Dunno if this counts as refutation - but your post is the first time I’ve heard of the idea. So FWIW I’m assuming that the story/rumor originated outside of the region.
Dani
Never argued otherwise. The barrier is an explicitly unilateral action on Israel’s part, and as such is designed to work for Israel. The question of why bilateral negotiatons have been left off is an interesting issue in its own right, but, IMO, beyond the scope of this thread.
Doesn’t work that way. When a group of people feel themselved “under attack”, they tend to unite, and to reject any suggestion that the “attacker” may even have a point. Wroks that way for families, teams, nations.
See discussion above. This is not designed to be a measure of compromise but rather a measure planned to cause the other side to come back to the negotiating table. That, or complete unilateral partition - which will be hard for us (what with a large portion of the population dead against removing any settlements), but will be really painful, esp. economically, for the Palestinians.
I agree that Int’l law should have little to do with this dispute - but people keep bringing it up as some sort of “proof” of Israel’s “legal duty” to relinquish the OT’s - I’m just pointing out that Int’l law has little to say about the situation when the attacked party is the victor.
Maybe you’re right and I’m wrong; but I (personally) think that, absent bilateral good-faith negotiations, the next best thing is partition - no contact for several years - during which both sides can simmer down a bit.
I don’t expect the Palestinians to thank us or anything… I brought this point up more as a counter-argument to the external accusations of The Terrible Treatment[sup]TM[/sup] the Palestinians get from us…
Sure, they don’t like us and want us out, even if their standard of living was higher under Israeli rule. It’s irrelevant to them. But I expect external observers to see things in context.
Dani
I repeat my question, Noone: Is the wall meant to be permanent? Or is it meant to facilitate negotiation of independence for the Palestinians, and to be torn down afterwards?
Also – this wall physically seals off Israel proper (and then some!) from (the remainder of) the West Bank – but it also seals off (most of) the Israeli settlements on the WB from Israel proper. How do the settlers feel about that? And – if this isn’t too much of a hijack – why are those settlements there in the first place, and is Israel prepared to evacuate them once Palestine becomes independent?
The security fence was first proposed by elements leaning to the Left in Israel. Its course was proposed to go fairly close to the Green Line, but in no case would it make sense to undertake a unilateral solution that gave the other side more then they would get in any reasonable negotiated settlement. If you did that then they would have no reason to come back to the table. Still Sharon has made a mistake by wandering farther in than security needs seem to have required and not taking Palestinian needs into sufficient account, an interpretation that the Israeli Supreme court also makes.
The fence is designed to protect Israelis. Leaving many settlers on the other side is only possible in the presence of a negotiated settlement that gets a lot in return. That isn’t in the offing apparently.
The bottom line is that there is no leadership to negotiate with in the PA at this time. Until such time that such leadership arises Israel will provide for its security itself. The fence is a better solution than targetted bombings of Hamas safe houses and the innocents killed along the way. Once terror is reduced and the PA has an area to try to manage, maybe, maybe, they’ll see that it makes sense to come to a negotiated solution. Such is still in both parties best interests.
The history of the settlements is another story. Lots has to do with unwarranted optimism by Israeli leadership: they felt that a negotiated solution that gave most of the territories back was so near that they could let a few settlers in without risking much (and avoid the political consequences of pissing off the ultra-orthodox and conservative parties needed in a ruling coalition.) Annexing the land would have been legit after the war, it wasn’t done because it was felt that a peace plan would entail its quick return in exchange for real security. Such made good sense for the Arab side and offers were made by the Israelis. But it never happened (The Arab answer was “never”) and the settlers grew and grew until they became a real obstacle.
Plainly it is not. It is designed to grab land that isn’t Israel’s. Protection could be fully afforded without that effect.
There’s an obvious riposte to the earlier slimy post about Palestinian violence, that given the option of a protective wall, internationally supported by all decent persons: The Jews, by nature, opted for larceny and rapacious greed so as to maintain the traditions of their grasping ancestors.
See what hate speech could breed.
“Never” what? Sorry, I’m not clear on this part of the story. You say Israel, having occupied the Territories, offered to give them up in exchange for – what, that the Arabs wouldn’t give?
Do we give Texas, New Mexico California and various other states in the area back to Mexico or to Native Americans? 
Come on now, plant! You know that for anything that was grabbed before the U.N. Charter, the rule is keepsies!
You don’t really think politicians (let alone Jewish ones…) thought that far ahead, do you? The barrier is there because someone thought it was a good idea at the time… :rolleyes:.
That said, the popular consensus among Israelis is that the barrier can and will be moved at some future date. Sections of it will be moved following the Israeli high-court decision; a section near Baka al-Sharqiya was moved in the past (from east of Baka to West of it, along the green line).
