoubtedly.
Consider that the alternative is the neverending tit-for-tat cycle of shootings and incursions. Israel will not let it’s citizens deaths go unavenged. That’s a plain historical observation. Not even for “the bigger picture”. This vengence ineivitably leads to a Palestinian reprisal which almost always involves Israeli deaths. Therefore the only way to stop the cycle is to physically seperate the people. The only way to do that is to erect a barrier. I wonder if the Palestinians consider that the erection of the barrier means a likely decrease in the number of incursions.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
It will not be settled. It will never be settled until total genocide.
Um, because a number of 18 year-olds, spurred on by a number of 40 year-olds, are putting on belts made of plastique and wandering into Isreali discos, blowing themselves and Israelis of all ages into little-bitty pieces?
You think that might be a factor?
It may suck to be a Palestinian child, but the circumstances are not entirely of Israeli design.
The onlookers watched as the hitherto focussed thread carreered wildly out of control.
The thread is about the wall. I contend that it ghettoises the Israeli Arabs and its actual location precludes actual independence: the state left inside the wall will be fallow, non-viable and utterly dependent, like the 19th century reservations or the Warsaw ghetto.
I contend that the Green Line, agreed by both sides in 1988, is the only road on the map which is not a dead end.
Yeah, the optimal situation is that the wall should be built on the Green Line. That way, any protestation by the Palestinians would be unfounded – they are getting everything they ever desired. Israel would have been regarded as a shining example of diplomacy.
Somehow, I think it wouldn’t have turned out that way. Israel is taking shit for this now, but I think they would have taken an equivalent amount of shit if they built their wall right on the Green Line or something along the lines of the proposed Camp David maps.
A few disjointed points:
The realpolitik of the situation is that Israel is governed by the right wing. To get them to admit that they need to withdraw isolated settlements is a huge victory for centrists and left-wingers in Israel. To get them to agree to the idea that they need to share land with the Palestinians is as well.
There is a security wall around Gaza. Few suicide bombers have crossed over from Gaza to carry out attacks in Israel. Israel would be very happy with the result if it turned out in a similar fashion with this new wall.
I’ve been saying for years that Israel needs to act unilaterally. Waiting for the Palestinians, who are just trying to assemble a coherent government, is fruitless. In every occupation throughout history that comes to mind, the occupying power has enforced their decisions unilaterally. Israel needed to do the same. Even if a Palestinian government existed, they probably would not have the military or popular mandate to make unpleasant moves (like dissolving Hamas or disbanding the military wing of Fatah or conceding parts of East Jerusalem to Israel). The only solution was for Israel to draw its lines and wait.
Walls and borders can be moved. Once this separation is enforced, good behavior by the Palestinians can be rewarded by the only thing that they seem to respond – land. If they had built the wall right on the Green Line, they couldn’t have done this. Reign in Hamas – get some olive groves back. Take references to destroying Israel out of school textbooks or whatever – get a clinic or something.
Something pointed out above is that there can be no population swap here. There is a big difference between Israeli Arabs, true citizens of Israel with full rights under the law, and West Bank Palestinians, who are occupied people. Exchange some Jewish settlers for Israeli Arabs? It will never happen – the Israeli Arabs as a whole are probably much happier being citizens of Israel than of any new Palestinian state. Any absorption of West Bank Palestinians into Israeli territory will probably come with giving that population citizenship. So, in some respects, it may not be all bad for them.
It sucks, but negotiation has failed for 35 years. A new approach was needed. To those who say the wall is ugly and inhumane and apartheid and compare it to the Nazis – gimme a better idea.
At $3M per mile, either Israel is being foolishly profligate or this wall is not temporary, and was never even countenanced as being so.
It is, and was always going to be, permanent: No carrot, only stick. Realpolitikally, the prison town of Qualquilya will never see another sunset. (Incidentally, since this is the closest point of the Green Line to the Mediterranean and it has already been built, the “military defensiveness” argument against the Green Line rings somewhat hollow.)
[quote]
To those who say the wall is ugly and inhumane and apartheid and compare it to the Nazis – gimme a better idea.
[quote]
Reopen negotiations. Show that the state enclosed by the wall has enough farmland, water resources and control over all of the roads, communications and airspace within its borders that it could genuinely function as an autonomous, independent country. If this is found to be impossible, tear up the proposed path of the wall and redraw it so that it can be shown.
Ultimately, it is down to the votes of the Israeli electorate. All we can do is hope that they vote responsibly. Were they to choose the Green Line, my praise for their maturity, humanity and dignity would be higher than any wall ever built.
Sentient,
You’d expect a unilateral action to give the Palestinian side everything they’d want and hope for in a negotiated accord? Be real. Every time the Palestinian side turns down a negotiated solution because it doesn’t give them all that they think they deserve they rachet themselves into a worse place for the future.
The Israeli POV is simple, even if you don’t agree with it. They believe that they tried negotiation. Barak offered more than most would’ve imagined possible and was turned down with no counteroffer. The “Road Map” required moves from the PA to control the terror. None came. Arafat assured that such was not possible. Maybe there is no interest in controlling the terror; maybe there is no ability to control it. No matter. Whichever is true, Israel cannot expect the PA to deliver on providing security for Israel against the terror. No matter what nice words they say or papers they sign. Without security there can be no peace. So without a willing partner who can or will be able to provide security, how do you gain security, so that you can work towards peace? Fences work on the Gaza border. The solution is expensive. And it stinks for both sides. But is the least poor of the options that remain.
Seperate Israel from the Palestine to be. And don’t come out of your rooms until you are ready to talk to each other like civilized adults.
Edwino, I’ll disagree with you slightly. Green Line schpleen line. Sentient (inadvertently, I think) has it right. The Green Line is arbitrary. Happens to be where hostilities ceased. Nothing magical about it. Israel needs to enclose the bulk of the nearby settlements. The Palestinians need the resources to make for a functional country. Hot button issues deep six talks but are ultimately of little relevance to whether or not a Palestine has those resources. I’ve said it before and will again. The Palestinian side would be well advised to give up on some hot button issues and trade them for more guarentees of control over water rights, guarentees of investment in building infrastructure (including educational and health infrastructures), incentives for investments within Palestinian territories, favorable terms for tax revenues on Palestinans who work in Israel, trade agreements that encourage production within a nascent Palestinian economy, shared marketing strategies for tourism, on so on. Each of these have more import for the future of an emergent Palestine than a few square miles here or there or the freakin’ “right of return” or a host of other hot buttons. The Green Line assures none of them. A few miles in makes none of them impossible.