Worse than Apartheid, Say Those Who Lived Under Apartheid

[Jasper Phillips]

I cut to the chase in picking this excerpt; the lead up in the article is more gradual:


Lunch is in a hotel in the city, and Madlala-Routledge speaks. "It is hard for me to describe what I am feeling. What I see here is worse than what we experienced. But I am encouraged to find that there are courageous people here. We want to support you in your struggle, by every possible means. There are quite a few Jews in our delegation, and we are very proud that they are the ones who brought us here. They are demonstrating their commitment to support you. In our country we were able to unite all the forces behind one struggle, and there were courageous whites, including Jews, who joined the struggle. I hope we will see more Israeli Jews joining your struggle."

She was deputy defense minister from 1999 to 2004; in 1987 she served time in prison. Later, I asked her in what ways the situation here is worse than apartheid. "The absolute control of people's lives, the lack of freedom of movement, the army presence everywhere, the total separation and the extensive destruction we saw."

Madlala-Routledge thinks that the struggle against the occupation is not succeeding here because of U.S. support for Israel -- not the case with apartheid, which international sanctions helped destroy. Here, the racist ideology is also reinforced by religion, which was not the case in South Africa. "Talk about the 'promised land' and the 'chosen people' adds a religious dimension to racism which we did not have."

Equally harsh are the remarks of the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa, Mondli Makhanya, 38. "When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.

"The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all. How can a human brain engineer this total separation, the separate roads, the checkpoints? What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible -- and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible. We also knew that it would end one day; here there is no end in sight. The end of the tunnel is blacker than black.

"Under apartheid, whites and blacks met in certain places. The Israelis and the Palestinians do not meet any longer at all. The separation is total. It seems to me that the Israelis would like the Palestinians to disappear. There was never anything like that in our case. The whites did not want the blacks to disappear. I saw the settlers in Silwan [in East Jerusalem] -- people who want to expel other people from their place."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000976.html

[CSL]

I know its probably not the most studious view, or perhaps not even correct - but don't you think whites in South Africa would have put up just as much security against blacks if their had been sustained suicide bomber and rocket attacks on civilian centers?

There are certainly some good points in the article, but it just doesn't strike me that a direct comparison between apartheid and the current situation between Israel and Palestine is the best thing to do.

[Sarkus]

I agree CSL. The violence in the Israel/Palestine situation makes things a lot different.

That said, I've always thought it a little creepy the way Israel acts sometimes. But then again, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the way the Palestinians were screwed to begin with.

[lesslucid]

You think there was no violence against whites in SA under Apartheid?

I don't think the analogy to apartheid is a very good one because the situations are basically different but it certainly tells us something when victims of apartheid say that what they see in Palestine is worse that what they went through.

[Tim Partlett]

What came first? The chicken or the egg? The first suicide bombing didn't occur until 1993, a quarter century after the Israelis began the occupation.

Who is being protected? For me the Israelis have every right to build whatever barriers or protections they need to defend Israel from attacks, but in the occupied territories the road blocks, fences, and militarised zones are there to protect people who have settled on someone else's land.

It should be noted that this article is talking about the situation in the Occupied Territories, and not Israel itself. In Israel non-Jewish minorities, including Arabs, have relatively well protected rights and freedoms.

[CSL]

What came first? The chicken or the egg? The first suicide bombing didn't occur until 1993, a quarter century after the Israelis began the occupation.

Who is being protected? For me the Israelis have every right to build whatever barriers or protections they need to defend Israel from attacks, but in the occupied territories the road blocks, fences, and militarised zones are there to protect people who have settled on someone else's land.

It should be noted that this article is talking about the situation in the Occupied Territories, and not Israel itself. In Israel non-Jewish minorities, including Arabs, have relatively well protected rights and freedoms.

The question really is then, were all these sorts of barriers put in place before the start of suicide bombings in 1993? If they were than there might be a case for viewing these kinds of barriers in the occupied territories as legitimate acts of self-defense. Of course the whole issue of settlements in the occupied territories, etc complicates the issue so much.

From another perspective seeing as Israel is such a very small country, and with the continued increase in complexity of missile attacks also somewhat lends credence towards defensive methods being pushed forward out of Israel proper.

Finally, can we really accurately place the current situation between Israel and Palestine against that of Apartheid South Africa? Even those quoted in the story noted the extreme differences that religion play in the region which simply didn't exist in South Africa.

