Never Agreeing to Peace
There is no concession that Israel can make that the Arabs will accept. As long as they are international victims, the free money flows in.
The minute they accept peace and can be held accountable, the whole game is up and they know it.
Israel has figured this out.
Obama has too, its just perpetual victimhood is his gig too.
Are these generic Arabs (in which case the term isn't terribly useful), or do you mean the Palestinians? And why wouldn't this logically apply to Israel's c$3 billion per year? (I don't think it does--I'm just highlighting the logical inference.)Originally Posted by Sylvan
If you mean the Arabs in general, of course, the amount flowing in to Jordan and Egypt increased after signing a peace agreement, and the Palestinians assume it would too. Certainly, every World Bank and IMF analysis that I've ever seen of the Palestinian economy (probably several dozen since 1994) suggests that the economic costs of occupation to the Palestinians (in terms of trade and mobility restrictions) exceeds the economic benefits of foreign aid.
By contrast, the Syrians don't receive significant amounts of external aid any more, and certainly have no economic interest in perpetuating the conflict--rather, they have an interest in securing the return of the occupied Golan Heights.
If one examine the actual negotiating record in either 2000-01 or 2007-08 (the only two periods of actual permanent status negotiations), I think its rather hard to conclude that either side didn't want a deal. Rather, their views of what that deal should include were still too far apart for a deal to be reached, and external mediation was very poorly done indeed.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
The economic costs of occupation? LUL WUT! What great economic tiger is being withheld? IMF and World Bank analysis is based upon the assumption that something will be created, but they have no idea what. The fact is the complete withdrawl from the West Bank would have the same result as it did in Gaza. A civil war and degradation of the conditions for the people.
The withdrawl ended in Gaza, boy, things got better there, didn't they?
Egypt received essentially no foreign aid prior to Camp David from the West. There was nothing to lose.
The 3B to Israel is specific to camp david. We bought the Sinai from Israel and gave it to Egypt. Why we pay Egypt is the mystery.
And by Arabs, yes, the arab world. They receive the great benefit of a focal point of blame. The 2 minute hate the whole arab world can focus their wrath upon. Even Jordan and Egypt, despite the nominal peace accords, still whip up their jew-hating frenzy on a regular basis. All this made possible by the lack of a comprehensive peace. Give that up?
We have the true international welfare state. wholely dependent upon the world's good graces and able to beat themselves with the martyr whip. At best you would have another dicatorial pariah state in the mold of Syria. At worst you would have lebanon of the 70s.
No matter what israel offers, the arabs will never accept comprehensive peace. The established states neither want it or need it (indeed, the benefit by having the conflict on-going is tangible) Hamas and the PLO benefit both by profit grabbing (Arafat did quite well financially) and by never being responsible.
The problem with the Palestinians is pretty simple IMO - they lack credible, unified leadership. Who can speak for all Palestinians? There isn't anyone or any single organization.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
While it's obviously not unique to peace negotiations outside of conventional war--indeed, its more often the norm--I agree. It all leads to a rather dysfunctional vicious circle whereby Palestinian disunity stalls the peace process, and the stalled peace process discredits the Palestinian leadership.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Actually, no it's not. It's variously calculated on the basis on growth rates during period of lessened restrictions, the measurable incremental costs of of doing business under occupation, various econometric models, the performance of comparable economies, and past historical data. More the the point, in every donor meeting I'm aware of, Israel has accepted, with relatively minor quibbles, that mobility restrictions do indeed have these effects. They argue that the measures are necessary on security grounds--not that they are cost free.
Yes, but this was not only anticipated, but expected by the Israeli government at the time. No serious analyst of the conflict thought that a partial withdrawal from Palestinian territory that left most of it occupied would result in Hamas ceasing rocket fire--not the US, not the EU, not the PA, and certainly not Israel (having worked on the planning for Gaza disengagement for the donor community, I'm quite confident of that).
The Israelis withdrew from Sinai because it was in their strategic interest to do so: it neutralized Egypt, and in so doing lifted any serious conventional military threat to Israel (quite an act of strategic far-sightedness, in my view). The CD dividend sweetened the pot, but I think if you ever get a chance to talk to any of the surviving Israeli decision-makers of the day you'll find it was very much a secondary consideration.
In the context of the Cold War, confirming Sadat's dramatic realignment out of the Soviet camp was a major strategic coup. The continuation of that subsidy post-Cold War is (like the $3b to Israel) partly a product of foreign policy inertia. Israel also tends to lobby for the Egyptian $2B to continue, as a way of helping to ensure it receives its $3B. Congress doesn't really question either.
