They Draw Maps

The Washington Post compiles an excellent map of Israel's "separation barrier" to accompany Scot Wilson's article on the subject.

As you can see, along with the completely understandable goal of defending Israel Proper, the wall involves various kinds of land-grabs along the border, and also more than a few penumbras and emanations aimed at securing the more far-flung settlements. This, combined with the gray "Jews only" roads that criss-cross the West Bank, constitutes a major inconvenience for tens of thousands of Palestinians and seems to lay the groundwork for a situation where the Palestinians on the other side of the wall enjoy some kind of autonomy or even formal independence while remaining essentially under Israeli control.

Comments

5...4...3...2...

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 7, 2007 9:39 AM

Lots of times I feel a little baffled when people say that Iraq is "all about the oil" or "about spreading democracy" as though it is all and only about one or the other. The truth is, a governmental venture like Iraq-- and like the Israeli wall-- is the work of many hands. That doesn't mean that they can't be predominantly one or another, or that you can't pass moral judgments about one motive or another. But to say that the wall is meant for only one of the reasons doesn't seem to me to fit the reality of how these things work. Is it a security wall? Yes. Is it an apartheid (or whatever) wall? Yes.

I think that elides with what to me is one of the most important lessons of the conflict, that results, effects, must trump intentions. We are constantly told that the IDF never intends to kill civilians. But I have to respond by saying that, even setting aside the question of whether that is really true or not, the operative thing has to be the fact that they do kill civilians, regardless of their intentions. It's the same with the wall. Regardless of its intended purpose, the wall has effectively carved many parts of the Palestinian territories into cantons that are simply incompatible to a modern, functioning community. I've said this before, but it bears repeating: critics of the Palestinians constantly berate them for not building a functioning state. But if you divided Los Angeles in the way that Palestine is divided, the city would simply cease to function.

Going forward, that has to be the central demand of the Palestinian side in negotiations for a two state solution. More important control of their own borders, airspace, or security, and perhaps as important as sheer land area, is the ability of the Palestinians to have a contiguous, whole land mass, one that isn't divided into cantons. That to me is the crucial thing.

Posted by Freddie | August 7, 2007 9:54 AM

Re Freddie

1. The Palestinians were offered a contiguous whole land mass at Taba in 2000 and turned it down. The Palestinians have no interest in a two state solution; they insist that they are entitled to all of Palestine.

2. The Israel bashers like Mr. Freddie seem to be unable to grasp the reason why the Palestinians are unable to achieve an independent Palestinian state. The problem is their demand that the Government of Israel agree to go out of business, vis their demand that Palestinians in refugee camps be resettled in Israel. Since the Palestinians appear to be adamant in this regard and the Government of Israel is equally adamant in rejecting this demand, there is no hope of a negotiated settlement unless and until the Palestinians cease and desist from this demand.

Posted by SLC | August 7, 2007 10:03 AM

Well that didn't take long.

Posted by Freddie | August 7, 2007 10:05 AM

The Palestinians were offered a contiguous whole land mass at Taba in 2000 and turned it down. The Palestinians have no interest in a two state solution; they insist that they are entitled to all of Palestine.

Dude, we've done this before. What was offered in 2000 did not make for a viable Palestinian state even if Israel lived up to it's promises. Israel does not have a good record of living up to its promises. Oh, and splitting the West Bank into three pieces does not make for a contiguous land mass. And since we're talking about peace deals, Israel didn't even respond to the Saudi peace plan in 2002, which ACTUALLY COMPLIED WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS THAT ISRAEL IS SIGNATORY TO, and does not demand that all refugees from 1948 resettle in Israel. It's certainly a much more reasonable starting point for negotiations than offering to split the West Bank into Bantustans.

Much more importantly however, none of that is all that relevant to the fact that in creating the settlements and seizing Palestinian territory, Israel is guilty of war crimes. Saying "but Arafat rejected a flawed deal that was never put on paper" does not change that guilt.

Posted by Sajid | August 7, 2007 10:27 AM

The Palestinians were offered a contiguous whole land mass at Taba in 2000 and turned it down.

Who formally walked away from Taba?

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 7, 2007 10:27 AM

So, what's funny is they interview this guy, the guy who drew the apartheid line, who BELIEVES that the State of Israel encompasses all of the West Bank--which is patently false.

This is the same as having the Surgeon General be a Christian Scientist, or the Attorney General be a zombie Nietzschean anarchist.

Israel can't hope for the wall to really succeed when its planner is living in a dreamworld.

