The Wall...Palestinian Quicksand?

[Coot]

Whilst doing some reading, I came across this ABC News Article (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040113_1967.html) depicting what may be the impending financial collapse of the PA.

Hit by waning support from fatigued donor nations, the Palestinian Authority has been forced to borrow from banks to pay salaries to its 125,000 employees and may be unable to meet its February payroll, the economy minister said Tuesday.

With unemployment rampant outside the public payroll, Palestinians could be facing unprecedented economic collapse after three years of conflict with Israel.

"We took loans from the bank for the past couple of months to pay salaries," Palestinian Economy Minister Maher Masri told The Associated Press. "If this situation continues ... we will not be able to provide salaries next month."

Masri did not disclose the size of the loans, but figures are likely to be made public when Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayad presents the 2004 budget to parliament next week.


While that part is interesting in and of itself, the next part really got my attention:



Sharon has said that if talks on the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan do not progress in the coming months, he would order unilateral steps to disengage from the Palestinians, including imposing a temporary border with the West Bank and moving some Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.


However, Sharon has not given specific details of his plan, saying it is still being prepared. He appointed Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, the incoming head of his security council, to direct the planning.


That got me curious enough to go looking for other information and I came across an interview Arafat gave to the Guardian. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1130243,00.html)



The Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, has declared that "time is running out for the two-state solution" to the Middle East conflict - in an exclusive interview with the Guardian - because of the impact of Israel's "security barrier" and settlement expansion on the viability of a future Palestinian state.



The unprecedented warning from a man who has devoted the past 30 years to achieving a state in the West Bank and Gaza next to Israel came as momentum builds in Ariel Sharon's embattled government for a "unilateral disengagement" from the most heavily populated Palestinian areas.

It also came as underground leaders of the militant Palestinian Islamist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have led the suicide bombing campaigns against Israeli cities over the past three years, made clear that they are prepared to call a long-term ceasefire in exchange for a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. Abd al-Aziz Rant-issi, political leader of Hamas, and Nafiz Azzam, leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza, told the Guardian that they would accept the "temporary solution" of a Palestinian state in exchange for a halt to their armed campaign that - in Dr Rantissi's words - "should be seen in terms of years".


Who says the Wall/Fence isn't working? There are no more suicide bombers getting in from Gaza, and from the looks of things, the Palestinians are really afraid of what it's completion on the West Bank portends. They're broke, their funding is drying up and I believe I am hearing what can only be termed capitulation in Arafat's assessment of just what that wall and Sharon's unilateral disengagement would mean. Essentially, the completion of the Wall/Fence in all likelihood would mean all out Civil War between the various Palestinian factions and it would be confined to Gaza, the West Bank and the Palestinian controlled areas.


For perhaps a more in depth analysis of the ME situation and these turn of events Stephen Den Beste, of Starship Clueless, has put together a very insightful and thought provoking analysis (http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/01/UpagainsttheWall.shtml) of it all. It is long, probably a 2 cup of coffee read. Bon Apetit.

[ethics]

Great post, Coot, this is yet another angle of how damaging the wall is. No more whining, no more bs, just factual economic hardship and they have themselves to blame.

[Coot]

I was really struck by this bit from the Den Beste piece:


The other monstrous lie is that time is running out for the two-state solution. In fact, the exact opposite is true: time is running out for the Palestinian one-state solution. Israel is about to unilaterally implement a two-state solution, and it is Arafat who is running out of time. Once the wall is complete and Israel disengages from the West Bank, there will be no hope that the Palestinians could eventually take Israel back. And there is a very high chance, approaching certainty, that the Palestinian interfaction power struggle would turn violent and lead to an extremely bloody Palestinian civil war similar to the one that took place in Lebanon.

The old strategy of making incremental gains against Israel over a period of years is about to fail. I think that the decision to put up the wall around the West Bank was a brilliant stroke by the Sharon government, because it offers a way for Israel to "win" without cooperation by the Palestinians, even though that win would be partial.

In every way, the decision to build the wall puts time on Israel's side, where time used to be viewed as being on the side of the Palestinians. Once the wall is complete, the Israelis can withdraw their military forces from the West Bank. Part of why the Palestinian power struggle hasn't turned violent is that the Israelis have been keeping the peace. When they are gone, it will turn ugly very rapidly.

And with the wall in place, it will become far more difficult for the Palestinians to make attacks on Israel.

Worst of all, the wall de facto draws the line of demarcation for the two-state solution, and the longer that it exists without any formal agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, the less chance there would eventually be of renegotiating the border, even if the Palestinians ultimately accepted a two-state agreement.

