Breaking the Law in the West Bank - The Private Land Report - Nov. 2006

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I edited that: we are involved with the Pals. Not NEARLY to the same extent, however. It's apples and oranges.

LOTM = if you keep Dansing your posts, Im really not going to be able to have a coherent discussion.


"Anyway, toning down the rhetoric some: the illegal outposts should go. That is my opinion, for whatever it may be worth."

I agree.

" Further, the settlements in violation of the Oslo accords should probably go too, but almost assuredly won't."

to clarify, the only new settlements in violation of Oslo ARE the illegal outposts. There have been no new authorized settlements since Oslo. There HAS been a fairly complex debate about extensions of existing settlements, natural growth, etc, which was negotiated as part of the wye river accords, and again as part of the road map. The underlying principle being that facts on the ground that would prejudice a final deal should not be created, which has implications both ways.

"Terror should stop, but won't. And so on and so forth."

Israel doesnt expect that terrorism will stop. It does expect that any Pal govt that is going to make demands on Israel has to make a full EFFORT to stop terrorism. Not 100% results, 100% effort. That has so far been lacking, even under Abbas. Under Arafat, and under Hamas, it hasnt come close - in fact terrorism has been encouraged.



"The testiness I refer to is due to physical pain - my back is angry today (and yesterday, resulting in a crappy night's sleep). I'm sorry it seeped into my posts, but then again I probably owe my wife an apology for a short (particularly on my part) telephone conversation half an hour ago too."


Im sorry youre in pain.

"Of course Iraq pisses me off too. I'm not at all happy that the "solution" to this mess appears to be to hand it over to Iran/Syria. But that's another matter."

Its of a piece with Jim Bakers overall vision for the region, I think.

[Arrian]

And I'm sure he would argue it's a practical approach to "facts on the ground."

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson
I don't think cutting any voluntary aid to X necessarily qualifies as being anti-X. Even if the aid was going to someone you felt was cooperating with you fully. In the case where the aid receiver is not being cooperative with the terms for the aid, it's even more silly to call taking a neutral stance "anti".

The move from "pro" to "neutral" is towards the negative, but that doesn't make "neutral" into "anti".

(Not that I'm saying we should cut aid to anyone, just talking on general principles.)

The original point of the aid, was to compensate Israel for the additional security costs created by the withdrawl from Sinai, Israels strategic buffer to the West. Does anyone who calls for the elimination of said aid consider that it would be possible or reasonable for Israel to retake Sinai?

In any case, I was focusing on the rationale for cutting the aid. Which was a lack of concern for Israels security needs and strategic dilemma.

If I had called, during the middle of the cold war, for the end of US aid to West Germany, and accompanied it by a recital of all the things I thought West Germany had done wrong, I suppose I could have argued I was being "neutral" not anti-west german. In the historical context that would have been mere sophistry, however.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
And I'm sure he would argue it's a practical approach to "facts on the ground."

-Arrian

The man who won Florida could argue a lot of things.

I would simply note his opposition to Trumans policy of recognizing Israel in his doctoral thesis back in what, 1952, his "**** the Jews, they dont vote for us anyway comment" back in 1990, his support for Saddam until that policy proved foolish, even his sending of a deputy to meet with Saddam and express such weakness that Saddam read it as an invitation to take Kuwait, his refusal to come to the aid of Shiites and Kurds who were then rebelling against Saddam (and the latter of whom might have been more supportive of us if wed helped them then, instead of letting them get slaughtered and then returning looking for flowers 12 years too late). And his closeness to KSA since then.

[Arrian]

So... wait, the aid is then supposed to be permanent? We pay Israel billions per year... forever?

Is there a realistic threat from the Sinai now?

And by the way, when I think of the aid, I think about the aid from an American perspective. In part, the question must be asked: what does this buy us? Yet if one DARES to ask that question, one is instantly crucified (not by you... at least not instantly).

Can you empathize with that?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian
"So... wait, the aid is then supposed to be permanent? We pay Israel billions per year... forever? "


I never said that. Of course it shouldnt be forever. But simply saying that zero aid is a neutral position, aesons position, is sophistry.

I believe Israel should wean itself from the aid, as fast as possible. Although i have some concerns about some ramifications of that.


"Is there a realistic threat from the Sinai now? "


Like tomorrow? No. Could there be in 10 years? Sure.


"And by the way, when I think of the aid, I think about the aid from an American perspective. In part, the question must be asked: what does this buy us?"

Its fairly obvious that it buys us a looming, often unspoken influence over Israeli domestic politics, which you see in the pages of israeli papers, in Israeli coalition negotians, etc. Of course to fully understand it you have to have enough empathy to understand where Israeli politcs might go in the absence of the aid - you have to see Netanyahus position, as if not right, something reasonable Israeli voters might be attracted to, for legitimate reasons. If you blind yourself from that, its very hard to explain what the aid buys. If you dont understand how restrained even the first Sharon govt was, its hard to explain what the aid buys.