Posted by Luke | August 7, 2007 10:47 AM

I don't know why Matt even posts this stuff. So we can rehash the same arguments for the 1000th time? That map isn't even new.

Posted by Dave | August 7, 2007 10:47 AM

"Since the Palestinians appear to be adamant in this regard and the Government of Israel is equally adamant in rejecting this demand, there is no hope of a negotiated settlement unless and until the Palestinians cease and desist from this demand."

And, in the meantime, let's just frickin' take some more land and squeeze the cockroaches into a smaller bottle.

Maybe THAT will make them come to their sense!

This is what is so dishonest about the Israeli-right narrative: we offered them peace, they rejected it, what can we do except take further steps to ensure that peace will always be rejected?

Or are you suggesting that the "separation barrier" might, conceivably, be temporary? Presumably not. What possible practical outcome can you then expect other than even more bitter, hopeless, violent rage? I mean, what do you envision as an achievable, stable future for this miserable corner of the world - a sudden change of Arab hearts? - or expulsion? - or what?

Posted by Dave L | August 7, 2007 10:49 AM

"Or are you suggesting that the "separation barrier" might, conceivably, be temporary? Presumably not"

Like the separation barrier on the Lebanese border that was permanant? Like the settlements in the Sinai and Gaza that were permanant?

Well I guess I am gettin suckered into rehashing the arguments as well.

Posted by Dave | August 7, 2007 10:52 AM

As you can see, along with the completely understandable goal of defending Israel Proper, the wall involves various kinds of land-grabs along the border, and also more than a few penumbras and emanations aimed at securing the more far-flung settlements.


This is a misreading of the map. The more far-flung settlements, such as Beit El, Shiloh and Elon Moreh are not secured by the barrier. The problem is that while these settlements appear on the Wash Post map (in blue-grey), they are obscured by the information bubbles. The large number of settlements on the Palestinian side of the barrier can be seen more clearly on this map.


The various "land grabs" (e.g. the annexation of Gush Etzion) essentially constitute unilateral enactment of the Clinton Plan do not threaten the contiguity of a Palestinian state.


The only "penumbra" that is problematic in terms of a contiguous Palestinian state is the one designed to include Ariel, Immanuel and Kedumim. Ariel, given its size and position is a headache, but Israel should reconsider the attempt to include the other settlements that lie west of Nablus.

Matt's biggest mistake to conflate the issue of the barrier with the system of bypass roads and checkpoints that Israel currently uses to control the West Bank. The latter is by no means permanent, and if the West Bank can be secured by a genuine peace partner, can and will be given up.

Posted by mhp | August 7, 2007 11:15 AM

The latter is by no means permanent, and if the West Bank can be secured by a genuine peace partner, can and will be given up.

Genuine peace partner is a euphemism for a brutal thug who will concern himself with policing the Palestinians for disenchantment with Israel's unilateral decisions, picking up the trash and collecting taxes in whatever is left of the West Bank for the Arabushim, and provide a fig leaf for autonomy.

I don't know who they are trying to fool anymore, Village councils failed thirty years ago. Palestinians refer to Ramallah today as the "green zone". I guess they can still bullshit you and the pundit class in the U.S. and maybe that's all that matters but in the historical long run I really doubt it

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 7, 2007 11:33 AM

What Matt is reminding people of here is the fact that appart from a dwindling number of hard core Zionists there are very few on the left who accept, still less support Israel's actions.

The barrier has effectively killed the possibility of the two state solution. The idea of a Jewish state is as racist and unacceptable as the idea of a Christian or an Islamic state.

The doubletalk that people have to engage in to explain why Israel is not an appartheid state is corrosive. The littany of tired excuses for why Israel just has to run the West Bank as a Bantustan only creates disgust. One minute Israel is squeaking that it is poor defenseless and under threat. Next they are helping the settlers to steal yet more land.

For all the happy talk Israel cannot survive let alone maintain the occupation without the support of the US. Sooner or later the US will get tired of supporting Israel.

As far as the left is concerned Israel has built its own Berlin wall and opperates an Apartheid system.

Over the next ten years the GOP is going to have to find a scapegoat for their Iraq fiasco. They can either blame themselves or can you guess who else they might pick? Perle, Wolfowitz and co have certainly given them the obvious option for a right wing party that happily plays the race card whenever it can.

Brooklyn irridentists can wave the holocaust shroud but that is losing its effect. Fewer and fewer people consider what Germans did to Jews in the 1940s justifies what Israel is doing to Palestinians today.

