J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

I participated in a Seminar "Selected Issues in Modern Middle East History" last year with a very bright young Israeli woman who was touting the new (or back to the future) movement, and Neve Shalom in particular.  She had incredible insight into the Politics of Fear as practiced by IDF forces and settlers on the West Bank

God bless their venture

Joanne...

We all should join you in applauding the peace efforts of Roger Waters and hope, as you suggested, that other entertainers join him in making similar statements. What might an effort by Waters, or some other entertainer of the stature, say, of Bono, be able to do to educate Americans about the conflict, and encourage steps toward its resolution? I think a lot could be accomplished by such a person.

One small clarification regarding your article...you said, 

...he has been an outspoken critic of the wall/fence that Israel is building (largely as a reaction to the suicide bombings). 

The wall, ostensibly built for purely security purposes, follows a route that does not parallel the Green Line, the future border anticipated by international law (subject to negotiated agreements). Instead, 80% of the wall falls on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, and several human rights organizations have demonstrated that the intent behind the establishment of its route was to annex additional West Bank territory for Israel, even in areas where no security threat exists. This is borne out by the fact that in 2005, the year of the much heralded Gaza withdrawal, there was actually a net increase in settlement activity in the the Occupied Territories (this was calculated by subtracting the number of evacuated Gaza settlers from the overall number of new Israeli settlers in the West Bank). Here is an excerpt from a Human Rights Watch letter to President Bush (from late December of last year) regarding this issue:

Peace Now has published a list of seven settlements where large-scale construction (hundreds of units) is occurring. All but one of them are located on the Israeli side of the wall. In a similar list of seventeen settlements where medium-scale construction (tens of units) is occurring, all but three are on the Israeli side of the wall. In addition, two Israeli human rights organizations, B’Tselem and Bimkom, recently published a report that documents the fact that 55 settlements, including 12 in East Jerusalem, housing approximately 75% of all settlers, would fall on the Israeli side of the wall. The report shows that Israeli officials established the wall’s route hundreds to thousands of meters east of the existing boundaries of these settlements to allow for maximum future expansion. The organizations conclude that “contrary to the picture portrayed by the state, the settlement-expansion plans played a substantial role in the planning of the Barrier's route."  
 
The Israeli government has recently sought to justify its construction of the wall inside Palestinian territory, and beyond the Green Line, as based on its sovereign duty to protect Israeli citizens, notwithstanding their presence in settlements. But Israel can well protect these citizens by dismantling the settlements and bringing its settler citizens back within the legitimate borders of its state. Such a measure would satisfy Israel’s duty to protect its citizens without undermining its duty to respect and uphold international law and would end the severe humanitarian and economic harm inflicted on the Palestinian population by virtue of the wall’s construction.  
 
Even the Israeli government has now stated that the wall is not being built just for security purposes but also to establish its territorial claims on OPT land. On December 1, news reports quoted Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Minister of Justice, as saying that the future borders of Israel will roughly follow the route of the wall. This statement by an Israeli public official was the first to explicitly link the route of the wall with Israel’s political, not security, aims. 

Joann

You don't support the wall because?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The wall, ostensibly built for purely security purposes, follows a route that does not parallel the Green Line, the future border anticipated by international law (subject to negotiated agreements). Instead, 80% of the wall falls on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, and several human rights organizations have demonstrated that the intent behind the establishment of its route was to annex additional West Bank territory for Israel, even in areas where no security threat exists.

Which areas are those?  Clearly not malls, fast food resteraunts, hotels, cafes, marketplaces, pizza parlors or university cafeterias.   

Doesn't it trouble the Palestinians defenders one bit that the first thing they do when Israel withdraws from a settlement is to launch rockets at Israeli towns from the newly acquired land?  How many rock stars would play in protest of a Palestinian rocket that took out a civilian airliner over Ben Gurion airport? How many Arabs would come to protest violence against Jews?   Even if there was a kick-butt laserlight show that went with it.  No, left-wingers have their assigned "victim" in this conflict.  With regard to outrages that take Jewish blood, they have become Comfortably Numb. 

Exactly how are these self-serving celebrities like Bono and Waters going to "educate" us about the Middle East? What on Earth makes them experts? And what makes them or you think, just by virtue of their fame, that they know anything or should be listened to? And why on Earth would anyone actually take seriously, the idiotic ideas of vacuous celebrities? These fools idea of "peace" is for Israel to stand by and watch its citizens get slaughtered and to do absolutely nothing. To these fools, the convenience of "palestinians" takes precedence over Israeli lives.

Good for Waters. He should perform where he wants to perform.

As for the wall.

First, it is not unheard of for a person to build a wall partially on his neighbor's land. Happens all the time.

Second, Palestine is not and has never been an independent state. Sure, they want to be one, but it has not happened.

Third, borders have not been set. The 1967 borders were set in 1948 as a ceasefire line with Jordan. When Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, all bets were off. What is to prevent those inside the wall from becoming Israeli citizens? Nothing. Indeed, those in Jerusalem have that option, but have not taken it.

Fourth, give another solution that will work. Remember, Israel only wants the bombings to stop. Also remember, Israel has given up settlements in Gaza and is willing to give up settlements in the west bank. Further, remember that it is the Palestinians and their allies that have repeatedly said they want to destroy Israel.

Fifth, there was a bombing in Tel Aviv yesterday. Hamas voiced its support. These are people you want Israel to declare are their peaceful neighbors?

Roger Waters is a rock star with an opinion. Big deal. At least he's not boycotting Israel, and is bringing his tour there. I can applaud that without subscribing wholesale to his particular opinions. 

