OK, can somebody explain to me why the barrier needs to be exactly where it is?

Because the planned configuration of the wall keeps most of the key natural resources (water) and the best land on the CORRECT side of the wall.

This is what political power is for, after all. The rules are written and the lines drawn by those with the Might, and those rules and lines are by definition Right.

Any who would challenge the interests of the powerful are therefore criminals and terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers. Hence the comic above.

Lest I be misunderstood, it is quite obvious that if the situation was reversed, the Arabs would be doing the same thing -- likely much worse.

Nothing like the old Israeli-Arab conflict to make me proud of my species.

Praktike,

The recent decision of the Israeli Supreme Court, which is even now forcing some alterations in the security barrier's course, should provide you plenty of material.

Fair enough.

As an American, I sure wish the EU and the UN would quite stabbing US in the back. I have written this article on the subject, but to summarize; the EU and UN have just endangered an ongoing peace process in order to make a non-binding political statement that mimicks a binding legal statement already made by the Isreali Supreme Court.

I guess it's a difference of approach. The Europeans want the Palestinians to be as comfortable as possible in their perpetual state of misery while the United States wants to empower the Palestinians to be able to tear down the sections of the wall that encroach upon their sovereign nation.

pratrike:

In part, to defend Judea/Samaria communities.

The situation along the Lebanese armistice line, and more recently the Gaza strip, has made the Israelis concerned about rocket/mortar attacks. The fence, as it is currently planned, makes such attacks difficult with existing weapons.

The Jerusalem section is where it is because of the risk of SAMs. Nothing like an airliner brought down by Hamas to boost tourism...

242 also says Israel shall return "territories", as opposed to "the territories". I expect some of the land on Israel's side will be annexed.

And let's be frank: the nitpicking about the exact path of the wall is an excuse, not a reason. If they built it exactly along the Green Line, there'd still be complaints about "human rights" with some other creative excuse.

Rob Lyman:

Wait until the Palestinians are fired in large numbers from Israeli businesses. Israel will be responsible for the (further) collapse of the Palestinian economy.

"...the EU and UN have just endangered an ongoing peace process in order to make a non-binding political statement that mimicks a binding legal statement already made by the Isreali Supreme Court."

Actually, the EU and UN, right or wrong, have called for the Wall to stay inside the '67 borders, which is not at all what the Israeli (it's not all that hard to spell) Supreme Court ruled; it simply ruled, in essence, that human rights violations caused by the wall must be limited.

There's not much of "an ongoing peace process" in anyone's opinion that I'm aware of. Though perhaps in the long-term Keynesian sense it is ongoing.

Speaking of spelling errors, apologies to Praktike for mis-spelling his nic.

242 was an instance of "constructive ambiguity," was it not? I forget which way it goes, but isn't the English version different from the Arabic?

praktike:

Well, the guys who wrote it intended it to mean "some", not "all". It wouldn't surprise me if it was mis-translated.

This lays out the nature of the disagreement, Colt.

Sharon to Solana:

"We attach great importance to cooperation with the international community for the success of the Disengagement Plan in Gaza and Judea and Samaria."

Pardon my ignorance, but has the Israeli government always referred to the West Bank thusly in public diplomatic statements?

The Israeli government always uses Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. I'm told that pre-Oslo one would see "Administered Areas". In conversation (but not officially), the phrase used by mainstream Israelis is merely "the Territories". Ariel Sharon is the first PM (indeed, I believe the first political figure not on the left) to use the word "occupation", and it caused a scandal.

Incidentally, the commonly used acronym for Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is the word for "salvation". There are people who see real meaning in that.

The excuse about SAMs is a new one on me, and the civilian Jerusalem airport (Atarot, a/k/a Kalandiya) has, I believe, finally closed for want of traffic. It was over the Green Line and under international boycott (like Ercan Airport in Occupied Cyprus). Military aircraft overfly the territories and would be equally vulnerale to SAMs regardless of the wall's location.