See above about politicians and foresight 
Why are they there? Because of internal Israeli politics (short answer; if you want more, I think a new thread would be in order). Is Israel prepared to evacuate them? It’s a toss up, both in terms of political clout and in terms of popular feelings right now. As I mentioned before, I think that the more things quiet down for a while, the better a chance that the ultimate answer will be yes.
But the Above is mostly just myt personal take on things. It’s really kind of like me demanding from you an answer as to what the Bush Administration will or won’t be willing to do on any given issue… 
Oh - and you asked this question of DSeid, but I’ll answer it anyway…
I give you… “The Three No’s”, live from Khartoum, September 1967!
Why aren’t Jews allowed to live where they want to live? Israel, if it were to dismantle the settlements, would be saying “It’s OK for Arab Muslims to live here, but not Jews.” What gives them the right to say that?
It’s ethnic cleansing to insist that a group of people leave an area just because of who they are.
You are, then, proposing that the Palestinians have freedom of movement around Israel also? One cannot have it both ways, and if such is the case - why build the wall?
I think you’re confusing Jews with Israelis.
It is indeed disgusting bigotry to insist a certain country is off limit to people from a certain religion. I think you’ll find that Moslems have free movement around Israel. I see no reason Jews should not be allowed to live in any independent Arab state – do you? That of course first require that such a state want to and is able to effectively protect them.
Probably some of the worst double moral comes from the Saudis. As far as I’m concerned Saudis have a right to talk on plight of the Moslems around the world when there is a church / synagogue in Mecca.
If this were the case, why build the wall? If a West Bank Muslim (or indeed a million of them) want to go and live, work and most importantly vote in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, should they not have that right?
Umm. You’re confusing Moslems and West Bank Palestinians. West Bank Palestinians do not have free movement within Israel since they’re not Israeli citizens like they do not have free movement in England since they’re not English citizens (in fact I think they’re Jordanian citizens of a sort – at least with a Jordanian passport?). Israeli Moslems have free movement within Israel. There are Moslems in Israel, and there are Jews om the West Bank (like there has been for-nearly-ever) – insisting there should be absolutely no Jews on the West Bank today is like insisting there should be no Moslems in Israel.
I agree that the Jews in the West Bank should have the exact same level of free movement, between both the West Bank and Israel, as the Muslims there (and therefore should have the exact same passports, citizenship and voting rights as the Muslims there.)
It’s not a question of being Jewish or Moslem. It’s a question of being Israel citizen or not. The Jews on the West Bank have Israeli citizenship, the Moslems do not (and neither would want to). Why should the West Bank residences without Israeli citizenship have specific rights, let alone voting rights, in Israel? Do you also think they should be able to move freely within England and vote in English elections?
No, and neither should the Jews in the West Bank have any other citizenship than the Muslims around them. Like I said, one cannot have it both ways. Israeli citizens in Israel, West Bank citizens in the West Bank, whatever their religion.
Fine, but that’s not what you implied when you expressed your disagreement with FitzRoy’s statement that Jews should be allowed to live on the West Bank. Of course Jews should be able to live on the West Bank and of course Moslems should be allowed to live in Israel. What citizenship they should have is another question.
My downstairs neighbour is an English citizen (and the girl on the top flight is an Israeli citizen) when you believe Israeli citizens on the West Bank should be stripped of their Israeli citizenship do you also believe those two should be stripped of theirs? Personally I’d perhaps not consider it an unreasonable demand that the Israeli citizens on the West Bank be give Palestinian citizenship and subject to Palestenian laws when and if an Palestinian nation is created there, and when, AND ONLY THEN, the Palestinians have shown a willingness and ability to protect them.
Can you show me where I did that, exactly?
No, I merely believe in equal freedom of movement. If Israeli citizens are to have such in the West Bank, West Bank citizens ought to have the same in Israel. All I have ever espoused is equality.
I, too, would wish for a true democracy in the West Bank free of discriminatory policies or actions. But then again, that’s also why I would consider becoming, say, a Saudi citizen and renouncing my own citizenship for all of ten seconds before saying “no thanks”. The settlers have a choice of whether to take West Bank citizenship and renouce their Israeli citizenship, just like me. The alternative is to give Israeli citizenship to the 3.2 million Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza strip, allowing them join the 1 million Muslims in Israel to form a voting block comprising 45% of the Israeli population.
Ya’ know? I would like nothing better than the settlers decide, en masse, to relinquish their Israeli citizenship and take Palestinian (and stay in their homes on the settlements).
Then they’d be Palestine’s problem, not ours! And good riddance!
I also wish I’d win $100 M in the lottery… Ain’t gonna happen
Dani
(P.S. - just in case someone wonders - I have zero authority to make any statements on behalf of Israel or Israelis. These are just my own 0.9 NIS (that’s roughly ¢2 American)