Joann Mort is right.  Israel is hardly a optimum place to swing a big tour.  It means alot to Israelis when performers bring their tours there.  If you want to get down on rock stars for their opinions, let's talk about guys like Sting who advocate boycotting Israel.

For Israelis, the wall is a way to separate from the Palestinians and as I said, a sign of exasperation-but not well-thought out long term policy.

 

Why is a fence along the Camp David/Taba lines not a well-thought out long term policy? 

What are the alternatives?  The only other way to check the tide of suicide bombers is to set up checkpoints inside the West Bank that choke off all Palestinian intracity movement.  That's far more intrusive and harmful to Palestinian daily life than a border fence.   Combined with unilateral withdrawal of the settlements on the other side of the fence, Israel is for once creating "facts on the ground" that facilitate a final settlement based on partition, rather than inhibit such an arrangement.   

Thanks for the clarification, Joanne. I personally believe the Israelis do have a legitimate right to protect themselves from suicide bombings. But when they engage in actions that use security as an excuse for undermining the legitimate rights of the Palestinians to their land in the West Bank, and by doing so undermine the eventual ability of the Palestinians to form a viable state, they also undermine their own credibility. To prevent the Palestinians from achieving their own aspirations will only ensure continued violence. By pursuing the unilateral plan, and continuing to illegally annex Palestinian lands, the Israelis seem to be shooting themselves in the foot as far as their long-term security needs are concerned. Although the US appears to be blissfully unaware of this, despite the HRW letter, the Palestinians are well aware of it.

I also agree with another posters comment in this thread about how fitting the idea of a performance of Pink Floyd's The Wall seems to be. Because the song is associated in many minds with the Berlin Wall, it's interesting to note that the East Germans who built that wall also used security as the reason for its construction. From Wikipedia on the Berlin Wall:

The East German government claimed that the Wall was...intended to dissuade aggression from the West. However, this position was viewed with scepticism even in East Germany; its construction had caused considerable hardship to families divided by the Wall...

In reality, Waters wrote the song to describe his own alienation. Again, here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:

The storyline portrays the fictional life of an anti-hero named Pink, who is hammered and beaten down by society from the earliest days of his... Pink withdraws into his own fantasy world, building an imaginary wall to isolate himself from the rest of the world. Every bad experience in his life is a brick in that wall. The first few bricks are made from the pain of his father's death, abusive teachers, and over-protective mother...

The parallels do seem amazing and it's worth noting that in the end Pink decides to tear down the Wall. Let's hope that the last-ditch efforts toward a negotiated settlement - the only option that has any hope of bringing a real peace - will succeed, and that a subsequent time of peace will lead the Israelis ultimately to decide to do the same to their wall.

Later edit:

I do want to clarify my comments above. In mentioning the Berlin Wall, I did not mean to imply that the two walls are equivalent - they certainly were constructed in different circumstances as Joanne notes below - but merely wanted to note that the reason given for their construction by both governments , security, did not comprise the full story in either case. The highlighted quote on the Berlin Wall that I provided above also previously included a reference to facism, which I have edited out, as that was not the point I was trying to make. I wish to stress that I do consider Israel's security needs to be legitimate; it's the application in terms of public perception and in terms of what Israel feels justified in doing to achieve that security that's problematical.

mhpine...

First, I quoted Human Rights Watch (HRW), so if your comments about "Palestinian defenders" and "left-wingers" were directed at them, I think you seriously misunderstand or misrepresent their position. If you visit the Israel/Palestine page of the HRW website, you'll find strong condemnations of both Israeli and Palestinian violence and other human rights violations.

In their letter, HRW referred to several peace groups that are Israeli organizations, which I seriously doubt are unconcerned about the spilling of Jewish blood. Their recognition that the Palestinians also have legitimate concerns in the conflict, and that both sides have committed violent acts does not make them "Comfortably Numb," but is evidence of a sensible approach that recognizes that any real peace can only come when the needs of both sides are accommodated to the greatest degree possible. Here's Peace Now's position statement regarding the wall:

• Peace Now recognizes the obligation and the needs of Israel to defend its citizens along its borders, namely the June 1967 borders, including the erection of obstacles like the security fence.
• Sharon's government is building a fence deep in Palestinian territory. Even if it declares that the fence is aimed at assuring the security of Israeli citizens, in fact, the purpose of the fence is the annexation of territories and perpetuation of the settlements. The government uses the fence in order to create facts on the ground, with the purpose of thwarting any chance of a political agreement with the Palestinian people.
• Sharon's government is building a wall designed to imprison millions of Palestinians in enclaves, in order to destroy any means of livelihood and free movement and push them towards transfer. The government is annexing Palestinian villages in several places and separating between Palestinian villagers and their land and sources of livelihood in other places.
• We warn that the policy of Sharon's government is fanning hatred and hostility and encouraging the continuation of violence and an increase in bloodshed. (emphasis mine)
  

You fail to recognize that along with the suicide bombings of Israeli citizens by the Palestinians, there have been three times as many Palestinian deaths at the hands of the Israelis, many of them children (there have been 15 Palestinian children killed by the Israelis since the beginning of this year alone). What we must not do is consider the losses of only one side in this conflict.

I join you in condemning the suicide bombings. Will you join me in condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians as well? Just because they are considered "collateral damage" doesn't mean their lives have less value than those of the Israelis.

BradtheDad, you said, 

By contrast, only a tiny fraction of Palestinians believe Israel has a right to exist.  A greater proportion may accept Israel as a practical matter.  But the vast majority would want to see it eliminated if that were within their power. That's the issue.

The information you provided seems to greatly differ from the polls that have recently been conducted regarding the opinions of Palestinians, which say that by far the majority want a two-state solution. Where did you get your information? Could you provide a reference link that backs up your claim, because I don't think it's accurate.