If Steven is right, then my opinion of Sharon just rose a notch. He may have found a way of dealing with the Palestinian "problem" that doesn't involve large scale ethnic cleansing, at the same time it doesn't jeapordize Israel's long term security either.

I don't usually agree with Den Beste, when I trouble to read him, but in this case I think he has it almost exactly right. Where I disagree:

1. The Europeans are tiring of Arafat much more quickly than SDB realizes, and the fence will accelerate this. Why? Because Euro sympathy for the Palestinians arises not so much from anti-Semitism as from anti-colonialism, an echo of Europe's own treatment of Africans and Asians. (Tom Friedman, no dove, routinely describes the settlement process as colonialist, and he's right.) Although the boundaries of the fence do not seem fair to me (perhaps the possibility of moving them to the west is another bargaining chip?), after separation, "Palestine" will be just another wretched post-colonialist state. Far from being a permanent pariah, once the Palestine issue is settled, Israel will join the EU after its shaky economy permits.

2. Even if Sharon is insincere in his various evacuation proposals (quite possible), he has changed the vocabulary of Israeli discourse completely, and the toothpaste doesn't go back into the tube. Sharon is the first PM in Israeli history to use the word "occupation", and it caused a scandal. SDB, at least in the essay linked, underestimates the impact of Sharon's fitful and irregular leftward drift on the Israeli public.

3. As an opponent of the Iraq War, I quite disagree with SDB's statements how it has facilitated improvement in the I/P area. For example, I doubt if Saddam's financial contributions are all that significant; first, because the Saudis and Iranians give more, and second, because the tactics to which the Palestinians have resorted are inexpensive. On the other hand, SDB did not mention, although he probably realizes, that the discovery during the Iraq War that Israel (like us) had wildly exaggerated Saddam's military capabilities especially in regard to a missile or even conventional attack on Israel made possible some security concessions (e.g., with respect to residual military bases in the Jordan Valley).

4. SDB is the first conservative I have seen echo my own sentiments that as the intifada progressed, terrorism (of increasing depravity) became the marker of Palestinian authenticity. The various factions began to compete against each other to see who could be most terroristic, even groups like the Tanzim that had never before participated in attacks on civilians living with the 1967 borders. Although Arafat permitted, perhaps even orchestrated, the beginnings of the intifada (very, very stupid move), I'm convinced that events spiralled out of his control in a way he had not anticipated at all.

Not bad, but a little soft on the economic impact of the fence. This is a solution to the "Palestinian Problem" right out of the movie Escape from New York. In the movie, they put a wall around Manhatten and turned it into a prison.

With the fence up, the Palestinians will be landlocked between two borders, Israel and Jordan, both of which will be closed to them. They have no economy, no oil and no prospects. They survive on foreign aid (both humanitarian and for the support of terrorism) and guest workers in Israel. Due to all the security shutdowns Israeli firms have been replacing Palestinian laborers with other foreigners (the kind who don't blow themselves up). The fence will complete the process.

Israel, on the other hand, has a first world economy that will recover quickly once PA terrorism is sufficiently reduced--the other purpose of the fence.

Palestinian society has become parasitic. What will happen to the parasite when it is finally isolated from the host?

Good question, Iblis. I note with interest that some of the recent proposals SdB described include absorption of the Palestinians into other societies, within limits. A right that may well be invoked beyond the settlement itself.

Speculation time:

My guess is, the exodus line from the new Palestinian state will grow long in a hurry... and that many of the Palestinians will wind up in Europe. Which would be a sort of poetic justice for the Europeans - though it does sharply up the odds of the continent becoming mostly Judenrein over the following couple of decades.

Israel would benefit from some immigration in this scenario, but I'm guessing America will benefit most.

So, the future could look something like this...

The Israelis live in a more secure environment and get quality immigrants (but no EU membership - they don't want Jews, or Muslim Turkey thank you), America gets even more high-quality immigrants, the Arabs have to focus on their own problems for a change (exacerbated by the newly-local Palestinians, who would be both good and bad news), and the Palestinians get their deeply-held wish to fulfil one of Hitler's fondest dreams - just not in the place they expected to do it.

Everybody wins in this scenario. Except the Europeans. Schade.

The only bad thing about the fence is that it's taken so damn long for the Israeli government to finally decide to build it. Once it's done there's room for some negotiation about exact borders and so forth, but the basic idea of separation is a sound one under the circumstances. Down the line there should be some arrangement to compensate those people who lost land either directly to the fence or through annexation of fenced in land. The compensation should only be paid to individuals though, not the PA. The PA has all the legitimacy of a street gang.