[extarbags]

The first suicide bombing didn't occur until 1993, a quarter century after the Israelis began the occupation.

Almost half a century actually.

[asspennies]

Almost half a century actually.

And wow, that change in tactics sure worked out well for the Palestinians, didn't it?

[extarbags]

And wow, that change in tactics sure worked out well for the Palestinians, didn't it?

What's your point?

[TheTrunkDr]

The question really is then, were all these sorts of barriers put in place before the start of suicide bombings in 1993? If they were than there might be a case for viewing these kinds of barriers in the occupied territories as legitimate acts of self-defense. Of course the whole issue of settlements in the occupied territories, etc complicates the issue so much.
I would argue that having the settlements would be the issue not the barriers. One nation setting up civilian settlements on another country's land isn't the smartest move and would cause friction even among friendly nations never mind ones that have outright hostility to one another.


And wow, that change in tactics sure worked out well for the Palestinians, didn't it?
Hasn't it? The situation has had international attention since and there's been tons of political pressure to resolve the situation. Both sides have been demonized and the world is attempting to keep both parties in check which is better for the Palestinians than having another country take their land inch by inch while the rest of the world turns a blind eye to the situation.

[AaronSofaer]

Another question might be ... Israel has in the past pulled settlements, by force, to ruinous political expense of the government doing it.

When they did that in the south, they got a peace treaty with Egypt. When they did that in Palestine, they got... more bombs.

[Ed Solomon]

Another question might be ... Israel has in the past pulled settlements, by force, to ruinous political expense of the government doing it.

When they did that in the south, they got a peace treaty with Egypt. When they did that in Palestine, they got... more bombs.

And yet another question might be, what are the settlements doing there in the first place?

[TheTrunkDr]

And yet another question might be, what are the settlements doing there in the first place?
Precisely. Also they didn't remove all the settlements so the Palestinians still had incentive to continue and had then seen that their actions were having the desired effect. Palestine doesn't much care about the political repercussions for Israeli leaders and that particular problem was a creation of Israel. To blame the Palestinians because the Israeli government built homes on foreign land and was then forced to remove them is disingenuous at best.

[Gav]

Palestine doesn't much care about the political repercussions for Israeli leaders and that particular problem was a creation of Israel.

Are you saying that it doesn't matter to Palestinians when a dovish Israeli government is replaced by a hawkish one? Or that they don't care when the Israeli government decides to close the borders to the PA because the previous government lost a no-confidence vote?

Because those are the political repercussions for Israeli leaders which you're saying the Palestinians don't care about.

[extarbags]

To a large extent, a lot of Palestinians probably don't care. They're people without a country, without a home, with no serious prospects and no real allies. As easy as it is for you or I to see the objective difference in those examples, to a Palestinian who's actually living in this situation, they're both mostly the same, and the overarching problem that makes up 99% if their political world remains unchanged.

[Grifman]

Israel withdrew totally from Gaza, giving it over to Palestinian control and what did they get. Endless rocket attacks and militant raids on border posts. Because of this there's even less incentive today for withdrawal from anywhere else. Who can blame them?

I agree that things are pretty bad in the Westbank - the economy has crashed, people are going hungry. the PA seems to continue in disfunctionality. But as I have said before, the Palestinians are their own worst enemy. They needed a Martin Luther King, not a Yasser Arafat. A orchestrated campaign of non-violence would get them their independence with a year or two.

[TheTrunkDr]

Israel withdrew totally from Gaza, giving it over to Palestinian control and what did they get. Endless rocket attacks and militant raids on border posts. Because of this there's even less incentive today for withdrawal from anywhere else. Who can blame them?

I agree that things are pretty bad in the Westbank - the economy has crashed, people are going hungry. the PA seems to continue in disfunctionality. But as I have said before, the Palestinians are their own worst enemy. They needed a Martin Luther King, not a Yasser Arafat. A orchestrated campaign of non-violence would get them their independence with a year or two.
That I seriously doubt. You also seem to think that what the Palestinians want is their independence, they don't. They want their land back, for many of them that includes Israel.

[extarbags]

Israel withdrew totally from Gaza, giving it over to Palestinian control and what did they get.

Yeah, poor Israel. Guys, guys, they already gave you limited autonomy in part of the area they took over a couple of decades after they took over all of your land, and this is how you thank them? I guess they should starve as many of you as possible until you learn to show a little gratitude.

