The Cost of security?

Submitted by Manfred (United States), Feb 23, 2004 at 19:29

A crux of your second argument relies on this distinction which you make: Second, Mr. Sharon's intent to uproot Israeli habitations assumes that they pose a large, perhaps insuperable, barrier to a Palestinian-Israeli resolution. In contrast, I see them as a minor obstacle.

I was under the impression that part of the intent of pulling settlers out is that it is cost prohibitive to protect them where they currently are. Negotiations over the years have proven non-viable, and it seems the direction Israel is going is to take unilateral steps to ensure their long-term viability. If its to costly for the government to maintain its current presence in Gaza then it makes sense that they have to do what they have to do.

Relying on negotiation and trying to convince Palestinian arabs that its in their best interest not to teach their children to hate Israelis is currently futile.

---

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".