Israel's "Security Wall"= Peace and Security?

Great Debates
61

Here’s something long and rambling to tide you over until we get back from our holiday vacations.

Oslo was a path to comprehensive peace. Not a comprehensive peace plan, mind you. Camp David was the first step towards that comprehensive peace, and we all saw how that turned out (not pointing fingers). Now the best we can do in negotiations is a roadmap to a peace plan which doesn’t include words about a comprehensive settlement. We are regressing in negotiations. Sure, we have liberals on both sides talking about a Geneva Accord. But it is the equivalent of Al Sharpton signing peace treaties for the US. This doesn’t take away from people like Raboo and Beilin, but their words on a piece of paper have absolutely no real value on the ground.

For that matter, this situation has demonstrated that no words on a piece of paper mean anything in the region. Facts on the ground dictate terms here. Both sides need some cold, hard reality in order to give some weight to their agreements. IMHO the Israelis need some big ass walls to hide behind, the Palestinian government needs some big ass walls as incentives.

The biggest fear of the average Israeli is of the impermenance of negotiated peace. As in, we give them a foot this year, they will ask for a mile next year. Or, we can give them what they want but that won’t stop the terrorism. This is a huge step. Like DSeid, I hate to be agreeing with Sharon, but this is the closest thing to what I have been wishing for since the intifada began. The Israeli Right has accepted that a two-state solution is their best option, and they had better move to implement it now because the situation is in the long run untenable. This was unthinkable as little as one year ago. The wall establishes the facts on the ground – two states will exist here. Palestinians are not getting more of “occupied Palestine” which the rest of the world calls Israel. Israelis cannot have all of “Judea and Samaria” which the rest of the world calls the West Bank.

IMHO from here on out. I’m pretty damn liberal, but being pro-Israel kind of makes me an aberration. I see this large anti-Israel slant of the world’s Left and I believe that much of it comes from organized agitprop from the Arab Block. They feed it into NGOs, they feed it into the UN General Assembly. They feed it into the Arab press. Much of Europe is more Arab than Jew, and suddenly anti-Israeli views percolate up in the European press. This is on the horizon for the US as well. The Arab World can advance self-serving viewpoints with relative ease in this fashion. From the viewpoint of the average Israeli, the end point has always been delegitimization of Israel. So 30 years ago, it was Palestinian nationalism. 15 years ago it was the Israeli occupation and the right to pursue terrorism as legitimate resistance. Now, when the two state solution is on the horizon, and the occupation is ending, we see a new viewpoint arising. This viewpoint is of Israel as an apartheid state, which has no legitimate authority as it is an oppressor of its Palestinian Majority. That a two-state solution is only creation of a Bantustan in a nonviable Palestine. That the only solution is one, unified Palestine with a Jewish minority. The Wall is a line in the sand for Israel. She now states, openly with mortar and barbed wire, that Israeli legitimacy will never be threatened. That a two-state solution is as far as it will get. As much as the Israeli Right won’t admit it, it has worked for Israel. As much as they like to portray Barak as fleeing Southern Lebanon with his tail between his legs, he withdrew, they negotiated a border, and the UN agreed. And now, when Hizbollah shells Israel’s Shebaa Farms (which they claim), surprise of surprises, Hizbollah gets criticized by the UN (and not Israel!)

Think about it. We are really getting all worked up about a couple dozen square kilometers. We are not talking about setting a permanent border – the Israeli government has been quite clear about this. So Israel is drawing its line. They are ending the occupation and starting a two-state solution. Details to be worked out later. This is the biggest step to comprehensive peace ever in the region.

Lastly, something to ponder. I realize that this is a bit of a simplification, but there is a reason we call it the Green Line. In 1967, land on the west of the line was fertile farmland, as it had been irrigated and farmed and cultivated by Israel. Land on the other side was not. Hence, Green Line. Yeah, the new fence is not fair to many Palestinians. But the Kidron Valley, the Sharon, and the Shomron is fertile, if historically overfarmed. The land can be rescued, as Israel has demonstrated. Again, the Palestinians need to be focusing on things like a secure border and water and power rights rather than a few dozen square kilometers. They certainly have more to work with than Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

62

**Your main argument seems to be that Israel won the war so it can do whatever it wants. That has no validity under international law. It is still bound by the Geneva conventions and UNSC resolutions. There are restrictions on what it can do as an occupying power in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The most important is that it cannot build settlements.
**

Israel’s victory only gives it the assumed advantage in negotiations on who gets what land. International law does not mandate that borders must remain forever unchanged. Borders are subject to change based on agreements between negotiating parties. As for settlements, I agree that the state should have no part in them one way or the other. However, citizens do have the right to move to immigrate to the West Bank, especially if they lived there for generations.

