Noam Chomsky - A Wall as a Weapon

[Chicago Democrat]

By NOAM CHOMSKY

Published: February 23, 2004

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else. Careful scrutiny is always in order. Israel's so-called security fence, which is the subject of hearings starting today at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is a case in point.

Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means. It is also clear where such a wall would be built if security were the guiding concern: inside Israel, within the internationally recognized border, the Green Line established after the 1948-49 war. The wall could then be as forbidding as the authorities chose: patrolled by the army on both sides, heavily mined, impenetrable. Such a wall would maximize security, and there would be no international protest or violation of international law.

This observation is well understood. While Britain supports America's opposition to the Hague hearings, its foreign minister, Jack Straw, has written that the wall is "unlawful." Another ministry official, who inspected the "security fence," said it should be on the Green Line or "indeed on the Israeli side of the line." A British parliamentary investigative commission also called for the wall to be built on Israeli land, condemning the barrier as part of a "deliberate" Israeli "strategy of bringing the population to heel."

What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also — as the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described Israel's war of "politicide" against the Palestinians — helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.

Rest at

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/opinion/23CHOM.html?hp

[kalian]

1. Ahem...

At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States.

And NOTHING will happen...whether its shrub in the WH for another
4 years or Kerry...

[Chicago Democrat]

2. Isn't that sad?

I hope you're wrong, but I know you are right.

:(

[kalian]

3. I too wish that I were wrong....

but that's where our country lies.
Just look at the political system that we're so "proud" of... :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. How can there be a settlement?

Much of the Palestinian terror network has sworn to destroy Israel no matter what border it uses.

[kalian]

5. Sigh....

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. I agree

[dudeness]

25. please tell muddle

just how will the "palestinian terror network" destroy israel?..you continually roll out this misnomer without a shred of evidence to back your outlandish claims..do the palestinians have or have access to soldiers or weaponary that could destroy israel?..you know that is not the case as does the rest of the world so why keep repeating an obvious untruth..

[ex_jew]

6. I personally would like the wall much better if it were on

Israeli land AND Israel promised never to set foot on the far side - i.e. no more raids, no more bases, no more checkpoints or settlements. If Israel truly wants to "disengage", it can't use the wall to protect its own populace while the Palestinians remain fair game.

A wall works both ways - to keep others out, and your own side in. Otherwise it's nothing more than a military ploy or a device to grab land.

[Chicago Democrat]

7. Even Bush criticizes it...

...like the PLO criticizes suicide bombers! How come there is so much disconnect between what is said and what is done?

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. No state gives up the right to self defense

To build the wall and then ignore terrorist training camps and bomb factories is downright idiotic. If the Palestinians won't shut those down, Israel must.

[ex_jew]

10. So you exclude Palestinians from some of their land

and then reserve the right to attack them in what little land remains (making it clear, by the way, that the wall will not work). And then you ask: "where is our partner for peace ?" It's a joke.

My intent was to float a proposal - you stay out of our land, and we'll stay out of yours - that might be more attractive than the wall as it now stands. Feel free to call it idiotic, but I'm not the one who decided to erect my "refuge" in the middle of 1 billion angry Muslims.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. All states reserve the right to attack their enemies

Israel can't allow terrorists to operate with impunity in Palestinian territory. If the Palestinians don't handle, Israel must.

No defense -- the Peace Fence for example -- is 100%. It only limits the problem, it doesn't eliminate it.

As for the refuge, it exists and will continue to do so. It's about time the "1 billion angry Muslims" learned to deal with that fact.

[ex_jew]

12. Attacking your enemies in their homes hasn't worked and

you're already conceding that the wall won't work. Put two losing strategies together and what do you get ? A loser.

What is the harm in building the wall and saying - we'll call a ceasefire so long as the wall is working. That way both sides (at least potentially) gain something from the existence of the wall, which makes it easier to swallow. And if the wall doesn't work, there's always plan B (which is really back to the status quo).

Why shouldn't the wall work ? I seem to remember that no terrorist strikes were launched from Gaza for a very long time, due to the fact that it's totally surrounded. But of course if you insist on building the wall where Palestinians are on BOTH sides, that's asking for trouble.

So far as "dealing with" the fact of Israel's existence, I would say the Palestinians are dealing with it the only way they know how. If you mean that they should stop resisting it, that's a different issue. It might help if what they're asked to accept is a fixed, known quantity, rather than something which shifts at the whim of the Israelis. First the wall is to run here, then it is to run there. Who really knows where it will finally be ? Are the Palestinians supposed to just sign a blank check, and say - build it where you like and that'll be fine with us ?

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. What will work

No ONE THING will work 100%. So, does that mean Israel shouldn't try anything? That's silly.

