Kerry's Middle Eastern Advisor

[Malderi]

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14474

It's an article about Kerry's newly appointed Middle East foreign policy advisor. For years, this man has been advocating Israel's withdraw from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, while urging Israel to diplomatically deal with Arafat, and for Arafat to deal with Hamas et al.

Israel v. PLO argument aside... does anyone think that Arafat really would? I mean, didn't Clinton invite a few of them over to Camp David during his presidency? What was the result of that again, my memory is fuzzy...

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe if Isreal would stop blowing up Palestinian civilians for five minutes we'd find out.

Horowitz's rag isn't exactly a reliable source.

[Prodigy]

Israel v. PLO argument aside... does anyone think that Arafat really would? I mean, didn't Clinton invite a few of them over to Camp David during his presidency? What was the result of that again, my memory is fuzzy...

On the other hand, no need to rely on memory to watch the result of Bush's and Sharon's policies on the matter, we can watch it every day on the evening news.

[Gav]

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14474

It's an article about Kerry's newly appointed Middle East foreign policy advisor. For years, this man has been advocating Israel's withdraw from the Gaza Strip and West Bank,


Sharon's lately been pushing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank, too. Guess he's one of them damn lefty nuts who wants nothing less than the destruction of Israel!



while urging Israel to diplomatically deal with Arafat, and for Arafat to deal with Hamas et al.


With a quick google search, I came up with this speech (http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2004/IndykTestimony040224.pdf) that Indyk gave in Feb. about the Israel-PA situation. On p. 5, he says:


If the Palestinian Authority were willing and able today to fulfill its Roadmap commitments to stop Palestinian terror and violence and uproot its infrastructure, a meaningful negotiating process could easily take the place of Israeli unilateralism. But the PA cannot and will not take on these responsibilities.

So he's not exactly a pie-in-the-sky liberal.

Also, the original article is crap--the number of silly things in it is astounding, considering how short the article is.

Gav

[Malderi]

I have to say, my expectations were met again. I said nothing in my original post to suggest I disagreed with this guy - yet everyone argues with what I wrote. I love this forum =)

Actually, my plan for Middle Eastern peace is to, once the suicide bombers stop (hopefully diplomatically) to pull out of Gaza and WB. Once that happens, support a democratically elected Palestinian government. After that, propose joint control with international oversight over the city of Jerusalem. The key to this is to agree to support a Palestinian state - but only if it's democratically elected, and ONLY once the bombers stop. (Or mostly, at least. If it can be demonstrated the PLO is genuinely working against them and not paying them off, and Hamas stops claiming responsibility etc. - you can't stop the individual ones, of which there will undoubtedly be several.)

I didn't say his advisor was wrong - I disagree with his emphasis on solely diplomatic tactics, though. While I agree wholeheartedly that diplomacy would be the best solution to this problem, I don't believe that it has much of a chance of happening anytime soon.

[Jason McCullough]

Malderi, by saying "once the suicide bombers stop" you're really saying "never." Because until Isreal doesn't wildly react to every one of them and just inflame the Palestinians more, it's never going to end.

Did you expect us to take a front page magazine article as a source for serious discussion?

[Anders Hallin]

Malderi, by saying "once the suicide bombers stop" you're really saying "never." Because until Isreal doesn't wildly react to every one of them and just inflame the Palestinians more, it's never going to end.
And of course, it will take quite a while to end even with that, since there are, by now, certain people with a vested interest in continued conflict.

[Gav]

I have to say, my expectations were met again. I said nothing in my original post to suggest I disagreed with this guy - yet everyone argues with what I wrote. I love this forum =)


Actually, you did. You say that "this man has been...urging Israel to diplomatically deal with Arafat", and then go on to say that this doesn't work.



Actually, my plan for Middle Eastern peace is to, once the suicide bombers stop (hopefully diplomatically) to pull out of Gaza and WB.


That sounds like a great plan. Except you must have forgotten the bit about what happens while you're sitting around waiting for the suicide bombers to stop.



Once that happens, support a democratically elected Palestinian government.


You mean like the one they have now?



I didn't say his advisor was wrong - I disagree with his emphasis on solely diplomatic tactics, though. While I agree wholeheartedly that diplomacy would be the best solution to this problem, I don't believe that it has much of a chance of happening anytime soon.

