I just finished watching a documentary by Thomas Friedman on the discovery channel about this very issue.

His focus was around the security wall, the conclusion he came to however was that the security wall instead of seperating the Palestinians and Israelis, and forcing a two state solution, will bring them together and force a one state solution.

He came to this conclusion namely by making two solid points:
(a) that Jewish settlements will be on both sides of the security fence
(b) that the security wall will encrouch and divide Palestinian land so severly as to disallow the possibility of a viable Palestinian state - one viable only under territorial contiguity.

He also made a theoretical argument; that the wall repersents the failure of the dreams of Oslo, and is a symbol of mis-opprotunity for cooperation to a solution. Instead it leaves room for a one sided solution.

--------------------------------

The real question than is, is this the right conclusion?

If the Israeli government takes the moderate approach on the issue of the fence (moderate Israeli approach mind you), which I tend to believe they will, then the security fence will deprive the Palestinians of no more then 10% of "their" land, and isolated, lowly populated settlements with in the territories will be removed, forcefully if needed.

I also believe, that if Israel does not dismantle such settlements, increased attacks on settlements will force the issues, as the majority of Israelis can understand attakcs in the territories v. Israel proper. So if it is either by will, or by fire, the settlers will get out of there sooner or later.

This would "force" a defacto two-state solution, wheter the Palestinians would recongize their own sovernigthy is another matter, but surely most would view them as the defacto force in control and of power in the territories.

However, obtaining only 10% of Palestinian land at maximum, and leaving it for the majority, territorial congruent, I see a legitimate opposition to the idea of a one state solution that the Palestinians would undoubtly propose at that time.

---------------------------------

Fast forward a two years or three. The security wall is complete. There has been just one suicide bombing in Israel proper for the past 12 months, unprecedented for the last 10 years.

Palestinian conditions have worsened, even more after Israeli settlers have left the majority of the unwalled reigons, Palestinian terrorism has adapted to attack global Israeli targets which it finds more vunerable, and has increased abduction of Israeli travelers abroad.

The Palestinians are now humiliated, they are caged in, and can't do anything about it. They can no longer blame the Israelis (which undoubtly they will) for their pathetic circumstances. The wall is a symbol to them of what they could of had, 1999 Israel and Palestinian finanically successful, trusting, and in cooperation as two states.

If they declare a state now they humiliate themselves more than the worst Israeli checkpoint they could imagine would. They will have ceded their dream to Jerusalem, greater Israel, peace with Israel, all for what? Being walled in their own little mafiadom?

No, Arabs can never be humiliated! They now want just a piece of the pie, to be part of this great state of Israel, to just live a normal life.. to forget this all behind them. They want to live in a free, democratic country, just like everyone else, to just be a part of Israel???

But this would humiliate them as well after all, ceding to be one with your "enemy" is much more humiliating than losing a battle, or even a war to them (which they've done many a time), and further Israel would never accept their union so long as they have a majority in mandated Palestine.

No, Israel might entertain ideas for this union if it sees Palestinian population numbers decrease, or world sympathies for democracy decline, or perhaps proposals for a "democratic" government where one man, does not equal one vote (like the USA) that could afford Israel with the lose of its Jewish character.

But then the question is, would the Palestinians any longer entertain this idea of union?

I don't think so, they would be quick after a year or two of observing these trends to delcare their own state before all failed.

----------------------------------------


The Palestinians have continually told themselves a lie throughout their endurance, "Time is on our side". "It took hundreds of years to drive out the crusaders the first time, if it takes that long for the second time, so be it".

Time is not on their side, the wall has broken this myth of theirs, as time goes by their position weakens, their dreams seem more dreamy, and their misery increase to the determent of only thereselves.

----------------------------------------

My forward-looking projection on the whole matter is that unless a deal is brokered before the completion of the wall, which is very unlikely if Arafat doesn't die soon, or Sharon is reelected, than Palestinian numbers will start to decline, and they will be confronted with a pathetic two state solution, and an even worse one state solution.

What happens then? I don't know. I don't want to underestimate the Palestinian nationalisim, but I think it would fether off. In 10-15 years people won't believe in the idea of a Palestinian state anymore, not even the Palestinians.