I'm going to disagree partially with Rob. Yeah, there's a lot of people in the world who would support only one act by Israel: mass evacuation. But that's not the whole world. Much of Europe is still seeing the Palestinian issue through their own experience with colonialism. This gives a picture which is incomplete, but not false. The route of the Wall as built now was not purely about Israeli security, and the Israeli Supreme Court knows it. It was also about making official a land grab and trying (totally unsuccessfully) to keep some of the settlers on board the government coalition, and about making sure that settlers would continue to disrupt the geographic contiguity of Palestinian lands, with long detours and roadblocks. (Sharon has a thing for separation by tunnels and overpasses.) Everyone knows that settlements on the far side of the wall are going to be toast: Israel may keep military positions there, but not hard-to-defend civilians. The argument over the route of the wall isn't only between Israel and the rest of the world, though. It's within Israel, and many Israelis long ago decided not to use global anti-Semitism as an excuse for dirty hands.

praktike:

The link doesn't seem to be working.

Andrew J. Lazarus:

Incidentally, the commonly used acronym for Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is the word for "salvation".

The word I think you're referring to is "Yesha".

My mistake IRT the SAMs.

Everyone knows that settlements on the far side of the wall are going to be toast

Including the pro-settlement parties in the coalition? Few people who've spoken to Yesha-types (and that isn't intended as an insult) will come away with the impression that they're willing to negotiate away land they believe God gave them.

Israel may keep military positions there, but not hard-to-defend civilians.

The IDF will not remain in the territories for much time after the Yesha communities are removed.

Lazarus,

How much land is being "grabbed" compared to the amount effectively ceded to exclusive Palistinian control after the wall is up? The wall will hopefuly let the IDF pull back, after which the PA can do what it wants in most of the remaining territory.

Colt,

1) How much damage have suicide bombers done to the Israeli economy?

2) Since when is it the duty of Israel to prop up the palistinian economy by providing jobs? If the PA wasn't such a thuggish kleptocracy, there might be Palistinian businesses to employ those workers. I'm sympathetic to people who get fired/laid off, as they are probably innocent victims, but not nearly so sympathetic as I am to the victims of suicide bombing.

That's why I've always thought the carping about the path of the wall was dishonest. Whatever hardships it imposes on innocents--and I don't deny that it does--it isn't nearly so bad as being blown to bits in a pizza parlor. Many wall critics--and I include the UN and ICJ here--seem to think that terrorist mass murder is less objectionable than losing access to part of your farm.

Rob Lyman:

1) Socialist mismanagement aside, the economy was tanking in 2001-2002. It's set to grow by nearly 4% next year.

2) Oh, no responsibility whatsoever. It essentially props up the society that is trying to destroy Israel.

Boy am I confused. Nation-building in Iraq prevents terrorism, but in Palestine it promotes it.

Colt, here's the link.

I don't have a problem with a "land grab" as a consequence for turning to the most vile kind of terrorism in response to a negotiation, nor with a "land grab" as a reflection of the reality of the relationship between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

The formula for Israel has always been "land for peace." Israel enacted this formula in the Sinai, with reasonably good results. Egypt got the land back, Israel uprooted her settlements, and Israel got a (cold) peace with Egypt.

Israel would be happy to enact the same formula with the Pals if there is any credible peace offer. There isn't. There is no credible Pal government, and they continue to say quite openly they do not accept Israel as a legitimate state, and they are funded by their Arab neighbors who say the same thing. Therefore there is no point is putting the fence on the green line, because it gives the Pals something for nothing. Israel has already tried giving them something for nothing (Oslo). The Pals simply don't hold up their end of the bargain.

Israel is the one with the track record of honoring a commitment, the Pals aren't. The ball is in their court. No more land for them until they clean up their act.

Anyway, I don't think it is in Israel's best interest to honor the green line as a legitimate border, since most of the organizations and countries which hold it sacred also have double standards about Israel's behavior. i.e. they undermine their own credibility as arbiters of national boundaries. It is an armistice line, nothing more.

"I forget which way it goes, but isn't the English version different from the Arabic?"

The Security Council has five official languages. Arabic is not one of them.

BTW, wasn't there a wall through the middle of Jerusalem up till 1967? And not built by Israel?

Addressing a point Yehudit raises, what sections of the pre-1967 border are either defensible or acceptable at all? The Latrun salient, which blocked the old highway into Jerusalem and was in Jordan because of military action and not the 1947 mandate? The division right through old Jerusalem, with the traditional Jewish Quarter on the wrong side?