**Another non-argument. Arabs have had a continuous presence in parts of Israel for many centuries. That doesn’t mean they can claim it for their own state.
**

The difference is that Arab demands don’t just extend to sovereignty. They want all Jews out of lands they have sovereignty over, period. This is competely unacceptable for East Jerusalem especially.

**Just because Israel contests the legal status of the territories doesn’t mean much. As mentioned above they are still under the basic obligations of an occupying power.
**

And who is the authority that interprets international law? One of many reasons international law has little force if any is because each nation can interpret it at its whim and no one can do anything about it. International law has a legislature(the UN), but no executive to enforce the law and no judiciary to interpret the law, at least none that anyone recognizes.

**As for the absence of a Palestinian partner, Israel has played a role in this as well by systematically destroying the PA’s ability to maintain security as well as its various repressive policies in the West Bank. If Israel accepted in principle a final solution along the lines of the Geneva Accords with the condition that it would be implemented only if the PA managed to maintain the peace for a certain period, it would make it a lot easier for the PA to crack down on terrorists.
**

First off, the Palestinians, even the moderate ones, have said they simply won’t do this. I would note that any state that refused to crack down on criminals crossing into other states would not be considered a good international citizen, so Palestine is already screwing up any legitimacy they might have earned. I can’t see how Palestine’s other neighbors would be willing to tolerate a Palestinian state that allowed fundie groups to freely cross the border to terrorize Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan either. If Palestine continues to refuse to deal with their terrorists, SOMEBODY will invade and deal with it for them. And if you think Israeli occupation is bad, let Syria or Jordan get the West Bank again.

Secondly, what do you think Oslo was?

**In the absence of a political strategy I doubt a fence will increase Israel’s security in the long run either. The fence cannot stop rockets for one thing and Palestinian terror groups may focus their resources in that direction after it’s built.
**

The rocket threat is laughable. They fire rockets almost every day and I don’t think anyone’s been hurt by one in well over a year. Unless the Arab states start supplying them with real rockets, but that would be a casus belli, and the Arab states should know by now what happens when you give Israel a casus belli.

63

“Israel’s victory only gives it the assumed advantage in negotiations on who gets what land.”
This is BS. In fact international law specifically forbids the use of war to acquire territory.

“The difference is that Arab demands don’t just extend to sovereignty. They want all Jews out of lands they have sovereignty over, period.”
Another piece of BS. Can you point to any official statement by the PA that they want all Jews out?

“And who is the authority that interprets international law?”
Certainly not the Israeli government on its own. The UNSC has great deal more international legitimacy than the Israeli government. I agree that international law is often not enforced. I think of it more as a set of norms rather than something like domestic laws. In any case we are arguing about what international law says and not whether it’s being enforced.

“The rocket threat is laughable”
And how long will it remain so? Palestinian terrorists can kill Israelis quite easily with suicide bombers now but presumably once the fence is up this will no longer be possible. They will try new strategies and devote their resources to improving their rockets or just making so many that their sheer quantity becomes dangerous. It’s always a mistake to think that the enemy will remain static and just keep using present tactics. Ultimately the only long-term solution to Israel’s security is a political settlement probably along the lines of the Geneva deal.

64

Cyber,

If I understand correctly “international law” forbids an offensive action to obtain territory. Absorbing land after a defensive action is entirely legit. Israel would have been within the traditions of international law if it annexed the West Bank after taking it over from Jordan. It chose not to specifically in order to have something to bargin with. When it was clear that there was no one to negotiate in good faith with (in those days Arab countries were still unaminous in declaring that nothing less than full justice - which to them meant no Israel - would do) then the government began allowing settlers in, both as a buffer and to appease the religious right. Another good example of the Arab side letting opportunity to compromise go by and getting rachetted into a worse place as a result.

BTW a good quote about international law

-Ashley Motegu in an interview of Albert Einstein

Where Israel runs afoul of “international law” is by trying to have it both ways. If it annexed the area then the Arab denizens would be entitled to citizenship. Bad demographic news for Israel as a Jewish state. But if they are occupied lands then they are stewards for its inhabitants. Sure their first job remains their own security, but after that their prime responsibility is to provide for the needs of the occupied. Building settlements doesn’t fit that.