Posted by PHB | August 7, 2007 11:50 AM

Re Sajid

Indeed, this issue has been discussed on numerous occasions. I have posted on at least two occasions a link to the final map that was offered to the Palestinians at Taba and it depicts a contiguous territory on the West Bank. Mr. Sajids' claim that the West Bank would be split into three pieces is a god damn lie. By the way, relative to the so called Saudi Plan, which is really the Tom Friedman Plan, the Palestinians haven't accepted this plan either.

Re Ed Marshall

Mr. Marshall has repeated this statement that Barak walked away from Taba. As usual with lying Israel bashers like Mr. Marshall, he doesn't bother to state the reason, which was that the Palestinians adamantly refused to modify their demand that Palestinians in refugee camps be resettled in Israel. At that point, Mr. Barak finally realized that there was no hope of an agreement because that Palestinian demand was absolutely unacceptable. If Barak had had a moment of insanity and actually agreed to this demand, he would have been voted out of office by the Knesset, as there is zero possibility of such a deal being approved therein.

Re Dave L

I see the establishment of new settlements as an incentive to the Palestinian side to come to an agreement. There is no question that most of the settlements will have to go (just as the settlements in the Gaza Strip had to go).

Re Luke

"So, what's funny is they interview this guy, the guy who drew the apartheid line, who BELIEVES that the State of Israel encompasses all of the West Bank--which is patently false."

Apparently, Mr. Luke doesn't think that the Palestinian claim that the Palestinian State encompasses all of Palestine is patently false.

Posted by SLC | August 7, 2007 12:08 PM

It is, to be sure, a bummer that some Palestinians are inconvenienced by Israel's wall. It was also a bummer that, prior to the construction of the wall, some Israelis were inconvenienced by blast-driven nails shredding their vital organs. Since the wall, the latter inconvenience appears to happen less frequently. That is the Palestinians' real gripe about the wall; it makes it harder for them to kill Israelis. (The territorial issues are a red herring; the wall can, of course, be knocked down if there is ever peace.) It also gives Israel fewer reasons to drop bombs on Palestinians. Without the inconvenience of the wall, more people on both sides would be dying.

Posted by Gator90 | August 7, 2007 12:41 PM

"The idea of a Jewish state is as racist and unacceptable as the idea of a Christian or an Islamic state."

Please. America is an exception to this in the world, not the rule. Most nations have ethnic and religious identities at their cores, and there's nothing necessarily racist or bigoted about this. England, for example, remains Anglican, and its head of state is also the head of the church. Nevertheless, non-Anglicans and even non-Christians, have full rights and can even run for Parliament -- just as non-Jews can in Israel. That tolerance hasn't stopped some of Britain's Muslim residents from trying to murder non-Muslims there though. Perhaps these British Muslims are unhappy abut Hadrian's Wall?

"The barrier has effectively killed the possibility of the two state solution."

You are confusing the views of righteously indignant lefties in America and those of the "business class" Palestinian leadership. The Palestinian leaders know that there is nothing sacred about the Green Line -- it just represents where the opposing forces were when the Arabs agreed to an armistice in 1949 after their failed attempt to destroy Israel. The Palestinian leadership knows that the Green Line will never be the borders of a Palestinian state, but that they can negotiate equivalent land concessions from Israel elsewhere (i.e., along the southern part of the West Bank).

"For all the happy talk Israel cannot survive let alone maintain the occupation without the support of the US."

Jordan maintained it's occupation of the West Bank quite easily without the support of the U.S.; before that, Britain did as well, and before that, the Ottoman Turks did also for 400 years. With its $180 billion economy, Israel is not dependent on any economic aid from the U.S. If the U.S. cuts off weapons sales to Israel, Israel can buy these weapons elsewhere (as it did before the mid-1960's) or build its own (as it did with the Galil rifle, the Merkava tank, the Arrow anti-missile system, etc.).

Posted by Harry | August 7, 2007 12:51 PM

Apparently, Mr. Luke doesn't think that the Palestinian claim that the Palestinian State encompasses all of Palestine is patently false.

Provide evidence that mainstream Palestinian thinkers or a majority of their supporters are demanding the entirety of Palestine. Considering that they have frequently participated in negotiations when the land they would receive would be about 20% of the entirety of greater Palestine, including at Camp David and Taba, I would say that is an incredibly rare view. Of course, argument through assertion is much easier.

It is, to be sure, a bummer that some Palestinians are inconvenienced by Israel's wall.

As I have indicated before, it is very much more than an inconvenience. This kind of division prevents the most basic forms of infrastructure that is necessary for a state or community to function. You are free to agree or disagree with the wisdom and morality of building the wall, but when you posit an empirically false vision of the damage the wall is doing, you undercut your own argument.

