The press didnt report the truth about the Fence

Moishe you attempt to put up an argument that most wars are not about territory but about competing philosophies, then come out with assertions which point in the other direction such as



and



To suggest that the Israeli Palestinian question is not about land is facile.


This thread is about the "fence". Isn't that the very essence of competition, demarcation, acquisition, rights etc etc to of and about LAND?

Conversely how do you change someone's philosophy by building a huge barrier that causes immense difficulties in their day to day existence....

unless of course you are trying to turn a neighbour into an enemy?

Asserting this conflict is not about territory is like a farmer saying Judaism is not about Moses, Islam is not about Mohammed, and Christianity is not about Jesus.

The Israelis will indeed say that the fence is not about land, it is about security and stopping the free movement of suicide bombers.

But, like I said above, they are building most of the wall well inside disputed territory, and so they have turned it into a con trick.

When Israelis stop oppressing arabs, and treating them as inferiors, then the peace process can start.
But I don't think it will start, because both sides would rather look backwards and recount the atrocities of the past.

If the fence is about land how come the opposition within Israel comes from the religious zealots who advocate greater Israel?

They openly oppose the fence saying that it would become a final line limiting the settler's expantion.

I disagree with you McTag, the fence is a victory within Israel of security over settler's pipe dreams of land theft.

mark

If "oppression" and treating the Palestinians as inferiors were the be all and end all, there would be no fence and no conflict.
I sincerely wish it were that simple.
Unfortunately, it's not.
The fence is being built to protect Israelis from being murdered.
Plain and simple.

Well that's an interesting viewpoint. I forgot about the religious zealots.

No, I didn't say the "fence" was about land. It is a security wall, but it is also a land grab. Shame that some Israelis think they haven't grabbed enough land yet.

Craven, so you think that the fence is justified because it keeps them from getting more land that they have already illegally gotten? I don't see it that way, I think an unbiased (if there is such a thing in existence) decision should be made by an outside body on what land is whose and whoever happens to be living on land that is not theirs will just have to move.

You also said that you think that having the fence up will take the focus off the Palestinians since they can't get over to Israel to bomb them (I am not sure about that point anyway) and focus attention on Israel and their actions.

If the past is indication, I think that if nothing is happening over there that puts them on the news, the western world will just forget about the palestinians and Israel will be allowed to do whatever it wants.

No, I think the fence is justified because there is a legitimate security concern that it addresses and because there is overwheling evidence that it will do so in more successful a manner than any measure Israel has ever taken to combat Palestinian terrorism.

Furthermore it represents an Israeli attempt at disengagement, an attempt to end occupation.

For many years Israel allowed the occupation to be a millstone around her neck at the behest of its most extreme citizens. It's high time that Israel tells its extremists to shove it and parts company with their expantionist dream.

I go so far as to assert that this fence is better for Palestinians than it is for Israelis, because the Palestinians lose more in every imaginable way from each attack against Israel. The sane Palestinians have no infrastructure to combat their extremists (Israel, under Sharon, made sure to decimate any such structure at any opportunity) and anything that can curb attacks on Israel is better for the Palestinians than for Israel.

Israel saves a handful of lives on their side, Palestinians save a larger handful of lives.

But more importantly, Israel's plan is to cease the invasive incursions into Palestinian territory and without the pretext of retaliation to Palestinian attacks Israel will not be able to employ the systemic destruction of Palestinian Authority infrastructure that they favor.

Said destruction had more to do with setting back the Palestinian self-determination than combating terrorism in my opinion and each terrorist bombing would give the Israelis, to use the word of a Palestinian moderate whose name I have forgotten, a "pretext" to inflict systemic setbacks to the Palestinian people on the whole.

This fence represents a realization that Sharon has reached and that he is trying to pound into the hotheads on his side. That Palestinian statehood is a "fait accompli" (his words as he pounded the desk in a meeting).

As evidenced by the opposition to the fence within Israel it represents a blow to the expationist ideology of Israeli zealots, who oppose any line.

Regardless of where this line is drawn the fact that it is so clearly demarcated is a blow to Israeli settlers and a ideological victory of Israeli moderates over Israeli lunatics.

Israel has always been in the driver's seat, and has always been able to call the shots. And finally, instead of trying to keep the status quo of territorial abiguity Israel is bowing to the recognition of eventual Palestinian statehood.

This marks an Israeli attempt to unilaterally disengage, and this is as good an idea as has come out of the region since the inception of the intifada.

It's about damn time.

And if Israeli security is realized, Palestinian dreams and statehood should follow close on its heels.

The path to termination of this conflict is so simple that it's frustrating to watch, and with each attack from either side the idiotic players in this morbid dance put off settlement of the conflict.

If the fence provides a respite from the blood, the blood will cease to grease each side's backsliding and progression on the peace process can be made.



That would be nice, but we are talking about reality and not pipe dreams.

No outside body is willing and able to impose any such objectivity on the idiots on each side of this conflict.