I doubt that anyone who spends much time in Jordan can accuse the state of whipping itself of whipping up Jew-hating frenzy. Quite apart from that, both regimes' relations with Israel are, in the absence of a resolution of the conflict, a significant threat to regime security. If you were to tell a Jordanian GID official that the conflict somehow makes his job of keeping the regime in power easier he would frankly wonder if you somehow missed the assassination of King Abdullah I, the coup attempts of the 1950s, British intervention in 1958, the 1970-71 civil war, or recent al-Qa'ida terrorism.
Hamas, of course, has no access to Western foreign aid--its finances come from Iran and some private Arab donors. As the IMF forensic audit showed, Arafat didn't profit personally from diversion of funds, but largely used those funds (most of which were provided by Israel, over the objection of donors, through diversion of the petroleum excise taxes to a Bank Leumi account and from there to offshore holding companies) to pay for his patronage system and the off-the-books expenses of the Palestinian security services. That particular channel was eventually closed by former PM (and current President) Abbas and former Finance Minister (and current PM) Fayyad. Fayyad in particular, as an economist and former IMF official, is quite a critic of long-term Palestinian dependence on foreign aid.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Whatever benefits derived from a complete withdrawl and independence would not off set the international contributions. Being the poor palistinians keeps the money flowing.
Yes, Israel anticipated what would happen because they know who they are dealing with. All or nothing is not a bargaining tactic, its an intimidation tactic. Again, there is NOTHING that Israel could offer that the arabs won't claim, "It isn't enough JIHAD!" Gaza proved that. The international community knows that, but its easier to blame the eternal jew and keep those friendly arab ties going and the oil sorta flowing.
Even without the money, Israel would have given the Sinai up. Israel gave up something tangible and got paid. Egypt gave up nothing tangible, but still gets paid.
good deal all around, except for the taxpayer.
A true palistinian state would be a huge threat to the Hashemites. The circassians aren't that good and an armed and unified palistian entity on the west bank would enjoy huge support from the palistinian-jordanians. Especially when the first act of that state will be to proclaim their never ending struggle to reclaim jaffa and haifa While Jordan doesn't extend to mini-series on the protocols of zion, I missed the Israeli embassy my last trip to Amman.
Hamas still benefits from the status quo as they are still paid to be an irritant to the zionist entity. That they don't get western money doesn't mean they aren't getting paid.
Arafat's wealth was pretty well established and his wife lived quite well in Paris. I non-concur with your assessment. http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/betar1070202773.php
The international desire to cast all blame on Israel is fairly ludicrous on the surface. Israel has given up tangible concessions to make peace with Egypt and Jordan. They have made peace with Germans. They have given Gaza to the palistinians, who had the opportunity to prove themselves capable of governing.
The international communities continued excusal of the arabs terrorism only emboldens them. Their only quasi friend is the United States, coincidently the only remaining country with any sizable jewish population.
Canada's feelings on the subject can be amply summed up from WWII. None would be too many.
You may not think so, but the Palestinians certainly do, as do the IFIs. I've seen the PA's internal economic projections and planning, post-(hypothetical) agreement. Have you?
Gaza proved if you withdraw from part of an occupied territory while continue to occupy and settle the rest of it, some of the locals don't suddenly come to like you. Big surprise there!
As I said before, and having worked on planning for disengagement with both the Israelis and Palestinians, they did not plan on the withdrawal ending periodic rocket fire, and undertook it for quite different strategic reasons.
As for "the Arabs," it is about as useful referring to them generically, as if they all had the same views and interests, as it is talking about "the Jews."
Yes, this was my point. And even without money, Egypt would have accepted it. After all, they had dangled the same offer as early 1972, but weren't taken seriously until after the 1973 War.
This claim drives the Hashemite security establishment crazy--it really does. I've seen senior GID officials, foreign ministry officials, and even Jordanian prime ministers go on at length about why is it that others have the temerity to describe to them what their security interests are, what it is Jordan "really" wants. The speed with which King Abdullah shut down talk of Palestinian non-statehood under Jordanian or Jordanian-Israeli custodianship last year highlights how frustrated they are that this thing gets floated from time to time.
It's on Maysaloun Street.
