US ends efforts to halt Israel's security wall (We Won - State Dept Loses!)

The Financial Time ^ | October 24 2003 | Guy Dinmore

[Pubbie]

The US has dropped its opposition to Israel's construction of security barriers through the West Bank and is involved in detailed negotiations over project that has divided communities and disrupted the lives of thousands of Palestinians.

The US administration, which had called the wall "a problem", says it wants to minimise the impact on Palestinians of Israel's efforts to protect its settlers on occupied land and stop infiltration by militants into Israel itself. Officials insist the Bush administration is seeking to keep the barrier close to the pre-1967 border.

Commentators close to both sides said yesterday that negotiations over the wall, which may eventually cover several hundred miles at a cost of $1.5bn, had become the central element of US policy in the region following the collapse of the "road map" peace process.

"The fence is now the name of the game," said Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Privately, US officials concede that with a US election one year away, the administration is unlikely to confront Israel over the issue and alienate the powerful Jewish lobby.

But diplomats warn that the change in US policy is breaking apart the "quartet" - the US, European Union, Russia and the United Nations - that launched the road map.

This week the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a non-binding, EU-backed resolution calling on Israel to halt construction. Only four countries voted against - the US, Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.

The Bush administration's threat to reduce $9bn in loan guarantees to Israel in response to the building of the barrier has had a limited impact on Israeli decisions. But plans for the most controversial sections cutting through East Jerusalem and down the Jordan Valley have not been finalised.

US aviation security experts are in Israel discussing a proposed section that is intended to protect Ben Gurion airport from attack but will cut through Palestinian neighbourhoods.

Israeli officials said the US had specifically approved parts of the fence and wall built on the northwest fringes of the West Bank that have left 13 Palestinian villages and nearly 12,000 people virtually marooned on the Israeli-occupied side. The US State Department denied this, but sources close to the administration said opposition had been abandoned.

B'tselem, an Israeli human rights group, estimates that the first stage of the construction, running for about 130km and in most places 60 to 100 metres wide, has consumed 2,850 acres of Palestinian land and will give only limited access for 72,000 people to their farmland. Most sections do not follow the pre-1967 border.

In July, President George W. Bush pronounced the barrier a "problem".

With Mahmoud Abbas, then Palestinian prime minister, by his side in the White House, he told reporters: "It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank."

[Slings and Arrows]

Ping!

[Imal]

"The wall will mean war, a war that will have most of the world rooting for Palestineans because of the wall."

As opposed to the peace and popularity that Israelis enjoy now? I'm having a hard time envisioning things getting much worse. A decisive "hot" war, which Israel can win, would be preferable to this slow-motion war of attrition and genocide that Israel can never win.

The article refers to the wall as a "project that has divided communities and disrupted the lives of thousands of Palestinians" while not mentioning anything about why it is being built. Are relocations and restrictions on access to Israel more of a disruption than being blown to bits?

Doesn't it strike you as being just a little bit odd that the article almost completely ignores addressing the reasoning and motivation for building the wall, while presenting all sorts of reasons for opposing it?

If the wall is such a bad thing for Israel, then why are those who have sworn to destroy Israel universally opposed to it? Wouldn't it be better for them to encourage Israel to act against its best interests?

I know I'm spouting a lot of rhetorical questions here, but they are worth getting answers to. When you find yourself on the same side of an issue as mass murderers and terrorists, it's not a bad idea to wonder why you are agreeing with them.

By comparing this wall with the Berlin Wall, which was built to keep people in, not keep them out, you are confusing defense with oppression. Why not a comparison to the Maginot line, which would be far more accurate? Hopefully, this defensive line would be more successful, of course.

Your opinions betray you. You may want to study and consider this issue more thoroughly.

[185JHP]

We didn't have to kill all the Germans and Japanese to get them to cease their warlike behavior. We just had to kill enough of them...

