Israel seizes democratically elected leaders

The Core RPGC Main Forum
41

In this case we’re not talking about conceding land held by Israel to the Palestinians, but about enclosing and splitting up land that the Palestinians already currently have. As I said, the wall doesn’t just close off the Jewish settlements that are already in the West Bank, it also encircles Palestinian villages, separating them from the land they use for farming, shutting them off from whatever schools and hospitals the Palestinians do have, and thereby establishing near-total control over their ability to make a living. Not to mention the Palestinian property that was destroyed during the actual construction of the wall.

Okay, but once we get into this kind of passive-voice statement, we basically arrive at the same argument that Palestinians use to justify supporting militants. One of them might argue that Israel will never leave the West Bank of its own accord, after having built settlements and most of the wall inside of it, and after the Gaza withdrawal was unpopular among much of the Israeli public. The Palestinians have no way to pressure Israel to leave the West Bank diplomatically, since they have no economic levers over Israel, whereas Israel has lots of economic levers over them. Therefore, such a one can argue, supporting militants is the only way to exert enough pressure on Israel to get any of what they want. And then one can find some example of a Palestinian civilian killed by Israel and repeat your statement about how civilian casualties are inevitable “when two countries are fighting.”

But when they voted in Abbas, who recognized Israel and called for an end to terrorism, Israel wouldn’t negotiate with them either, and moved ahead unilaterally with Sharon’s not-quite-withdrawal from Gaza. Thereafter, many Palestinians probably decided that the Israelis would act unilaterally no matter whom they elected, and that they might as well vote for the party that was less corrupt. The same polls indicated that about half of the Palestinians voting in the legislative election thought that poverty and the economy were the most important issues that the government had to deal with. One quarter wanted to punish Fatah for corruption. In other words, 75% of Palestinians were mostly concerned with the deterioration of the Palestinian economy. In my view, this illustrates my earlier point about how extremists benefit from economic sanctions.

42

Which war can be won without political measures? Giving back Gaza while undermining Abbas, who was supposedly their co-negotiatior was stupid. Unless Israel wanted to withdraw without taking steps to stabilise the political situation so that it could return later and say “told ya”.

Why do the UN keep passing resolutions concerning Israel if the latter’s points are that clear?

That’s uncalled for generalising.

I didn’t mention the Israeli side. My point was about warmongers on both sides. Diplomacy needs to be constant.

Not disregard him when he changes his mind. Also check my link below.

Generalising, as SK already said.

So why cut the electricity to 750.000 people? You call them enemies. Is the everyday Israeli an enemy of the everyday Palestinian (and vice versa)? Remember that the Palestinians will need faith in their government, who else can guide them to negotiations and keep peace in the area?

Are the Palestinian arguments dependent on those who make them? What makes them different from the Israeli ones? People listening to both sides doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate Israel’s position. When Israel entered Gaza and the West Bank, there were already people there, they didn’t occupy free space (silly pun). Palestine is a term old enough to warrant the term Palestinian, if not with the current meaning.

[QUOTE=]
This is not an equal argument. People like saying it is because that way they get to sit on the fence. But moralistically, strategically, and ethically, the two sides are not the same at all.[/QUOTE]

Their strategic situation isn’t the same for sure. I’d say Israel is better off there. Ethically and moralistically, in my book, they are in the same boat. When people get killed, one has all the right in the world. When one kills people, one’s moral position plummets. When both things happen repeatedly (for half a century, say) it’s time both sides began looking on the situation with a fresh perspective. Europe was total shit in the beginnings of the last century, as WW and WWII killed so many people and generated so much hate. Nowadays though, France and Germany, who had been killing each other for 75 years are on the best of terms. I think that’s the road to follow.

http://www.fmep.org/analysis/articles/the_issue_is_not_whether_hamas_recognises_israel.html

is interesting, especially the part about Mossad’s head, who surely cares for Israel’s security. He doesn’t mind cooperating with Hamas as a member of the political establishment. And he also coins the question, whether Israel recognises a Palestinian state.

43

In this case we’re not talking about conceding land held by Israel to the Palestinians, but about enclosing and splitting up land that the Palestinians already currently have.