What amazes me is that you will frequently see commentators, even mainstream print newspapers, referring to the fence as taking away about 50% of the West Bank. I backtracked that pernicious meme to a PA-affiliated website that assumed the fence would go around (i.e., completely enclose) the two Oslo areas. Of course, the planned route for the fence is three sides of the entire West Bank, with some fairly minor incursions on pre-1967 Jordanian territory. A bit over 5%, IIRC, of the West Bank would be grabbed by the fence, which figure includes the land that supports the fence itself.

I don't say that 5% grab is a good thing, mind you. But it's sure different from 50%!

Questions of scope aside, there are portions of the barrier that cannot possibly be part of a permanent solution. Take the situation in Qalqiliyah, for instance.

What's the plan there?

praktike:

Nation-building in Iraq prevents terrorism, but in Palestine it promotes it.

The Palestinians are radicalised - they believe Israel will and must be destroyed. So long as that delusion is prevalent, giving them jobs and an economy will be counter-productive: it will give them greater strength for battle.

Creating a Palestinian state is pretty naive in the first place. In the territories, power is the barrel of a gun. All the factions are engaged in terrorism against Israel, all of them are dedicated to Israel's destruction and all of them are anti-democratic. I'm not aware of any pro-peace faction with a popular following or the necessary strength to take on Fatah or the Iranians. Whoever wins what ever passes for elections will continue the war.

I thought the Iraqis were also radicalized and believed Israel must be destroyed?

praktike:

Have a look here for a better look at the area. The Israeli towns to the north-east and south-east also need to be protected.

If the fence were along the Green Line, the assumption would be that Israel will evacuate all Yesha communities, which it is not going to do. At least, not under a Likud government.

I thought the Iraqis were also radicalized and believed Israel must be destroyed?

What I mean by radicalised is that Palestinian society is based around one thing: destroying Israel.

Iraq isn't perfect, but Iraqi society is nowhere near as barbaric as Palestinian society.

Bob Harmon:

Addressing a point Yehudit raises, what sections of the pre-1967 border are either defensible or acceptable at all?

Have a look at these maps, specifically the relief maps and the maps showing Israeli settlements. As you can see, there are numerous settlements just on the other side of the Green Line, which will almost certainly be annexed.

As you'll be able to see, there is a ridge running north-south just east of the road that runs south from Nablus to Jerusalem on this map. If I was drawing the map, my defensive line would be the Jordan river, with a second line of defence along that ridge (good thing for the Arabs I'm not drawing the maps).

Praktike,

As it happens, there's a wall dividing Iraq and Israel already. It's many miles deep, and usually referred to as "Jordan". Building another barrier is not necessary, therefore. Iraqi radicalization (and in fact, the Iraqis seem to have lots more to worry about these days) is simply not a strategic problem for the forseeable future in Israel. There will be no conventional military attack, and now the threat of a future WMD attack is very much reduced.

"I thought the Iraqis were also radicalized and believed Israel must be destroyed?"

---

As for terrorism generally, nation-building in Iraq seems to be producing a pretty anti-terrorist population by Mideast standards. Something about being car bombed that seems to do this. It's also producing rather a few dead terrorists from foreign countries, which is always good news.

But I'm sure you knew that already - because unlike the PA, Iraq is not a state run by and for terrorists. Offering them help, therefore, does not promote terrorism.

Perhaps that will help dispel your "confusion."

"Boy am I confused. Nation-building in Iraq prevents terrorism, but in Palestine it promotes it."

OK, duly chastised on the specifics.

But let's get down to a more fundamental level of argument. Generally, ideological theories hinge on the universal applicability of certain principles.

This whole Iraqi adventure has been predicated on the notion that a culturally alien outside force can play a decisive role in fostering liberal democracy. Further, that Saddam created Iraq rather than the reverese. Liberals tend to search for economic explanations for terrorism; conservatives place more weight on cultural factors. Both tend to agree on the need for political reform, but differ on how to get there. Both agree that people with jobs and bright futures are marginally less likely to become terrorists. Neither side's explanation seems complete, but all agree, it seems, that improvement along these dimensions will pull the rug out from under the Islamists and their militant factions. How can these beliefs hold in Iraq but not in Palestine? Are they not universally applicable?

It seems the fear - a justified one - is that building up the Palestinians is tantamount to handing money to radical terrorists. But isn't there a way to promote civil development outside of supporting Arafat, which even the Germans are now reconsidering? Is the answer to just wall them off and forget about it?

