Separation or disengagement is not "in the name of peace". It is doing what is strategically necessary to survive the facts on the ground as they exist today. It is about making it difficult for the Palestinians to continue their terror war.
Nobody seriously believes disengagement will lead to any sort of peace agreement. OK, maybe a few real leftists do, but they are few and far between.
Likud, for those who don't know it, is roughly the equivalent of the Republican party in Israel with Labour (Avodah) being the closest equivalent to the Democrats.
It could be done by removing the Palestinian Arabs from the problematic regions they currently occupy. As America and Commonwealth countries try to figure out how to handle the threat to security posed by their domestic Islamic populations, I suggest we not follow Israel's tolerant example.
Separation or disengagement is not "in the name of peace". It is doing what is strategically necessary to survive the facts on the ground as they exist today. It is about making it difficult for the Palestinians to continue their terror war.The fence and disengagement are actually quite complementary and sensible strategies. As anyone who's ever tried to prevent a bar fight knows, the most important first step is separating the contending parties. Otherwise, the troublemakers from each side get in the face of their counterparts, gaining sympathy from their own group.
Indeed, once separation has occurred, calmer heads on each side often get irked with their troublemakers and handle them themselves. Israel is already doing this in both word and deed, the Palis are doing it in word and are beginning to in deed as well, or so it seems. The jury's still out there to some degree.
-Eric