Bah just my rambling on the subject. but the wall definetly brings in a new dimension that might very well change this whole conflict if it is effective in its deterance of terrorism. if its not, forget about it, you get the status quo.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Bah just my rambling on the subject.

defienatly wishful thinking.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

Here's my broad sweeping question that I would like to pose:

If the Jewish settlers leave the West Bank and move elsewhere, AND the wall would be negotiated successfully by both sides, would that be enough to stop the Palestinian terrorist groups from suicide bombings into Israel?

What more would be required?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Here's my broad sweeping question that I would like to pose: If the Jewish settlers leave the West Bank and move elsewhere, AND the wall would be negotiated successfully by both sides, would that be enough to stop the Palestinian terrorist groups from suicide bombings into Israel? What more would be required?

More zionist mustard for the palestinians?

Well to seriously answer your question probably not. Many terrorist groups hinge their existence on the right of return issue ... which would effectively displace Israel as we know it I suppose.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Here's my broad sweeping question that I would like to pose: If the Jewish settlers leave the West Bank and move elsewhere, AND the wall would be negotiated successfully by both sides, would that be enough to stop the Palestinian terrorist groups from suicide bombings into Israel? What more would be required?

NO, of course not. What Palestinians want is the full of Gaza and west bank with east Jerusalem, right of return included and no string attached, full control of borders and ports, like a real fucking country.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek NO, of course not. What Palestinians want is the full of Gaza and west bank with east Jerusalem, right of return included and no string attached, full control of borders and ports, like a real fucking country.

I would agree with everything except the right of return. The fact of the matter is, is that most of the palestinians refugees would not even WANT the right of return. It is simply a clause to ensure the basis for the existence of the militants.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I would agree with everything except the right of return. The fact of the matter is, is that most of the palestinians refugees would not even WANT the right of return. It is simply a clause to ensure the basis for the existence of the militants.

well if they dont want to return isn't that a non-issue? actually no. It is a huge issue because millions live in miserable conditions in neighbouring countries. These people were displaced in huge numbers, their villages razed, crops and lands destroyed and forced to leave at gun point.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek well if they dont want to return isn't that a non-issue? actually no. It is a huge issue because millions live in miserable conditions in neighbouring countries. These people were displaced in huge numbers, their villages razed, crops and lands destroyed and forced to leave at gun point.

The right of return issue is only propogated by the extremists. The fact of the matter is is that most don't even care ... and for that reason alone, they are subjected to hostility.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3065299.stm

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The right of return issue is only propogated by the extremists. The fact of the matter is is that most don't even care ... and for that reason alone, they are subjected to hostility. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3065299.stm

quote:

Its poll found only 10% of respondents in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon would wish to rebuild their homes under Israeli rule - a finding challenging existing Israeli and Palestinian perceptions.

well duh, how would people live under Israeli control, the same entity that forced them to leave everything behind 50 yrs ago. People have memories and aren't trustful and with reason to Zionists. Heck, look at present day palestinians in Israel, they're treated as second class (if not worse) citizens.

Can you blame them to refuse such things?

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek well duh, how would people live under Israeli control, the same entity that forced them to leave everything behind 50 yrs ago. People have memories and aren't trustful and with reason to Zionists. Heck, look at present day palestinians in Israel, they're treated as second class (if not worse) citizens. Can you blame them to refuse such things?

The right of return does not preclude any determination of rule under a specific government ... it merely advocates a return of ownership of land. The essential fact of the matter remains ... given this critical issue at hand, most Palestinians would NOT place this issue as a critical issue dominating policy as evidenced by Hamas/Hezbollah/etc. If the results were so insignificant why were there riots carried out against the results that did not tout the extremist hardline response?

___________________
Retro ...

Right of return = one state solution

And when the Palestinians supporters are supporting one state, guess which one state they support over this unified territory?

I'll give you one hint, its not Israel

But to summarize my long rant and pose a question, do you guys believe the security fence/wall changes the dynamics of this middle east conflict, and how radical is this change?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.