[Grifman]

Yeah, poor Israel. Guys, guys, they already gave you limited autonomy in part of the area they took over a couple of decades after they took over all of your land, and this is how you thank them? I guess they should starve as many of you as possible until you learn to show a little gratitude.

Sure, sorry, that's real life, that's the way the world works. Israel gave up Gaza without asking for anything in return, the Palestinians responded with rockets. There's no way Israel is going to take more unilateral actions like that. No ones asking for "gratitude', but there does need to be a sense of reciprocity. I mean do you really think rockets and border post raids are going to get the Palestinians any closer to peace?

[Grifman]

That I seriously doubt.

But do you have a reason for that doubt? :)


You also seem to think that what the Palestinians want is their independence, they don't. They want their land back, for many of them that includes Israel.

I didn't say anything about what they want. I said they were their own worst enemy, consistently acting against their best interests. But if they wanted peace, they could get it.

[Ed Solomon]

Sure, sorry, that's real life, that's the way the world works. Israel gave up Gaza without asking for anything in return, the Palestinians responded with rockets. There's no way Israel is going to take more unilateral actions like that. No ones asking for "gratitude', but there does need to be a sense of reciprocity. I mean do you really think rockets and border post raids are going to get the Palestinians any closer to peace?

You're using "Palestinians" in a pretty broad sense, aren't you?

[extarbags]

Sure, sorry, that's real life, that's the way the world works. Israel gave up Gaza without asking for anything in return, the Palestinians responded with rockets. There's no way Israel is going to take more unilateral actions like that. No ones asking for "gratitude', but there does need to be a sense of reciprocity. I mean do you really think rockets and border post raids are going to get the Palestinians any closer to peace?

Honestly, I don't see them getting farther away. Leaning on Arab countries to wage proper war with Israel didn't work, and just sitting there didn't work, and hijackings didn't work, and Intifada didn't work. See, they don't have any reason not to try stuff like this... if it works, great, if not, well, lots of Palestinians are just pissed off at Israel anyway, so (from their point of view) at least they're giving Israel a black eye even if they don't end up getting what they want.

[RSofaer]

As far as I know, Gaza still doesn't have open ports or border crossings, so it's a little tough to assert that the occupation is over, regardless of whether those crossings should be opened of not.

Also, extarbags, there is a distinct lack of organized non-violent resistance in that list, which is something that probably would work well against Israel.

[Lurb]

Terrorism is dumb, suicide bombing terror is extra dumb. Collective punishment against terrorism is dumb too.
It's right out of the terrorism 101 book: action, reaction. A rocket kills a woman which justifies a hellfire landing on a kid which justifies a bus blowing up which justifies stopping ambulances at a checkpoint til the patient dies.

Only one side needs to clean up his act to be right. Once you are right you have won, regardless how many more the other kills. Violence against a community that is in the right is completely ineffectual. I'm more pissed at Israel because they have a working state and society, they can win that way easier, but they don't seem to want to, maybe because they have surrendered the soul of their country to some extremists' wacky dreams. The palestinians are hosed, the minute Israel looks the other way they are shooting at each other, so organized non-violence seems a tad harder to achieve there.

Maybe the only way is Israel allowing a viable, no tricks, no settlements, palestinian state that is inmediately filled by Egyptian/Jordanian/Syrian/Assorted UN troops for a couple of decades. Good luck to any politician in either side surviving that.

[Lizard_King]

Terrorism is dumb, suicide bombing terror is extra dumb. Collective punishment against terrorism is dumb too.
It's right out of the terrorism 101 book: action, reaction. A rocket kills a woman which justifies a hellfire landing on a kid which justifies a bus blowing up which justifies stopping ambulances at a checkpoint til the patient dies.


Terrorism is a tactic or strategy like any other. It can be applied intelligently or not, and the morality of it is mostly a question of perspective. Most broad strategies employ an element of terrorism in them, at least if they are designed by people that know what they are doing.

Suicide bombers are just smart bombs for entities on a budget, in purely practical terms. Palestinians don't employ them because they are particularly awful people, they are doing so because that's the best they could come up with. There's nothing exceptionally immoral about the perpetrators or the targets they choose (in generic terms), any more than there is for the pilot dropping a bomb that "collaterally" kills a bunch of civilians as a result of faulty intel.