Another thought - I can't help but wonder if Sharon isn't setting himself up for assassination by one of the extremist 'from the river to the sea' factions, though. I hope not, but it's certainly possible.

If Sharon were assassinated, his current political problems with corruption would go away forever, and his high place in History assured. A his age, he might not care....

The Israelis live in a more secure environment and get quality immigrants (but no EU membership - they don't want Jews, or Muslim Turkey thank you)

I don't doubt that it makes economic sense, Andrew. I just don't see the EU accepting the Jewish state as a member. It may seem irrational of them and the underlying reasons unedifying, agreed - but then people are often like that, and arguing 'but it makes good sense' doesn't make such things go away.

Only reversal of the underlying drivers and trends (European muslim demographics and hostility, reflexive and pervasive media bias, growing fusion of anti-semitism into the red-green-black movements as a core tenet) would offer hope on that front - and the sad thing is, I don't see that as likely on any of the 3 main axes I have just described. If anything, I see the trends hardening in all 3 areas.

Would be surprised if any significant number of Palestinians emigrated from the West Bank--not for lack of trying, but rather for lack of anyplace to go.

SdB correctly points out that the Arab nations hate the Palestinians. There's no way in hell that the Saudis, Jordanians, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians or anyone else would accept anything more than a de minimus influx. They have their own problems already, and the Palestinians have a well earned reputation as troublemakers.

Recall that after the first Gulf War newly liberated Kuwait expelled its 250,000 Palestinian guest workers, and no one in the Arab world or Europe said boo. Recall also that after the second Gulf War Saddam's Palestinian guests had a tough time at the hands of ordinary Iraqis.

It's kind of ironic. They want the land so badly, and now they may very well be stuck on it. Be careful what you wish for...

For whatever it's worth, I just posted *a followup article* which responded to some criticism of the one Trent linked to. (I wrote the followup before I noticed Trent's post in my refers, but I've added a link back.)

s/Trent/Joe/ (oops...)

I think (unusually) that SDB is being way too optimistic. There have been literally dozens of events since 1967 where rational thinkers have made cogent arguments "This is it, Arafat has made his final mistake, it's over, beginning of the end, etc." And the next day another bus blows up and Arafat weeps in English and cheers in Arabic. He is the survivor's surivor. He always lives to ruin another day. And the EU isn't really that upset that their funds are being misused. After all, they've wasted billions in Europe; a few hundred million is a rounding error.

This conflict is simply not amenable to logical analysis. The Palestinians have dedicated themselves to dying. That is so far beyond the ken of analysts that they simply ignore it and concentrate on what would happen if events follow a logical progression. They won't.

Contrary to the Israeli government's assumption, things won't get better when/if Arafat dies (a natural death or otherwise). They'll get worse. Civil war worse. Sierra Leone worse. And it's better for Israel as a country and the Israelis as individuals to be as detached from the carnage as possible.

So build the wall, Auschwitz borders or not. Build it high, wide and strong. Surround it with moats of acid and cover it with electrified barbed wire and broken glass. For every grenade that comes over the top, return a mortar shell. For every suicide bomber, a missile. Go on with your lives, and let the Palestinians slaughter each other. As SDB rightly points out, the Palestinians are as low on the Middle East food chain as you can get. The world will tut-tut and not lift a finger.

The end to this conflict will come from something so minor, so immaterial, that historians of the future will spend their careers trying to figure it out. Something along the line of "for want of a nail, the horseshoe was lost" and thus the kingdom. But whatever it is, it will involve the Palestinians leaving the suicidal swamp they've created. America can't do it. Israel can't do it. If it takes the EU or another Arab government, fine. If they can drag themselves out, more power to them.

Israel flat out will never be part of the EU.

Why? The EU is more than a simply economic organization, remember in addition to harmonizing immigration laws, environmental codes, and the like, the will have a common foreign pollicy.

What makes you think that Israelis want Berlin and Paris to have the largest influence on their foriegn policy?

Who is supplying the power and water to the Palestinians? Presumably an Israeli detachment will result in the rapid deterioration of the infrastructure. if the power goes out and the water stops flowing, the Palestinian territories could well turn into an incredible hellhole in incredibly short order.

