I’m still here. I’m no longer participating because I really don’t think there is anything to debate other than the nitpicks of tangential arguments. I have yet to hear a remotely reasonable answer to why the Israelis should not withdraw first. Understand that I’m a jew who grew up in the US and who isn’t remotely radical so you’d think I would tend to fall on the side of the Israelis and until now I probably would have by default. I’ll ask the question one more time for the record: Why, if faced with the prospects of certain terrorism from waiting for a group of people with no real central command to agree to a cease fire versus the option of giving something back that isn’t yours anyway for the chance of, if not less terrorism, than at least a lot more international support would you not just withdraw? It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. If you can answer that then I can continue with a reasonable line of questions.
Boy that bolded sentence was a doosey.
Most of the casualties were in the target building which was itself a crowded apartment building. I don’t really want to over-analyse a particular incident as my concern isn’t just this example but the general nature of the targeted assassinations, the acceptance of collateral damage and what that implies about the value placed on bystander lives, but this example being the most tragic I used it as an illustration. The FT indicated that it was known to Israeli intelligence that civilians were in the area, which is hardly surprising since it was a residential street and the timing of the attack (just before midnight) guaranteed most people were going to be home and in bed, and that consequently civilian casualties were expected. What was the ‘acceptable’ number of civilian dead and wounded to get this one man? Twenty? Fifty? Turns out the toll at 165 was apparently too many but in my view once you drop a bomb knowing civilians will die, whether you kill only as many as you expected, or whether you over-achieve, you have purposely killed those people.
I am playing devil’s advocate here, since I don’t really support the continued occupation, so I may not truly be doing this justice, but my answer would largely boil down to two things: siege mentality, and what would it actually gain Israel to do this?
Israel has essentially been in continuous conflict with its neighbors since its creation in 1948. When not engaged in sporadic full blown war, it has faced either low level military action or terrorist attacks. Were Israel to leave the West Bank and Gaza and allow the creation of a Palestinian state tomorrow, I have very little doubt that terrorist attacks would still continue. At that point, once Israel decides it has had enough and is going to send in the army again in a full blown operation, it would be invading a sovereign nation rather than simply reasserting itself in the occupied territories. This would probably be worse internationally than the situation as it now stands, and would unfortunately be very likely to happen. Further complicating the matter is the existence of the settlers.
I also don’t think that Israel on the whole places much stock in international support, and with good reason. That and a $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee. Israel’s main foreign support as of late has been from the US, but prior to ~1967 or so most of its weapons were bought from France and Britain. Since then it has relied on the US, but has also built a base to allow it to be as self sufficient as possible.
While I doubtlessly disagree with Dan Abarbanel with specifics, it is as he said shades of grey.
Um, Ebolo? Your link says 15 dead, not 165. Just FYI.
Ebolo is my cousin, I am Eolbo 
I referred to 165 dead and wounded, a figure from early reports. The rest are wounded obviously. From further reading however the final toll when known was actually even worse then I indicated:
16 dead (a 67 year old man died two weeks later from wounds)
174 wounded
Details under the July 23rd section
- What Dissonance said (you played D.A. quite well, there!) about past experience
- Future prognosis - as you said, there is “no real central command to agree to a cease fire”. That means also no central command to actually govern the territories that may be handed over (to whom, exactly?). That means noone to curb any future terrorist activity that fringe (or non-fringe) groups within Palestinian society may choose to launch at Israel. That means, at least in my mind, far more Israelis dead in this forseeable virtual future than in one where we retain control of the OT until there is someone there who can and will control them. This added potiential death-toll is just not acceptable as a coin with which (perhaps) to purchase (mostly irrelevant) international support.
- And then we would probably just have to go back in, anyway. The whole purpose of the excercise is to find a way for Israel to get out of the OT (and I’m with you on that point). I think your suggestion is a sure-fire recipe for Israel to stay in the OT for the long haul (and I’m glad Avigdor Lieberman and his ilk on our fringe-lunatic right just don’t have the brain cells to rub together to realize that unilateral withdrawal would probably eventually end up perpetuating the occupation!)