1. You don't actually have any tactics of your own to offer (waiting for suicide bombings to stop is not a tactic), so I guess Martin Indyk is that much ahead of you.

2. Martin Indyk doesn't believe solely in negotiations. If you read what he actually says (per the link I supplied in my previous post), you'd find items like this:
[Among things needed for the receivership option is] A small component of international forces (perhaps NATO forces) to take control of key security nodes (such as Netzarim, and the crossing points at Erez, Karni and Rafah) and to provide back-up for the Palestinian security services.

Gav

[Linoleum]

Malderi, by saying "once the suicide bombers stop" you're really saying "never." Because until Isreal doesn't wildly react to every one of them and just inflame the Palestinians more, it's never going to end.

I beg to differ. If the Palestinians had an authority that actually tried to crack down on the militant groups, the Israelis aren't going to get rid of them due to isolated incidents. However, the PA won't, and can't and it'll take an internal civil war and Arafat being gone before anything can possibly change. From an Israeli standpoint, going after high-level leaders and building the barrier have been more effective than anything else since the start of the infinada.

[Jason McCullough]

I partly agree - but how long do you think a Palestinian government would last if they cracked on down the bombers while Israel was still attacking civilians?

It's a vicious circle, and no one has the wisdom to stay their hand even once when attacked. The Palestianians sure as hell aren't doing themselves any favors here, but the Isrealis are in the drivers seat, and they're not doing much better.

[Malderi]

*rubs hands together* here goes...


Maybe if Isreal would stop blowing up Palestinian civilians for five minutes we'd find out

Did you have those reversed? Take a look at Israeli opinion polls. Most want a diplomatic solution, but at the same time, most agree that it won't work. I think that's the difference of opinion that most have. I think EVERYONE except the most hardcore hawks want a diplomatic solution. The difference of opinion is whether or not a diplomatic solution has a chance in hell of succeeding. I think that it does, but only in the long-term, and even then only a small chance.


Malderi, by saying "once the suicide bombers stop" you're really saying "never." Because until Isreal doesn't wildly react to every one of them and just inflame the Palestinians more, it's never going to end.

I would like to see your example of "reacting wildly". Because normally, while Israel does respond to every attack (being realistic politically and strategically, it would be hard BUT NOT impossible to do otherwise) they don't exactly do much more than launch a couple of missiles. Missiles, bombing a bus - the main difference is technology. The difference is, Israel doesn't just say "Hey, let's launch some missiles!". Almost always, (except in surgical strikes or acting on reliable intelligence) it's a strike in retaliation. Because of that, the burden is on the Palestinians to cut down. Stop the suicide bombers, and Israel would have really throttle back their surgical strikes, especially in the long-term. Because, in the international diplomatic arena, if there are no pictures of Israelies dying but lots of Palestinians dying (aka Europe), popular opinion would swing severely to Palestine.


Quote:

Once that happens, support a democratically elected Palestinian government.



You mean like the one they have now?


Does that even dignify a response? I'm not quite sure. Arafat has been in power for decades. He APPOINTS the Prime Minister, which is such a revolving door position nobody can remember who's in it. The Palestinian territories are so far from being a democratically elected, recognized government it's not even funny.


Quote:

Actually, my plan for Middle Eastern peace is to, once the suicide bombers stop (hopefully diplomatically) to pull out of Gaza and WB.



That sounds like a great plan. Except you must have forgotten the bit about what happens while you're sitting around waiting for the suicide bombers to stop.


Yep.Hopefully, you can stop the suicide bombers through diplomatic means. The problem with that lies in Palestinian leadership - or the lack thereof. While most seem to recognize Arafat as having authority, he doesn't have any authority over organizations like Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade except as a figurehead spokesman. He might have influence but no real control. And since Israel regards the leaders of organizations such as those as wanted criminals, it's not likely to deal diplomatically with them. Therein lies the problem.


Actually, you did. You say that "this man has been...urging Israel to diplomatically deal with Arafat", and then go on to say that this doesn't work.


Let me rephrase that. I disagree with his emphasis on his positions, but I made no judgements as to him being a "damn lefty nut" (Gav).


I partly agree - but how long do you think a Palestinian government would last if they cracked on down the bombers while Israel was still attacking civilians?