Attaching morality to war is a complicated thing, often used by the greater power as sort of a flip side public relations effort to terrorism. It generally only holds as long as you focus entirely on the perspective of that team, and when it starts becoming a liability or its advantages aren't immediately apparent, it's frequently rationalized away or modified (See: US, torture).

And you talk about the futility of the Palestinian side as far as violence is concerned...that does not take into account at least two important elements. The first is that you may not fully understand the motivations of the actors, whether they are founded on simple revenge or other emotions or are warlords with a specific agenda of chaos and misery. In that sense they are achieving their goals. The second is that it's simply not a linear addition of failures that give you a sum past which it's no longer worth fighting. Each generation and each participant is as likely to view themselves as a new or different response to a different circumstance, whether or not that's apparent to the outside observer.

Has the Palestinian use of terrorism or the more conventional Israeli response been more successful than a less brutal approach would have? Likely not. I think the Palestinian leadership really misunderstood the lesson of the first Intifada, which was the power of the asymmetry on display in media terms. Kids with slingshots facing down tanks are an incredible weapon.

When they decided to fight with fire instead, I would say with the benefit of hindsight that their biggest error was not thinking grandly enough. With an opponent like Israel, you had better go big or go home. I think it was a fundamentally poor strategic choice, and I would suspect that an investigation of who was in charge at those different stages would reveal very different kinds of men and women with very different goals.

Of course, for simplicity's sake I'm talking about the leadership as a monolithic bloc focusing on the overall trend on display.

[Rward]

I know its probably not the most studious view, or perhaps not even correct - but don't you think whites in South Africa would have put up just as much security against blacks if their had been sustained suicide bomber and rocket attacks on civilian centers?

I know for certain that there were a number of bombings of white areas during apartheid.
I'm not precisely sure about the numbers, but I know it did happen.
It was however not near as common as the Israeli/Palestine situation.


Here, the racist ideology is also reinforced by religion, which was not the case in South Africa
I think this is what makes the difference between the two so great.

[asspennies]

Hasn't it? The situation has had international attention since and there's been tons of political pressure to resolve the situation. Both sides have been demonized and the world is attempting to keep both parties in check which is better for the Palestinians than having another country take their land inch by inch while the rest of the world turns a blind eye to the situation.

It's only inflamed the entire world in an unending political he said/she said mess. Oh sure, I guess you can blame Isreal or the US for that, but the use of the suicide bomb has turned the situation into the flashpoint and focal point for what amounts to a great deal of the world's political stress. And you think that's a good thing for Palestinians? Ok, they get some recognition for their suffering, but their suffering only becomes worse and worse because of it. They get nations fighting with each other to out-do who hates the US, Israel, the west, or on the flipside, the Arabaic or Persian countries more, and the new paradigm of exported terrorism. Great job! Congratulations Palestinians, that tactic really worked.

Fuck up the whole world, including your own people to a great extent, and cause the destabilizing of entire regions because of what should amount to the OBVIOUS repercussion that extremism - on BOTH sides - will flourish after such things take place. Extremism from the US war-happy military machine included.

So yes. Yay Palestinians! You've made the world a better place thanks the continued use and celebration of suicide bombing, clearly.

[Grifman]

You're using "Palestinians" in a pretty broad sense, aren't you?

Yeah,that should be pretty obvious. Just like people say, "Americans do x" or "the British do Y".

[Grifman]

Honestly, I don't see them getting farther away.

Maybe not, but standing pat isn't the desired goal, is it? Standing still is still "losing".

[Tim Partlett]

For the first quarter of a century of occupation, the settlement of the West Bank and Gaza continued unabated, supported by both sides of the political spectrum in Israel as a strategic goal. Now polls show a majority of Israelis support dismantling the settlements.

The support was great not because Israelis are land grabbing religious zealot, even if many of the settlers have glazed eyes, but because they viewed the settlements as a means of securing Israel's borders against their enemies.

In becoming a threat to Israel greater than their neighbours, it would be hard to argue that Palestinian violence hasn't been a major factor in persuading Israeli politicians, and public, that settlements are no longer a viable strategy for securing Israel's borders.

[Ed Solomon]

The support was great not because Israelis are land grabbing religious zealot, even if many of the settlers have glazed eyes, but because they viewed the settlements as a means of securing Israel's borders against their enemies.
Oh really? What does a civilian settlement gain you, defensively, that a military outpost doesn't?

