A fence to make good neighbors

[Darranar]

WASHINGTON – Instead of chiding Israel for building a fence between its territory and the land on which the Palestinian state is to be formed, the United States should welcome it. Indeed, it should offer to cover a good part of the cost involved in building the fence, about $600 million, to rush it along. Historically, some fences can make good neighbors. While not a panacea, solid walls can at least offer temporary relief from situations of drastic conflict.

So far, few have noted the fact that the Sharon government's agreement to build the fence sends a clear signal - better yet, creates facts on the ground - that most Israeli settlers will have to leave the West Bank. These settlers are on the "wrong side" of the fence.

Theoretically, they could live under Palestinian rule, the way millions of Palestinian Arabs live in Israel, but the settlers are very unlikely to do so. They are hard-liners who view the West Bank as God-given Israeli territory. If Palestinian rule commenced, these hard- liners would surely leave for Israel proper.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0806/p09s01-coop.html?entryBottomStory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right... ruining the lives of thousands of Palestinians is a "small price to pay." :eyes:

[StandWatie]

1. I'd like to know what fence they are watching

The one I'm watching get built isn't anywhere near the green line, isn't even in a straight line.

[Wonder]

4. not only that I happened to catch a blurb on CNN on this fence

and the suggestion was like it was just going up... HELLO CNN get with the news FOLKS it is almost finished. They started construction over a year ago. what a crock.

[tinnypriv]

2. Another load of crap

"Most Israeli settlers will have to leave the West Bank"

Right, except East Jeruslem is in the West Bank, which he conveniently ignores (easy to see why). Count them and it means you have at least 180,000+ Israeli's in the West Bank, even if every single other settlement were to be evacuated.

But, lets grant him the point that East J isn't in the West Bank. That means you have roughly 230,000 Israeli settlers. Okay, most of these are in settlement blocs in Greater Jerusalem, which in every single plan or agreement recently produced by Israel are to be ANNEXED to Israel (the IDF route of the wall, the Beilin accords, the Camp David accords, Taba, Wye etc).

Further, Ma'ariv reported yesterday that even if some settlements were left on the "wrong side" of the fence (they mention Ari'el), they would be protected by smaller fences seperate from the wall/barrier itself and remain in the territories.

As for Sharon sending "signals" to the settlers, how about these NEW construction tenders released the day after Sharon said he wanted to end "the occupation"?

1,054 in Givat Ze'ev
3,271 in Ariel
3,200 in Betar Ilit
1,512 in Giva Benjamim
4,281 in Ma'ale Adumim

(Source: Ha'aretz, Ministry of Housing figures)

How about the fact he said "you can continue to build for your children and I hope for your childrens grandchildren"?

This simply must be conscious lying on the part of this author. Nobody can skirt about the actual facts this expertly. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Most folks know Jerusalem is different

Outside of the pro-Palestinian constitutency here and in the West Bank, most people acknowledge the reality that Israel won't give up Jerusalem under any circumstances.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. What is your polling Data to back that up

How do you account for the Clinton and Mitchell policies, not to mention Oslo?

[tinnypriv]

7. Maybe you didn't read

The second paragraph.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. I did

Here it is in fact: "So far, few have noted the fact that the Sharon government's agreement to build the fence sends a clear signal - better yet, creates facts on the ground - that most Israeli settlers will have to leave the West Bank. These settlers are on the "wrong side" of the fence."

So what?

Do you think Israel will give up Jerusalem? I don't. In fact, as a betting man, I'd lay cash on it.

[tinnypriv]

9. My second paragraph

Greater Jerusalem is not Jerusalem.

Even conceding that Israel won't "give up Jerusalem" (as I essentially did in fact, for the purpose of argument), this piece is still nonsense.

As to your question, Israel (if compelled) would probably go as far as ceding control of the Arab majority areas of East Jerusalem. It would finesse that by renaming Abu Dis and relying of the PA to sell that to the Palestinian population as the full exercise of sovereignty. In practical terms, such a deal would amount to PA civil authority only.

There is plenty of evidence that Israel would agree to that (I can cite you documentation if you like).

I don't see Jerusalem as a real sticking point to be honest. The really hard issues are the borders and settlements. Essentially, either Israel gets out of the territories, or it establishes bantusatans. Focusing elsewhere is an error in my opinion.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. That would be true if the fence were on the Green line

It isn't. The vast majority of settlers are inside the fence. http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence.htm