Steven den Beste (and Andrew Lazarus!) are too quick to assume that the separation barrier will actually separate the Israelis and Palestinians; or else they're underplaying what the separation barrier will entail.

The ostensible purpose of the barrier is to separate the West Bank Palestinians from Green Line Israel and (incidentally or equally) from the seam line settlements. That still leaves plenty of Israeli settlements on the Palestinian side of the barrier, implying plenty of IDF activity behind the barrier, implying no IDF-Palestine separation.

If the barrier prevents suicide bombers from entering Green Line Israel, but leaves the IDF active in the West Bank, then the suicide bombing stories -- the ones that hurt the Palestinians the most -- disappear, while the IDF raid stories -- the ones that hurt Israel the most -- continue. And of course there's a new series of Israel-negative stories about the effect of the barrier on ordinary Palestinians.

Alternatively, to get a more complete separation, Israel could proceed with the eastern fence. That still leaves plenty of problems, given how the Palestinians and Israelis are interspersed (a detailed map, somewhat out of date, is available here).

As the map shows, the initial Army recommendations for the eastern fence still leave plenty of Israeli settlements on the Palestinian side. It would be possible to evacuate those, but at this time Sharon is talking of evacuating only a "very small number" of West Bank settlements.

Alternatively, Israel might adopt the "alternative fence trajectories", biting deep into the Palestinian areas to enclose the larger hilltop settlements (ref. map). At that point, you do have the Palestinian West Bank looking very much like a collection of Bantustans; plenty of provocation for the "anti-colonialist" Europeans; more importantly, a problem for the US strategy, of presenting itself to the Arabs as a champion of a two-state solution.

Whichever way Israel plays it, the separation strategy, for all its security benefits, is a political negative. That's likely part of the explanation for Sharon's Gaza initiative; he's aiming to earn in Gaza some of the political credits he'll need to spend in the West Bank.

Turkey's got a young and intelligent population. Europe is aging. Socialist countries (as the Europeans are), are going to be be in terrible trouble because they don't have the financial base they need for the future. In other words, if you don't have a strong supply of young people willng to pay the benefits 'earned' by the old people; you have economic problems.

This is a big shift. And, the Europeans have brain drain already. The prospects aren't good.

I think what surprised me about this Likud government's embrace of the Wall, is that it was Labor induced. It was originally designed by Peres to lock in the Green Lines. And, Arik Sharon fought like crazy NOT to have this Wall, which were de facto borders, come about.

Now, it is being used as a tactic. Because it works. It's not the first place concrete barriers have changed landscapes. Right here, in California, there are dead communities that were very violent, and were cut off from civilization by the expanding network of freeways. That Israel is using a fence is interesting. Because at some point if it really works it may not 'come down' with peace agreements. It may yet entail a network of other systems that will work effectively as gates and conduits. Cement does that. It even does it for water.

What is the future for the arabs in this area? One thing that can happen is that Gaza will get a deep port. The French have been anxious to build this. And, the connections across the area that would form from "Free Trade Zones" that had access to a deep port at one end, and even flowing water. And, rail systems that moved goods, would provide more jobs. Even agriculture moves across an efficent system. The Palestinians landlocked? The Jordanians are "land locked." My guess is that what comes in the future are ways that trade works over large distances. Helps not to have shooting wars along the way. (It's one of the reasons America got settled. And, the Indians got pushed off. The peace time flow of men and materials is a collosus to any country. It increases wealth.) And, I see a lot of potential for the Palestinians, here. Just as China is alive with activity.

What Arafat and the company of all the other despots have done is by not concentrating on business and buildling infrastructure, they've really lost out on starting their engines.

Where's the plus? Birth rates are good. They've got YOUNG STOCK. Where the Europeans have aging people, and a big drop in young stock.

The one thing the Palestinians don't have is a bottomless pit of other people willing to keep them on welfare. Does access to education matter? Yup. Keeping women veiled a bad thing? Yup. Competition, however, is a good thing. And, it will eliminate those that can't compete.

I think what has amazed me most was this imbicilic drive to murder citizens. Carnage is such a waste. You don't claim one victory by killing non-compatants. You'd have thought Hitler taught that lesson to the world. He was so smart. And, he killed so many innocents. Just to lose all those fancy plans he had. If you want something to last 1,000 years don't pick Hitler for your leader.