I’m not contesting that. But as far as Israel is concerned, convenience for Palestinians does not outweigh the security of its citizens.

The Palestinians have no way to pressure Israel to leave the West Bank diplomatically, since they have no economic levers over Israel, whereas Israel has lots of economic levers over them.

The talks have never centered around economic might. The Palestinians always had one thing to bring to the table, which is the promise of cessation of violence. The Israelis have repeatedly been amenable to accepting this and withdrawing from much of the West Bank - but every agreement the Palestinians signed where they promised to stop the violence was violated. For the most part, the Israelis don’t want the settlements to continue (although giving back absolutely everything is also probably not possible) - but in the current situation they can’t give it back since they can pretty much assume that they’ll get nothing in return. Once they see that there’s some goodwill, the situation can change.

Then, in response to the moral objection, one can find an example of a Palestinian civilian killed by Israel and then repeat your exact line about how killing innocent people is inevitable “when two countries are fighting.”

There’s one major difference: The Palestinian deaths, other than those of the militants themselves, are always accidents and much care is taken to minimize them as much as possible. On the other hand, terrorists specifically target innocent civilians - those deaths are not “inevitable” in the least.

But when they voted in Abbas, who recognized Israel and called for an end to terrorism, Israel wouldn’t negotiate with them either, and moved ahead unilaterally with Sharon’s not-quite-withdrawal from Gaza.

Firstly, while Abbas was more moderate than Hamas, he still never actually said that he wanted peace with Israel. The best he could come up with was the fact that suicide bombs were “counterproductive” - not that they were immoral or that their goals were wrong. In any case, though, Israel gave Abbas quite a while to prove that he had some sort of clout. The fact that Abbas kept saying he wanted to crack down on militants didn’t really matter, because he never did. At that point Israel decided that in a strategic and security sense, withdrawing from Gaza would be best. I don’t agree with that decision, but that’s what they decided.

Which war can be won without political measures? Giving back Gaza while undermining Abbas, who was supposedly their co-negotiatior was stupid. Unless Israel wanted to withdraw without taking steps to stabilise the political situation so that it could return later and say “told ya”.

Eventually there will be political measures - once Israel finds that it has someone to talk with. Abbas is not currently someone to talk with since he has no clout among the terrorists and hence has absolutely nothing to offer Israel. First the terrorists have to realize that they’re losing - then they’ll talk seriously. Till then, we either have people unwilling to help or unable to help, which is no diplomatic partner at all.

Why do the UN keep passing resolutions concerning Israel if the latter’s points are that clear?

Firstly because Israel has a godawful PR campaign and the Arabs have an excellent one, secondly because there are a hell of a lot of Arab states on the UN who wish Israel would disappear, and thirdly because nothing is ever clear.

[quote]Believe it or not, often the entire world is dead wrong.

That’s uncalled for generalising. [/quote]

Really? I’d call it the truth.

I didn’t mention the Israeli side. My point was about warmongers on both sides. Diplomacy needs to be constant.

Except that there are very few “warmongers” on the Israeli side, and they’re not very high up the hierarchy. You’re trying to equalize the two sides when it doesn’t fly.

So why cut the electricity to 750.000 people?

To put pressure on them, as I said. Still, I don’t quite agree with that, either.

You call them enemies. Is the everyday Israeli an enemy of the everyday Palestinian (and vice versa)?

Was the everyday Briton an enemy of the everyday German in WWII? Yes, even though they’d probably get along if they saw each other. They’re on different sides, hence they’re enemies. But this is semantics, anyway.

Remember that the Palestinians will need faith in their government, who else can guide them to negotiations and keep peace in the area?

That’s fine - but Israel also needs faith in their government, don’t forget, if they are to negotiate with them.

Are the Palestinian arguments dependent on those who make them? What makes them different from the Israeli ones?

Because they’re often made by using “common knowledge” with loaded language - like “apartheid wall”, which has been coined by people who have no idea what the term means.

When Israel entered Gaza and the West Bank, there were already people there, they didn’t occupy free space (silly pun).

No, it was owned by Jordan, who at the moment had attacked Israel. Jordan pulled back and Israel captured it. That’s what happens in war. It’s happened dozens of times in history - but Israel’s the only one getting fire for it.

When people get killed, one has all the right in the world. When one kills people, one’s moral position plummets.

Ah. So if someone’s coming after you with a gun to kill you, then shooting him makes you no better than him. According to that logic, anyone with a gun instantly wins any fight, since fighting back is inherently immoral and makes you a murderer.

Of course killing people is wrong (I feel like a moron for even saying it). But sometimes, when you have someone who will kill others if he isn’t stopped, and you can’t capture him, it must be done.

44

It also needs to allow for someone to talk with. If the head of Mossad thinks Hamas is good enough, why not?

Israel has a PR campaign worse than the Palestinians? Wow.

Uncalled for generalising was

, saying that the entire world didn’t care about killing the Jews or thought it was a good idea. I wouldn’t call it the truth.

Bombing the office of the Palestinian PM is quite the peaceful action.

Being on different sides doesn’t make them enemies. When they don’t think on terms of enemies, semantics and peace will have won the day.

In modern wars participants have been getting fire.

When you’ve been fighting back for half a century I’d expect a reevaluation of the situation. Because a perpetuating circle of violence isn’t the fault of one side.
Both sides view themselves as being attacked. If they follow the “kill them, for they attacked us first” paradigm, this situation won’t ever end. Is more blood and ruins needed?

45

It also needs to allow for someone to talk with. If the head of Mossad thinks Hamas is good enough, why not?

Because most disagree with him, I feel. Most of us are a bit more jaded at this point. We’ve seen too many Palestinian governments give lip service to peace and then entirely ignore it.

saying that the entire world didn’t care about killing the Jews or thought it was a good idea. I wouldn’t call it the truth.

Then you need to bone up on history. The vast majority of countries couldn’t care less about the Jews in WWII. Canada refused to let in more than a trickle, and the US didn’t open up its borders too much either. Few if any countries actively cared about the Jews’ situation or tried to do anything about it. My point is just that it’s entirely possible for everyone to get something very wrong. The Holocaust was just one example, but we can all come up with more.

Bombing the office of the Palestinian PM is quite the peaceful action.

Considering it was empty at the time, yes.

In modern wars participants have been getting fire.

So Israel’s only crime is being created too late?

Both sides view themselves as being attacked.

Not entirely. Hamas isn’t attacking Israel because Israel is attacking them. Hamas is attacking Israel in a cynical attempt to get Israel to give into them.

46

“Inconvenience” is one of those euphemisms, like “collateral damage,” that really doesn’t capture the reality of the situation. In this case, the Palestinians are separated not only from Israel, but from each other, from civil institutions such as schools and hospitals, and most importantly from their workplaces. If you can’t get to work because you aren’t allowed to leave your little enclave, you can’t make a living. If you can’t make a living, you instantly enter poverty, if not starve. And, of course, if you don’t have electricity or running water on top of all of that, then you can’t really even talk about making a living, much less showing “goodwill” to anyone. I think Curtis’ point earlier was that this is Israel’s own way of specifically targeting innocent civilians. You can argue that this practice is in some way “better” than just blowing up all of them with bombs, or again that it’s justified by security goals, but it’s certainly extremely damaging, so much so that I don’t think anyone on the receiving end of such a strategy would much care if it was unintentional or if it was based on sound goals. You don’t have to go far for supporting evidence. We’ve destroyed the economic and social infrastructure of all of Iraq, and as a result the most extreme radicals in that country have gotten much stronger and are now busy setting up an order far worse than what was there before. And the terrorists still aren’t losing, even though they’re targeting their fellow Iraqis just as much as us.

Abbas did negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas, which they largely upheld until recently. Furthermore, Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza only weakened his influence, since Israel refused to coordinate the proceedings with him, although that would have allowed him to use the withdrawal to increase his own standing among Palestinians. Instead, he was sidelined and Hamas was able to claim it as their own victory. In any case, however, my point in bringing up Abbas is to show that there are reasons why Palestinians voted for Hamas other than “the Palestinians want to destroy Israel.”

Hamas isn’t, but ordinary Palestinians who aren’t Islamic radicals are supporting Hamas because they believe that Israel is attacking them - again, not so much with guns as with punitive economic measures - and also because they believe that Hamas can do social work to mitigate the effects of these same punitive economic measures. The idea that these measures are necessary to stop Hamas, even if it’s intellectually justifiable, won’t find much understanding among people who had nothing to do with Hamas but were “targeted” anyway.

47

Listen, I have been following this debate intently for the last few days and I am somwhat amazed. Now, I know that my veiw is clearly biased, with me being Jewish, but I cannot understand how so many are defending the Palestinians. Yes, I understand there are a few that want to live peacefully with ‘infidel’ Jews so close, or atleast would not mind. I realize that wanting to get rid of Israel tends toward the more extreme veiws of their faith, but not very extreme. Most any of the Muslim faith would not blink of Israel fell, whether they actually support the ideas or not. The Israelis are defending themselves. If they did not have the wall up, then many many more attacks would be with the Palestinians now having, in effect, a base of operations smackdab in the middle of Isreal. I wonder if you realize that if Israel actually does fall to the Arab world, God forbid, Do you think they will be contented? Absolutely not. Do you know who is next? Christians.

I am backing Mr. Cidoflas 100 percent in this argument. I want him to know that there is someone who agrees with him.

48

Abbas did negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas, which they largely upheld until recently.

Hamas has entered ceasefires in the past without Abbas. But it’s important to note the word they use for it - hudna - denotes a temporary cessation of hostilities to facilitate regrouping and re-arming. It does not denote any sort of peaceful intent.

In any case, however, my point in bringing up Abbas is to show that there are reasons why Palestinians voted for Hamas other than “the Palestinians want to destroy Israel.”

I don’t doubt that - but the point is that the current situation there is that terrorists are the best they can come up with. Perhaps they’re more concerned with things like garbage pickup, but Israel has to deal with their government, and they can’t do that if their government refuses to recognize its right to exist. They can’t go back and complain about the behavior of Israel and the international community afterwards.

And while it’s possible that the Palestinians are willing to accept Israel, I still think that there’s a very strong undercurrent in Palestinian society that believes that fighting Jews is a religious undertaking. Go to www.memri.org/ and do a search for “shahid” (martyr) and you’ll find hundreds of instances of official PA television spots (before Hamas) praising suicide bombers as going to heaven. This has been constantly fed to parents and children, to the point where there are plenty of children who sincerely believe that killing Jews is the best thing anyone can do. I’m not saying it’s a majority - but it was the official religious position of the PA in the last while. And while we’re on the topic, school textbooks still depict the entire area as “Palestine”, with no mention of Israel at all, whereas Israeli textbooks deal more or less honestly with the West Bank and Gaza as being disputed territory.

I’m not saying that Israel’s plans are flawless; they aren’t, of course; they will certainly cause harm, and any country that fights back its attackers will never have a flawless plan. There will always be people caught in the middle. I simply think that Israel is taking the path it feels will a) cause the least amount of harm, and b) have the highest likelihood of succeeding in stopping the attacks against it. That gives it the moral high ground when compared to the Palestinians, who generally try to find a path that causes the greatest amount of harm.

What other choice do they have? Negotiations have repeatedly resulted in the Palestinians refusing to honour them, Israel does not feel that there’s currently anyone they can deal with (which includes Abbas) and Israel does not want outright war, so the methods it’s adopted seem to be the least of the possible evils. You can knock it down all you want, but I’d like to hear you come up with a better one that has a better chance of furthering Israel’s goals of keeping its people safe.

Ergoemos: While there are certainly some crazies (i.e. al-Qaeda) who want to turn the whole world into a Caliphate, they’re few and far between. I personally would much rather not have to defeat the Arabs and to find some sort of peace between us - we’re cousins, after all - but that revolves around them accepting our existence and cracking down on terror rather than supporting it. How we get there is up in the air.