The territorial issues are a red herring; the wall can, of course, be knocked down if there is ever peace.

Please provide a link or other evidence that the Israeli government has ever proposed such a thing. Otherwise, don't engage in hypotheticals about what the Israeli government might do.

Please. America is an exception to this in the world, not the rule. Most nations have ethnic and religious identities at their cores, and there's nothing necessarily racist or bigoted about this

The fact that "everybody does it" is not generally a sound system for moral policy. Having an official ethnic or religious character for a state is flatly at odds with basic notions of egalitarianism and democracy. If you think otherwise, I'd like to know whether you would have no objection to the United States passing a bill making it officially a Christian nation that happens to allow minority religions to practice. It's wrong for Iran to do it, it's wrong for England to do it, and it's wrong for Israel to do it.

it just represents where the opposing forces were when the Arabs agreed to an armistice in 1949 after their failed attempt to destroy Israel.

Some Arabs, not all Arabs. Here we have once again the nonsensical opinion that a Palestinian 11 year old should be somehow made responsible for the action of, say, the Jordanian government 50 years ago.

With its $180 billion economy, Israel is not dependent on any economic aid from the U.S. If the U.S. cuts off weapons sales to Israel, Israel can buy these weapons elsewhere (as it did before the mid-1960's) or build its own (as it did with the Galil rifle, the Merkava tank, the Arrow anti-missile system, etc.).

This is one of the most patently false statements I have ever read. The United States provides for Israel, in addition to billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid (by far more than any other country) untold amounts of diplomatic, military and intelligence aid. Israel simply could not continue to function in its current state without US assistance, a fact that is well known to AIPAC, who frequently lobby on precisely those grounds.

Posted by Freddie | August 7, 2007 1:06 PM

The Israeli arms industry is also subsidized by the U.S. and feeds off of U.S. technology transfer. It also has the nasty habit of selling those transfers to people like the PRC. For instance, the boosted defense package to Israel proposed by the Administration contains roughly $8 billion in cash for Israel to buy specifically Israeli weapons.

Posted by tequila | August 7, 2007 1:07 PM

"The idea of a Jewish state is as racist and unacceptable as the idea of a Christian or an Islamic state."

Is it as racist and unacceptable as the idea of an Italian state, an Irish state, a Russian state, a Japanese state, or dare I ask... an Arab state?

Posted by Brittain33 | August 7, 2007 1:15 PM

Here we have once again the nonsensical opinion that a Palestinian 11 year old should be somehow made responsible for the action of, say, the Jordanian government 50 years ago.

Is it nonsensical that most Israeli Jews are in Israel because of the actions of many other governments 50-60 years ago? Not just Germany's, either.

Being a people without sovereignty sucks, and you end up living with the consequences of what those with sovereignty do. This is the cause of many problems in the world, including nearly all refugee crises.

Posted by Brittain33 | August 7, 2007 1:18 PM

Is it nonsensical that most Israeli Jews are in Israel because of the actions of many other governments 50-60 years ago? Not just Germany's, either

You say that, and yet if I spoke similarly about Jews the way the previous commenter spoke about Arabs-- if I used Israel as synonymous with the Jewish people, or simply made broad generalizations about Jews-- I would immediately be branded an anti-Semite. One of the most difficult aspects of this contentious discussion is the fact that any manner of sweeping, negative generalizations can be applied to Arabs without consequence (see Peretz, Marty), but even a hint of doing so with regard to Israelis is a argumentative death sentence. I'd like to do away with such arguments altogether.

Posted by Freddie | August 7, 2007 1:27 PM

"I'd like to know whether you would have no objection to the United States passing a bill making it officially a Christian nation that happens to allow minority religions to practice."

I would have no objection to this at all, considering that it was Christians who founded this country, wrote the Bill of Rights, and remain the overwhelming majority here.

Iran has every right to maintain a national religion if it likes. It is an objectionable regime not because it has a state religion but because it sponsors terrorism outside its borders and it persecutes dissidents within its borders.

"Some Arabs, not all Arabs. Here we have once again the nonsensical opinion that a Palestinian 11 year old should be somehow made responsible for the action of, say, the Jordanian government 50 years ago."

Your missing the point: there's nothing inherently good, just, or equitable about the Green Line; it wasn't the result of careful negotiations; it is just where the opposing forces happened to be when the 1949 armistice went into effect. Palestinian 11 year olds have nothing to do with where this line was drawn anymore than American 11 year olds have anything to do with where our border with Canada was drawn.

