I disagree (with respect)

Submitted by Marc Baron (Canada), Dec 23, 2003 at 22:16

Just a few comments:

Dismantling a few settlements is neither defeatist nor appeasement. It is necessary because of 1) the high cost of securing small, intrusive outposts and 2) the demographic threat posed by including more areas populated largely by West Bank Arabs. This position is coming from sound strategic thinking within the administration. It may appear as capitulation to Palestinian demands for more land under Palestinian Authority control, but so what.

Secondly, Arafat has poisoned his constituency with hatred for generations to come, therefore there is no realistic chance of a peaceful, open, border with any Palestinian entity based on a negotiated settlement. The security difficulties posed by the current porous line demanded a solution and the fence is the best choice. This is not defeatist or cowering but realistic. The pre-fence status quo or transfer, however, are not.

Dismantling a few settlement liabilities, disengagement from a hateful enemy to a defensible line seems a sound strategy to articulate, and perhaps even to follow.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".