[Imal]

"Why sell to them [B-52's to Israel] when they've been getting them for free in additions to the billions of grants of american taxpayers money?"

Suggestion: Take a deep breath, calm down, bend the elbow of your right arm, and relax. Statements like these don't impress anyone with your wisdom. Try facts. They will grow on you.

It's called the truth. Look into it.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Looks like a few more brain cells have ignited in the anti-West, anti-religious, anti-USA, pro-communist State Dept. Fine. Best that they get out of the way before they have their collective brains blown out from the coming revolution.

[MississippiMan]

I truly don't understand the portrayal of this issue as "Bush vs. State." The State Department IS Bush's State department, folks. It's not some entity that exists in a vacuum, for heaven's sake. It does BUSH'S bidding.

MM

[risk]

We need a wall around the state department.

BTTT

Until the CFR purge is complete.

[thinktwice]

I wrote ... "The wall will mean war, a war that will have most of the world rooting for Palestineans because of the wall."

And you wrote ... As opposed to the peace and popularity that Israelis enjoy now?

It might be more precise to say ...
The wall will mean war, a war that will have many more Americans rooting for Palestineans because of the wall.

You wrote ... If the wall is such a bad thing for Israel, then why are those who have sworn to destroy Israel universally opposed to it?

You've assumed that those sworn to destroy Israel are always wrong.

Ditto that regarding your comment ... When you find yourself on the same side of an issue as mass murderers and terrorists, it's not a bad idea to wonder why you are agreeing with them.

You wrote ... By comparing this wall with the Berlin Wall, which was built to keep people in, not keep them out, you are confusing defense with oppression.

There is no confusion over the fact that walls preventing the movement of people generally work to the detriment of those who build them. The oppressive Berlin Wall revealed the inherent evil in Communism, and the defensive Maginot wall revealed stupidity within those Western Europeans that depended on it.

And now we have the prospect of a Palestine Wall, a wall that is "defensive" to Israelis and "evil" to Palestineans, an Israeli Wall that might both betray (as in Berlin) and defeat (as in Maginot) Israel.

Walls can start wars, they will not prevent them.

[Cinnamon Girl]

You mean like us?

[BOOTSTICK]

When will we avenge the deaths of hundreds of AMERICANS at the hands of the Palestinian pigs???

[American in Israel]

How is the wall illegal? It is all in Israel, not a bit in Jordan or Egypt or Lebanon or Syria.

Now I might agree that the wall is stupid, as it pretends that the Arabs have any right to demand a part of Israel for themselves, but illegal? Hardly.

[thinktwice]

I've located a source reference for my tag line quote ...

"When goods cross borders, armies will not." --- Frederic Bastiat

Quotation source reference ... from Lawrence Reed's statement in center column on page four of linked (click here) document.

Frederic Bastiat is the 19th century French author of "Economic Sophisms," in which certain governmental actions (walls, tariffs, make-work projects, protectionism, etc.) are shown to be absurd. The famous line is probably in "Economic Sophisms," but I haven't found it yet.

[dark_lord]

I truly don't understand the portrayal of this issue as "Bush vs. State." The State Department IS Bush's State department, folks. It's not some entity that exists in a vacuum, for heaven's sake. It does BUSH'S bidding.

Except that the State Dept. is full of career civil "servants" and such types who have been there for many years. They have their own agenda. They can thwart the will of a President because they can "go slow" and "passively obstruct" that which they do not want, and go really fast on stuff they do want. Plus they can quietly do things in direct opposition to the administration in power as long as they are quiet and secretive about it.

[MississippiMan]

Yes, there are plenty of liberal civil servants in State, no doubt. But I flat don't believe a State department would flat out go head to head with the President on a major policy issue, which is how this is so often portrayed on here. That's not credible.

MM

[Light Speed]

Last year on Pravda was a few articles were Admin types in Pooyet's gov chimed in to say..

"You guys have a rift in the State Dept"!