That Israel is in good shape now? You bet! They've actually got a prime minister in office who won TWICE on his popularity. Not the usual stuff you see in elitist socialist societies. And, for Isreal's sake, I really hope they can shake Marx! Another "leader" who leads people into the toilet.

Abu Frank,

I have been discussing this for several days over at LGF.

The biggest move Sharon has made in the last few months is not the wall but the abandoning of many settlements.

Even the American State Dept. is not exactly jumping for joy and the Egyptians and Jordanians are livid. Why? After all removal of settlements is what they have been asking for for oh about a decade. Why is every one upset at Israel unilaterally giving in to these long expressed demands?

The clue is that without the settlements the Pali economy is not viable. The Palis require the settlements. The settlements give the Palis hope and keep them from migrating to Egypt or Jordan.

So the wall is quite important but the settlements are key.

DEBKA has a bit up explaining the whole situation.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=781

Sharon has called everyone's bluff.

Brilliant.

It is nice to have America, Egypt, and Jordan begging for Israelis not to leave the territories. Even if the Egyptians and Jordanians are doing it in private. It has to be boosting Sharon's morale. Instead of being hectored he is being courted.

The American reaction can be read here:

http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/17/content_291042.htm

Obviously it is more "concerned" than "dismayed" still Sharon has given them what they have claimed to have wanted for a decade and State is not too happy.

Way cool.

As I said.

Brilliant.

About Palestinians being stuck with nowhere to go:

IF Arafat and his illiterate thugs were not running things, Palestine could be Singapore. It could be a prosperous hi-tech city-state. Palestinians are the most Westernized, entrepreneurial, highly-educated Arabs. Many of them live abroad with affluent lifestyles. The human capital is there.

What isn't there is rule of law, stability, privatization. Arafat's gang really is a mafia - it takes cuts of all Palestinian businesses, and of course the constant gang warfare and corruption make it very difficult to make an honest profit.

But if that could be fixed: well, there are already industrial parks on the Israeli border and joint Israeli-Palestinian science-tech projects, such as in irrigation (some of these were presented at a world environmental conference a few years ago, where - unlike Durban - the organizers successfully managed to keep the proceedings from being politicized.) Israel has more hi-tech startups and graduate degrees per capita than any other country in the world. The Palestinians would be right next to a high-tech mecca which would resume attracting investment once the suicide bombings died down (which is already happening - one good result of the fence).

That is, all this could happen if they would go sane. So the tinyness of the West Bank would not have to be an issue.

There's a few things which bother me immensely about this post, and was evident when I was in Israel and the occupied territory earlier this month. First, the laden terminology Joe uses? A fence? I'm sorry Joe but if you look at it, its not a fence. Now is it completely a wall. It is by all means a barrier, and should be regarded as such. To use the words "wall" and "fence" immediately propositions that you have certain biases, or at least agendas, and are not approaching a human rights issue, and a political problem with the objectivity it needs.

Second, is this line which you quote "As Israel continues to build its security fence along the border of the West Bank." The border of the West Bank? I'm confused, if barrier is being built inside the West Bank along the borders Sharon drew up in the early 70's. In various areas, including Qalqiliyah, the wall is deep inside the green line and not at all along the "west bank borders." The early conception of the barrier also demonstrates that its justification for defense is wholly incorrect. I talked to many Knesset members upon my visit, Jewish and non-jewish, and they assured me that the barrier was preconceived before the prevalence of terrorism. It was, and is, foremost an attempt to make "facts on the ground," a physical barrier which would translate to the geographical boundaries of a future Palestinian state, one which is greatly reduced from both the 48 and 67 maps.

Third are certain arguments and lines like this "Palestinians get their deeply-held wish to fulfil one of Hitler's fondest dreams." One must wonder if you have ever talked to a Palestinian, visited a Palestinian city? I certainly doubt it for within the very words are implied a degree of stereotype and hate which is so influential in anti-semitism, broad generalization based on the actions of a ridiculously small minority in order to support a stereotype against the majority. Excuse me, but the majority of Palestinians do NOT support suicide bombings. All polls within the territories carried out by NGO like Amnesty, and HR Watch, including some taken by Jewish human rights NGOs have clearly revealed this. Moreover, Palestinians do NOT want to kill all the Jews, or complete "Hitler's fondest dreams." Please make the important and fundamental distinction that there are fundamentalists that are Palestinians, just like there are extremists who are Israeli (and there are extremists, walk in a bazaar in Hebron and read the graffiti in Hebrew which state "kill all Arabs" and "death to the arabs"). To categorically make synonomous the concept of fundamentalism with being Palestinian is not only incorrent, deeply insulting, dehumanizing, and racist, but also the foundation to the current ignorance which is preventing a just and fair peace to both people caught up in this conflict.