Again, you are mistaken on the cause and effect here. Show me an example of where Israel did a non-major strike (i.e., not striking an already wanted criminal, like a leader of Hamas, etc.), something like launching a cruise missile or knocking down a building, and then look at that date and see if there was a suicide bombing within a week beforehand. While Israel certainly goes overboard sometimes, most, if not all, of its attacks are justified. The cause is the suicide bombing and the effect is a building knocked down. The agreggate Palestinian cause is buildings knocked down = more suicide bombers, but in the short-term it's the bombing first. Once the Palestinians stop bombing Israelis in cafes (and I'll see if I can dig up that news article from a few months ago from Hamas saying that apartment buildings were now legitimate targets), then Israel will stop adding more and more people to the wanted criminal list.

[Gav]

Once that happens, support a democratically elected Palestinian government.

You mean like the one they have now?


Does that even dignify a response? I'm not quite sure. Arafat has been in power for decades.

Arafat was elected by a massive landslide. No-one seriously disputes that. He's been in power for decades because he knows how to make himself popular.

He's a dysfunctional leader, so it's pretty sad, but it does go to show that a democratically elected government doesn't guarantee much of anything.





Actually, my plan for Middle Eastern peace is to, once the suicide bombers stop (hopefully diplomatically) to pull out of Gaza and WB.

That sounds like a great plan. Except you must have forgotten the bit about what happens while you're sitting around waiting for the suicide bombers to stop.


Yep.Hopefully, you can stop the suicide bombers through diplomatic means. The problem with that lies in Palestinian leadership - or the lack thereof. While most seem to recognize Arafat as having authority, he doesn't have any authority over organizations like Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade except as a figurehead spokesman. He might have influence but no real control. And since Israel regards the leaders of organizations such as those as wanted criminals, it's not likely to deal diplomatically with them. Therein lies the problem.


Let's just accept what you said as a given. You say that hopefully they can stop the suicide bombers through diplomatic means, and then give every reason why you can't. Again, at least Martin Indyk has something resembling a plan--what you have is a vague hope that something good will happen if you wait long enough.


I partly agree - but how long do you think a Palestinian government would last if they cracked on down the bombers while Israel was still attacking civilians?


Maybe they should try it and see. Israel has tried the reverse, under Oslo (there were a couple of horrific bus bombings to which Israel didn't retaliate--it was almost enough to bring down the government). The truth is, Arafat just didn't have the political guts to really crack down then, and he doesn't have them now.

(This is, incidentally, why I've gradually shifted to supporting a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from most of the occupied territories, providing there's some security guarantees from other countries).

Gav

[Malderi]

Alright, fine, my plan in the meantime is for Israel to keep using 100-ton tanks to run over Palestinian children playing in the street...

Seriously, at the moment, it's either the status quo or to try and advance diplomacy further. Either that, or start some fun humanitarian stuff in the region. I've always thought Israel should open up a few schools or something in West Bank cities - except that the population over there is so rabidly brainwashed that nobody would attend them. Therein lies the problem - most of both sides completely hate the other. The problem is less evident to the common eye in Israel (I've recently traveled there to visit with family), but it's there, alright. Some family/friends there I talked to very much looked forward to, um, opportunities inherent in impending military service. It wasn't much better on the other side of the border, either.

[Jason McCullough]

me an example of where Israel did a non-major strike (i.e., not striking an already wanted criminal, like a leader of Hamas, etc.), something like launching a cruise missile or knocking down a building, and then look at that date and see if there was a suicide bombing within a week beforehand.

That's not what I meant; I don't care who started it.

1. Suicide bombing will continue as long as it has widespread popular support.
2. Israel killing civilians creates a virtually infinite amount of widespread popular support.
3. Israel cannot kill all the terrorists and potential terrorists without resorting to genocide.
4. Therefore, as long as Israel kills Palestinian civilians, Isreal will suffer suicide bombings.

Really, it's the story of every insurgency ever - insurgents are naturally unpopular because they tend to blow up their allies. The only way they ever gain power is through a crackdown of the opposing force that inflames the population with collateral damage.

I don't see what's so hard about this. Arafat disappearing would at best lower the number of bubbles in the boiling water a bit. To get peace, you have to slaughter the other side into submission combined with removing their grievances. It's been demonstrated as clearly as possible that killing is having no long-run effect on the state of things whatsoever, so you have to remove their grievances.