The global position is 1967ish lines. But with each passing year Israel has "created facts on the ground" that make it unlikely to be true to that line.

This is why it's urgent that the ambiguity start to be addressed, the fence is an impediment to Israeli lunatic settlers just as much as it is to Palestinian murderous bombers.

The final settlement, if done today would be this:

1) 1967ish lines. "Fair and equitable" exchange would need to be made where the "facts on the ground" present a practical impediment to the settlement and would need to be reached through bi-lateral negotiation.

2) "Right of return" is replaced by "fair and equitable" settlement. Simply put, Israel will never accept full right of return and it's unrealistic to expect them to, as they have a legitimate demographical concern.

Arabs have already softened the "right of return" rhetoric and seem willing to explore financial compensation and solutions outside of demographic repatriation inside of Israel.

If I were moderating the negotiations it would be solved by a symbolic real return (a couple of old ladies who have keys to standing houses would get them back) and the majority would be settled by monies and compensation provided by all interested parties (the Quartet can easily fund this and the settlement will be worth it making it interesting to do so, third party funding will be accepted simply because who the money comes from is an idiotic impediment in the grand scheme of things).

3) Jerusalem will be symbolically divided. Both nations will get to call it their capital and the carrot the US has long dangled to Israel of moving the embassy and recognizing Jerusalem (we currently do not) will be realized.

In reality, the Palestinian symbolic piece and control over Jerusalem will be a hell of a lot less than Israel's but if hostilities are reduced accesibility will mitigate against this and Palestinian interests in Jerusalem can be addressed without carving out too much of the residential Israeli interests.

4) Settlements will be taken down in some cases (like the empty ones) and in others exchanged for other land (like in the cases where the settlers have firmly entrenched and pose a practical impediment.

Recognition of the practicalities and the politics is necessary, and both sides have tentatively been on the same page on this at various times.

5) The initial Palestinian state will be demilitarized. This Israeli demand is sourced in legitimate security concerns and is more palatable to Palestinians than you might think because of two reasons: initially any millitary would be Hamas, who would represent an existential threat to Palestine, and also because Israel will be adamant about it and Palestine will not have a military to field anyway.

Specific limitations will be made on a Palestinian security and police force.

6) Lots of wordplay and mutual assurances would be made. Dumb stuff like "yeah, killing you guys isn't in the cards". It will be couched in the vocabulary this conflict has produced like "right to exist" and ****. Obvious stuff.

7) Israel will maintain control over air, sea and water supplies initially. I disagree with this but right now this is what would happen and the Palestinians would be wise to accept it because they do not deal from a position of advantage and need to get their feet on the ground before they can claim their airspace.

There would be a bunch of details, Israel would release a few thousand prisoners for example.

I'd let Arafat out long enough for some photo ops to endorse it and then hide him because there'd be a Palestinian Prime Minister.

Arafat might need some bullshit symbolic title to be coerced into cooperating on the symbolism and not making an ass out of himself as usual.

And that's the outline, any of the big players would negotiate it more or less along those lines at the moment.



I didn't say that, but I did say that any success the fence has in reducing Palestinian attacks on Israel benefits the Palestinians more than the Israelis because Israel can't take really bloody or destructive action against the Palestinians without the pretext of retaliation.

Israel has a fine sense of Public Relations (despite appearances to the contrary) and knows its limits insofar as the US is concerned (unlike the Palestinians, who are dumber than rocks with PR).



If that happens, it will put them back in the news.

I too, worry that the pre-Iraq pressure vanished, but both Bush and Sharon have set precedents that are significant.

Bush has made the US endorse Palestinian statehood as a short-term goal. The US has endorded it in the UN.

Sharon has called it a fait accompli and fought hard against his party when it voted to never allow a Palestinian state.

Sharon has called the occupation illegal when merely saying it's occupation is groundbreaking in Israel.

There has been significant progress recently (in years, not months) even though Bush's interest seems to have diminished since Abu's resignation and the Iraq invasion.

Thing is, no Palestinian attacks creates a vaccum for their statehood as that's the only legitimate pretext to prevent their self-determination. So the longer the lull, the closer their statehood gets.

We shall see.

Craven

Don't you think that soon the Palestinian militants will find a way around or under the wall?

Other than that I agree about the fence now that you explained it.

Perhaps, but from what you say you seem to think it's simply a wall, when it's more daunting than that, it has a stretch of no-man's land, electronic sensors, dog patrols etc.

It may be circumvented, but I bet to the tune of single-digit percentages in comparison to the circumvention of the previous Israeli road blocks etc.

Yea, I did think it was just a wall. I didn't know that it was like some kind of prison wall.

Anyway, for both the Palestinians and the Israelis I hope that everything goes pretty much the way you said it could. I would imagine that it would be hard to hope if you were in their shoes though.

I guess there is not much left to say on the subject, thanks for being patient and informing me about the fence and other related information.

Craven, you put some interesting thoughts together, its tempting to believe Sharon may indeed realise there are limits to Zionist dreams. And certainly as you say



But the word impediment is important here. It will hinder, it will not stop.
It wont stop the bombers, and it won't stop the dreamers attempting to create their eretz Yisrael.