[Dirt]

It's only inflamed the entire world in an unending political he said/she said mess. Oh sure, I guess you can blame Isreal or the US for that, but the use of the suicide bomb has turned the situation into the flashpoint and focal point for what amounts to a great deal of the world's political stress. And you think that's a good thing for Palestinians? Ok, they get some recognition for their suffering, but their suffering only becomes worse and worse because of it. They get nations fighting with each other to out-do who hates the US, Israel, the west, or on the flipside, the Arabaic or Persian countries more, and the new paradigm of exported terrorism. Great job! Congratulations Palestinians, that tactic really worked.

Fuck up the whole world, including your own people to a great extent, and cause the destabilizing of entire regions because of what should amount to the OBVIOUS repercussion that extremism - on BOTH sides - will flourish after such things take place. Extremism from the US war-happy military machine included.

So yes. Yay Palestinians! You've made the world a better place thanks the continued use and celebration of suicide bombing, clearly.

The only other thing to do is lay down and die.

[StGabe]

Oh really? What does a civilian settlement gain you, defensively, that a military outpost doesn't?

You'd be surprised. An example is olive trees. Olive trees are used to assert ownership of land and are obviously of economic importance. There has been endless bickering over olive trees with both sides uprooting or fencing off each other's trees or planting trees in contested areas (where the trees may or may not be necessary) just to try to make a claim of ownership.

At least that was my understanding of it 10 years ago when I studied this in college. But basically there's a lot of stuff that settlements can do to take over land and/or hassle surrounding settlements.

Ultimately there's military there as well but it's more about putting bodies on any borders to Palestinian settlements and letting them fight for every scrap of land available.

[Ed Solomon]

At least that was my understanding of it 10 years ago when I studied this in college. But basically there's a lot of stuff that settlements can do to take over land and/or hassle surrounding settlements.

Ultimately there's military there as well but it's more about putting bodies on any borders to Palestinian settlements and letting them fight for every scrap of land available.

And this increases the security of Israel how?

[Tim Partlett]

Oh really? What does a civilian settlement gain you, defensively, that a military outpost doesn't?

Well for one it works to legitimise your need to secure those extended borders, rather than returning to defending your old ones.

[Trashcan]

And this increases the security of Israel how?

It puts a (larger) buffer around Israel's creamy, urban centers.

[StGabe]

And this increases the security of Israel how?

I think in going from the word "securing" to "security" your brain short-circuited somewhere. What I'm talking about is having people squat on the border and abuse laws and customs to snag as much land as possible. It's a non-militaristic "war" for land. The mentality is "if we don't do it, they will".

[Ed Solomon]

Let's recap the conversation.

Partlet said that the settlements were not a land grab but a way of "securing" the Israeli borders. I implied it sure looked like a land grab because the settlements don't make Israel any more secure.


I think in going from the word "securing" to "security" your brain short-circuited somewhere. What I'm talking about is having people squat on the border and abuse laws and customs to snag as much land as possible. It's a non-militaristic "war" for land. The mentality is "if we don't do it, they will".

Dude, are you seriously suggesting that the Israelis thought they had to create settlements in the West Bank or the Palestinians would? The same West Bank where the Palestinians already lived and had lived for a 1000 years. Or are you saying that the Israelis were afraid that if they didn't create settlements in the West Bank the Palestinians were going to create settlements in Israel?

[Gav]

Partlet said that the settlements were not a land grab but a way of "securing" the Israeli borders. I implied it sure looked like a land grab because the settlements don't make Israel any more secure.

The idea was that the settlements would create facts on the ground when it came time to negotiate with the Arab states -- by using the settlements as bargaining chips, the Israeli government could forge more secure borders or stronger treaties (the way they did by giving the Sinai back to Egypt as part of the peace treaty with Israel, and the way that the Golan will probably be traded to Syria for a peace deal).

Obviously it hasn't worked out that way, but hindsight is always 20/20.

[MikeSofaer]

In becoming a threat to Israel greater than their neighbours, it would be hard to argue that Palestinian violence hasn't been a major factor in persuading Israeli politicians, and public, that settlements are no longer a viable strategy for securing Israel's borders.
Ooh, a challenge!

Palestinians' violence hasn't increased their threat to Israel, rather relations between Israel and its traditional enemies have improved to the point that an annoyance-level threat like the Palestinians is the largest remaining proximate threat.