Refraining from firing missiles into civilians would remove one, which would lead to the removal of more, at every step popular support swinging towards peace and settlement. Every insurgency successfully come to terms with that didn't involve genocide has used this model. Isreal's refusal to accept reality is truly mind-boggling.

The response to this always seems to be "but the Palestinians could do that too! Why don't they stop bombing to get the Isrealis to be nicer!" - no they can't. They have no central government or way of limiting their expressed level of violence, and they're not going to get one without the resolution of this conflict, which kind of makes that route impossible.

As to the two sides hating each other: Northern Ireland somehow worked out. And don't give me "but the religions were closer together there" line of bull.

[Jason McCullough]

And unilateral withdrawal is not going to accomplish very much, because the Isrealis will still be blowing up apartment buildings and treating Palestine like an African colony. Grievances aren't going anywhere.

And no installed Palestinian government for the foreseeable future is going to be able to "crack down" and stop the violence. It's a pipe dream. Would someone in the Iraqi insurgency be able to "crack down" and stop the violence? Algeria? It's a general rebellion, not city hall.

[Malderi]

1. Razing terrorists' homes will continue as long as it has widespread popular support.

2. Palestine killing civilians creates a virtually infinite amount of widespread popular support.

3. Palestine cannot kill all Israeli civilians without resorting to genocide

4. Therefore, as long as Palestine kills Israeli civilians, Palestine will suffer from Israel's retaliation.

Really, it's the story of every insurgency ever - insurgents are naturally unpopular because they tend to blow up their allies. (insert: this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20040803/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians) second paragraph) The only way they ever gain power is through a crackdown of the opposing force that inflames the population with collateral damage. (insert: this (http://www.biography.com/search/article.jsp?aid=9187265&page=2&search=))

I don't see what's so hard about this. Sharon disappearing would at best lower the bubbles in the boiling water a bit. (Where did that come in?)

As to the two sides hating each other: this has been going on for thousands of years. (Read previous posts re: my opinion on diplomacy)

[Jason McCullough]

Boy, and I get accused of moral relativism. The best Isreal can do is to imitate the uneducated armed mob next door?

[Malderi]

Refraining from firing missiles into civilians would remove one, which would lead to the removal of more, at every step popular support swinging towards peace and settlement. Every insurgency successfully come to terms with that didn't involve genocide has used this model. Isreal's refusal to accept reality is truly mind-boggling.


Arafat has no real political power, it's all symbolic - especially among the general population. Could someone here please, sincerely, tell me that if Israel stopped retaliation, all the brainwashing of Palestinian children would stop; that Hamas/Arafat et al. would give up their control over the people from that (see one Mr. Kim Jong Il, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and several others for other examples of using propaganda for fear and control), that all of the current conditions would stop. They WON'T. What needs to happen is a successful variation on the "hearts and minds" campaign. Win over the Palestinian people. I'll see if I can find another news article mentioning a Palestinian family getting shot at and loosing their 8-year-old son after refusing to allow Hamas operatives to set up a mortar emplacement in their backyard to fire into Israel.

[Jason McCullough]

Give me a break - Hamas and Arafat aren't a dictatorship imposing their power on an unwilling populace like Joseph frickin' Stalin.

[Malderi]

POINT ONE: STOP FUCKING POSTING WHILE I'M TYPING AND MY POSTS ARE ALREADY OUT OF DATE. Thanks. ;-)


Boy, and I get accused of moral relativism. The best Isreal can do is to imitate the uneducated armed mob next door?

I'm not quite sure where you're coming from on that, please elaborate. Oh, and yea, I AM accusing you of moral relativism here. You're on what I see is the wrong side - in the morally relativistic sense.

That's the whole point. We both agree both sides have problems, do we not? The question is, which "deserves short-term support" and "what do we do so we don't have to choose who to support in the long-term" (i.e., solution to aforementioned problem of the prevalence of explosives in the region.) I see Palestine at fault at the root cause; you see Israel at fault and the root cause. We both agree diplomacy is the best solution; we don't agree on its chances of succeeding. We have about as much chance of persuading each other as my little sister has of catching Osama bin Laden shopping at the Gap in the local mall tommorrow.

