| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| question for Jeffrey; you too, man. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 21 2005, 02:08 PM (627 Views) | |
| jon-nyc | Jul 21 2005, 02:08 PM Post #1 |
|
Cheers
|
do you think the occupation of the west bank and gaza have been of net benefit to Israel? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jul 21 2005, 02:15 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Wasn't this the same one you asked of Jerome? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 21 2005, 02:20 PM Post #3 |
|
Cheers
|
yeah, that's why i have 'you too, man' as the subtitle. don't worry - im not going to start 40 threads on the subject. just these too (and one more at WTF). |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 21 2005, 03:43 PM Post #4 |
|
Senior Carp
|
jon - I think it's been mixed, but on the whole has served it's purpose. I think people would have hated Israel just as much regardless, they would just be arguing about Tel Aviv and not "illegal settlements", and the Palestinians would have committed just as much terrorism. They did before 1948. It has nothing to do with the occupation. Somewhere recently you said that the recent "intifada" caused even Sharon to admit there would be a Palestinian state. This is not accurate - the Palestinians could have had a state in 1948 or 1968 or even 2000 under Barak and Clinton, on much better terms than Sharon offers now. The Palestinians have been shooting themselves in the foot for 50-odd years. The settlements and occupation give Israel something to bargin away. The occupation basically went away under Oslo, and Sharon rightly re-imposed it as a political response to the intifada. However, it cost a lot economically to maintain (as with the US in Iraq). Like Sharon, and unlike the more ideological settlers, I think about it in pragmatically. As in Gaza, adjustments will be made over time in response to circumstances Giving away the dump of Gaza lets Sharon take the international political initiative, and is a good decision. But if Gaza had not been occupied, there would be nothing to give back. I think Sharon is thinking pragmatically about Gaza in a brutal political landscape. It was right to occupy Gaza, and right to get out at this particular time. I expect that Israel will leave most, but not all, of the West Bank at some time, but only in return for a comprehensive political settlement, including full political and economic relations with its neighbors, and compensation for the Jews expelled from Arab countries in 1949. If the Palesinians also get compensation for their troubles, real and imagined, I am ok with that. I'll give more details later. I am planning a last-minute impulse trip to London tonight, and won't be able to respond much for a day or so. I know there are about half a dozen Israel threads in both forums right now - but I haven't had time to read them. I only opened this one because you named me, and I know you. |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 21 2005, 03:52 PM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hay Jeffery--take an impromptu trip to Israel sometime and tell us what you see. ![]() And Jeffery, I know you!
|
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 21 2005, 03:54 PM Post #6 |
|
Senior Carp
|
TK - Will do. Thanks for the advice! Travel broadens the mind. Hopefully, we will all be at peace some day. Best - Jeffrey |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 21 2005, 04:13 PM Post #7 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hopefully the world will be at peace. Buy honestly--visit Israel--spend some time there, obviously you have you preconceived notions--and so did I. You are a bit over the top at times--and so am I, but at least I've seen the mess over there. Walk around the place not like a "Jew making alyea" but like a nobody. You won't agree with me, for sure: but you at least have an idea where I'm coming form. The only difference between us is that I will admit I'm "over the top." |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 21 2005, 05:27 PM Post #8 |
|
Cheers
|
hey jeffrey - have a good trip. let me pose some questions, if you don't respond tonight i'll bump this when you get back. (by the way, are you going to bernards a week from sunday?) first some general questions, and then specific questions from your post. what do you think the costs of the occupation have been? im not asking that you quantify them, but list them qualitatively. and what do you think the benefits have been? again, qualitatively. now to your post... i agree its true some people hated israel long before the occupation, and there was terrorism before the occupaiton, but these aren't binary functions. do you think the occupation has increased the hatred toward Israel, either in the degree of hatred or in the number of people hating or both? Do you think it has increased the number of people willing to commit terrorist acts against Israel? secondly, you say the occupation gives Israel something to bargain. with whom do you consider the occupation to be a useful bargaining chip? and for what might israel bargin away the occupation, in full or in part? do you think that there are past examples where the occupation has been a useful bargining chip? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 21 2005, 05:36 PM Post #9 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ah yes, who doesn't enjoy a good hostage situation?