Yes, his wife received payments (largely to get her out of the way), but no, the funds weren't generally diverted to private Arafat accounts for private Arafat personal reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Arafat fan--indeed, I was writing about corruption and patronage in the PLO in the late 1980s, long, long before most others. However, what happened to Arafat's money is fairly well established (used for political patronage and security force expenditures), as is how it was diverted to him (it wasn't foreign aid money, but rather Israeli excise tax collections). Moreover, the vast bulk of it was recovered and put into the PIF (http://www.pif.ps).
I'm not quite sure how Canada slipped in here, unless it is some sort of guilt-by-citizenship thing. (I could debate how friendly current Canadian government policy is to the current Israeli government, but it really doesn't have anything to do with anything).
I'm starting to think Wilf's policy of generally avoiding comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict is the smart one
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
I wish I was as smart as that observation suggests....I'm starting to think Wilf's policy of generally avoiding comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict is the smart one
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Israel withdrew from Gaza while also withdrawing from 15% of the so called"West Bank."It stated quite clearly its intentions for a further withdrawal of another 75% of the remaiming twrritory within the"West Bank,"retaining between 6 and 10% via annexation which would then be offset by an equal amount of fully arable land from within Israel Proper.The end result would be 100% of Gaza and land equal to 100% of the"West Bank."You may not think so, but the Palestinians certainly do, as do the IFIs. I've seen the PA's internal economic projections and planning, post-(hypothetical) agreement. Have you?
Gaza proved if you withdraw from part of an occupied territory while continue to occupy and settle the rest of it, some of the locals don't suddenly come to like you. Big surprise there!
As I said before, and having worked on planning for disengagement with both the Israelis and Palestinians, they did not plan on the withdrawal ending periodic rocket fire, and undertook it for quite different strategic reasons.
As for "the Arabs," it is about as useful referring to them generically, as if they all had the same views and interests, as it is talking about "the Jews."
Yes, this was my point. And even without money, Egypt would have accepted it. After all, they had dangled the same offer as early 1972, but weren't taken seriously until after the 1973 War.
This claim drives the Hashemite security establishment crazy--it really does. I've seen senior GID officials, foreign ministry officials, and even Jordanian prime ministers go on at length about why is it that others have the temerity to describe to them what their security interests are, what it is Jordan "really" wants. The speed with which King Abdullah shut down talk of Palestinian non-statehood under Jordanian or Jordanian-Israeli custodianship last year highlights how frustrated they are that this thing gets floated from time to time.
It's on Maysaloun Street.
Yes, his wife received payments (largely to get her out of the way), but no, the funds weren't generally diverted to private Arafat accounts for private Arafat personal reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Arafat fan--indeed, I was writing about corruption and patronage in the PLO in the late 1980s, long, long before most others. However, what happened to Arafat's money is fairly well established (used for political patronage and security force expenditures), as is how it was diverted to him (it wasn't foreign aid money, but rather Israeli excise tax collections). Moreover, the vast bulk of it was recovered and put into the PIF (http://www.pif.ps).
I'm not quite sure how Canada slipped in here, unless it is some sort of guilt-by-citizenship thing. (I could debate how friendly current Canadian government policy is to the current Israeli government, but it really doesn't have anything to do with anything).
I'm starting to think Wilf's policy of generally avoiding comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict is the smart one
This was the in fact the Kadima Platform (Kadima being the ruling party at that point).It did this unilaterally.In addition it bequeathed 100% of the infrastructure extant in Gaza including a hothouse flower industry worth more than 1 Billion US in turnkey fashion. What was the result?Even as Israel was pulling its last convoy over the Gaxan Border HAMAS launcjed a failed"Suicide Bombing"against it.
Your belief that the violence emanating out of Gaza is related to the Israeli presence in the"West Bank"isn't grounded in reality.Simply read the HAMAS Charter which states the HAMAS platform succinctly;HAMAS aims to not only destroy Israel but to kill every Jew on the planet.Blaming Jews for every war since the French Revolution,for all alcoholism and drug addiction,controlling all $edia,banking and so on,it actually makes"Mein Kamph"seem tame.Yet HAMAS us but 1 of 27 terrorist organisations operating in Gaxa.The Salafi (Salafist) Groups make HAMAS seem perfectly tame.
Fact of the mater is,Israel jhas only been administering Gaza and the"West Bank"since 1967.The attacks from Gaza (as well as the"West Bank") began in 1920.The violence comes from race baiting hatred.
As for"Settlements,"it is a completely manufactured issue.Simply refer to Sinai...or even Gaza where the IDF literally dragged Israelis out by the hair.The"Settlements"didn't cause terrorism nor do they perpetuate it.27 years before Israel captured it "Palestinians"were blowing up Jewish women and children.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks