den Beste has some interesting comment's on the wall the Israelis are building. He says the important question to ask is not, 'will the wall end the war?' but 'will the situation after the wall is finished be better or worse for the Israelis?' Excerpt:
____________
Friedman concludes that the wall would make the Palestinians abandon the two-state solution.
Rather than create the outlines of a two-state solution, this wall will kill that idea for Palestinians, and drive them, over time, to demand instead a one-state solution — where they and the Jews would have equal rights in one state. And since by 2010 there will be more Palestinian Arabs than Jews living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined, this transformation of the Palestinian cause will be very problematic for Israel.
I don't agree that there has ever been any important support among Palestinians, or at least among the leaders of the militants, for a two-state solution. Rather, they have always wanted a one-state solution, with Israel not being that state. But even if there were support for a two-state solution, and even if this did kill it, why would that matter to Israel?
If the wall and other measures and the larger flow of events in the world largely reduce the ability of the Palestinians to project politically significant military force against Israel in the opinion of the Palestinians then why would it matter any longer? If they suddenly start demanding a one-state system, why should Israel not ignore them?
And might it not have the opposite effect of contributing to a loss of faith among Palestinians in the entire idea of destroying Israel through violence and duplicitous diplomacy? Might it not actually increase support for a two-state solution as the Palestinians finally come to accept that "half a loaf is better than no loaf at all"?
Friedman also tries to claim that the wall won't end the war, and thus is bad. He, too, sets the bar too high and ignores the lesser criterion of whether it would make Israel's situation better even if it does not end the war.
But the most important mistake Friedman makes is to assume that if it makes life even more miserable for Palestinians, that it is a automatically and "obviously" a bad thing for Israel to do.
Hmmm....
Bad in absolute terms ethically? Perhaps, perhaps not. ...Bad for the US? Not significantly so, as far as I can tell, and actually good in some ways.
Bad for the Palestinians? You betcha. And that is part of why it is good strategy for Israel. The plan for the wall, and the inexorable progress of building it, mile after mile, gives the Palestinians an increasingly urgent reason to figure out some way to make Israel stop building it.
They can't do it with violence or threats. Their campaign of violence is already pegged.
They've been trying to get outside pressure applied to Israel to make it stop, but that's probably hopeless. With the Peres announcement supporting the wall, there's little hope now of the plan being abandoned as a side effect of Israeli politics.
Which leaves just one other choice: make an offer to Israel of some kind which might convince Israel to stop. Carrots, not sticks. That's because, as Friedman himself makes very clear, the wall once completed will hurt the Palestinians a lot more than it will hurt Israel.
denbeste.nu |
