Israel Border to Follow Barrier Route

I would like to know exactly why it will take four years.

Does this include helping build a Palestinian state or are they just straight up leaving the West Bank and letting the PA deal with it all?

This is the crux of it. The PA could declare a Palestinian State but the minute they do that the dream of a greater Palestine (with no Israel in it) disappears forever.

Israel is out of Gaza. They could declare a Palestinian state there now. But they won't.

This is what always makes the Palestinians pull out of any peace settlement that would create a Palestinian state. This is why Ehud Barak's peace offer never went through.

When it comes down to it they just cannot let go of the idea of having it all. There is a fundamental inability to compromise - and in the meantime their lives are all on hold.

Dennis M Wright, you are defenitely correct. Historically the Palestinians have had an all-or-nothing attitude in terms of a state, however recently (at least pre-hamas), I believe this has changed a little. During the Oslo Accords Arafat did at one point draft and accept a proposition for a shared two-state Palestine and shared Jerusalem. In this case, Israel quickly vetoed it citing that there wasn't enough land in the West Bank (the draft showed only thin lines connecting the settlements). Abbas also cooperated in trying to create a two-state Palestine but negotiations were cut short by the Al-Aqsa Intifadah.

In short, although I understand Israel's position and it's need for security, I don't think this is a valid option. The Intifada and violence has gone down significantly in 2005 and early 2006. However, even with the Gaza pullout there still remains a dozen settlements there and the total number of settlements in the Occupied Territories has increased. Israel should begin to actually lower the number of settlements, as well as starting to put money back into the development in both the West Bank and Gaza before giving up altogether. Unfortunately, Hamas may hinder this possibility.

Wicked - do you realize that whenever a sentence like "Israel should begin to actually lower the number of settlements" is uttered, this is translated into very real terms: "Israel should destroy hundreds of schools and houses of worship, thousands of homes and dozens of communites. They should make tens of thousands of its citizens homeless and jobless. They should cause severe psychological and emotional harm to these people."

This is not Monopoly or Risk. This is real life. It is not so simple as "lowering the number of settlements". To take such a step without receiving anything tangible in return is not acceptable (not to say that it would be acceptable in any case...)

Yaakov - I do realize that the consequences of a pullout would be a difficult one to deal with for Israel, but I sincerely do not believe a peace plan will work if Israel continues to increase the number of settlements. Encroaching and putting greater pressure on Palestinians and their land isn't going to lower tensions, and increasing tensions is the last thing we need now. You're right, real life is tough, but at some point it's going to have to stop. Starting later will only make things more difficult.

Wicked - from all of the previous times that Israel has given up land to the Palestinians, either through a "peace" agreement, or through a "unilateral" expulsion, when has this ever resulted in more peace in the region? When has this ever not resulted in increased terrorism? On what basis do you believe that Israel's giving up land will lead to peace.

You refer to the "Palestinians and their land" - which land are you referring to that belongs to the Palestinians?

Yaakov - On what basis do you believe that keeping land will make the Palestinians less desperate and less prone to terrorism? The fact of the matter is that keeping and especially increasing the land taken will only generate greater tension.

Also, you asked me when giving up land has resulted in peace. When, other than in the Oslo Accords has this happened? Furthermore, this was a process that was never given a chance. Arafat's unwilingness to stop terrorist attacks as well as Israel's violations of the agreement (expanding settlements, increased contsruction in East Jerusalem, failing to create safe corridors between Gaza and the West Bank, failing to free all the prisoners it had agreed to release, and halting talks in response to violence) stopped the Accords from ever being fully implemented. Over two-thirds of the Israeli and Palestinian people supported the agreements forged under the Oslo Accords, but they were taken down by a small minority of radicals, and politicians exacerbating the fears and frustration of both sides in order to advance their own agenda. Both parties failed to stand up to their extremists but given the balance of power and the inherent weakness of emerging Palestinian institutions, I believe one can assign greater responsibility to Israel. Of course, there is no doubt that the weakness of the Palestinian leadership greatly contributed to the situation.

Stopping the expansion of settlements is the first step.

I do not believe that keeping land will make Palestinians less deperate and prone to terrorism. However, I think that giving away land will only make them more prone to violence and terrorism. Take Lebanon and Gaza for example. When each of these was given, the Hezbollah and Hamas respectively became much more powerful.

Whether or not land is given back, in order for violence to end from the Arab side, a change of ideology must take place. Until then, giving away land will only whet their appetite for more.