49

Also individuals’ feelings aren’t always reflected on the contemporary policy of their countries. (Random link: http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~rescuers/). Though they’d better do their best to see to it. Of course it’s entirely possible for everyone to get something very wrong. Earth being flat etc.

Would you consider it peaceful then, were the Palestinians to bomb the offices of Israel’s PM, at a time they are empty?

No, you don’t see anyone protesting against Montenegro or East Timor. Nor is the problem the creation of Israel. Its politics and the continuing bloodshed are.

[QUOTE=]
Not entirely. Hamas isn’t attacking Israel because Israel is attacking them. Hamas is attacking Israel in a cynical attempt to get Israel to give into them.[/QUOTE]

There are of course members of Hamas, Jihad etc. who would destroy Israel with no provocation. Each Israeli measure that affects the Palestinians negatively though (attacks on infrastructure and homes, checkpoints and the wall), is seen as an attack against the simple folk, thus making them consider themselves being attacked.

Ergoemos, no such thing as total objectivity. Israel defends its citizens. I question how effective its methods are, with regard to the long term security and welfare of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Islam isn’t incompatible with Judaism and Christianity. Their holy book demands respect toward the religions of the Bible. Extremist and fundamentalist readinds create the bad image Islam has, together with sociopolitical and economic reasons.

edit:

Exactly. And around Israelis furthering the same cause.

50

Would you consider it peaceful then, were the Palestinians to bomb the offices of Israel’s PM, at a time they are empty?

Compared to their usual bombings of crowded hotels, malls, etc.? Absolutely.

No, you don’t see anyone protesting against Montenegro or East Timor. Nor is the problem the creation of Israel. Its politics and the continuing bloodshed are.

Montenegro and East Timor have the luxury of being uncontested. Israel, unfortunately, is surrounded by people who would like it to be gone, and hence has to take more drastic action to ensure its survival and that of its citizens.

Extremist and fundamentalist readinds create the bad image Islam has, together with sociopolitical and economic reasons.

That’s not entirely true either. The Koran, and especially the Haditha, can easily be construed both ways. But then so can the Bible - and the Jews (and nowadays, the Christians) have resolutely decided to emphasize the passages about piety and good works and downplay the ones about conquest and putting to death. We in the West are getting mixed messages - what exactly is the “real Islam” and why should we believe one guy and not the other? I certainly think Islam can and should be a peaceful religion, but it not always is one.

Exactly. And around Israelis furthering the same cause.

Oh, I have no problem with individual Israelis getting together with Palestinians and furthering the cause of peace. Every time I hear of one of those groups it gives me a great feeling. But the Israeli government has to also pursue policies that protect its people in the best way it sees fit.

51

My point is that the reason why they became more concerned with poverty and the economy (I’d imagine they’re more worried about hospitals and running water than garbage collection, although that’s a major health issue too) has to do in part with the fact that Israel refused to negotiate with their government when it did recognize Israel. Abbas may not have had a lot of “clout” inside Hamas itself, but he was (and still is to some extent) very popular among ordinary Palestinians. If Israel worked with him at least superficially (like coordinating the Gaza withdrawal with him), he could have obtained further support and thus gained more political or electoral leverage over Hamas.

But as things stood, the only option left to Abbas was to negotiate with the militants on equal terms and try to bring some of them away from terrorism and towards politics, which he tried to do when he got them to agree to suspend their attacks. As Sinistral said earlier, it’s not unheard-of for militants to gradually moderate their position once they enter the government, because then they assume a whole bunch of other responsibilities toward the people who elected them.

Undoubtedly such views are popular, but MEMRI doesn’t necessarily show the most representative picture of what Arabs think either. For instance, in a generally sympathetic article about them, the Forward quoted the head of the CIA’s counterintelligence unit, who said that they’re selective about the articles they pick because of their own political interests. I don’t know how the CIA feels about Israel, but I would imagine that they also carefully study the Arab press as part of their job. As a glaring example of their political involvements, around the time of the US election, MEMRI misinterpreted a statement by bin Laden and claimed that he was promising not to attack individual American states if they would vote for Kerry. This mistranslation was seized on by the American right-wing press, which used it to promote Bush.