I know that there are lots of people who like to contend that the Israel-Palestinian dispute is not a cause of the dysfunction of the Arab world, but rather a symptom thereof. Fine for the sake of argument. But what has happened over the last thirty years has been that the pathologies of that conflict have been exported beyond its borders. It was there that modern spectacular terrorism was perfected -- from early guerilla warfare and ethnic cleansing attempts to airline hijackings of the 70s and assassinations to the execrable suicide bombings of schoolchildren that we see today. I don't see how that genie is being put back in the bottle right now. Shi'ite radicals putting together a videotape threatening to behead Sunni radicals doesn't give me much comfort.

praktike:

Both agree that people with jobs and bright futures are marginally less likely to become terrorists.

They may well do, but I disagree with them.

If they believe they are simply doing their Islamic duty, a job and a future won't deter them. The profile of al-Qaeda operatives I linked to in my Winds of War, and similar studies carried out on Palestinian terrorists, shows that these are people with jobs and bright(er) future than those around them.

This radicalism has been hammered in to the Palestinians for a long time now. Hence, polls showing that the vast majority of Palestinian kids aspire to be martyrs, and engineering students going off to commit mass murder.
Ba'athist Iraq had its faults, but thankfully Islamism wasn't high on the school syllabus. Hence no popular uprising, and most of the Islamist groups coming from abroad.

The plan to "drain the swamp" is fatally flawed, in that it doesn't challenge the Islamic school of thought that gave birth to modern Islamist terror groups. A suicide bomber is promised Paradise for himself and 70 relatives; that his family will be looked after; that he will be amongst the blessed who have fought for Allah. That is one hell of an offer, no matter how rich you are.

I'm not sure what the point is you are making in your final paragraph. I will say, though, that the first suicide bombers in the Hamas mould were the Tamil Tigers.

The Swamp is turning into the Swamp Thing.

"How can these beliefs hold in Iraq but not in Palestine? Are they not universally applicable?"

Nope they aren't. They are a function of how radicalized the population is.

It's a conspiracy, I tell you. So many posts and comments are pushing me to start a whole series on Spiral Dynamics these days, because that's the larger context in which so many of these things start to make sense.

Sigh.

"How can these beliefs hold in Iraq but not in Palestine? Are they not universally applicable?"

They are, but they are also situational. You have to understand what stage of development the society is beginning from.

The short and curt answer is that the Iraqis had a cruel form of civilization that trained most of them to be fearful and repressed. But they generally get the concept of self-regulation, and they haven't been trained en masse to be psychopaths trained in murder, hatred and suicide (the former 2 would apply to Congolese child soldiers, for instance). Iraq's history is tragic, but if you're trying to build a society that you would recognize as good Praktike, then their current state is difficult but correctable.

The Palestinians, in contrast have utterly lost civilization in their territories (and the crushing pity of it is, they had more potential than most of the Middle East). There are basically no rules there other than "the strong take," and the children been rigorously trained to hate and kill "the other" by the people in charge. They start from a totally different place, and the combination of internal and external differences matters. A lot.

It's more like the Congo than Iraq.

Here's my offer: I'll put you in a room with one of 2 people from the same neighbourhood, with the job of helping them become better human beings. The job will continue over a period of time, with periodic visits. There are no guards, it's just a room in a normal half-way house.

Your choice: One of them has been trained to be fearful and repressed, and you're warned he may lash out at times. His parents were just killed. The other has been trained to hate and kill, has a long history of violent offenses, and has parents who continue to encourage this behaviour. Assuming you must pick one, whom do you get in the room with, and under what circumstances?

Because surely the same principles of interaction and goals for their end-state development apply... so what's the difference?

"It seems the fear - a justified one - is that building up the Palestinians is tantamount to handing money to radical terrorists. But isn't there a way to promote civil development outside of supporting Arafat, which even the Germans are now reconsidering? Is the answer to just wall them off and forget about it?"

As long as the thugs remain in charge, no, there really isn't any way. It's like trying to promote "civil development" in Hitler's Germany or Taliban Afghanistan. Anyone who really takes what you're doing seriously and acts on it will be killed, and if no-one will act on it then what exactly is being accomplished?