[Malderi]

Give me a break - Hamas and Arafat aren't a dictatorship imposing their power on an unwilling populace like Joseph frickin' Stalin

Not to the same extent or power, and not nearly as obviously, but the same effects are there - but at any rate, that's not what I pointed Stalin out for. I pointed it out to show that using propaganda to create fear is, historically, an effective way of controlling a population. (Using my amazing powers of prediction, I sense that you will add another name to that list, who begins with B and ends in "ush". For the sake of the overall thread, I will avoid making references to that and ask you to do the same - it is not relevant to this topic of discussion)

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, yeah. I was just going to compare Bush to Stalin before you stopped me - good catch.


I see Palestine at fault at the root cause; you see Israel at fault and the root cause.

No, I don't. To be technical, the Arab world is at fault for responding to the UN partition by invading, but there's been so many complicated counter strikes between the sides I can't really pick a side that's more morally culpable at this point. I see Israel as the only side that has the capacity to move the equilibrium of the conflict, the side in the driver's side, the side that actually has working elections and public debate about what to do. The Palestinians simply have no way to collectively decide to stop bombing. That's not exactly a compliment to the Palestinians, if you catch my drift.

The main difference between our opinions appears to be:

You think the Palestinian movement is an organized propaganda machine/loose government driven by the long-run goal of destroying Isreal.

I think it's a decentralized rebellion with no central authority that's entirely driven by short-run grievances of the population.

[Jason McCullough]

Let me see if I can put that in better summary:

The state of Palestinian society is such that they are incapable of making a collective decision about their future. You cannot change the behavior of the whole if you cannot make decisions as a whole.

[Gav]

And unilateral withdrawal is not going to accomplish very much, because the Isrealis will still be blowing up apartment buildings and treating Palestine like an African colony. Grievances aren't going anywhere.
[/quiote]
That's the point of a unilateral withdrawal--to get out of the PA and NOT be blowing up their buildings and everything. BTW, I'm not that happy about the exact route for the current wall; I think the settlers should bite the bullet and realize they're going to be moved.

Once many settlements are evacuated, the Israeli army would be less spread out, so (hopefully) there'd be fewer bombings, hence not as much call to raze Palestinians buildings.
[quote]
And no installed Palestinian government for the foreseeable future is going to be able to "crack down" and stop the violence. It's a pipe dream.
But if you accept that as a given, then there's no point for any Israeli negotiation--why negotiate with people who can't do anything?

I think that a PA gov't could crack down, because I honestly believe that the Israeli response to that would be very quick--the Israeli electorate is just waiting for some sign that the Palestinian leadership is getting serious about terrorism--and the Palestinians would be able to see some tangible results very quickly.

However, it's not going to happen, which leads us straight back to unilateral withdrawal...

Malderi, Arafat has lots of political power--if he had none, there would've been no need for a showdown between him and Querea over who actually has power. He's tremendously popular--I'd bet if an election were held tomorrow he'd win again in a walk.
Gav

[Malderi]

The state of Palestinian society is such that they are incapable of making a collective decision about their future. You cannot change the behavior of the whole if you cannot make decisions as a whole.

I see where you are coming from with that, and I have to say, I partly agree with you. While there is no official government apparatus with real authority, if, for example, Arafat stopped supporting them behind the scenes, and announced publicly for Hamas to be a rogue organization, it might not do everything - but it would help. Once Israel had evidence of the fact that he was not still supporting things behind the scenes, THAT's when they can do things. But you cannot expect Israel to simply stop without SOME measure of good faith from the other side. Now, maybe it's up to both sides to put up some measure of good faith.

- the problem is, Arafat has stated many times that he will not stop until he has control of Jerusalem. While suicide bombings can be effective, he has neither the coordination, the firepower, or the manpower to take the capital city of Israel. That was what failed Clinton's Camp David's talks - Arafat wanted Jerusalem and was unwilling to negotiate to that point.

If USSR President Gorbachev said he'd point the nukes away from us in return for us giving him control of Washington, D.C., what do you think we'd say about it? It's not exactly analogous, but it's pretty darn close to what Israel is getting asked to do.

[Jason McCullough]

And the Irish insisted they'd stop fighting only when Britain left. Everything's negotiable.

Gav, my point was that if no Palestinian government can stop the bombings, you have to end-run the entire diplomacy model and just remove the grievances directly. I don't think the wall will do that; hypothetically the settlers will leave, but it adds as many things to be pissed about (can't work in Israel! Knocking down buildings to build it! Oppressive just by its existence!) as it fixes.

[Dirt]

Has anyone stopped to ask the Palestinian people if they WANT a democracy?

[Gav]

Has anyone stopped to ask the Palestinian people if they WANT a democracy?

Just in case you're asking seriously, the answer is yes. IIRC there have been a few polls showing that most Palestinians want a democracy.

Gavin

[Tim Partlett]

If USSR President Gorbachev said he'd point the nukes away from us in return for us giving him control of Washington, D.C., what do you think we'd say about it? It's not exactly analogous, but it's pretty darn close to what Israel is getting asked to do.

That's not even remotely analogous. Jerusalem was considered an international city until Israel annexed it in the Six Day War of 1967, and subsequently pushed out the Palestinians with illegal settlements, biased land ownership laws and house demolishions. Washington is a wholly American city, with no parties with conflicting territorial interests involved. Jerusalem is a divided city, with two parties vying for control, only one side currently has all the power and dictates the rules. Before Zionism persuaded millions of mostly European Jewish people to relocate to someone else's country this century, Jerusalem had been a Palestinian city, belonging to Muslim, Christian and Jewish Palestinians, for thousands of years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/key_maps/jerusalem.gif
edit: map to make things clearer

[Tim Partlett]

Let me see if I can put that in better summary:

The state of Palestinian society is such that they are incapable of making a collective decision about their future. You cannot change the behavior of the whole if you cannot make decisions as a whole.

One of the reasons that the Palestinians are in such disarray is because of a deliberate and systematic policy, on the part of Sharon, to destroy the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority. I don't know whether this policy is a result of Sharon's hatred of Arafat, or because it suits the Israelis to point the finger of blame at the PA's ineffectiveness in order to justify their continued occupation, or both, but the effects are the same. In 2002 when the IDF invaded Ramallah, the administrative capital of the Palestinian Authority, they destroyed everything, even going so far as gutting the only opticians in the city. The IDF destroyed the government offices, the police stations, and the security organisation's headquarters in every city in the occupied territories. In Ramallah they even ransacked the offices of education and land ownership, destroying records vital for governing and nothing to do with terrorism.

Sharon then announced that the Palestinians needed crack to down on terrorists in order before Israel would consider giving them back their own country. One Palestinian at the time described this as like being thrown in the water with your hands and feet tied together, and told you need to swim in order to save yourself. Then there is Arafat's near permanent house arrest, as if you can expect the leader of a group of people to be in any way effective at controlling anything, let alone terror groups like Hamas who would just as soon see him and his secular Palestinian Authority dead as the Israeli government they claim to be fighting against.

I don't think Arafat is a good leader, or an effective one, and I think the PA has been rather corrupt and ineffective. However, if we want to work towards a solution that doesn't eventually lead to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the region, then we need to build up their ability to run a democratic Palestinian state, not destroy the very machinations that give them what little effectiveness they have.

[Daniel Morris]

I don't think the wall will do that; hypothetically the settlers will leave, but it adds as many things to be pissed about (can't work in Israel! Knocking down buildings to build it! Oppressive just by its existence!) as it fixes.

I'll tell you one thing it will do --- make the PA truly accountable to its own people. The barrier will be a de facto border, and the PA won't be able to blame Zionist occupiers for the fact that Palestinians have no legitimate institutions nor any accountable leadership.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't think the wall will do that; hypothetically the settlers will leave, but it adds as many things to be pissed about (can't work in Israel! Knocking down buildings to build it! Oppressive just by its existence!) as it fixes.

I'll tell you one thing it will do --- make the PA truly accountable to its own people. The barrier will be a de facto border, and the PA won't be able to blame Zionist occupiers for the fact that Palestinians have no legitimate institutions nor any accountable leadership.

Will it? Doesn't it basically destroy all movement in and out of Palestine, and vaporize their previous cross-to-work-in-Isreal economy? And I'm sure the Isrealis will still be coming across to retailate for the bombings that do get through.

[Anaxagoras]

I don't think the wall will do that; hypothetically the settlers will leave, but it adds as many things to be pissed about (can't work in Israel! Knocking down buildings to build it! Oppressive just by its existence!) as it fixes.

I'll tell you one thing it will do --- make the PA truly accountable to its own people. The barrier will be a de facto border, and the PA won't be able to blame Zionist occupiers for the fact that Palestinians have no legitimate institutions nor any accountable leadership.