Keep in mind that the only policy I’m really strongly “knocking down” here is the practice of “collective punishment.” I don’t think that it causes the least amount of harm, and I don’t think it’s meant to either. In fact, I think you yourself agreed that Israel does this to “exert pressure” on Palestinian civilians. The construction of the wall in the West Bank is similarly designed to damage civilian life in those parts where it encloses Palestinian villages in little enclaves separated from workplaces, schools and hospitals. As for stopping attacks, the immediate targets of “collective punishment” are civilians, not militants, of course with the hope that the civilians will stop supporting militants later. I think that’s a mistake, because for one thing it sure failed miserably when we applied it to Iraq. But this is my own personal opinion, in the sense that I think that it’s Israel’s decision to make and that the American government should be neutral in the conflict.

52

My point is that the reason why they became more concerned with poverty and the economy (I’d imagine they’re more worried about hospitals and running water than garbage collection, although that’s a major health issue too) has to do in part with the fact that Israel refused to negotiate with their government when it did recognize Israel.

Yes, it recognized Israel, but it refused (or was unable) to do anything about the constant attacks by its members on Israeli citizens. Israel didn’t buck him up because he either couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything to help them. They did give him quite a while to try to change things, but nothing happened. Why would they talk to him when he had nothing to offer them?

MEMRI doesn’t necessarily show the most representative picture of what Arabs think either.

The fact that it’s selective doesn’t discount the fact that those things still were broadcast, and there’s a hell of a lot of them. In a country which would be trying to preach tolerance, these things would never have aired on government-sponsored TV.

The construction of the wall in the West Bank is similarly designed to damage civilian life in those parts where it encloses Palestinian villages in little enclaves separated from workplaces, schools and hospitals.

I strongly disagree with that. The point of the fence is to enhance Israel’s security. The wall tries to go around places of high Israeli settlement to protect them from the surrounding populace. The unfortunate fact that it goes through Palestinian enclaves is not the point of it, but a side effect. In any case, Palestinians have tried (and won) to have the route of the fence changed in Israeli court in several cases.

I’m not entirely sure that your repeated comparison of the situation in Israel to Iraq is entirely justified, for various reasons which I wouldn’t want to get into a whole huge debate again about.

The problem is that Israel can’t always target the terrorists, so they’re trying to target the terrorists’ support base and infrastructure. Perhaps it didn’t work in Iraq, but it did work in Gaza - up until the point where Israel withdrew and handed it as a victory to Hamas, the support for terrorists was at its lowest in years. Every time someone did something against Israel, their houses got razed or power got cut off. Israel kept it very close to tit-for-tat, until people got the idea that if the attacks stopped, so would the reprisals. However, after the withdrawal from Gaza, support went up again because they started seeing results. I think if they would have kept the pressure on for another few years, people might actually have woken up to the idea that it wouldn’t be worth it to keep attacking Israel.

53

Yes, and this means that such views find widespread support. But that was never in doubt. My point is that there also exists a very large group of Palestinians, consisting of at least half of them, that does not advocate the destruction of Israel at all costs and favours a peace agreement. Presumably this is the group that Israel wants to strengthen and talk to, and in my opinion, by refusing to talk to Abbas, Israel weakened his standing among this group and increased that of Hamas.

The wall doesn’t just “go through Palestinian enclaves.” It actually physically <i>creates</i> those enclaves (although fewer than in the original plan, due to the court cases). In certain places, it is a complicated structure with secondary barriers and fences that don’t just split some Palestinian villages, but wind around them to create complete enclosures tightly around the villages, so that they are separated from the land they use and from other civil institutions in every direction. At the same time, these secondary fences and barriers allow Israel’s settlements to expand further. All in all, this gives Israel enormous influence over the Palestinian economy, since if they close a couple of checkpoints or gates, they can completely cut off these Palestinians from their means of earning a living. I think this measure was motivated by the same concerns as the destruction of the Gaza power plant - Israel’s government thinks that if it damages Palestinian civilians’ life sufficiently, they will stop supporting Hamas. But I don’t think that they will. Eventually, especially if the tensions escalate, I think many of the Palestinians in these enclaves will leave and become refugees, and then they’ll support Hamas much more than when they were able to make their own living.