Some form of "civil development" may be a useful strategy component, and it may be possible to fund specific projects that are designed to open peoples eyes to very specific ideas and promote a healthy, traditional society with some level of self-regulation. But the truth is, there will be zero immediate payoff... the payoff only comes when/if the thugs are gone and the ideas have hopefully survived to blossom at last. Until then, many of the people you're trying to reach will just see your efforts as a cruel joke. Which they are, in a way, if you're telling them about a better alternative and then leaving them in a situation where they can never realize it.

So you're really building for a post-endgame with this approach. It has some things to recommend it and should probaby be tried to some degree, but by no means is it a complete strategy. The kindness of this approach is dubious - and unless there's an iron will there and real teeth you're also nearly certain to have a goodly chunk your help misappropriated. That's certainly the record thus far.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, I know.

And meanwhile, what about the Israelis? Which is, of course, Cox & Forkum's point. They're people too.

Here's the bottom line as I see it. YMMV

The pathologies here can be removed, but several hundred thousand people will die in the process - either at Israel's hands or at the hands of other Arabs.

It MAY be possible to use a gentler "squeeze" strategy on the Palestinian's pathologies instead, but this requires containment just as the gradual constriction (and then final push to topple) the Soviet Union required containment. Becuase the Israelis are right next door, the containment will have to be physical as well.

The "squeeze" strategy as a whole, however, will have to be a regional one - because the Palestinians' problems are fiunded and encouraged by regional elites who find their suffering and debasement both convenient and profitable, and so fund the thugs in charge. Increasingly, that funding is extending to Europe's elite as well - and for similar reasons.

Certainly the absence of success on the wider front, ups the imperative for physical containment on the local front.

Bottom line: Europe's actions (and those of the UN) are feeding the Palestinians' central pathologies. In so doing, they are making the wall MORE necessary - not less.

"As for terrorism generally, nation-building in Iraq seems to be producing a pretty anti-terrorist population by Mideast standards."

It's also, whatever the merits of the Iraqi operation, and there are various, demonstrably produced a very large number of terrorists busily attacking Americans, Coalition citizens, and Iraqis, who weren't doing so before, and largely weren't of any disposition to do so. Really, it's been rather a mixed bag up to this point, regardless of how the long-term goes (for which I, obviously, hope for the best, and feel faintly optimistic about). I think any useful analysis can't omit either the good or the bad.

Thanks, Joe. Food for thought.

"The Swamp is turning into the Swamp Thing."

I'm not even faintly surprised, Praktike. here is the anecdotal version.

Yes, I've read that article. Disturbing, isn't it? Especially so for me, since I'm going to Cairo in September as I contemplate applying to AUC for a master's degree ... I wonder what I'll find?

"I wonder what I'll find?"

Most reports suggest that most Egyptians have no trouble distinguishing between ordinary Americans and their views of the American government. There was a Style piece in the WashPo a few weeks ago from a staff photographer writing about taking pictures of a ritual burning of an American flag, and how everyone was, nonetheless, quite nice to him.

I wouldn't suggest wearing a "I Heart Sharon" button, though. :-)

praktike:

The Swamp is turning into the Swamp Thing.

Like Will Rogers, they don't know nothin' but what they read in the newspaper. How many have actually met Americans, been to America, read an American newspaper, or watch American news?

Visiting America seems to have different effects on different people. Some of them like it and have a nice time. Some of them write long and highly influentual polemics. Some of them dream up plans to fly planes into buildings.

To Colt, I very much appreciate the link to the maps. I can't help but notice just in the Jerusalem map that the 1948 UN ceasefire line not only separates the Old City and holy sites, of course (which is why the Jews did not get to the Wailing Wall until June 1967) but also there's an enclave on Mount Scopus that would be totally indefensible.

Then there's the Latrun salient. In 1948 the Jewish forces tried and failed repeatedly to take the former British police barracks , which sat on a key road into Jerusalem, and which has become something of a shrine after 1967. In the wrong hands it would be a threat to the main airport and a hole in the vitals of a redrawn Israel.

That's what I meant about defensibility: a defensive wall or line hewing to the 1948-1967 boundary would not be defensible.

Colt is right in noting that a number of settlements appear to be in indefensible areas and will be unless the new boundary is all the way to the Jordan. Trouble is, the Green Line itself, if it is the 1949 Jordan-Israeli ceasefire line, represents something neither defensible nor palatable. The fact that a Web search for the Green Line turned up so many map sites where Israel "delenda est" says much about the Green Line itself.