Umm.. yeah. That's exactly what it will do, Daniel. The PA will be completely unable to blame Israel for problems within their country if that barrier is built. This barrier will make them take responsibility for their own actions, the lazy loafers!

[marxeil]

I don't think the wall will do that; hypothetically the settlers will leave, but it adds as many things to be pissed about (can't work in Israel! Knocking down buildings to build it! Oppressive just by its existence!) as it fixes.

I'll tell you one thing it will do --- make the PA truly accountable to its own people. The barrier will be a de facto border, and the PA won't be able to blame Zionist occupiers for the fact that Palestinians have no legitimate institutions nor any accountable leadership.

Will it? Doesn't it basically destroy all movement in and out of Palestine, and vaporize their previous cross-to-work-in-Isreal economy? And I'm sure the Isrealis will still be coming across to retailate for the bombings that do get through.

No it doesn't. They will have access to both Jordan, Egypt and the Mediterranean sea. As to crossing over to Israel for work, it's being done even now while things are bad, so there's no reason to assume it will stop.

[Jason McCullough]

Dunno, I see all these stories of how the Palestinian economy goes straight to hell whenever they crank up security. I imagine a wall wouldn't help.

[marxeil]

Dunno, I see all these stories of how the Palestinian economy goes straight to hell whenever they crank up security. I imagine a wall wouldn't help.
That's a result of PA economy being almost totally dependant on Israel's economy. Hopefully, when they get their own state, they will be able to create an independent economy. Achieving this will be difficult and will require the aid of the USA and Europe but it can be done. the wall is just a border like other borders all over the world. Maybe in some distant future it will be feasible to have a more open border but obviously not now.

Edited because I can't speel!

[Daniel Morris]

Big Newsweek article documents (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5784338/site/newsweek/) the large and growing sentiment among Palestinians that intifada has failed and new politics are needed.



After four years of an armed uprising that is now widely regarded as a catastrophic failure, Palestinian society and legislators are rising up in an open revolt against the leadership—including their once unassailable chairman. Grumblings about corruption, mismanagement and lawlessness in the Palestinian Authority have been heard often in the past. What's different now is the volume of the criticism, the proliferation of the critics and the momentum for fundamental change. Dennis Ross, a key negotiator for President Bill Clinton during the 2000 Camp David peace talks that ended in failure, said last week that Palestinian leaders from within Arafat's own Fatah movement were serious, for the first time, about building a "positive political framework" (see the last word). He added that there was an emerging consensus among the Palestinians, trigged by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's desire to withdraw from Gaza, that they must "create a civil society based on the rule of law." Said Ross: "This is a remarkable development."

The reform campaign has been gaining momentum. Many Fatah members now acknowledge that Arafat's rule has been a disaster. In one of its sternest rebukes ever, a Palestinian Legislative Council investigation two weeks ago blamed the Palestinian leader and his associates for "anarchy" and for "failing to take a political decision to end it." Put together by a five-man panel—including both Fatah reformers and Arafat loyalists—the report demanded an end to Qassam rocket fire into Israel and other attacks, and the resignation of the members of Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei's government, and called for general elections. The panel lambasted the government for its paralysis in dealing with the armed militants who have held the West Bank and Gaza hostage for four years. "The main reason for the failure of the Palestinian security forces, and their lack of action in restoring law and order," says the report, "is the total lack of a clear political decision and no definition of their roles."

Arafat appears to be getting the message. In a speech last week from his compound in Ramallah, he engaged in belated damage control, offering a tentative mea culpa for the chaos that has beset Palestinian society. "We have to be brave enough to admit making mistakes," Arafat said. He also promised to give full backing to Qurei, also known as Abu Ala, who has squabbled with Arafat often and in July tendered his resignation in frustration over Arafat's resistance to key reforms. (He withdrew his resignation on July 27 after Arafat agreed to turn over internal security powers.) Reaction to Arafat's speech was mixed. "This is the first time I heard President Arafat say the sentence that many Palestinian officials have abused their post," says Saeb Erakat, the Palestinians' chief negotiator. But others were skeptical. "We are waiting to see action," says Mohammed Hourani, a critic of Arafat's and a leader of the Fatah reformers in the Palestinian Legislative Council.