Why call a ceasefire when your enemies still sit in camps plotting your demise and considering ways to blow up babies? Never again.

Sorry, the Palestinians have lost their option to choose about the wall. They refuse to deal with terror, then they must suffer the consequences.

The Peace Fence is very long and that means it may have some point of vulnerability. Naturally, since it is only so high, the Palestinian terrorists can also fire over it.

Yes, the Palestinians deal with the fact of Israel's existence as they know how, by refusing to acknowledge it and fighting it at every turn.

[Sorry.]

16. ridiculous

And where exactly do the vast majority of Palestinians not involved in attacks on Israel fit into this little plan

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. On the other side of the fence

Where they can push for new Palestinian leadership that might actually fight terror and make peace.

[Sorry.]

19. uh-huh

and what if it just so happens that their farm land and water is on the Israeli side of the fence?

And are Israeli citizens supposed to be pressuring the government to stop the IDF killing women, children, peace activists etc? Destroying people's homes, livelihoods, dignity ...

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. The Peace Fence

If they have land on the Israeli side, then they will be able to cross through checkpoints.

The rest of your post is sort of a rant and I'm not sure what to make of it.

[Sorry.]

21. oh will they now!

Don't you think that there is something, well, slightly fascistic about making people pass through a checkpoint to go and tend their land. Especially given that IDF soldiers aren't exactly known for their tact and civility to Palestinians.

The rest of the post was sparked by incredulity at several assumptions you seem to work from

a)that Israeli is dealing patiently with the occupants of the occupied territories
b)that Palestinian violence is a product of some abstract notion of anti-semitism and fundamentalism, that the material conditions of life in the occupied territories is irrelevant.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Yes they will

The concept of a security checkpoint to prevent people from blowing up kids seems fairly reasonable. They have another option, choose leaders who will make peace and end terror.

As for the assumptions you THINK I work from, you know what they say about assumptions.

A) Israel is dealing a lot more patiently with the occupants of the disputed territories than I would. I would deal with them at all except under extreme need -- typically military action.
B) Palestinian violence is the product of many things -- failure to recognize the reality of an Israeli state is one of them.

[Sorry.]

24. double standards

The Palestinians have chosen leaders who have made peace, the Palestinian Authority has nothing to do with Hamas or IJ. It's also a ludicrous statement given that Israeli citizens were quite happy to elect the butcher of Sabra and Shatila. Why should Palestinians choose peacemakers, whilst Israelis choose warmongers?

a)'patiently' - bulldozing homes, rolling tanks through their streets, killing 3510 Palestinians (as of last month), injuring 33086, arresting 34534 since the beginning of the intifada. If that's patient, I'd love to see impatient.

b)I'd say the central reason would be their ongoing lack of civil rights.

Why on Earth do you think that the Palestinians are some kind of strange people who are driven by some bizarre fundamentalism? Remember for years the most significant player in Palestinian militancy was the PLO, a secular organisation. It's simple, give Palestinians the kind of dignity and respect that any human being should expect (whether that be in one state or two) and the vast majority of them will stop wanting to blow themselves up to hurt Israelis. Same goes for the rest of the bullshit war on terror.

[Gimel]

27. The remaining few

"the vast majority of them will stop wanting to blow themselves up to hurt Israelis."

Remember the remaining few can do more damage.

Arafat's groups, the Al Aksa Brigade and Fatah are responsible for the last two bombing, not Hamas and IJ.

"dignity and respect" is a catch phrase which cannot be legislated. What they want is Haifa and Tel Aviv as well as Jerusalem and Tiberius.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. What peace, where is it?

The Israelis offered peace. It was rejected. No response was given except terror. Israel did the next logical step, it put a general in charge.

A) No you would NOT love to see impatient. Impatient would cut off ALL Palestinians from Israel. No Israeli travel from West Bank to Gaza. No Israeli healthcare. No Israeli jobs. No Israeli food. Nothing. And, if we find you have terror camps, we will move in with massive force and wipe them out without taking prisoners. That is impatience.

B) The Palestinians could easily have full rights in their own state if they supported peace and opposed terror. That seems a difficult concept for them.

[Jim Sagle]

13. Chumpsly REEKKKS!!!!!!!!!

[Sorry.]

17. do tell ...

expand your astute critique for those of us who didn't quite grasp it the first time round ...

[Resistance]

26. dont hold your breath

Chomsky is known for criticizing Israeli aggression and the continuing atrocities against Palestinians; therefore he must be smeared at every opportunity.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. For those who hate registering to read things...

here's another place to go to read it...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=5030


Violet...

[tinnypriv]

23. Speaking of Kimmerling

I hear he has a new book out, which should be an interesting history of the culture and society of Israel. No doubt it will be incredibly complicted.