Say, anybody know a good history of the War for Independence?

Interesting that Bob brings up the Latrun salient ... these parrot's beaks sure have caused a lot of trouble, historically ... Cambodia, Peshawar, Latrun, Qalqiliyah ...

Colt: I'm sure someone has said SAM defense has something to do with the route of the wall. I'm just skeptical. Israel has never wanted for bogus excuses in the settlements: e.g., the Jerusalem exurb of Maaleh Adumim was ostensibly built as camp for workers widening the adjacent highway. In any event, the experience with buffer zones, told from the Palestinian viewpoint, is that Israel would then construct something in the former buffer zone that itself is now in range of (SAM | small arms fire | slingshot) and so the boundary "must" be shifted further away from the Green Line. This is one of the ways the geographic reach of the settlements has grown, through buffer zones, special highways, and so on that aren't part of the settlement proper.

Everyone knows that settlements on the far side of the wall are going to be toast

Including the pro-settlement parties in the coalition? Few people who've spoken to Yesha-types (and that isn't intended as an insult) will come away with the impression that they're willing to negotiate away land they believe God gave them.

Rob: I am a reluctant but strong supporter of the wall, and I think it's making a real difference in Israeli personal security. However, I don't see why it couldn't be located in a way to reduce the loss of Palestinian lands (and a much more aggressive compensation scheme). I feel there are at least two reasons for the current route unrelated to military tactics: (1) By choosing a route unfavorable, even unfair, to the Palestinians, Sharon hoped to keep a psychological edge of appearing not to be retreating in weakness and (2) although the wall itself is putting great pressure on the Palestinians to salvage what they can, which I think is a major contributor to the emergence of an indigenous political process among the Palestinians, the further east the wall is, the more pressure. I just doubt more is needed. In other words, I do think routes further west would keep suicide terrorists out of the pizza parlors just as effectively (however much that turns out to be).

Yehudit: Actually, Israel's record with respect to treaties is good only by comparison with its enemies. For example, when the 1967 war broke out, how exactly was it that the Israeli enclave on Mount Scopus wasn't overrun? Would it have to do with the soldiers and arms smuggled in by the "demilitarized" convoys in flagrant violation of the 1948 armistice? Israel hasn't fulfilled its commercial obligations to Jordan under the peace treaty. Israel's presentation to the commission fixing the boundary with Egypt at Eilat/Taba was known to the IDF to be false, which didn't stop years of Jewish-oriented tourism books from suggesting that the US arbitrator had given Israeli land to Egypt out of misplaced sympathy. And Israeli promises on the settlements belong in a whole 'nother category. I don't think I'd push this.

It's useful when studying the I-P conflict to take a step back and see which parties benefit from its continuation.

Clearly the Palestinian civilians don't benefit. At this point they're little more than psychotic raving animals. It was not always this way, but the intense selection pressure has caused most Palestinians with intelligence and sanity to leave the area. We can see what's left.

The Palestinian leadership (religious and secular) clearly do benefit. The struggle justifies their very existence. If peace were to occur, their power and importance would diminish.

The dictators of the surrounding Arab nations are clearly eager to fight Israel to the last Palestinian. This distracts their primary victims (their own population) from their own shortcomings.

The Zionist leadership has the most to gain from the continuation of the conflict. The institutionalization of a permanent state of war artificially inflates the importance of the Israeli war machine within the society. Billions and billions in US military aid are funneled through the state apparatus because of the conflict.

Thus, peace cannot be allowed and must be avoided at all costs. Similarly, final victory -- involving ethnic cleansing/genocide -- would not be in the institutional interests of any of the big players either.

The present situation is the best of all possible worlds for the IDF. They have a permanent enemy that has been thoroughly demonized (literally turned into demons). This enemy is weak, divided, and easily contained, and it engages in just enough terrorism to ensure continued USG funding and public support. Military service is the primary measure of prestige within Israeli society. What could be better?

The chumps in this system are the civilians on all sides, including me, one of the losers being forced to pay for all this BS. Of course the Israeli settlers get the stolen land, but in the long run they may turn out to be chumps too.

