I agree with most of what Oleg Volk stated previously. Below is an interesting article from Ha'aretz:
Background / Terror resurrects support for separation plan
By Bradley Burston, Ha'aretz Correspondent
Driven by the despair and devastation left by suicide terrorists in the heart of its cities, senior members of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's ruling Likud departed from hardline doctrine Monday to voice support for the Last Resort of Israeli policymaking toward the Palestinians - the erection of physical barriers to separate the two peoples along lines that hawks have traditionally found frighteningly close to the 1967 border.
Led by the settlers of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, captured in the 1967 war, Israeli rightists have ruled out any proposal of physical separation between Israel proper and the the territories, fearing that the defense line would ultimately turn into a formal border between Israel and an independent Palestinian state.
But the furious pace and scope of attacks in recent months have radically altered long-held positions across the Israeli political spectrum. After the Sunday Jerusalem bombing that was the fourth Palestinian terror strike in four days, "There is no longer any readiness to understand it as the weapon of the weak in a conflict, or as a weapon in the hands of a national liberation movement," Ha'aretz wrote in a Monday editorial. "There is no term to describe these attacks other than terrorism, terror intended by those who commissioned it to kill innocent people and to create mass fear.
The separation concept has surfaced a number of times in the past, generally spurred by a volatile cocktail of deadly attacks and deadlocked peace talks. Its advocates have been largely confined to left-center elements concerned about the demographic repercussions of an undivided Holy Land in which the Palestinian population could exceed that of Israel in less than 20 years.
On Monday, however, it was the Likud's hardline Public Security Minister Uzi Landau and the nominally apolitical President Moshe Katsav who declared in separate broadcast interviews that Israel should institute measures of physical separation from the Palestinians in the territories in order to stem the spate of terrorist attacks that has stunned and demoralized the Jewish state.
"One of the foundations of this struggle against terrorism is the concept of separation, which I prefer to call isolation - isolation of the Arabs of Judea, Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza," said Landau, whose Public Security Ministry is responsible for the police and security within the 1967 Green Line border. Landau said that under his isolation plan, "I am speaking of a buffer, with obstacles in some parts, and fences in areas where it's vital."
"We are isolating them," Landau stressed, speaking of the Palestinians who have waged an uprising against Israel since peace hopes flagged in late 2000. "They will not enter the territory of Israel. They will stay on the other side. We will also take advantage of this buffer to remove all those who have illegally penetrated our side in order to take claim to what they call the 'Right of Return.'"
Earlier on Monday, Katsav said "We should certainly put up a barrier fence that would decrease or block this unbearable ease of penetration of terrorists and vehicles. I am convinced that the scope of terrorist attacks will drastically decrease."
Katsav acknowledged that both the prime minister and Labor Foreign Minister Shimon Peres opposed the concept of separation. But the President dismissed suggestions that his plan was political in nature. "I support a separation which I call 'military separation'," said Katsav. "I do not that this should be called a political line. I am not entering into politcal considerations.
"When we reach an accord with the Palestinians, we can pull back westward from this line," he added. "But at this moment we should put up a military line of separation, which in my opinion should be in Area C, not A or B." Under Israeli-Palestinian peace accords, Area C is land under full Israeli control, while the Palestinian Authority holds nominal control over Area A . Area B is under joint Israeli-Palestinian control.
"In view of the fact that military authorities believe that terrorist attacks will continue for a long time to come, there is no alternative but to block as much as possible the unbearable ease with which they penetrate to carry out attacks," Katsav said.
Landau, meanwhile, attacked the political concept of unilateral separation, as advocated by Labor party doves including former cabinet minister Haim Ramon.
"They're speaking of putting up a fence, with us here and them there, proceeding under the assumption that once a fence goes up, evereything will be all right. This is nonsense. If we are not on the other side of the fence as well, and don't have control over everything that happens on the other side, it will have no value. They'll jump it, they'll destroy it, they'll fire Katyusha and Qassam II rockets, they'll reach us by other means."
Landau said that under his plan, the Palestinians "will be on the other side of the fence, while our security forces control all the area in which they are found." He said that he envisaged a return to the original Camp David positions of former prime minister Menachem Begin, who advocated granting broad autonomy to Palestinians, but under overall Israeli security control in all areas. "This is not a simple matter," Landau concluded. "Anyone who's looking for a magic solution is simply mistaken."
Veteran Labor figure Moshe Shahal, who served as the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's public security minister, said that Israeli politicians would eventually come to the realization that separation from the Palestinians roughly along the 1967 lines was inevitable.
"At the time (April, 1995) I used the characterization 'separation space', but to be honest, the plan was more or less identical to the Green Line. And also on questions such as where to place (the Palestinian border town of) Qalqilyah, Rabin asked for a night to think it over, then came back and said 'Adhere to the 1967 line.'
Shahal said that no matter what views anyone held, "We will have to carry out this plan. The question is how much time will take place and - to my great sorrow - how much blood will be spilled, until then."
