| Submit your comments on this article |
| Middle East |
| Orson Scott Card: "A Visit to Israel" |
| 2003-11-05 |
| Interesting commentary by Orson Scott Card about both sides of the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and the attitudes of both populations. I’m quoting only a small piece - read the whole. The idea of building such a wall makes sense. If Palestinians continue to shelter and applaud terrorists instead of being ashamed of them and refusing to cooperate with them, then they don’t deserve to have free access to Israel -- even if that’s where all the jobs are. The trouble with Ariel Sharon’s wall is not that it’s being built, but where he’s building it. You see, Sharon is politically dependent on (and personally sympathetic to) groups inside Israel who insist on building Jewish settlements in "Judea and Samaria," and he is gerrymandering the wall to include settlements far inside the 1967 borders of the West Bank. The result is a border that is ridiculous in every way a border can be. It is indefensible -- it snakes around worse than a meandering river, and there aren’t enough troops in Israel to patrol it or defend it. By its very shape, it guarantees that Israel will still have to enter Palestinian territory regularly, and that terrorists -- or an invasion force -- would be able to get through the wall when they want to, since an undefended wall is not a wall, it’s cover. Worse yet, it would be impossible, even in a completely free and democratic Palestine, for any leader ever to be elected without vowing to destroy that wall and restore the borders of 1967. Sharon’s wall, if built where he’s planning to build it, will be a continuing provocation -- and one that weakens, rather than strengthens, Israel’s defensive position. America should be ready to take any measure necessary -- including war -- to protect the existence of Israel. But America should not spend one thin dime or risk one drop of American blood to defend Sharon’s wall, if it is placed where he is placing it. |
| Posted by:Aris Katsaris |
| #8 Marek-- The problem with using the settlements as barganing chips is that that implies that Israel ought to bargain. That's a bad idea--it's crazy to ask Arafat to accept a country because it's clear he won't. Build the wall, don't bargain. Aris, is this your position as well? |
| Posted by: Brian (MN) 2003-11-6 8:34:30 AM |
| #7 The future border (if any) will not follow '67 or rather '48 armistice lines. The fence is there to keep the murderers out. The settlements are there as bargaining chips and for potential final borders definition. As for the final borders - anybody's guess is fine. |
| Posted by: marek 2003-11-5 11:19:33 PM |
| #6 I agree with Aris. What's worse is--the last thing Arafat wants is a country. It should be forced upon him; indeed, Sharon should have done this already. I don't say the border has to be that of '67--nor, unfortunately, am I real sure what to do about Ariel--but the Israelis would be clever to make do with the least possible land. |
| Posted by: Brian (MN) 2003-11-5 10:03:42 PM |
| #5 The wall is the same - every time the Paleos f&*k up - they lose more future nation. But as OSC says this wall isn't viable as a border for either side -- in the place it's being built. The drawing of the wall shows Sharon doesn't want any such "future Palestinian nation" to be built. And, again as OSC says, it makes it impossible for lasting peace to take place, even with Palestinians that wouldn't be "acting like irrational animals". This isn't about getting one anyone's good side. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-11-5 9:42:27 PM |
| #4 Frankly I've always thought the settlements were a chip that kept getting bid when the Paleos refuse to play nicely. The wall is the same - every time the Paleos f&*k up - they lose more future nation. For what it's worth they're acting like irrational animals, and trying to get on their good side is the last of my concerns. Take the leash of Sharon and play whack a mole with Arafat and Yassin. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-11-5 7:12:02 PM |
| #3 Oddly enough, even as I have been a backer of Israel, I agree with this assessment to a degree. However, it is not likely that the U.S. will have to defend "Sharon's wall", as Israel has proven repeatedly that it can take care of itself where Palestinian terrorism is concerned, and is capable of doing much more if the situation calls for it. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-5 5:20:13 PM |
| #2 actually the wall leaves lots of settlements on the other side. It takes one big swerve - so far - to bring in Ariel, the largest settlement (really a small city) Even Baraks peace offer envisioned keeping Ariel, IIRC (though in return the Pals would get some land from pre-67 Israel) Building a wall without covering Ariel would be incompatible with Sharons tough negotiating strategy I think. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-5 2:44:37 PM |
| #1 I keep thinking that the purpose of the wall is not for security per se, but focus. If Isreal succeeds in getting the paleo dimbulb bombers to focus attack on the wall, rather than the buses and cafes, then the wall is a success. And as long as Fatah and Hamas can blow up The Wall, they are winners within the rest of Palestine. A 'flypaper' wall, if you like, way out in the desert where no innocents get hurt. Works for me. Sharon's brilliant stroke. |
| Posted by: john 2003-11-5 2:39:42 PM |