[shift6]

It's bad when even your erstwhile friends pretty much treat you as a non-entity at the big people table.

[Tim Partlett]

Partlet said that the settlements were not a land grab but a way of "securing" the Israeli borders.

Well what I actually said was that, in general, the Israelis who supported the settlements didn't see it as a religious land grab, but as a means of securing their borders.

[Tim Partlett]

Ooh, a challenge!

Palestinians' violence hasn't increased their threat to Israel, rather relations between Israel and its traditional enemies have improved to the point that an annoyance-level threat like the Palestinians is the largest remaining proximate threat.

Israel ordered the construction of a 400+ mile long, 8 meter high, 60 meter thick wall just because of an "annoyance"?

[extarbags]

Also, extarbags, there is a distinct lack of organized non-violent resistance in that list, which is something that probably would work well against Israel.

Why would it? Israel has no incentive to address this situation whatsoever. The entire world outside of the middle east is on their side, and despite the lip service they pay, the other countries of the middle east mostly can't be bothered with this stuff.

The only thing that will work is real international pressure. Period. Nothing the Palestinians can possibly do on their own has even a faint chance of working.

[Gav]

Israel ordered the construction of a 400+ mile long, 8 meter high, 60 meter thick wall just because of an "annoyance"?
One could definitely make that argument. You could argue that the effect of the wall is psychological -- creating a physical barrier to say that all the land on this side is Israel's. That's why the international community is in such an uproar; the wall is seen as a land-grab.

It's also seen as another bargaining chip ("we'll dismantle the wall if you do blah blah blah").

I think that one shouldn't underestimate how far governments in the ME will go to make a stupid symbolic gesture, and Israel is certainly no exception.

[asspennies]

The only other thing to do is lay down and die.

Yes, they had only two options - suicide bombings or to "lay down and die."

Aren't you usually against such a black-and-white view of the world?

[Grifman]

Why would it? Israel has no incentive to address this situation whatsoever. The entire world outside of the middle east is on their side, and despite the lip service they pay, the other countries of the middle east mostly can't be bothered with this stuff.

The only thing that will work is real international pressure. Period. Nothing the Palestinians can possibly do on their own has even a faint chance of working.

And exactly what would cause international pressure?

I suggest that pictures of Israeli policemen clubbing non-violent Palestinian protestors would do that. The press would go wild, just like they did when the same thing occurred in the South during the civil rights marches in the 60's.

Imagine thousands of Palestinians marching, not for Israel's destruction, but for their rights. England couldn't stand up to Gandhi, the South/US couldn't stand up to MLK, and I don't think the Israeli's could stand up to the Palestinians. Democracies don't like to crack down on non-violent protesters who are seeking nothing more than a redress of grievances. It makes them look bad, and the public starts to question things.

[AaronSofaer]

Israel has no incentive to address this situation whatsoever.


The fuck you say?

Israel has every incentive to address this situation. Regardless of what you think of their strategy and/or tactics, they've been trying to find peace longer than either of us has been alive.

How about, for an incentive, you consider "Not having your countrymen blown the fuck up"?

[StGabe]

Dude, are you seriously suggesting that the Israelis thought they had to create settlements in the West Bank or the Palestinians would? The same West Bank where the Palestinians already lived and had lived for a 1000 years. Or are you saying that the Israelis were afraid that if they didn't create settlements in the West Bank the Palestinians were going to create settlements in Israel?

I'm saying that there is a well-documented "war" between Israeli and Palestinian settlements using trying to grab land, stealing olive trees, planting olive trees just to make claims to land, etc. This happens all across the country. Placing settlements who then engage in this subtle "warfare" is just a way to try and bolster a claim to specific areas of land.

See for example this (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/12303.ctl).

I'm obviously focusing on just one issue but I'm doing so to demonstrate that "securing borders" is more complex than just stationing military.

[Tim Partlett]

One could definitely make that argument. You could argue that the effect of the wall is psychological -- creating a physical barrier to say that all the land on this side is Israel's. That's why the international community is in such an uproar; the wall is seen as a land-grab.

It's also seen as another bargaining chip ("we'll dismantle the wall if you do blah blah blah").

I think that one shouldn't underestimate how far governments in the ME will go to make a stupid symbolic gesture, and Israel is certainly no exception.

You think the wall would have been built without terrorist attacks?

There might be some support in terms of drawing a line under the issue of Israel's borders, but that gigantic wall was built because terrorism was more than just an "annoyance".

