Atrios Gets It Right
I rarely talking about I/P issues here for rather obvious reasons. But, let me try and stipulate a few things purely for sake of discussion, not necessarily because they're true. 1) Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself. 2) There is a genuine security threat to the Israeli population posed by Palestinian suicide bombers. 3) All actions Israel has taken since the Intifada began are justified by 1) and 2).

So, here is what I want to discuss - at what point do people start asking whether the tactics taken by Israel, if justified, are productive or counterproductive? At what point does it become rather obvious that the security measures of the Sharon government aren't working, and in fact might be counterproductive? At what point should we ask whether smacking a hornets' nest works?

Now, here is where someone jumps in and decides that I'm blaming the Sharon government for the suicide attacks. That's ridiculous. Sharon campaigned on the security issue, implicitly blaming Barak for his failure to ensure the safety of the Israelis. How many successful suicide bombings can there be before Sharon is branded a failure?

The point is, I'm asking to evaluate the success of the Sharon govermnent in purely utilitarian terms from the point of view of Israelis. My larger point is that Barak's attempts to negotiate and make nice eventually led to a new wave of suicide bombings, and no one had problems linking cause and effect there. Sharon's tough approach has led to multiple waves of suicide bombings.

I fully agree with Atrios, especially about his 3 stipulations. I also don't think that the Sharon government has been very effective at controlling Palestinian terrorism. Though Sharon has not successfully combatted terrorism, I don't think the peace process, or the "road map" for peace is the way the to get there. Instead I'd like to plug my personal mideast policy fetish, the security wall.