Meanwhile, America's war continues and shows no sign of being abandoned, and the deep American strategy in the war (to inspire political and cultural reform in the entire region) has become apparent. Our efforts to try to create a functioning democracy in Iraq are, and are intended to be, a profound threat to the corrupt autocratic governments in neighboring nations, and since they're the primary source of support for the Palestinians, it's a threat to the Palestinian cause as well. (Which is probably why many of the "foreign jihadis" in Iraq have been Palestinians.)
It seems he was right all along in claiming that the real road to piece in the I/P conflict runs through Baghdad. While the (U.S.) Administration may claim that today's dual suicide bombing in Iraq has all the trademarks of Al Qaeda, it sure seems to look a lot more like a Palestinian engineered attack IMO.

[Sierra Mike]

I'm all for it. I never saw it in this light before, and I think it's probably the best thing to come down the pike in a long time.

And yeah, it won't be long until the Palestinian Muslims and the Palestinian Christians start blowing each other up. Just like the good old days, except with fewer Druse in the mix.

I wish them a hearty bon apetit, and would it be all right if Americans were to take to the streets and dance a little for the cameras? With a nod to turnabout being fair play and all...

SM

[Copzilla]

It also came as underground leaders of the militant Palestinian Islamist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have led the suicide bombing campaigns against Israeli cities over the past three years, made clear that they are prepared to call a long-term ceasefire in exchange for a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. Abd al-Aziz Rant-issi, political leader of Hamas, and Nafiz Azzam, leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza, told the Guardian that they would accept the "temporary solution" of a Palestinian state in exchange for a halt to their armed campaign that - in Dr Rantissi's words - "should be seen in terms of years".This is most obviously a sign of desperation. Of course it would be a mistake to even consider the possibility of a deal of any sort with the terrorist organizations, but to plod ahead with the wall and permit them to self destruct. To do otherwise would simply buy them time to regroup and be that much stronger. A civil war is exactly what the Palestinians need, whether they realize it or not. Out the other end, they will be better for it.

[Coot]

It's happening before our very eyes. Sharon is in fact creating his own defacto two state solution (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/wl/080601mideast&a=&tmpl=sl&ns=&l=&e=4&a=0&t=&prev=3) and disengaging from the Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22Ariel%20Sharon%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?cs=nw&p=Ariel%20Sharon)) stunned friends and foes Monday by saying he planned to evacuate almost all the Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=%22Gaza%20Strip%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=West+Bank+and+Gaza)).

"I have given the order to plan for the evacuation of 17 settlements in the Gaza Strip," the right-wing prime minister told the Haaretz newspaper. "I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza."

Sharon, once considered the godfather of the settlement movement, later told his pro-settler Likud party the proposal he will take to Washington later this month would also call for the removal of a smaller number of Jewish enclaves in the West Bank.Who here doesn't think this is the beginning of the end for the PA?

[civax]

Since no body took that role yet, I would like to present another point of view regarding the fence. Let me say first I haven't really made up my mind yet about it. I can list pros and cons for building it. I'm currently slightly more in favor of the separation plan, though I'm not a firm supporter.

Talking from an Israeli point of view, I'm not that sure a fight inside the Palestinians will actually happen, and wouldn't be so positive it's a good thing if it will.
The different terrorist groups has different power in the street and as the scholar Fatah (Arafat's) looses power, the religious Hammas gains it. The Hammas is currently the only true opposition to Fatah. Islamic Jihad became an arm of Iran and hizbulla but has less power on the street (and it's a fairly small organization). Therefore, the collapse of the PA means the weakening of Fatah and the raise of Hammas. There might be much smaller conflict between the two, specially since many of the fractions has double members (members which belongs to more then one terror group).

If there WILL be a war between them, this might not be that good for us either, as one proven way to gain points on the street against other groups is executing terror attacks inside Israel. We have enough experience to know that the fence is not going to stop ALL terror attacks, and our security forces are already catching most of the suicide terrorist in the first place (avg of 50 alerts per week the last time I've heard. In some periods this number can be per day!) The fence will help a lot but there will be NO WAY to prevent them all. Specially when ALL groups will try to do it daily to gain points on their street.

If that will be the case, Israel might have to charge back into the territories and conquer them again. And then what? we've been in this movie before. nothing good got out of it for long.

You also have to remember a border is only one that was accepted by both sides. Separating without an agreement does not limit the other side from any actions. Any chaos 10 meters from me will obviously effect me as well. Specially when what unites all the Palestinians into one nation is the hate towards me.


