Article

2003-11-30 Middle East

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-30 2:08:56 AM|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Of course blowing-up Isralie bus' has no affect on the"prospects for peace."

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-30 6:44:54 AM|| 2003-11-30 6:44:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Sharon's learning/using the Arafat way - keep talking and do what you wanted to all along. The wall is driving the Paleos nuts because killing Israelis is the only leverage they have and when the wall's done (and it's only a matter of time) the Israelis can say: "Have your stinking (demilitarized) Paleo state - if you bring in military from outside, or attack across the wall, we'll annihilate you. Otherwise, good luck, assholes....welcome to Paleo 8th century despotism. Seethe and whine in your hummus all you want. By the way...might want to think about learning some birth control...."

Posted by Frank G 2003-11-30 10:17:47 AM|| 2003-11-30 10:17:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Stole my thunder, Frank. And great post/comments, too. The key thing to understand, as Frank notes, is that the barrier is a strategic coup de main, in that it essentially destroys the Pals' last bit of leverage. I'm assuming this, and not the practical inconveniences, is behind what seems (I hope?) to be Palestinian desperation.

As to whether the particular course of the barrier as built is a mistake -- tough call, actually. Before they started building, some of us agreed on basic guidelines: the barrier should be a militarized frontier, with impassable yet readily removed and relatively cheap features like ditches, berms, wire, mines, and monitored fences, not a wall; its course should be determined first by effectiveness and cost efficiency; and in select cases its route should be punitive.

I agree with the logic of the post that running it on the Green Line would expose the bad faith of Palestinian whining -- but it would probably have been just one more astoundingly blatant Palestinian distortion that gets a pass.

I think Frank's nailed it on overall strategy: build the barrier, disengage from the territories, lay down very blunt and stark red lines on Pal behavior. Another element I've wondered about is economic disengagement. Ideally, Israel could ban all Palestinian labor (not goods for transhipment, though), period. I think the pain of this, along with the barrier, might eventually tip the Palestinian community against its disastrous and parasitic "leaderhsip". Also there would be obvious security benefits. Worth a try, at least.

Posted by IceCold 2003-11-30 11:02:33 AM|| 2003-11-30 11:02:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Thanks IC - I would think they would have to ban all Paleo labor as a matter of security. They already haveto worry about fifth column Israeli arabs, which are getting recruited more and more frequently. Walls can be moved, the first thing is to get it in place. I wonder how much financial aid the EU would give a disengaged Paleo state? I speculate that if the Paleos weren't such a thorn in the Joooos side there might not be such a ~~unspoken antisemitic~~ ~~schadenfreude~~ sentiment to enrich Yasser and cronies

Posted by Frank G 2003-11-30 2:02:07 PM|| 2003-11-30 2:02:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 If the EU wants to through unaccounted for billions of euros into the Paleo rathole, then they are welcome to it. The Saudis are going to be quite occupied with their own physical and fiscal asses in the very near future, so the honey pot is goin' down. Frank, I believe, is on the mark with his analysis of Israel's strategy. Talk is cheap. Want to talk, let's talk. Talk as long as you like. Yes we are continuing the fence, what else do you want to talk about?

I have one question though, based upon ignorance. What is the deal with the west bank settlements? Are they viable to Israel from the economic and security view? What is the deal with them? I wonder how they fit into the big picture for Israel.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-11-30 4:44:51 PM|| 2003-11-30 4:44:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 AP, some of the settlements will be inside the wall -- that's one of the political considerations that drove the placement of the wall. Some of the oldest/biggest settlements are inside, some are just outside, and some small/newer ones are well outside. I think that the last group will get jettisoned when the wall is complete. The others? Don't know yet.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-30 5:34:19 PM|| 2003-11-30 5:34:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 one of the biggest and most established and most disputed is Ariel. Its located southwest of Nablus relatively far in from the pre-67 armistice line, yet still west of the main road from Nablus to Ramallah. For years it was assumed that even a Labour govt would keep Ariel. IIRC the first Barak offer at Camp David II did involve Israel keeping Ariel - but with only a narrow corridor linking it to Israel, not the wide salient envisioned in earlier years. IIRC the last Barak proposal, at Taba, would have given up Ariel.

Sharon clearly wants to keep Ariel. A big question is whether the security barrier should go jog east to bring Ariel inside, or just leave it out. At this point theyve simply skipped that sector and avoided a decision. The US has made noises cutting back aid if the barrier goes too far east. This has big implications for negotiating - while Israel insists the barrier is not a political boundary (to avoid pissing off the Pals, Euros and Powell on the one hand, and the settlers in the "outside" settlements and their supporters on the other) a unilateral withdrawl to the barrier, with annexation of everything west of it, is clearly the Israeli fall back position at such point as they give up any diplomatic process. The farther east the barrier is, the more threatening such a unilateral move is to the Pals and their friends, and the less of a concession on Israel's part it represents. Ergo the more powerful it is as a bargaining chip. Ergo to build the barrier further west is ITSELF to forego a bargaining chip, and requires COMPENSATION - in the form of Pals adhering to the their road map promises to crackdown on Hamas. Promises Qureia has yet to fulfill.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-1 11:46:52 AM|| 2003-12-1 11:46:52 AM|| Front Page Top

10:26 Anonymous
10:26 Anonymous
11:46 liberalhawk
11:33 liberalhawk
11:15 liberalhawk
11:12 liberalhawk
11:07 liberalhawk
09:21 Sarah
23:59 Zhang Fei
23:54 Stephen
23:34 Barbara Skolaut
23:24 Gasse Katze
23:18 RMcLeod
23:12 Bomb-a-rama
22:56 Lucky
22:51 Lucky
22:06 Mercutio
21:57 Lucky
21:57 Mercutio
21:55 Anonymous
21:51 Lucky
21:41 CrazyFool
21:36 Lucky
21:18 Lucky