I hope that you can accept the above as an answer. It’s a lot of conjecture and emotion and kind of low on facts - but I’m afraid that emotion and conjecture are what we mostly have to work with in the ME.
YMM (obviously) V
Dan Abarbanel
Noone Special, and any others interested, a question, then:
What do you think of Edwino’s and my own suggestion of building a great big wall between the Gaza Strip and West Bank (ala, the Berlin Wall) and Israel? Completely separate both areas for the time being. A concerted campaign by the IDF and (hopefully, though who knows if it could be possible) the Palestinian Security forces to find all smuggling tunnels and collapse them. No contact other than political (no business, no trade, etc) between the new Palestine and Israel. Palestine being propped up by the IMF for a time with funding to get infrastructure back on track and bring in some investment and trade goods. Israel continuing to do business as usual otherwise. Of course there would be regular patrolling of the wall, to monitor for breaches, tunnels dug underneath, or others seeking to infiltrate either area.
In other words, both sides wash their hands of the other, and go about their lives. I honestly don’t see how anyone could argue that this would cut down on terrorism, since there would be almost no chance of Palestinians getting into Israel (assuming the walls were manned well).
I know this is simplistic, but in all honesty, for someone on the outside looking in, there really doesn’t seem to be any conceivable end in sight so long as the cycle of revenge killing continues. Help us understand not just why Israelis feel the way they do (I wish a Palestinian could come on here and say a few words to get both sides), but what real, useful initiatives they think will work, regardless of who’s right or wrong or whatever. And by that I don’t mean something like “Clear guarantees of the sessation of terror”; I mean how do you guarantee that terror will cease (something we would all love to see)?
As an aside, what does YMMV stand for? I am not up on the internet lingo.
I should mention, I am aware that there is currently a fence being built, but my understanding is that it is as much chicken wire as cement (please correct me if I’m wrong). Also, am I am I right, is there already a fence between the GS and Israel? What I mean is a big, thick, concrete or cement or whatever, wall, like the Berlin Wall.
The new fence is a huge concrete wall, costing IIRC $1 million per mile, there is already a simlair fence in Gaza.
First off: YMMV - “Your Mileage May Vary”; part of “standard disclaimer”
As to your post:
- For some reason both the USA and Europe are strongly opposed to Israel’s current wish to build exactly this kind of wall around the West Bank (in part because the wall does not exactly follow the June 1967 lines).
- Gaza is surrounded by such a wall, and it is fairly (but not completely) effective above ground, but nearly useless stopping tunneling from Egypt.
- Surrounding the West Bank is a whole different kettle of fish. The length of the frontier is over 400 km., mostly in mountainous terrain. compare this to Berlin, where I believe the wall was maybe 50 km long and on relatively level ground. And plenty of people got through the Berlin wall while it stood - people who actually wanted to live, not expendables (“OK, so 1 in 10 will get through, they’re going to suicide anyway” - possible view of the problem from Hamas HQ).
So, on the whole, a Wall, or Fence, will HELP, but it cannot be used instead of a solution, only in addition to it.
Dan Abarbanel
Thanks for clearing up the YMMV meaning:)
Of course, any wall around the WB will be a significant undertaking, far beyond Berlin’s (I meant that only as an example), but it is a start. It seems only fair and reasonable to the Palestinians to build the wall according to the 1967 lines, so I can understand objections to the current project, but isn’t much of the settler activity conducted by radical rights who take a much more hawkish view of Palestinians than regular Israelis?
Also, yes, many got through the Berlin Wall, but then their reasons were different. I think the hope is that, by creating a Palestinian state, the incentive to kill Jews will deflate among the Palestinians, once they are in control of their own destinies. It has been pointed out already here that occupied peoples will always revolt, until they feel that they have some sort of freedom to be who they are. This won’t change until Israel moves out, and you must know this.