You do know it is against the law in the PA to sell land to a Jew? As to the desire of “Arabs” wanting to rid of Israel entirely … no, officially the PLO and thus the PA is no longer calling for Israel’s total destruction, only various other elements are, elements which the PA has stated it will not forcibly control, elements that it either doesn’t want to stop, or cannot stop, or both. These elements will coninue to want Israel’s destruction no matter what the settlement looks like. The PA would likely be impotant even in the face of getting most of what it wants, because it will have to compromise some. And many in Israel who had once accepted the PA was sincere in its desire to compromise for a peaceful settlement in good faith, now no longer accept that as a reasonable premise.

A “real” rocket threat would require the unavoidably obvious de facto blessing of the PA (and others perhaps), would be taken as an act of war between the PA (and others perhaps) and Israel and would certainly provoke an overwhelming full and justifiable military response.

Look, I hate the idea of the Big Honking Fence (BHF). I really wish that a peaceful settlement could be agreed to and the region could move on to mutually beneficial development. My own fantasy is that someday Israel and Palestine could co-exist in some kind of loosely connected confederacy. But no peace is possible while bloodshed continues and it doesn’t look like anything short of the BHF will slow that down. On both sides. With or without a swap for some land inside the Green Line for the nearby settlements, a Palestine can make a go of it with some honest effort and some international support. Seperate. Let the sides cool down. Let them both see how much easier their lots would be if they could just cooperate with each other a little. Then come back to the table and really talk. About borders a little and the stuff that really matters to having countries develop more.

65

“Absorbing land after a defensive action is entirely legit.”
My understanding is that this distinction is irrelevant; you can’t use war of any kind to forcibly acquire land and change borders. At best a defensive war gives a country gives some legitimacy for a temporary occupation but the occupying power is still under restrictions. In any case regardless of the general principles there are specific UNSC resolutions about settlements and the like.

“A “real” rocket threat would require the unavoidably obvious de facto blessing of the PA (and others perhaps), would be taken as an act of war between the PA (and others perhaps) and Israel and would certainly provoke an overwhelming full and justifiable military response.”
I don’t see this. If Hamas manufactures and launches a certain number of rockets and kills Israelis how different is it from sending suicide bombers? Certainly Israel could respond military but it can and does this now. It would be back to square one and a pretty expensive square one. This isn’t to say that a fence is completely useless. It will probably take Hamas et al some time to make or acquire better rockets. But in the long run I doubt a fence will achieve much without a political settlement.

66

Just a small point of cluture/history - I think Robert Frost (Mending Wall) said it extremely well. Any American here must have studied this poem sometime along the way. Go Back. Read it. Then tell me again why The Fence is an inherently bad idea.

Dani

67

**This is BS. In fact international law specifically forbids the use of war to acquire territory.
**

I’m no expert on international law, but this is laughable, considering how much territory has changed hands since 1946 through war. When international law starts to mean something I might spend more time studying it.

**Another piece of BS. Can you point to any official statement by the PA that they want all Jews out?

**

“There will be no peace without the expulsion of all settlers
from the West Bank and Gaza.”
— from a leaflet distributed in Hebron by the P.L.O.'s Fatah
Hawks (Ha’aretz, 27 December 1993)

I’ll try to find something from Arafat himself, too. Keep in mind that Hebron is a city that Jews have inhabited for 3000 years, with the brief exception of 1949-1967.

**And how long will it remain so? Palestinian terrorists can kill Israelis quite easily with suicide bombers now but presumably once the fence is up this will no longer be possible. They will try new strategies and devote their resources to improving their rockets or just making so many that their sheer quantity becomes dangerous. It’s always a mistake to think that the enemy will remain static and just keep using present tactics. Ultimately the only long-term solution to Israel’s security is a political settlement probably along the lines of the Geneva deal.
**

They don’t have that capability unless they get outside help. It’s hard to trace suicide bombers because they use explosives that anyone can make. Advanced rockets being fired into Israel are easily traceable and will evoke a response, to put it mildly.

** don’t see this. If Hamas manufactures and launches a certain number of rockets and kills Israelis how different is it from sending suicide bombers?**

First, Hamas can’t do it. They don’t have the technical know how. Secondly, the PA is responsible for making sure this happens only rarely.