[extarbags]

And exactly what would cause international pressure?

I suggest that pictures of Israeli policemen clubbing non-violent Palestinian protestors would do that. The press would go wild, just like they did when the same thing occurred in the South during the civil rights marches in the 60's.

Imagine thousands of Palestinians marching, not for Israel's destruction, but for their rights. England couldn't stand up to Gandhi, the South/US couldn't stand up to MLK, and I don't think the Israeli's could stand up to the Palestinians. Democracies don't like to crack down on non-violent protesters who are seeking nothing more than a redress of grievances. It makes them look bad, and the public starts to question things.

Colonization and segregation were things that world opinion was already skewing against. The results that Ghandi and King got were more along the lines of "come on now, this is just getting ridiculous" than "you know, I think they might have a point after all." Employing those types of resistance techniques might make people demonize the Palestinians less, but I highly doubt it would turn world opinion in their favor.


The fuck you say?

Israel has every incentive to address this situation. Regardless of what you think of their strategy and/or tactics, they've been trying to find peace longer than either of us has been alive.

No they haven't. They've been trying to find a peace that also lets them keep all of that land and leave the Palestinians with nothing. Not exactly an earnest effort.


How about, for an incentive, you consider "Not having your countrymen blown the fuck up"?

If that's such a good incentive, why hasn't it worked so far?

[Jag]

It's ironic that the article that states how much worse the Israeli occupation is than Apartheid was printed in an Israeli newspaper. I doubt the same would have been allowed under Apartheid rule in South Africa.

[Tim Partlett]

Well, it's not ironic, given that the article is talking about the occupied territories, and not Israel itself. As I already stated, the rights of minorities in Israel are relatively strong. Israel itself is nothing like Apartheid.

[MikeSofaer]

Israel ordered the construction of a 400+ mile long, 8 meter high, 60 meter thick wall just because of an "annoyance"?
All hyberbole aside (it's 60 meters thick all 400 miles, huh?), yes, I think that's a reasonably easy thing to argue.

The US is building a wall to keep out the Mexicans, but I don't think Mexicans who want to come to our land and pick our tomatoes are viewed by anyone rational as a serious national threat.

Walls are probably a normal level of response to something seriously annoying, but not truly threatening.

The Palestinians are in a bad position with regard to Jerusalem. Israel has quite a decent BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement), and things like the wall only improve it, to the point where any deal that involves giving up some of Jerusalem is worse for Israel than not having a deal at all.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have a terrible BATNA. They have weak trade, no investment, no political stability that could attract investment, poor education and a recent history of violent people in power. They are not doing well under the status quo. If they cannot reach an agreement, they will have to rely on Egypt and Jordan to bring them into the world economy, which so far neither Egypt nor Jordan seems overly excited about doing.

But the Palestinians feel ill-used by everyone around them, from the Israelis living on the land they used to live on, to the Europeans who facilitated it, to the Arabs who left them hanging as pariah refugees instead of integrating them into the Arab world's economy. A deal based solely on facts on the ground now would feel terribly unfair to them. And so they demand a deal which is worse for Israel than putting up with the annoyance of domestic terrorism. And so Israel builds a wall, to reduce the annoyance that the Palestinians can cause, increase their BATNA, and buy them time, because they think that the Palestinians aren't getting any stronger, and the longer the conflict goes on, the less likely they are to wind up eventually giving up part of Jerusalem.

The reason I say all this wrt the wall and an annoyance, is that Israel's unwillingness to make the concessions being demanded, and their forcefulness on the ground with things like the wall, spring from a confidence that the Palestinians are not a serious threat, that they can be steamrolled. The wall, far from being an expression of weakness, is a symbol that Israel feels a negotiated settlement is not necessary, which was not at all the case with Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

[Jag]

Good analysis Mike. The TL;DR verision:

Israel's current policy is to make the Palestinians irrelevant to Israel.

[Tim Partlett]

The US is building a wall to keep out the Mexicans, but I don't think Mexicans who want to come to our land and pick our tomatoes are viewed by anyone rational as a serious national threat.

And you accuse me of hyperbole for stating readily available facts!

The people who support building a wall on the Mexican border very much see Mexicans as a threat: a demographic threat. Speaking in the context of Israel, I shouldn't have to point out to you how much people can fear a demographic explosion or invasion even more than a real one.