CFR was mentioned discretely..then a ref to Zbigniew Brzenzski..Grand Chessboard and..."lets go visit some Stans".

Americas presence in the many Stans...the posturing to access the frontiers of Eurasia and Asia...nearly text book of Zbigniews design.

U.S. is in Iraq as a chess move to support the other Geostrategic implimentations.

Russia ..sitting in the wings...saying.."We know what you are up to".

These moves force nations like Iran..Turkey..Pakistan..India and Russia to manuever for the future.

America has the power to get the board moving...now comes the counter chess peice moves.

Pakistan and India...is it desired to drive them to a conflict in the future?

If you see a plan forming..and you cannot stop it..is it in your interest to drive it faster than the controllers desire?

Russia benefits by the U.S. over extending herself....China too.

Turks know what it takes to rule the Silk road...history has a way of repeating itself.

Now Nato is being drawn into the Asia/EurAsia.

Back to Pravda;

CFR has 2 elements within...the Fabians..and non Fabians.

Unless Bush gets it right...they will see him and the Republicans to the door in 2004.

Syria has had state dept rescuing her for decades now..and still does.

Puitn can sit back and watch to see which power bloc within the CFR comes out on top for 2004.
Kinda why Russia is helping Iran to aquiese and sit on the fence for a while.

With Saudi's pining for nukes...Pakistan hinging her future on a projection that her nuclear forces are 'Boosted fission'...things could get messy..and fly off the handle.

India can clobber Pakistan.and easily take the nuke hits.

Pakistan would wind up loosing her nuclear forces entirley..the Gulf Arabs dream of having alot of nukes would be cut off.
Israel benefits...
U.S. benefits..as nations choose U.S. military ordiance over Russian.

Alot of pawns get killed in the chess game.

Grand Chesboard is a bold move...it could lead to conflicts that could escape the parameters the designers are machinating.

[Libertina]

US out of the UN. UN out of the US.
Can they take some of the State Department with them? ;)

[risk]

Russia benefits by the U.S. over extending herself....China too.

provocative thoughts: bttt

Questions: Pravda is privately owned now. Is it under the influence of former Soviet loyalists? It's a cauldron of anti-Americanism today.

Do you see Russian or Chinese money flowing into PR firms and other mechanisms for changing world opinions? I'm looking for leads.

Re: Fabian/non-Fabian CFR types -- who's who?

Who continues to protect Syria and why?

Do we have corroborated evidence of Pak nukes heading for Saudi? I know about the recent reports, but what I read were whispers rather than hard news.

What were Gingrich's desired changes, and where have they gone?

[risk]

>>> The State Department IS Bush's State department, folks.

Yes and no. It is a large organization with career bureaucrats in it drawing on a vast array of fixed as well as dynamic resources in the rest of our government.

[Qwinn]

"Yes, there are plenty of liberal civil servants in State, no doubt. But I flat don't believe a State department would flat out go head to head with the President on a major policy issue, which is how this is so often portrayed on here. That's not credible."

Congress voted on several occassions, in the years prior to the war, to fund the Iraqi National Congress, with the President's blessing. The INC, in case you didn't know, is the group of Iraqi exiles headed by Chalabi that most strongly supported liberating Iraq. The State Dept blew off the President AND Congress and denied the funds to the INC anyway, several years in a row.

Believe me, they have their own agenda, and their own independent power. In theory, yes, they are supposed to do what the President tells them to, but in reality they're an independent anti-American fifth column. Seriously, read Dangerous Diplomacy. I haven't yet, but I know a lot of what's referenced in that book - it's seriously scary, and will blow away your preconceptions about it's loyalties.

My opinion? They've been the tools of foreign governments since the '50's. We know for a -fact-, from the Verona Project, that it was riddled with KGB agents during McCarthy's time. They were -never- cleaned out. It is by far the most dangerous agency in government today, well, after the judicial branch.

Qwinn