Hawk, let's sort out what we're talking about. I've seen 5 settlement blocs named, Gush Etzion, Givat Zeev, Maale Adumim, Hebron and Ariel.
The first 3 are all suburbs of Jerusalem that have already been included inside the bounds of Jerusalem, contiguous with Israel. It's been perfectly plain that Israel does not intend to give up Jerusalem. Gilo, which is a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem built since 67 with 200,000 people in it, which has been annexed for twenty years or so, is not going back either.
So it's the last two that are a problem. Ariel is a problem because it's a big town in the middle of Samaria, and no PM could just give it up for nothing. I think Hebron may be a mistake, because it's not a big population center, but religious Jews are terribly attached to the place (it's the second holiest city in Judaism), and Jews lived there for thousands of years til they were driven out in 1929. So again, the PM does not have a lot of wiggle room politically. We'll see where the fence goes up, that will determine the defacto borders. Israel and the US should still send the message (which they do), that the Pals can come negotiate if they don't like it, but not with suicide bombers.
As for the question of pouring gasoline on a fire, or whatever analogy you pick, my answer remains the same: what's the difference? When the US President and the Israeli PM were accomodating, it was read as weakness and only more demands were made. This intifada did not start under Sharon; it just elected him. Al Qaeda began plotting 9/11 in 1996, the height of Oslo.
There are two dynamics at worse: encouraging terrorism by 'making them mad', and encouraging terrorism by projecting weakness. Both are clearly at work. The Arabs have been mad for a long time, chiefly at their own weakness, and anything we do will make them mad, realistically speaking. Trying to accomodate them will be read as weakness and also encourages terrorism.
The State Dept answer was 'then do nothing, change nothing' but after 9/11 Bush didn't like that option either. Now Bush feels that if this is your choice, you are better off making them plenty mad, but sending a clear message that they would be better off worrying about our anger; because we will make them pay. That is Bush's decision and he is making it for American interests, not Israeli interest, except insofar as he thinks the two are aligned.
Wouldn't the proper solution be to pull back behind the 1967 lines (adjusted for security reasons) and building that wall so that neither Israelis or Palestinians have to pay any further price??
Message: terror works great! see, you didn't have to take the deal at Taba and promise an end to the conflict, you did better through sucide bombers! and you didn't even have to make a single concession! You are free to keep up the struggle to destroy Israel! Great Job!
You really want to send that message? |