There is also an important word you left out when you referred to Palestinian statehood (if you used it elsewhere my apologies) and that is 'viable'.

The fence makes a viable Palestinian state virtually impossible. This I think is Sharon's plan. For now it is necessary to concede to world opinion. He will allow the Palestinians some measure of sovereignty and the world will rejoice. But he can and will frustrate the functioning of the new state, until the Palestinians question whether they have a state at all.

Attacks on Israel, if they ever ceased, will resume. Sharon will throw his hands in the air, saying "What can we do? We've given them everything they want and they still kill us"....and use it as a pretext to begin the next and more radical phase of the operation, the ultimate goal of which is of course eretz Yisrael.

Unless you think that perfection is a pre-requisite to amelioration this doesn't matter. It's still a net improvement.



This is silly, of all the things that Israel does and demands (and there are quite a few) that would hamper the future Palestinian state the fence doesn't represent anything significantly detrimental to the "viability" of the Palestinian state.

It might be an economic disadvantage in that Palestinian work in Israel would be good for the Palestinian economy but that is Israel's prerogative and they have no obligation to the Palestinian economy except to give them the tax money they are currently holding.



I think you read too much into it. Most of the ways Israel would hamper the Palestinian state have some degree of legitimacy.

For example, a demilitarized state isn't full statehood but would initially be both wise and necessary.



1) It's not up to Israel. It's up to the UN and the US. The US has made clear its intentions and Israel does not have the final say.

2) IMO, you are reading Sharon the wrong way. Palestinian statehood is a blow to segments of Israel but it's also the removal of a millstone around Israel's neck.

You focus too much on the Israeli lunatics and not enough on the moderate majority who would just as soon wash their hands of the territories and move on.

Greater Israel is a dream of lunatics, as this very idea represents an existential threat to Israel through demographics.

Sharon has set many precedents within Israel to break this millstone and many of these precedents have nothing to do with world opinion.

My read is that he wants the legacy of having solved this conflict.

He fought it his whole life and now in his waning years wants to end it.

Anywho, that's my take and I think yours is very far off.



Steve you don't know this, and while there will certainly be some fricticious issues your conclusions about both what Sharon will do and what the Palestinians will think are simply assumptions based on nothing more than the predisposition you have to see Israel in certain ways.



Ok, my turn. I'll do the weather.

"Tonight, it will be dark, and it will continue to be dark throughout the night till the morning when it will be partly light."



I worry very much that Palestinians will come close to viable statehood or even achieve it only for the conflict to degenerate and then make it even harder to end because of the fact that approximation to statehood had already happened.

It would fuel the fires for those who see anything as the Palestinian's faults and would be tragic.

Thing is, I don't think this is any grand scheme for Sharon and if it happens he probably will not be around anyway so I doubt you can pin this to a Sharon conspiracy.

Furthermore, if this happens I think it's most likely to be entirely the fault of Hamas or ilk seizing upon any friction in negotiations to try to end them.

Now I know you'd like to ascribe it all to Israel and Sharon, but IMO this is merely due to a deep distrust you have for Israel. Which perhaps understandable in some way, is counter productive to the peace process.

Here you are making all sorts of predictions of doom. Maybe they will come to pass, but it's not like you have any contructive alternatives to suggest so it's moot.

I guess the peace process will have to continue, despite your doomy assumptions and we can only hope you are wrong.

Because thinking it may fail, is really no valid indictment on an attempt to make it succeed, even though it may.

Well Craven I accept none of us can predict the future with accuracy. And I confess I am not as generous towards Sharon as you are. The man is an indicted war criminal. I don't like him and I don't trust him. And everything I know about him suggests to me that he is very much at the forefront of (although not in the same party as) the "dangerous lunatics" to which you refer. I believe it is Sharon's desire to do quite literally anything to frustrate the founding of a viable Palestinian state, even if it means conceding some sort of Arab bantustan for the meantime. Yes I am pessimistic, because I don't believe Sharon is a man of good faith. It is of course a tragedy because there is widespread support in Israel for the twin state solution and a lasting peace. It is my view that Sharon prefers a continuing war of attrition than to compromise on his vision.

I'm no fan of Sharon either, not even the new Sharon. But it's undeniable that something has changed.

While before he was the child with the club to beat Arabs off his farm today he is often facing down not only the extreme fringe but even his own party.

I trust him as far as I can throw him, but do not automatically assume a ruse. A ruse doesn't make sense, I think this guy really wants to end the conflict as his legacy.

Well that sums it up really. Its a matter of trust.

In what way I wonder, is Israel a vital ally to the United States?

It's a bastion of hope in an endless sea of hatred and dispair.

It is one of the few countries in the region that has not colluded with, in one fashion or another, the desire to murder citizens of the United States.
And, in a region that holds a great deal of the world's oil supply, it is useful to have an ally that does not want to wipe you out....