" Yet if one DARES to ask that question, one is instantly crucified (not by you... at least not instantly)."

No, it depends on the context. What I often see in discussions of the aid, is either an absolute refusal to see the Israeli security dilemma, position on the road map, etc, or at best a facile equation of positions.

"Can you empathize with that? "

I can even empathize with Buchanans isolationism, or Bakers uber realism. I wont hesitate to criticize such positions. I empathize enough with yours to suspect that its quite reasonable, if you arent aware of certain things I am aware of. What I struggle with is how to convey those things I am aware of, and to do so persuasively.


Look, I said Im ambiuvalent about the aid. You want to know the source of that ambivalence? On the one hand, as a DOVE, I know it acts as restraint on Israel, acts as a resource for dovish pols to bribe religious parties into dovish or centrist coalitions, etc. I think an aid cutoff, either unconditional, or conditional on any of the issues for which its so often suggestted, would likely be disastrous to the hopes for peace I hold.

But then, peace may be unlikely anyway, given the rejectionism in arab and Pal politics, and the cycle of distrust. Why should I face the embarrassment to American Jews of the aid, which justifies a certain focus on Israel here, and certainly is background to certain bad feelings, when what it buys is a restraint on Israel that I sometimes feel is a mistake? Maybe Bibi is right, and a freer hand, would be worth far more than $3 billion a year? And less money for the religious parties, and a more crudely free market Israeli society would be side bonuses. And the change in the American debate if the aid were removed as a factor, would be an even bigger bonus. So what im saying is that, based on all I know, its the HAWKISH side of my inclination that wants Israel to give up the aid. I truely dont think you get that, or get why.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The original point of the aid, was to compensate Israel for the additional security costs created by the withdrawl from Sinai, Israels strategic buffer to the West. Does anyone who calls for the elimination of said aid consider that it would be possible or reasonable for Israel to retake Sinai?

I used very generic terms to avoid this type of response. But since you responded with a specific anyways... A neutral stance to Israel would not care (or at least not interfere) with whether Israel reclaimed Sinai or not.

On a broader scope, a neutral stance to both sides in the situation would be to support or not support both sides equally. I don't know what that would entail specifically, but my general understanding of the situation is that it was pro-Israel to support founding Israel in the first place, and anti-Palestinian to do so. We are so far beyond being able to be neutral in that regard that I think it would take forcing Israel off the map (or perhaps half of it?) to return to a truely neutral stance overall. (Which I of course do not support. Displacing a people does not atone for previously displacing a people.)

What i am saying is that given what we've given to Israel, vs what we've given to the Palestinians, over the last 60 years, puts the US in the Pro-Israel camp even if we cut and run now.

In any case, I was focusing on the rationale for cutting the aid. Which was a lack of concern for Israels security needs and strategic dilemma.

And on the other hand is a lack of concern for Palestinian's right to a homeland. (Which at the current time has far less in regards to strategic holdings.)

If I had called, during the middle of the cold war, for the end of US aid to West Germany, and accompanied it by a recital of all the things I thought West Germany had done wrong, I suppose I could have argued I was being "neutral" not anti-west german. In the historical context that would have been mere sophistry, however.

We were certainly pro-West Germany (or rather pro-US), anti-Soviet. The legitimacy of Soviet's claim on West Germany was nil though (they may have had some claim on recompensation for the war though, but no moreso than the other allied parties), complete territorial aggression on their part if they had occupied it. It would have been pro-Soviet, anti-West Germany to give them those lands.

But the key (and overwhelming) difference is that the US and Great Britain had the same claims on Germany as the USSR did. Whereas the US doesn't have the same claims on land in the region as Palestinians do.

Your example is not analogous to the territorial claims that the Palestinians have, nor the power situation between Israel and Palestine, or even Israel and the Arab world in general. If West Germany had a nuclear arsenal and advanced military they may have been able to fend for themselves.

I would never have supported West German settlements into the Soviet Union... and if they had insisted on doing so, would have felt comfortable in withdrawing aid rather than get us involved in WW3: Nuclear edition.

Perfectly neutral from an active standpoint isn't always possible, but certainly there are stances which are more neutral than others. The US is firmly pro-Israel at this point, and there is quite a lot of room towards the center still.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Aeson


"And on the other hand is a lack of concern for Palestinian's right to a homeland. (Which at the current time has far less in regards to strategic holdings.)"

Ah, now youre getting in to the complex debate about what the Pals rights actually are, what Israel has done to fulfill them, etc, etc. IE to the substance of the debate. Which im not going to rehash here, and which Arrian certainly knows is complex. My point was that you cant simply say that zero aid is neutral outside of context, and it seems you agree

[Cort Haus]

We hear a lot about "the right of return" being applied to Arabs who lived in what is now Israel, but little about the impossibility of Jews to return to the Arab lands that they themselves had to flee during wars launched to try and destroy Israel.