"Israel simply could not continue to function in its current state without US assistance"

Sure it could. From the time of its establishment until the Six Day War, Israel was able to function without U.S. aid, and today Israel is a far richer, far more advanced country. You will find more supporters of U.S. aid to Israel in the U.S. than in Israel. U.S. aid comes with a high price: American influence over Israeli policy.

Posted by Harry | August 7, 2007 1:37 PM

Your missing the point: there's nothing inherently good, just, or equitable about the Green Line; it wasn't the result of careful negotiations; it is just where the opposing forces happened to be when the 1949 armistice went into effect.

True enough. But the Green Line has been adopted as a reasonable, if somewhat arbitrary, line to use for the two-state solution that the majority of the people engaged in the problem agree is necessary for peace. Most everyone committed to the two-state solution uses the Green Line. It's just that, in all the controversy over the issue, the Green Line is not very controversial.

Posted by Freddie | August 7, 2007 1:45 PM

"Most everyone committed to the two-state solution uses the Green Line."

As a starting point. Few, if any, believe that the borders of a Palestinian state will adhere exactly to it. In fact, the crux of the negotiations in the past has been what areas east of the Green Line will end up within Israel proper and what land currently in Israel will be ceded to the Palestinians in exchange. After the collapse of these negotiations, and in response to a wave of attacks from the West Bank, Israel starting building the separation barrier. There's no reason that the path of the barrier couldn't be changed in response to a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians; in fact, legal challenges by Palestinians and their advocates to the Israeli Supreme Court have already resulted in changes.

Your previous claim that the separation barrier "has effectively killed the possibility of the two state solution" remains false.

Posted by Harry | August 7, 2007 2:00 PM

Re Freddie

Mr. Freddie, who is fast becoming the leading Israel basher on this blog, makes a number of statements that are seriously in error.

1. Who does Mr. Freddie consider to be a mainstream Palestinian thinker? The only Palestinian thinker I can think of who truly supports a 2 state solution is Sari Nusseibeh who is considered to be soft on Israel by most Palestinians. Does Mr. Freddie consider Mr. Haniyeh and Mr. Maashal to be mainstream Palestinian thinkers? They certainly have far more support then does Prof. Nusseibeh.

2. Mr. Freddie claims, rightly IMOH, that the wall is more then just an inconvenience to the Palestinians. However, the absence of the wall was far more then an inconvenience to the victims of Palestinian homicide bombers.

3. Mr. Freddie, in his zeal to label Israel as the root of all evil conveniently forgets that the settlements in the Gaza strip were abandoned. Settlements on the West Bank can be just as easily abandoned.

4. Mr. Freddie conveniently forgets that the State of Israel boasts what is probably the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world, which may include thermonuclear weapons. In the event of a cutoff of arms sales by the US, what makes Mr. Freddie think that this arsenal wouldn't be used in the event of an attack by Israels' neighbors. US arms sales to Israel by the US place a brake on Israels' military adventures, including the use of nuclear weapons. This is exactly what happened during the 1973 war, when the Israeli nuclear arsenal consisted of only a dozen or so bombs. At that time, Henry Kissinger had the idea that Israel could be pressured into making concessions to Egypt and Syria if the US stalled on replenishing its depleted ammunition supplies. The then Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir informed him that this was not such a hot idea as Israel would then be forced to launch a nuclear attack on the Aswan dam. Kissinger then decided that his idea was indeed not good.

5. The arms deals between Israel and the US have been beneficial to us also. As a for instance, Israel was the first country to employ reactive armor in tanks, which development has greatly aided the superiority of the US Abram tanks over the opposition.

6. Mr. Freddie correctly states that Israel had made arms deals with China, which, although not an enemy of the US at this time, is certainly a potential rival, especially given the pending advent of peak oil. Of course, Mr. Freddie conveniently overlooks the fact that the US also sells weapon systems to states like Saudi Arabia who are a lot less friendly to Israel then China is to the US. I would also point out that these sales include the aforementioned Abrams tanks which contain the Israeli developed reactive armor systems.

Posted by SLC | August 7, 2007 2:10 PM

Your previous claim that the separation barrier "has effectively killed the possibility of the two state solution" remains false.

Look again, please.

Posted by Freddie | August 7, 2007 2:11 PM

The great thing about reading the posts of Zionist cheerleadrs like SLC is that they effortlessly move the goal posts. Example: Don't forget who walked away at Taba. (Implying the Palestinians.) Oh, it was Barak. (Scamble, scramble.) ...But he had no choice. (Relief).

Posted by Matthew | August 7, 2007 2:26 PM

Mr. Freddie correctly states that Israel had made arms deals with China

Jesus, again, look carefully. Also, the homicide bomber construction is so ridiculous. You can see that, right? Any bomb that kills someone is a homicide bomb. It just fails on an elementary level of comprehensibility.

Am I really an Israel basher? I believe in the continued existence and prosperity of the Israeli state. I don't want to drive Jews into the sea. I have never advocated dissolving Israel, nor do I want to cede authority of the entirety of Israel to the Palestinians, nor do I think bombings of civilians (suicide or other) are anything other than reprehensible. I simply refuse to condone Israeli killing of civilians either, not because of the fig leaf of intentionality. And I can't ignore the fact that, however flawed they may be, my moral and cognitive systems tell me that it is Israel, on balance, who has more to answer for in this conflict. However repugnant you find them, my views are the product of conscience, not hatred of Jews.

I honestly think that I'm pretty fair and measured, but then I would. I just dislike the notion that I'm "secretly" anti-Israel, or a closet anti-Semite. You'll just have to take my word for it that I believe in peace and prosperity for Israel, and justice for Palestine.

Or don't. Whatever.

Posted by Freddie | August 7, 2007 2:29 PM

Freddie,

I appreciate your eloquence and generally civil tone, the latter of which is always nice to encounter in discussions on this topic. I do want to point out, though, that it was Matt who used the word "inconvenience" in his post.

Posted by Gator90 | August 7, 2007 3:34 PM

Jordan maintained it's occupation of the West Bank quite easily without the support of the U.S.

That wasn't really a Jordanian occupation - Everyone there was a Jordanian citizen, the West Bank was part of Jordan proper. Had Israel properly annexed the West Bank in 67, they wouldn't be having the problems they have now, and they'd probably be in a position to guarantee a permanent Jewish majority.

Mr. Freddie claims, rightly IMOH, that the wall is more then just an inconvenience to the Palestinians. However, the absence of the wall was far more then an inconvenience to the victims of Palestinian homicide bombers.

However, suicide bombings had sharply decreased BEFORE the wall had started to be built - no one objects to the wall being built, we all agree here that Israel has a right to build a wall. It's just that Israel is building the wall in such a way that you can't be honest and not say that it isn't a naked land grab at the same time - there's way way way too much land being stolen to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Freddie, in his zeal to label Israel as the root of all evil conveniently forgets that the settlements in the Gaza strip were abandoned. Settlements on the West Bank can be just as easily abandoned.

However, what Mr. SLC suggests, to use the some idiotic and condescending tone, is that the Gaza settlements are equivalent to West Bank settlements, which is rubbish. Gaza had 5,000 settlers total, and Israel had all sorts of trouble getting them out. There are individual settlements in the West Bank that are five times as big as all the settlements in Gaza combined, and those settlers are armed and rabid - it would be a clusterfuck getting them out. You'd be looking at armed insurrection at the very least.

Indeed, this issue has been discussed on numerous occasions. I have posted on at least two occasions a link to the final map that was offered to the Palestinians at Taba and it depicts a contiguous territory on the West Bank. Mr. Sajids' claim that the West Bank would be split into three pieces is a god damn lie. By the way, relative to the so called Saudi Plan, which is really the Tom Friedman Plan, the Palestinians haven't accepted this plan either.

Indeed, you have, but there are two different maps out there, and one of them has a pretty drastic split down the middle - we really don't know who's telling the truth here. You can choose to believe Dennis Ross if you like, but I really wouldn't believe someone paid by Martin Indyk. As far as the Saudi Plan goes, the Palestinians haven't accepted this plan either, but the Israelis have actively worked to undermine it.

Posted by Sajid | August 7, 2007 3:58 PM

As to the map...(you all remember the map, don't you?)....it would be more balanced if it were annotated to show where various terrorists (calling them "suicide bombers" is much too nice) crossed over into Israeli-controlled areas to commit their terror. And how many were killed by each such crossing.

And as to the "20% of the entirety of greater Palestine" as claimed by Freddie, surely even he or she would agree that is 20 percent after the 70 some odd percent of what was previously known as Palestine was taken off the table and given to another arab group.

Posted by Barry | August 7, 2007 4:19 PM

And as to the "20% of the entirety of greater Palestine" as claimed by Freddie, surely even he or she would agree that is 20 percent after the 70 some odd percent of what was previously known as Palestine was taken off the table and given to another arab group.

20%, of course, of the current Israeli/Palestine land mass.

But you knew that.

Again-- the Palestinians should not be constantly made to suffer for the actions of whatever Arab group. If you're such a bigot that you conflate Palestinians with Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, or what have you, I really don't know what to say to you.

Also, the lower case "a"? Classy. I wonder what people would think about doing something similar....

Posted by Freddie | August 7, 2007 4:29 PM

Freddie,

The past is relevant to the present, and the history of an area is particularly relevant when discussing border disputes. It's a little specious to say "the Palestinians shouldn't be made to suffer..." every time someone brings up any historical fact. None of us should be made to suffer; this is a straw man argument.

Posted by Harry | August 7, 2007 5:17 PM

SCMT wins the thread, and as always, the Palestinians lose.

Me, I have faith that the US Electorate will pressure their leaders to cut the cord and leave Israel to reap its own just desserts; isn't that what democracy is all about?

Also, the Cubs are due to win the world series any day now...

Posted by JBF | August 7, 2007 5:27 PM

Sajid,

and those settlers are armed and rabid - it would be a clusterfuck getting them out. You'd be looking at armed insurrection at the very least.

I agree that they are a problem and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise, but some of the most armed and most rabid are in Hebron, and the IDF pulled some of them out today - very much against their will.

It was reminiscent of Gaza (where the settlers called the IDF "Nazis" - today they were calling them "Hamas), and it will be tough, but it's doable - it happened today and it will continue to happen.

Not as fast as everyone would like, to be sure, but the tide is turning against that "movement," such that it is. Yes, it will be a clusterfuck. But yes, it will happen.

Otherwise, they get to be the first Jewish citizens of the newly created State of Palestine, when that happens.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 7, 2007 5:30 PM

the route does not follow the boundary defined when Israel emerged as a modern state in the late 1940s, drawing complaints from Palestinians that the barrier's path is designed to seize land and dictate the terms of a future peace deal.

Yes, "complaints." I guess that's a fair rendition of the ICJ ruling on the wall, eh? How someone can write an article on the wall and not even mention the ruling is pathetic.

Posted by Bill | August 7, 2007 5:39 PM

SoCalJustice,

There are 500 settlers in Hebron - there are 200,000 in the entire West Bank. When Israel begins withdrawing settlers en masse(or rather if, as I don't believe they will), then who's to say that the settlers won't revolt and start butchering Palestinians?

Posted by Sajid | August 7, 2007 6:16 PM

Re Sajid

1. It's Doctor SLC.

2. I find the attitude toward Dennis Ross very interesting. The Israel bashers consider him to be a tool of the International Zionist Conspiracy and, according to Mr. Sajid, a liar to boot. On the other hand the settlers and the right wingers in Israel consider him to be a dupe of the Palestinians, only one step removed from Norman Finkelstein. Anybody who attracts such venom from both extremes can't be all bad.

3. As for the map, without an Israeli agreement to allow the Palestinians in refugee camps to resettle in Israel, there was no map which the Palestinians would have accepted. Thus, they would not have accepted a map with the boundary drawn along the 1949 cease fire line, if it had been offered, so the argument over which map is authentic is pointless.

Re Freddie

I want to make this perfectly clear so that there will be no misunderstanding (as the late and unlamented Richard Nixon used to say). At no time have I accused Mr. Freddie of being antisemitic. Mr. Yglesias is certainly a two fisted Israel basher, as was my former target Alon Levy, but neither of them is an antisemite.

Re Matthew

Mr. Matthew raises a good point regarding moving targets. Let's get this straight as to who did what. Mr. Arafat walked away from the Camp David negotiations without proffering a counter offer because he was well aware that a counter offer which demanded the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Israel was a non-starter. Mr. Barak walked away from Taba because it finally penetrated his thick skull that the Palestinians were not going to back off from their resettlement demand. The resettlement demand was the deal killer at both places and it will continue to be a deal killer until the Palestinians drop it. Period, end of story.

Posted by SLC | August 7, 2007 6:26 PM

"How someone can write an article on the wall and not even mention the ruling is pathetic"

More pathetic than mentioning the ICJ opinion without mentioning that the ICJ had no jurisdiction to consider the case in the first place?

"who's to say that the settlers won't revolt and start butchering Palestinians?"

Who's to say Israelis won't start sending teenage girls to blow themselves up in Palestinian restaurants? Who's to day the Israelis won't pack rat poison-coated nails around the explosives in the girls' suicide vests before sending them on these martyrdom missions? Who's to say Israelis won't start broadcasting children's shows indoctrinating their children to hate Palestinians? Who's to say Israeli physicians in Britain won't start parking car bombs in front of popular nightclubs?

When it comes to Israelis, any amount of evil is possible.

Posted by Jerry | August 7, 2007 6:27 PM

More pathetic than mentioning the ICJ opinion without mentioning that the ICJ had no jurisdiction to consider the case in the first place?

Of course! Because Israel says so. The decision was well within the parameters established by the UN Charter (Art. 96), the reasoning of which was concisely explained in the opinion. The only way Israel could feasibly claim the ICJ didn't have jurisdiction is if the West Bank wasn't under occupation -- a blatant reality that Israel, it should be said, has tried denying before.

Posted by Bill | August 7, 2007 8:06 PM

Sajid,

There are 500 settlers in Hebron - there are 200,000 in the entire West Bank. When Israel begins withdrawing settlers en masse(or rather if, as I don't believe they will), then who's to say that the settlers won't revolt and start butchering Palestinians?

The most rabid ones are in Hebron and Kach-outposts like Tapuach.

I disagree with your contention that Gaza settlers, on average, weren't somehow as militant as West Bank settlers - again, on average (outside of places like Hebron and Tapuach and a few other pockets). A lot of them were rough customers and zealots, and that went pretty smoothly, all things considered.

If they don't leave, they will be dragged out. If they stay and fight then they will be fighting against both the IDF and the Palestinian security forces. I do think that, when this happens, whoever is Prime Minister at the time needs to triple his/her security and that the Temple Mount/Old City in general needs to be garrisoned off so nobody starts something to derail it, but I don't see a full scale IDF v. settler civil war.

Hopefully it won't come to that - I don't think it will. I think there will be a lot of whining, feet dragging, crying and name-calling, just like Gaza - and many will leave on their own volition.

And for the ones that want to stay, as I said before, they get to be minority citizens of Palestine.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 7, 2007 11:00 PM

"The decision was well within the parameters established by the UN Charter (Art. 96), the reasoning of which was concisely explained in the opinion."

The ICJ only has binding, authoritative jurisdiction when both parties consent. The ICJ came to its advisory, unauthoritative opinion against the separation barrier at the request of the UN General Assembly -- an organization that has demonstrated its evenhandedness by passing 429 resolutions against Israel in 59 years.

Posted by Harry | August 8, 2007 1:06 AM

As usual with lying Israel bashers like Mr. Marshall, he doesn't bother to state the reason, which was that the Palestinians adamantly refused to modify their demand that Palestinians in refugee camps be resettled in Israel. At that point, Mr. Barak finally realized that there was no hope of an agreement because that Palestinian demand was absolutely unacceptable. If Barak had had a moment of insanity and actually agreed to this demand, he would have been voted out of office by the Knesset, as there is zero possibility of such a deal being approved therein.

Ben-Ami says that Arafat was disinterested in the refugee problem. Of course, he was rather proud of his contribution to the thing by offering up some chunks of radioactive Negev inside the green line as a "land swap" to keep settlements and his idea that the former fishermen of Jaffa would find that a grand place to live and probably had his feelings hurt that no one else appreciated his genius. All parties agree that this little sub-set discussion was entertained seriously by the Palestinians and a starting point for further negotiations which should tell you how much the PA cared about the refugee population.

Barak left because they were approaching something that would actually resemble two states and that's unacceptable to Israeli polity as you noted Labour to Likud. Just to make sure he got the message Mofaz popped out of the woodwork to let everyone know how he felt about Taba and it was interpretted within the PM cabinet as a threat of a coup.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 8, 2007 2:04 AM

Re Ed Marshall

As usual, Israel bashing Mr. Marshall continues to spread his lies concerning the reasons for the breakdown of the Israel/Palestinian negotiations in 2000.

1. Mr. Marshall claims that Mr. Arafat wasn't really much interested resettling Palestinians in refugee camps in Israel. That may or may not be true but Mr. Arafats' constituents in those camps were not prepared to accept anything less. Mr. Arafat was well aware that he had no power to force them to accept less. Let's remember that Mr. Arafat survived for some 40 years by playing off various factions in the Palestinian camp against each other or buying them off. As we have seen since his unlamented demise, his successor, Mr. Mazan is not as skilled in this art as he was. As Dennis Ross has stated, to expect Mr. Arafat to change his spots and suddenly become a real leader was optimistic, if not unrealistic.

2. Mr. Marshall purports to quote various Israeli politicians as to what happened. Mr. Ben Ami, who belongs to the left wing of the Labor party has no more credibility then does his pal Yossi Beilin.

Posted by SLC | August 8, 2007 8:30 AM