I hope in the future, that in tune of educating the public you are aware of the stereotypes and bias implicit within so many of your categorizations and make an effort to truly come in terms with your own biases. There is both wisdom and hope when both sides begin to few the conflict from the other's perspective.

Is it a barrier or a fence? It's both. It is entirely based upon which side you are on. If it is keeping your children from being blown into pieces on their way home from school it will have a happy, shining connotation. If it is keeping you from getting to your fields it will have a depressing, dark connotation. Whether we call it a fence, wall, barrier or "that tall, vertical thingy" is really immaterial.

Israel is building the wall both on it's borders. It is also buliding it past it's borders. What I always see forgotten (or conveniently overlooked) is why Israel is able to build the barrier into another's country. Israel was invaded, repeatedly. The first responsibilty of all governments is the protection of it's citizenry. If placing the fence past what others consider my borders will protect my citizens then I should do so.

The Palestinian terrorists do not wear signs around their necks stating their intention to randomly kill civilians. Until they do Palestinians, as a group, will be labeled. The ratio of terrorist to non-terrorist is really immaterial. The terrorist screams to the world "I am a Palestinian Martyr!" The world listens. Are there Jewish extemists? You betcha. How many of them have blown themselves up on busses in the last decade? There is a huge difference between paint on the wall and Semtex on the body. To even compare them is ridiculous beyond measure. We don't need to dehumanize the Palestinians. IMO, they do so very well my turning themselves into munitions.

Semper Fi

Nema, I have said often in the past that I sincerely believe and hope there are Palestinians who oppose suicide bombing and the campaign of terror against Israelis. Sadly, I can't find any evidence of a Palestinian political entity that shares their opinions. There are radical and racist Israeli groups for certain, but they are balanced in the spectrum of Israel's political community by other groups that aren't.

So help me out; in a community where the political power has been taken over by those who do want to destroy Israel, and where people who oppose those political powers are routinely murdered as 'collaborators', what's the path?

A.L.

Rick,

So if as an American I go and randomly shoot people, do the American people have to pay for my crimes? The very logic in which you institute is flawed from its very inconsistency. According to your own logic when Baruch Goldstein opens fire in the Abraham Mosque, during Ramadan, and during prayer, thus killing 22 people, the entire Israeli people should be held accountable. There are many many reports of settlers, or even soliders committing atrocities whether accidently or intentionally, which are reported in Haaretz and human rights reports. But then again, I'm not trying to contexualize the victim from arbitrary distinctions like you just did. The victim has always been the peace movement, the Palestinians and Israeli's who want a just and fair peace. The villians have always been the same as well. The fundamentalists and militants who wish to broker a deal on their own terms through violence and bloodshed.

Oh and building a barrier either inside the west bank or around it makes one heckava difference when you consider the environmental and human suffering it causes to people who never committed crimes. The Israeli government has itself admitted to the consequences to human rights, including violations of property, economic well being, food, water, and various other issues as a result of the barrier being built within the west bank. You talk about defense of a people and a government having an obligation to protect itself? But you miss one fundamental point, which even the framers of our constitution were aware of. The need for security does not give a country the pretext to whatitsoever wishes, and that includes victimizing the innocent. By categorically clumping together terrorism and palestinians you not only make a horrid mistake, but you become no more sinister then men who thought that all blacks were inferior, jews are all evil, and muslims are all terrorist.

So if as an American I go and randomly shoot people, do the American people have to pay for my crimes?

Yes.

A.L.,

I think you offer a more intelligent and important inquery, one I hope I give justice to. I see no suprise that you would believe that there is no peaceful opposition that is supported by the majority, because what we see is not the daily protests which occur, but the bombings and killings. It is by the same measure and degree of manipulation that people in the Arab world resent Israeli's. They similarly only see oppression and the deaths of children as a result of targeted assassinations or military incursions. Offered that view time after time, one would clearly assume that it is the prevalent event. But it is not.