Israel's detractors always paint it as an evil western colonialist outpost, rather than a haven for ME Jews trying to avoid extermination.

The PLO didn't even want the West Bank in its original constitution, because it was part of Jordan at the time. If anyone should have the West Bank, it's Jordan. Thing is, Jordan refuses do anything for the Pals except let them rot for propaganda purposes.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
An Israel extending from the Jordan river to the sea, without suffrage for the Pals of the territories, would be no democracy. Which is ONE of the reasons I favor a withdrawl, broadly, from the territories, whether negotiated or unilateral.

That, however was not at issue, but about the extent of debate within Israel about dismantling the settlements. The debate being broader than Arrian is comfortable with. To which I responded simply that such broad debates happen in democracies.

Thank you for taking my words out of context, however.

Pretty small crumb of comfort - don't worry, it's 'debated'.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
We hear a lot about "the right of return" being applied to Arabs who lived in what is now Israel, but little about the impossibility of Jews to return to the Arab lands that they themselves had to flee during wars launched to try and destroy Israel.

We hear little about it because it's totally contrary to the principles of Zionism.

[lord of the mark]

for arriam, re aid

From a dovish pundit in Haaretz, back in 2003

"Support for the theory that Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been waiting for years for a chance to eradicate the welfare state can be found in a letter to the editor published in yesterday's Hebrew edition of Haaretz, sent in by Robert Lowenberg, director of Jerusalem's Institute for Strategic Policy and Analysis. The letter was in response to a report here last week about U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's opposition to further defense aid for Israel.

Lowenberg referred to a document presented to then newly-elected prime minister Netanyahu in 1996, and said that Feith, who was then one of the leading spokesmen of the American Jewish right, agreed to include a recommendation to end aid to Israel "only after many arguments." Lowenberg explained opposition to the aid by saying that it encourages socialism, which "always enables the evil in man to take over." In the same 1996 document, which has been widely quoted because of its Iraqi chapter, there is also an important chapter on society and economics. The document says the Labor Party and the "socialist institutions" paralyzed and shackled the Israeli economy. The authors, who would go on to become U.S. President George W. Bush's advisers, proposed that Netanyahu forgo the American aid, cut taxes and free the country of the influences of the "social and economic elites."

With or without the cover of the war's plastic sheetings, that was the ideological hothouse in which Netanyahu grew. The first fruits were Netanyahu's announcement, when he was prime minister, that he was forgoing the civilian aid. The second fruits peek out from between the lines of current Finance Minister Netanyahu's economic program. Tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich was one of the first steps taken by Bush when he arrived at the White House. So was canceling tenure and mass firings in government offices, as well as reducing welfare payments.

David Wormser, one of the authors of the "Netanyahu Document" in 1996 and now an adviser to the U.S. undersecretary of defense for arms control, wrote two years later that the rise of the revisionists to power in Israel in 1977 was "empty of meaning." He argued that "70 years of state socialism created cultural, social, economic, government and military elites that held enough power in their hands to conduct a fundamentally different agenda than that of the elected government." Netanyahu often speaks about the damage the elites from the era of "state socialism" did to the Israeli economy. He doesn't hide his desire to shove them out and erase their mark.

And by the way, if Feith was ready to concede on the issue of defense aid, as Lowenberg claims, the correspondence between him and Defense Ministry Director-General Amos Yaron and the difficult conversation they had on that matter are evidence that he has changed his mind. The conversation, held at the beginning of this month, made Yaron sweat as he tried to convince Feith that now is not the time to educate Israel about economic independence.
"

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sandman
We hear little about it because it's totally contrary to the principles of Zionism.

Perhaps if Jews, and others, had not had to endure hundreds of years of dhimmi oppression, there would not have been the urge to create a Jewish state.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I never said that. Of course it shouldnt be forever. But simply saying that zero aid is a neutral position, aesons position, is sophistry.

No, I said:

"I don't think cutting any voluntary aid to X necessarily qualifies as being anti-X."

Emphasis added on the qualifications you are ignoring.

If we are giving aid as per an agreement (that is being upheld by the other party or parties involved), it is not voluntary aid.

My point was that you cant simply say that zero aid is neutral outside of context, and it seems you agree

I didn't disagree. Meaning, I never said zero aid is neutral regardless of context. I use qualifiers such as "voluntary" when refering to aid, and "necessarily" as dealing to the application of "anti".

You are the one who conjured an argument to refute.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Obviously. But the question can be turned into a public "are we a nation of laws?!?" debate. And it could get very interesting.

It would require some balls and skill, though.

-Arrian

TBH, I'm kind of dumbfounded at the country simply ignoring its supreme court.