The present situation is the best of all possible worlds for the IDF

Only someone who has not served in a danger zone, or lost a close relative in one, could say this.

The IDF is not a huge bureaucracy -- it is a small group of people who know one another intimately and who are regularly under fire. I am no fan of the harsher policies of the Sharon government, but I have known members of the IDF and can say from personal experience that your comments are way off base as well as being highly offensive.

Clarification: when I say "the best of all possible worlds for the IDF" I mean for the GROWTH OF THE INSTITUTION. Certainly many of the INDIVIDUALS in the IDF, especially at the lower level, get thrown into the human meat-grinder which is war.

Of course your friends in the IDF would prefer not to be out patrolling in the West Bank, or Lebanon, or any of the other hell-holes in the region. But if the conflict ended, your friends would get pink slips and have to find employment elsewhere. The INSTITUTION would shrink.

"War is a force that gives us meaning." Without war, the institution of the army, and the state in general, withers. Permanent war grants the army permanent legitimacy and a tremendous capacity for growth.

We should also keep in mind that it's possible to have an extremely evil institutional structure in which all the individuals, including perhaps the leadership, are decent people. My favorite example (so as to piss more people off) is the Catholic church, IMHO one of the more powerful forces for evil on the planet. Yet Pope John Paul II is clearly a good guy, saintly even.

"At this point they're little more than psychotic raving animals. It was not always this way, but the intense selection pressure has caused most Palestinians with intelligence and sanity to leave the area. We can see what's left."

Yup. People who are now taking to resisting the militant/terrorist types.

Bravely. Not "animals." It's appalling you'd use that sort of language.

T.J. - these 2 statements are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true.

"The dictators of the surrounding Arab nations are clearly eager to fight Israel to the last Palestinian. This distracts their primary victims (their own population) from their own shortcomings.

The Zionist leadership has the most to gain from the continuation of the conflict."

Given the sheer amount of wealth at stake for the dictators of said Arab nations, and the state of their governmental systems, and the literal life or death stakes of politics in those countries, and hence the importance of distracting said populations... the statement you make next sounds like raving lunacy. It doesn't follow at all.

So you think the Arab dictators are making out better than the Zionist leadership? The Zionists certainly are getting more money, but you may be right about the risk to the dictators. If peace breaks out Sharon and Co. will be on the street, but the dictators might very well end up DEAD.

All of the power groups I listed certainly have very strong incentives to continue the conflict. They need (and deserve) each other.

>>Yup. People who are now taking to resisting the militant/terrorist types. Bravely. Not "animals." It's appalling you'd use that sort of language.

Ok, so this family was upset that the resistance wanted to make their home the target of Israeli counterbattery fire. They lost a son over it (more selection pressure.)

Yet the mother is quoted as saying: "I wish I could be a fighter to shoot at Israelis. I am willing to explode myself out of anger."

Hmmm.

Let's be extremely generous and assume that only 10% of the Palestinians have lost enough land/relatives/body parts to have been driven into a permanent state of blind rage. Now which is safer, a room full of rabid dogs, or a room full of statistically selected Palestinians?

Now if I were in their situation, if I'd grown up in an environment like theirs, I'd almost certainly become a revolutionary, and likely a terrorist. I'd want to get my hands on the bastards who stole my land and TEAR OUT THEIR HEARTS. And after a certain point I might not be too selective about who exactly needed killing. If I was both intelligent and sufficiently tribal, I'd be in an adjacent country trying to build nuclear weapons.

Similarly, if I lived in Israel and one of my relatives got blown up, it wouldn't be a hard sell to convince me that the West Bank needed to be walled up and filled with nerve gas.

That's why the situation is so tragic. I'm very fortunate that I've had the time to realize that Permanent War against the Hated Enemy Tribe isn't the solution to these sorts of situations. But that's not because I'm smart, it's just because I'm lucky.

"So you think the Arab dictators are making out better than the Zionist leadership?"

The calculus seems to add up.

"The Zionists certainly are getting more money,"

How is that? I don't get it.

More than what, the Arab oil trade? Saudi Arabia? Iran's oil wealth? Like I said, doesn't compute for me.

"you may be right about the risk to the dictators. If peace breaks out Sharon and Co. will be on the street,"

Probably. And if you look at the guy lately, he'd probably see that as a relief. That's certainly the vibe I got from local community leaders who traveled to Israel and met with him recently.

