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.
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.