The peace movement in Palestine, offering a non-violent approach, is still alive and supported by the vast majority. Similarly the movement against militarianism and unilateralism in Israel is also alive. However, both have been slowly decreasing and giving away to support to more radical and fundamentalist approaches as a result of this continous cycle, false promises, and empty leaderships. When I spoke to one of the Israeli drafters of the Geneva Accords he explained to me that the Accords itself really wasn't supposed to be an alternative to the roadmap. Rather, it was supposed to be an attempt to make the peace camps on both sides more visible in the media. For that particular reason they had to have a detailed resolution in order to resolutely answer any questions which may be brought forward. The path, as you ask, is to offer support towards the peace camps, which has not taken place. Once we start talking about what is being done on the ground by both sides (which IS happening every day!) rather then pointing fingers at every horrid event, then is when the peace camp will prevail. There are other options as well. A female member of the Knesset is currently gathering support amongst both Israeli and Palestinian academics in order to start a political organization to again draw mass attention to the movements of peace. This is just one example, of things that have been done and are being done, which should not just give us hope, but be covered in the press as to give the people themselves a way out of desperation and fundamentalism.

Nema, if you don't see the difference between what happened to Baruch Goldstein's name after his crime and what happens to the various Palestinian terrorists after theirs, I don't see a lot of hope for a meaningful dialog.

Hint: his actions were condemned by the government and demonstrtions by Jews in Israeli streets were held to protest his actions.

And Palestinian terrorists families get stipends and get schools named after them...

A.L.

Nema, I do agree that the Israeli polity should be held responsible for Baruch Goldstein, because the massacre was not work of a single deranged nut, but an unsurprising event arising from an entire movement of deranged nuts (viz., the Hebron settlers).

And I even disagree with A.L. as to the adequacy of the Israeli response. Rabin considered dismantling the Hebron settlements, but he had a loss of nerve and instead the Hebron Arabs were put under curfew "for their own protection". It was also several years (until 2000 IIRC) before the government demolished the shrine built at Baruch Goldstein's grave, which had become a pilgrimage site for the extremist settler movement, and which the so-called mainstream settlers had tolerated.

Having said that, the Israeli response to Goldstein was miles ahead of the PA's response to the suicide bombings. At about the time of the Taba conference, the PA (Arafat, specifically) became unable or unwilling to continue negotiations in good faith. Instead they allowed the years of pent-up frustration (much of it understandable) to boil over into an orgy of violence that, frankly, shows no signs of abating on its own. I most certainly believe that a great number of Palestinians (if you say it is still a majority, I am prepared to believe it) are looking for establishment of a state and of their national rights through peaceful means, but their ability to stop Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa martyrs, the Tanzim, Force 17, and the various other militias and terror groups is very small. I doubt, frankly, if it is much reduced by the fence/wall.

Abu Frank: The settlements on the other side of the wall are going to go away. Sure, Sharon doesn't say that—but everyone sees the handwriting on the wall.

M. Simon: M. Simon, 1864 version: Why is the North not celebrating the Emancipation Proclamation more? Because of a secret: the plantations are the only thing saving the economy of the Southern Negroes. Debka has more.... More seriously, Egypt, Jordan, and the US State Dept are worried about, first, the route of the wall and the Palestinians left to its west or worse whose communities are split, and, second, the possibility that chaos in the West Bank could destabilize their own regimes. The idea they wish to perpetuate Israel's colonialist settlement movement (whose leaders claim also the East Bank of the Jordan) is risible.

Nema, the photographs you have seen of the security fence where it is made up of concrete barriers actually only make up about 3% of the total length of the fence, in high-risk areas like east Jerusalem. Take a look: Fence

It matters little what the 'stated sentiments' of the Palestinian people are. Words are cheap and you get the goverment you deserve, as they say. If the Palestinians are ruled by thugs and tin pot dictators, they either approve or lack the courage of their convictions. When Palestinians can be found to make the ultimate sacrifice for what they believe verses Israel, then it is an indictment of the Palestinian people as a whole that they do little to change the government that they have. Inaction is tacit approval of the regime, regardless what pollsters report.

Nema:

The difference is that in America if someone goes out and randomly shoots people they will be hunted down and punished for the crime. You make the point for me when you use the word accountable. In America we are accountable. If an individual commits an atrocity they are held accountable. If an organization commits an atrocity they are accountable. If a member of the IDF commits an atrocity he or she is held accountable. If a Palestinian commits an atrocity they or their family members are rewarded.