The reason I say all this wrt the wall and an annoyance, is that Israel's unwillingness to make the concessions being demanded, and their forcefulness on the ground with things like the wall, spring from a confidence that the Palestinians are not a serious threat, that they can be steamrolled. The wall, far from being an expression of weakness, is a symbol that Israel feels a negotiated settlement is not necessary, which was not at all the case with Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

The wall isn't a symbol of Israel's weakness, but it is a symbol of Israel's weakening. The level at which Israel feels it can steamroll the Palestinians has decreased, and the wall is symbolic of that. It doesn't say the Palestinians have won by any means, far from it, but it symbolises a clear change from "we'll extend our borders across Palestinian land" to "we'll extend our borders into Palestine only as far as it makes strategic sense taking Palestinian action into consideration."

When deciding Israel's strategy, the Palestinians were initially not part of the equation. Now they are.

The vast majority of Jewish Israelis supported the construction of the wall, either because they felt it provided them with security from attacks, because it defined Israel's border, or both. Either fact is testament to a change in viewpoints brought about by Palestinian violence. Previously Israelis supported a secure border that included the West Bank. Now they don't.

Pretending that Palestinian violence has been useless to the point of an "annoyance" is wrong. It doesn't mean that it was their best strategy. It doesn't mean that it has been beneficial to them overall. It certainly doesn't make it a moral strategy. But it definitely has changed the way Israelis think of them. For what else turned the Israeli strategy from one of paying settlers to plant themselves in Palestinian land to one of paying them to get out?

[MikeSofaer]

Speaking in the context of Israel, I shouldn't have to point out to you how much people can fear a demographic explosion or invasion even more than a real one.
Well, I'm pretty sure most people feel real explosions and invasions more than demographic ones.


Previously Israelis supported a secure border that included the West Bank. Now they don't. ...

Pretending that Palestinian violence has been useless to the point of an "annoyance" is wrong.
I don't think being an annoyance is useless, far from it. People and nations react to annoyances, and being annoying can certainly be effective.

Your original claim was that it was hard to argue against the claim that by using terror tactics, Palestinians had become a greater threat to Israel than their neighbors. My point is not to argue over how serious a threat must be before it is more than a mere serious annoyance, but instead to put forward the position that the threat posed by the Palestinians is much less serious than the threat their neighbors used to pose, and its relative importance is due to Israel solving its more serious problems, and therefore Palestinian tactical choices are not responsible for the issue's primacy.

I'm not finding it terribly hard to argue.

[Tim Partlett]

Yes, you found it quite easy to argue against something I didn't say. Well done.


it would be hard to argue that Palestinian violence hasn't been a major factor in persuading Israeli politicians, and public, that settlements are no longer a viable strategy for securing Israel's borders.

That's quite a bit different to saying the Palestinians had become a bigger threat that Isarel's neighbours used to be...

[MikeSofaer]

In becoming a threat to Israel greater than their neighbours, it would be hard to argue that Palestinian violence hasn't been...
I am arguing that they did not become a greater threat than their neighbors, they are simply the largest remaining threat, which they would be regardless of what tactics they had been using this past 30 years.

[Tim Partlett]

they are simply the largest remaining threat

So are you arguing that the wall would have been built in the 1980s?

Are you arguing that settlements would have been removed before the Intifada?

In 2002 there were over 450 Israelis killed. More than the entire death toll for the previous decade. Do you think it is a coincidence that Israel started constructing the wall that very same year?

By 2005 when Sharon ordered the first settlements to be removed from Gaza, there had been over a thousand Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorism in the first five years of the 21st century, more than previous three decades combined. You don't think that was a major factor in this decision?

Israeli deaths to Palestinian attacks:

1980-1989 - 174
1990-1999 - 428
2000-2005 - 1000+

Without the wall, if the annual death toll had just stayed at the 2002 level, the first decade of the 21st century would have resulted in more deaths than every war with every Arab nation since the first one in 1948.

You don't think they became a bigger threat than they were previously?

[AaronSofaer]

You're both right.

The Palestinians have become more of a threat to Israel. At the same time, the neighboring countries have become less of a threat (or none, in the case of Jordan and Egypt).

[RSofaer]

You're both right.

I don't think you understand, Mr. Sofaer. This is the internet.

[TheWombat]

How many Sofaers are there???

[lesslucid]

How many Sofaers are there???

However many you think there are... exactly one more than that.