54

Isreal threatens “long war”

55

Presumably this is the group that Israel wants to strengthen and talk to, and in my opinion, by refusing to talk to Abbas, Israel weakened his standing among this group and increased that of Hamas.

Perhaps - but again, Israel does not believe that Abbas gave any indication that he was willing to do anything for peace. Hamas at least says it like it is; Abbas dressed in a nice suit and spouted platitudes while still having pretty much the same long-term goals that Hamas does.

I think this measure was motivated by the same concerns as the destruction of the Gaza power plant - Israel’s government thinks that if it damages Palestinian civilians’ life sufficiently, they will stop supporting Hamas.

I don’t think so… that doesn’t make much sense, because when Israel attacks a specific target, the connection is immediate - Hamas has done this, so Israel does that - the correlation can be made. The fence, on the other hand, is a long-standing general inconvenience. So no, I don’t think that’s their thinking here. I can’t pretend to know everything about the route that was chosen, but I do think that the security of the surrounding areas is generally paramount in its route. I don’t think there are too many areas where what you describe has happened - and again, the Israeli courts have heard and upheld claims from Palestinians and forced Israel to alter its route.

Isreal threatens “long war”

If Hamas doesn’t return its hostage, yup. They’re at a standoff; Israel doesn’t want to go in with guns blazing, because Hamas will then probably kill their hostage. On the other hand, they don’t want to give into their demands, because it sets a dangerous precedent. It’s up in the air right now.

56

That’s the point. The wall is a long-term proposition that allows Israel to have more control over the Palestinian economy during times when the violence escalates (since Israel doesn’t even think that it has anybody to negotiate with, it makes sense that it would think there would be many such times in the short term), and Israel thinks that it will drain the public support of Hamas in the long run after it damages civilian life enough. I’d also imagine that there are some political groups with their own interests in the construction, such as settlers who might want to expand into some of the walled-off areas. As for how many such areas are there, that depends on what you consider to be “many.” For instance, B’Tselem says that there are about a quarter of a million Palestinians whose villages are enclosed by the wall on at least three sides. Of course, even those enclaves that aren’t closed off on all four sides are under considerable Israeli control in the form of a bureaucratic system of permits and restrictions, starting with the fact that the Palestinians in those enclaves have to apply for a special permit just to be able to continue living in their homes. It’s true, there are fewer such areas now than was originally planned, after the High Court ruling and due to the other cases that are still being reviewed, but then again the wall isn’t complete yet.

57

and Israel thinks that it will drain the public support of Hamas in the long run after it damages civilian life enough.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. I think people might blame Hamas if there’s a direct one-to-one relationship between their hardships and terrorist attacks, but the fence doesn’t do that. I think you’re confusing Israel’s unintentional sins with intentional ones, and being overly cynical. We both agree that the fence causes hardship, but you seem to think that the entire point of the fence is that hardship, which I disagree with.

58

The fence and the checkpoints are nevertheless an undeniable source of misery that directly or indirectly depending on how you want to see it, further continues the hardship of the palestinian people and thus that of the Israelis. In the end, it is seen as a collective punishment on the Palestinian people, like the bombing of the power plant and other events like fly bys and sonic booms in the middle of the night. The Palestinians are used to this kind of punishment and they’ve grown accustomed at hating Israel for it. If someone recognizes the fact that this will happen as a result of their action, its not intentional anymore. It is intentional. It’d be unintentional if they did something like drop a bomb that caused an earthquake elsewhere.

59

Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I meant is that yes, these things cause hardship, and Israel knows this will happen - but it’s outweighed in Israel’s view by the various benefits that Israel gets from them security-wise, either short-term or long-term.

Israel is not interested in unhappy Palestinians unless they can get something tangible from that. Tit-for-tat attacks have a possibility of getting something. The fence doesn’t really, but it’s there anyway to protect Israelis.

60

So if it doesn’t get results why have it?