What of the Human Rights of the Israel's? Do they not have the right to sit in a coffee shop without fear of dying? Don't they have the right to ride a bus without having to wonder about whether every other passenger is wearing a vest. The point SdB is making and you are missing is that Israel IS concerned about Human Rights. The right of every Israeli to live.

but you become no more sinister then men who thought that all blacks were inferior, jews are all evil, and muslims are all terrorist.

I don't recall saying anything about blacks, jews or muslims. Nice try though.

Semper Fi

Nema,
While I respect your opinions expressed here and agree with some of your observations I would nonetheless like to give you a direct impression of a process I went through and how I view this.
My political orientation was always left of center.
For years I voted for those who in my eyes promoted a balanced sane and calculated movement towards peace.
Before the Intifadah broke out I voted for Barak with the hope that we may be able to put an end to the senseless and vicious situation.
During the Intifadah I have come to realize that Oslo was a mistake. A mistake that had to be done, but a mistake nonetheless.
I almost paid personally for this mistake. A suicidal palestinian blew himself about 20 meters away from my home in Tel aviv. That made me think !
I had hoped that if so many palestinians want peace and an end to the conflict, some of them may have the balls to come out in the open and publicly oppose the suicide bombers, but no, they either dont really want to do this or they do want but are afraid to be considered traitors.
Either way, we cannot count on them to initiate and sustain a strong effective political movement among the palestinians.
I was therefore forced to vote Sharon not because I truely support his ideology but as a preventive measure to avoid further disaster.
I think the fence/wall should be built because I value the life and security of my own people above and beyond those of the palestinians. I am sorry for the additional suffering and problems caused to any sincere peace promoting palestinian but we truely dont have a choice in this.
When I will see a strong popularly supported palestinian peace movement willing to make real sacrifices for what they believe in maybe I will change my mind.

Trying to add to The Dodo's words is superfluous. Trying to argue against them... first, walk in their shoes.

Semper Fi

M. Simon:

You have a point but you oversell it.

Your Debka link says "Palestinian jobs in the lush fruit, vegetable and herbs greenhouses [in Gush Katif] [would] be forfeit". There would indeed be some short-term losses, especially since Sharon proposes to remove the greenhouses. Long-term, we know that the Palestinians are perfectly capable of running their own greenhouses, if only from the number the IDF has bulldozed. Your claim "the settlements give the Palis hope and keep them from migrating to Egypt or Jordan" goes way beyond what your sources support.

Concerning the US reaction, your China Daily link says "Washington voiced support for evacuating Gaza settlements but again warned against unilateral steps with political impact." That is, they're not worried about what Sharon's giving in Gaza, but what he might take in the West Bank.

Jordan is worried, obviously not by what might happen in the Strip, nor by the few small evacuations Sharon proposes for the West Bank, but by the prospect that "the fence will force a large wave of Palestinian emigration toward Jordan" (Haaretz, 2004-01-20).

One likely concern you don't mention arises from the erosion of the PA's strength and authority. It's quite possible that the PA would not control the Strip post-withdrawal; the prospect of civil war or Hamas control would concern the PA, the US and most of Israel's neighbours. One undercurrent of Sharon's premiership has been a tacit alliance of Hamas and Likud against the PA; turning the Strip into Hamastan would be a noteworthy culmination.

Andrew Lazarus:

The settlements on the other side of the wall are going to go away.

All the settlements from the Western Fence to the Jordan?

everyone sees the handwriting on the wall

Some people are reading it as "a Palestinian 'state' in the Strip and Areas A and B".

Abu Frank: I think we mostly agree. Some people are still reading the handwriting as "If we can stall another generation, the Palestinians' terrorism will be so odious we can implement 'transfer'". But I think most of Israel knows what the wall really means, that Israeli civilians although not security forces are all going to be on the western side, just for practical military reasons if none else. The last I saw, the idea was to build separate walls around some of the larger settlements outside the main fence, like Ariel (now a fair-sized town).

Thinking of Ariel as a walled town, I'm reminded of a thought I had about the settlements years ago, that the people who build them are psychologically compelled to reconstruct the Ghetto, but this time when the Franks, the Ukranians, the Cossaks, and of course the Nazis begin their pogrom (now in keffiyahs), the settlers mow them down with Uzis.

Andrew Lazarus:

I think we mostly agree.

Yes. And like everyone else, we mostly don't know what's really going to happen.

most of Israel knows what the wall really means

Most of the achievements of the settlement movement have been won against the expectations of "most of Israel". As Ben Gurion didn't quite say, what's important is not what the moderates say, but what the militants do.