68

Noone Special, The inherently bad idea is buliding on your neighbors’ land.

69

You are making the erroneus assumption that the PA owns that land.

70

I am making the assumption that it is Palestinian land and not for the casual use of Israel. Do you not agree?

71

I think that land is owned by whichever individual owns it. I don’t buy the concept of common land unless a government has specific title over it. The PA owns no land anywhere.

72

Yes it is international law, something restated in UNSCR 242

The settlers are there illegally of course they want them out, they have after all moved to the country with the specific intention of dispossesing the Palestinians, you can spin it as " they want all Jews out", but there is nothing unreasonable in requesting that international law be adhered to and Israel remove it’s citizens which it has placed in the West Bank and Gaza.

Again we see you tendncy to make up history to suit yourself:

Prior to the 1830s (and post-ancient settlemnt) there was some but certainly non-continous Jewish settlement in Hebron. Sometime in the 1830s a small Jewish communtiy from Gaza City moved to Hebron and settled there, however they were always the minority in the town never having a population of over a thousand and fled after the Hebron massacre in 1929. The most reasant Jewish settlemnt started in 1967 when a busload of Jewish fundamentalists posing as Swiss tourists arrived at a hotel in Hebron and seized sevral floors of the building, eventually been moved to a nearby Israeli miltary compound where they were allowed to settle.

73

**The settlers are there illegally of course they want them out, they have after all moved to the country with the specific intention of dispossesing the Palestinians, you can spin it as " they want all Jews out", but there is nothing unreasonable in requesting that international law be adhered to and Israel remove it’s citizens which it has placed in the West Bank and Gaza.
**

Israel has not placed all the settlers there. Many have moved of their own volition, often back to the very places they were booted from in 1949. If international law applies to Israel, it also applies to the Arabs who violated it in 1949 when they engaged in ethnic cleansing against native Jews.

And they did not enter Hebron in 1830, although I’m sure the population started to increase then. Jews have lived in certain areas of Palestine for thousands of years as minorities. Arabs have no right to expel every single Jew from any area of the ME.

74

But individuals do own the land, and these individuals are Palestinians. Don’t you agree? :dubious:

75

Wait a minute, so you agree with the right of return for Palestinians to Israel. :confused:

76

No, infact Hebron (not all of it either) is the only settlemnt built on what was pre-1948 Jewish land.

The first Arab-Israeli war took place in 1948 and it was the Israelis who conducted the most ethnic cleansing (the Jewish popkation pre-1948 of the West Bank and Gaza was small, with most settlemntsd being in th Eastern part of the country, esp. the older ones).

Yes, the modern Jewish settlemnt did start in the 1830s, I’m not sure if the Synagogue still stands, but the synagogue of the 1830s-1929 settlement when it was built used parts of the Gaza City synagogue removed when the communtiy moved there.

If somone is Jewish and theey are somewhere legally it is fine, but if they are somewher illegaslly then ‘the Arabs’ have every right to expel that person.

77

While it is a bit of an irrelevant aside, as to the concept of international law and borders. I’d love to see the primary source that says that “international law” states borders cannot change as a result of conflict, as the long history of conflict has the exact opposite precedence. If one really believed that then one would not only be claiming that Israel is violating international law unless they went back to the original postage stamp partition, but almost every other border on the globe would have to changed to some past marking as well, India/Pakiatan, China/Russia, US/Mexico, and so and so on. Territorial disputes have been a major source of conflict through history up til today. If “international law” is, as cyber calls it, “a set of norms”, then the norm is to vary borders as the result of conflict.

But it is moot, because adahar, Israel did not annex the land and thus does not own it! If it is Israeli land then you need to give its inhabitants full rights. If it is not, or until such time as it is, you have no right to buld on it for purposes other than security and serving its inhabitants needs.

But this starts to spin away from a discussion about the value of the BHF as the least poor practical choice left to Israel.

78

the main body of international law has only existed since 1945 and the prohbiton is not against any settlemnt of border disputes, etc. but against countries taking land by force.

79

So Israel is justified in building the fence wherever it **** well pleases, on its own land or on the land occupied during wars, since the purpose of the fence is for security.

Everyone agrees with that?

Thanks

Dani

80

Well, I do, for one. As does Charles Krauthammer in an Op-Ed in the Washington Post.