Another question: how prevalent is the old rhetoric of “Driving the Jews into the sea” among the Arab peoples? It seems to be less powerful as a driving influence than in the past, with the focus now mainly on the OTs. Is it the case that the Surrounding states have finally accepted that Israel is there to stay (I know Egypt has made peace, and I think Jordan too? But what of the rest?)
answering scule:
I doubt the “incentive to kill Jews” will abate in the new, enclosed, Palestinian state you are suggesting. For several reasons:
- Said state will be initially extremely poor, having very little infrastructure, little to no industry etc… These take time to build up under the best of conditions
- Even assuming massive amounts of money are pumped in, I’m afraid most of it will make its way right back to Geneve and Cayman Island banks
- Beyond avarice, leaders of this country will see Israel as a good scapegoat to point Man-in-the-Street at. And the poorer MitS is, the more he will be resentful, and the easier it will be to direct his ire at the selected scapegoat.
The last bit, BTW, is not only conjecture - Arab states have been practicing this form of internal frustration-control for decades now, directing popular resentment away from them and at Israel. In a way, I strongly suspect that a viables and fairly strong Israel is actually in the interest of Arab leaders, otherwise they might actually have to deal with education and street-cleaning :eek: But, of course, they don’t really wish us health - killing a few of us every so often is a nice, fun passtime (and keeps the MitS believing that their Leaders are actually doing something about the Jewish Satan).
As to the “Driving the Jews into the sea” rhetoric - yes, it is very much alive (although I think it is part of the frustration re-direction campaign noted above as far as the leadershiop is concerned)
In the end, for the Arab leaders, it’s more about Money, Power and Authority than it is about religion or the “rights of the people”. Sort of reminds me of Western politics, actually (ours included…)
Dan Abarbanel
It’s a lot less prevalent than it was in the past. Israel has signed peace accords with Egypt and Jordan, and its only other direct neighbors are Lebanon, which has been a very weak state, and Syria. Outside of propaganda and rhetoric, its neighbors have been resigned to the fact that Israel is there to stay for some time.
The scale of their defeat in 1967 was a very humbling experience for them. Prior to the ’67 war, Nassar had been proclaiming that Israel would be destroyed, and apparently he thought it was actually possible. By the time of the 1973 war, the goals were much more sober and realistic. The goal was recovery of the occupied territories, not the destruction of Israel and showed a realistic appreciation for Israel’s abilities. For example, the war was initiated with a surprise attack and on the Egyptian front forces crossed to Suez Canal, advanced several miles into the Sinai… and then stopped, where they set up defensive positions. They didn’t want to advance further for two reasons: they would outstrip their umbrella of surface to air missiles protecting them from the Israeli air force, and they would be fighting in the open desert in a fluid, mobile battle which fed into the Israel’s army’s strengths and their own weaknesses. They didn’t advance again until Syria’s position became bad enough that they did so in order to try to relieve the pressure on Syria. Once they did, they suffered badly at the hands of Israeli aircraft and the Israeli army, and were forced back.
Thank you for the compliment about my D.A. skills, Noone Special. I am a realist first and a liberal second.
Also worth noting in relation to ‘driving the Jews back into the sea’ that even the then PLO formally abandoned this as a goal back in 1988. Bitter-enders such as Hamas still claim destruction of Israel as their aim, and their are certainly many Palestinians who would delight in it should it happen. But as it is clearly an impossibility it has ceased to be a practical goal and more just a vague longing. Sort of like my chances of sleeping with Nicole Kidman.
Thanks for the responses to my last post.
It’s too bad that the perception remains so bleak for Israel and Palestine. I still believe that both sides would be better off separated, but I have to agree that the state of other Arab nations around Israel will need to improve before they fully agree to live in peace as well. This is more a failure of Arab leaders in the surrounding states than any legitimate gripe with Israel. You’d think they would actually like to have a strong democracy so close by to trade with and serve as a gateway to European and American markets, but I know rhetoric wins the day. And of course groups like Hamas would have to be dealt with, but it would seem to me that Palestinians would be more angry if they it were dealt with by the IDF than an outside body (like the UN).
It’s interesting Noone Special, that you mentioned money funnelling to outside bank accounts, as the talk of the corruption of Arafat is increasing here. I work with a man who worked for the UN on public health in the OTs a while back, and he was just talking yeterday about how Arafat’s wife owns some 5-star resort on a very select patch of Gaza beachfront, one that only the most wealthy can come to, ad only by invitation. I think he also mentioned that she owns other very choice real estate in the Palestinian areas, which seems to be to be suspect, but then I don’t know the whole story.