On the other hand, a very massive pro separation point is that - it's something new we can do! There had been so many failed attempts and there has been so little hope lately, every new idea with some possible gain brings some hope. For me this is the strongest motivation to go on with it.

In addition, on an emotional level I do feel that the Palestinians somewhat deserves it. We'll create our own borders. if you don't want to have a say, fine, we'll do it without you, live with it! (on a rational level I know *I* will have to live with the result as well, even if I will not like it).

I totally support Sharon in removing those settlements. Most of them are still there only to be a bargain card in agreements, anyway. If we do our own agreement with ourselves, I se no point in keeping them there. It's not fair towards the Palestinians and it's too costly for us. Gaza strip is by far out of a debate as far as I see it. It's so obvious it will not include our settlements there in the future I'm really having a hard time to understand the settlers outrage. If we're declaring semi-final (or final) borders in Gaza, then why not just finish the whole thing now and that's it?

Anyway, I still want to read more and hear more on both sides pro/con the fence before sticking my flag firmly on one side. So far it seems I'm heading for the pro-separation. Still, it doesn't mean I need to be blind to other points of view.

-- BTW, Coot, :thumbsup: an excellent post indeed. I've followed all your links. Very informative. I would have donated you forum dollars I just have a sudden feeling they are all gone. :huh:

[ethics]

Beginning of the end, IF he goes through with this.

[civax]

Beginning of the end, IF he goes through with this.

*IF* is the _exact_ word.
On one hand Sharon's government is rightwing parties and they will never go with this.
On the other hand, if anyone can push such a thing, it's Sharon.

[ethics]

A story in an interview with Sharon in Haaratz (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/389939.html)."We are talking of a population of 7,500 people. It's not a simple matter. We are talking of thousands of square kilometers of hothouses, factories and packing plants. People there who are third-generation.

Asked by Haaretz whether he intended presenting his plan to U.S. President George Bush during his visit to Washington later this month, Sharon said: "Absolutely it has to be done with American agreement and support. We need their support."

Like it or not Gaza is a drain in lives and in the soldiers who guard the people there. The same with West Bank. Yes, it belongs to the people of Israel but to stay there will only drag Israel into an endless protection over something that is neither a good natural resource nor a booming economic strategic piece, and most people know this.

Once it was announced by Bush, over and over and over again, that the Palestinians will get their own state, where in the heck did people think that state would be? I spoke to a few Israelis and NONE of them liked this deal because they viewed it as a concession to terrorism, but I hope I planted a seed in their minds which spells out the long term peace. Perhaps not full peace but a much better than the environment of fear and exhaustion they have today.

[Coot]

The way that article reads, you'd think it was a concession; a surrender if you will. Spinning it perfectly, or as close to perfection as it will get. The PA or whichever Palestinian faction takes over from them will be left on the outside snatching at air.

[ethics]

Well, Ha'aretz in Israel is sort of like LA Times in US.

[ethics]

Essentially, the completion of the Wall/Fence in all likelihood would mean all out Civil War between the various Palestinian factions and it would be confined to Gaza, the West Bank and the Palestinian controlled areas.

I respect an educated prediction that comes true. While it's not true YET, I think you have something here:

By SAUD ABU RAMADAN
GAZA, Feb. 10 (UPI) -- Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Movement, or Fatah, is facing a serious internal crisis, reflecting a split between former Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, or Abu Mazen, and his loyalists on one hand, and Arafat and his aides in Fatah's Central Committee and Revolutionary Council on the other.
Analysts say the divisions within the movement are based on calls by reformists to change Fatah by introducing internal reforms, holding democratic elections and replacing the aged leaders of the movement, except Arafat, with younger ones.

Mohamed Dahlan, who was minister of internal security in Abu Mazen's Cabinet, is one of those campaigning for reforms within Fatah. "There have been no internal elections for Fatah institutions over the last 15 years," he told United Press International. "...according to Fatah's internal charter, elections should be held every five years for the Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council."

Dahlan said the terms of the present Fatah leaders had long expired, adding the movement's present Central Council "is illegal, and elections for a new committee should be held soon."


Aside from your excellent prediction, I will add that I am ELATED that there are SOME Palestinians that realize that Arafat is a tool, a one dimensional leader who only knows one thing.

[AlexZello]

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?

[Steve]

That name is unfamiliar to me. Would you be willing to summarize his views?

Welcome to the forum, by the way! :)