I'll add that even if peace broke out with the Palestinians, it doesn't fix things with an Arab/Islamic world that has been carefully schooled to regard Jews as subhuman and desire their annihilation. Even if their leadership somehow changed their tune, the beliefs they've fostered would take a long time to undo - and until then, Israel's military would have to stay ready just in case. Which means it wouldn't shrink, just reallocate to spend more on shiny toys and less on the gritty, draining, day-after-day operational urban conflict stuff.

Come to think of it, on an institutional level that's a much better scenario for the IDF than their present situation. Money more or less unchanged, more toys and programs, lots of high-level promotion opportunities without combat a la the U.S. Pentagon. If you're about institutional analysis, isn't that the future the IDF should be pushing for?

"but the dictators might very well end up DEAD."

Dead is a very definite possibility. Along with large sections of their extended families. The do kind of play for keeps in that part of the world.

>>More than what, the Arab oil trade? Saudi Arabia? Iran's oil wealth? Like I said, doesn't compute for me.

In terms of direct subsidies, the Israelis get more. The dictators get plenty of cash from the oil sales, but that's a resource they nominally own. If the dictators got turned over, the new guys would get the oil to sell.

From the "something to lose personally" standpoint, the oil revenue is very important. From the "institutional growth" standpoint, the oil will be there to service the corrupt governments, whoever happens to lead them at the time.

Side Note:

I'm generally harder on the Israelis for two reasons: first, because they're the ones leeching off of me personally, and second because they're the group with the surplus power and discipline to act decently if they so chose. If Sharon became M. Gandhi he might be able to make something good happen. If Yasser, et. al. became decent people they'd almost certainly be assassinated by just about everybody.

If Gush Shalom became much more powerful and organized, it would be difficult to stop. Any Palestinian peace groups that threatened to stop the conflict would have their leadership targeted by the militants and, ultimately, Mossad.

Any Palestinian peace groups that threatened to stop the conflict would have their leadership targeted by the militants and, ultimately, Mossad.

That seals it: this guy is unhinged.

Mossad does interesting things. Go check out Gideon's Spies and Ostrovsky's books, then come back and tell me I'm unhinged.

Go on. I'll wait.

Certainly Mossad does things which are quite reasonable. Saving Golda Meir's ass in Rome was totally all-pro and should have been made into 3 movies by now.

Other things Mossad does are less cool. Setting up the Libyans with fake radio transmissions was not cool. Not because the Libyan government didn't have it coming, but because intentionally deceiving your own allies is lame.

Colt, have you read the books yet that T.J.Madison recommended to you? Here are a few more:
Naeimi Giladi, BenGurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad eliminated Jews
and
Wilbur Crane Eveland, Ropes of Sand.

The report of the former Israeli and present U.S. citizen, Naemi Giladi, on Zionist anti-Jewish (and anti-American) activities in the Iraq of around 1950 can also be read on the website of Neturei Karta (Jews united against Zionism). Giladi, a former Iraqi Jew, claims that the Jewish community of Iraq, which had been living for generations in that country in relative peace, was induced to migrate to Israel by an underground Zionist bombing campaign.

His view is backed up by the late Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former senior officer of the CIA, in his book Ropes of Sand. Eveland states that the 1950 attacks in Baghdad on the United States Information Service Library (a favorite gathering place for young Jews)and on various synagogues came from Zionist agents and that the US Embassy received at the time conclusive proof of that.

These bits of information seem all the more relevant today in view of the complaints about an increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents in France. Recently the Jewish Agency delared that it wanted at least 10,000 French Jews to migrate to Israel. Sharon has also publicly hammered on this theme in his usual bull-in- the-China shop way. Who is behind some of these alleged anti-Semitic incidents? There are scarce bits of information. On the 18th of May Le Monde reported that the 17th Chamber of the 'tribunal correctionel' in Paris had sentenced Alexander Moise to a suspended prison term of two months and a fine. Moise,the head of the "French Friends of Israel's Likud Party" organization, had confessed that the alleged threatening and insulting telephone calls, regarding which he had filed a complaint in January, came from himself.

In short, Mr.Madison doesn't seem 'unhinged' to me at all. He has just been less selective in gathering information than is commonly the case with the 'friends of Israel'.

Arie Brand