U.S., Israel Closer on Security Barrier

[Herschel]

The United States and Israel narrowed differences Monday during discussions over the path of the next segment of an Israeli security barrier that would cut deep into Palestinian territory, Israeli officials said.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice raised the issue during talks with Dov Weinglass, senior adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and Amos Yaron, the director general of the Israeli Defense Ministry.

The Israeli sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the two sides came away from the talks with a better understanding of each other's position and agreed to remain in contact.

cut

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3179773,00.html

Wonderful news! Two nations joined at the heart finding agreement once again.

[Darranar]

1. Great...

I knew Bush's lack of support for the wall was insincere.

So now he agrees with Israel on this inhumanitarian piece of junk.

[Herschel]

2. The wall

is to prevent the murdering of Jews.

[Darranar]

3. It is?

It seems a clear land grab to me.

If it was to prevent the murdering of someone, it wouldn't be on Palestinian land.

[bemildred]

4. Actually, I think I agree with The Magistrate,

its an attempt to reduce manpower requirements
for "security", which is a big issue and becoming
bigger. The land grab is incidental.

[Darranar]

5. Once I thought so, too...

but my question is: Why is it being built, then, on Palestinian land?

[bemildred]

9. I didn't say it wasn't a land grab.

Things can work in more than one way, and Sharon's instinct
seems to be always to push.

It's just that I believe the essential need, the thing
that makes a barrier necessary is the unsustainability
of the current force levels and the associated economic costs.

The Magistrate also thinks that a motive may be to free up
forces for an invasion of Gaza, another way that it works.

[Darranar]

10. So you think...

that Sharon's chief motive is lowering security costs, and that the land grab is a secondary motive?

The only problem with that is that the wall will likely end up raising security costs, not lower them.

[bemildred]

13. You pay for the wall once (theoretically).

You pay for manpower every day.

To be clear, he has a number of motives, a good strategy serves
ones purposes in as many ways as possible, but I think the
critical factor in the wall is issues of manpower and costs of
manpower, both financial and otherwise.

Somewhat in the way Shrub is limited by the need to avoid a draft,
Sharon is limited as well by the force conveniently at his disposal
and it's cost, the intifada has been very expensive, and there is
no end in sight, so adjustments are being attempted.

[Darranar]

17. I don't think that Sharon is a complete idiot...

The wall isn't robotic. It won't unleash a long chain to entagle terrorists walking near it. It will require manpower to be staffed, and it will be damaged by rocket attacks. Aside from that, it will enrage the populace, thereofre increasing the risk of attacks by Palestinians.

I don't think that it will save much money, and I doubt that it will save many lives.

[bemildred]

19. I do.

[MariMayans]

8. the wall doesn't enclose all the Palestinians

There are shitloads of villages and towns on the Israeli side of that wall. That should be a tip off that it isn't seriously about security at all. It's not even really a land grab. It's an attempt to try and make any sort of solution along the lines of a Palestinian state impossible.

[bemildred]

11. Notice that "security" is in quotes.

It will allow him to maintain current policies WRT the
Palestinian population at lower force levels, and it will cut
off some existing infiltration routes.

It may well serve the purpose you say too, it is rather expensive.

It's kind of interesting that George's "objections" are being
treated so seriously, one almost suspects its scripted. Of course
George is in trouble, and he needs a win badly about now, or at
least he needs to be seen to be taken seriously.

[MariMayans]

15. I wouldn't think that would be the win he would like

It's been widely speculated that Bush I blames his loss to Clinton on being too hard on Israel after the Gulf War.

[bemildred]

18. Shrub seems to have "issues" with his Daddy.

I was just thinking that politically, looking like a
peacemaker right now might be attractive, but its pure
speculation, trying to make sense of these guys often
fails because they don't.

Trying to trade off peace in the middle east against politcally
correct positions WRT Israel has got several Presidents stuck.

[bemildred]

20. FWIW I think it also provides political cover.

He is seen to be "doing something" about security.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Depending on the Palestinians (or the DUers)

They think ALL of that land is Palestinian land. So no matter what Israel does, it is wrong.

[Darranar]

22. Well, I don't...

so yuor point doesn't apply.

[quilp]

6. How is erecting a barrier you admit cuts deep into Palestinain territory

"Wonderful news"? I suppose the next time the Palestinians react to another land grab for "settlers" this will be further evidence of Palestinian "terrorism" against "innocent civillians"! Why the "anonymity"? It can't be shame because they have none!

[Darranar]

7. Hey, quilp!

You've forgotten! It's all for "security purposes," so you're supposed to close your eyes and cease to care. :eyes:

[quilp]

12. If Sharon gets his way, what will be the fate of the Palestinians?

Exactly what does he imagine will happen to all those people. They will just "vanish"? Have the Israelis themselves really thought this through? They are making a permanent Guantamano Bay, with millions of prisoners, inside their own borders.

[Darranar]

14. If he gets his way...

the WB and Gaza will be Palestinian-free. But I don't think he will get his way anytime soon. Steps towards that goal he will accomplish, however.

[bemildred]

16. I've never seem a good answer to that.

it doesn't appear anyone is thinking that far ahead.