|
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 21 2005, 09:13 PM Post #10 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
It seems to me there are two issues here. There is the land which has been occupied and then there are the settlements. If my memory is correct, at the time Israel began to establish the settlements, there was a huge uproar with even the US opposing them. I understand the decision at the time for Israel to hold the land it won in the wars and use them as bargaining chips. Makes sense. But I wonder how Jeffrey, Amanda, Bach and others feel about the settlements, which it seems to me to have been the basis for much of the problems and have also delayed and kept Israel from fulling using the land as a bargaining chip. So, if I may divide jon's question into two -- 1) Was the occupation a good idea and has it served Israel's needs and 2) were the settlements a good idea and have they served Israel's needs? And Tom, if I may... I tend to agree with you about the negative side of occupations. I think they create more enemies than anything else and always have. How do you square your opposition to Israel's occupation even though they won the land in wars started against them with your support of the US's occupation of Iraq which was caused by the US's proactive and elective invasion? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jul 21 2005, 09:48 PM Post #11 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
My English teacher would slap you silly if she saw that sentence.
|
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 21 2005, 09:57 PM Post #12 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
A bit of a run-on with far too many clauses, you think ? Well, I have been slapped silly before. In the right circumstances... |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 22 2005, 12:18 AM Post #13 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Insomnia saves the day: jon: "i agree its true some people hated israel long before the occupation, and there was terrorism before the occupaiton, but these aren't binary functions. do you (1) think the occupation has increased the hatred toward Israel, either in the degree of hatred or in the number of people hating or both? (2) Do you think it has increased the number of people willing to commit terrorist acts against Israel? secondly, you say the occupation gives Israel something to bargain. (3) with whom do you consider the occupation to be a useful bargaining chip? (4) and for what might israel bargin away the occupation, in full or in part? (5) do you think that there are past examples where the occupation has been a useful bargining chip?" To answer your various questions in turn: (1) No. The evidence from 1948 and the terrorist war in the 50's and 1967 and 1973 shows this. Hostility to Israel both internationally and in the middle east locally was far higher then. (2) No. I think the number now it lower than it ever has been. All the major nations surrounding Israel wanted to destroy the Jews in 1948 and 1967 and 1973. Now two of them - Jordan and Egypt - have peace treaties and trade with Israel. Israel stood up for itself, developed itself as a nation, and won some grudging acceptance. Abbas replaced Arafat by a moderately democratic vote. This process should continue, as the economic logic dictates. I suspect it will take several more generations. (3) A puzzling question. Obviously, the surrounding nations and states, just as Israel traded land for peace with Egypt, who was initially unwilling to accept Israel as a neighbor. (4) Another puzzling question. Obviously, a negotiated cessation of the hostilities started in 1948, which in general exist to the present day. (5) Yes. Trading the Sinai to Egypt for peace, and the present withdrawal from Gaza, which has given Sharon the political initiative. Israel would have preferred to trade land for peace in 1967, but this offer was rejected by the Arab nations in 1968 at Khartoum. Jordan and Egypt have since broken with that rejectionist Arab consensus. Given the obviousness of the answers, I am puzzled by your asking the questions. Perhaps you can explain yourself. jon: "what do you think the costs of the occupation have been? im not asking that you quantify them, but list them qualitatively. and what do you think the benefits have been? again, qualitatively." Costs: a lot of money. Israel is a small country of only 6 million or so. Other things being equal, the effort of the occupation would be better spent on the civilian economy. Benefits: by being unwilling to lay down and die, Israel earned the grudging acceptance of Jordan and Egypt, and better military borders. In 1967 Israel had three choices: (1) Lay down and die. (2) Give back the conquered land even in the absence of any peace negotiations so the Arab nations could launch another strike. (3) Retain military control of the land while pursuing peace negotiations where possible, as in fact happened. Clearly, you would have preferred option (2) - give back the land to the people who just tried to kill all the Jews in Israel so they can try again. I fail to see how this option would be better than the present situation. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 22 2005, 03:19 AM Post #14 |
|
Cheers
|
First as to the effect of the occupaiton on hatred toward Israel and the willingness to committ terrorism. Do you really think that subjecting a civilian population of several million people to such things as curfews, restrictions of movement, checkpoints, and kafka-esque residency restrictions had no effect on the desire of those people to attack those imposing them? Identically zero effect? Let me ask a related quesiton. Statistically speaking, and controlling for other relevant variables such as age, class, gender, content of religious instruction, etc., do you think that a person who had personal experience with subjugation, humiliation, or worse aspects of the occupation, would be more likely to resort to violence than someone who had not personally experienced these things? Regarding the utility of the occupation for bargaining, the question is less puzzling than it seems. But I'll explain why I asked the question. In other threads, you've pointed out that, for the most part, the Arab governments don't really care about the plight of the Palestinians, in fact, they find their suffering to be useful in that it allows them to focus internal discontent on an external entity, Israel. I agree completely that that has been the attitude of most if not all of Israels neighbors. Do you still believe that to be the case? And to the extent that is true, how could the occupation have any use as a bargaining chip with the arab governments, if they find its continuation to be useful? (Indeed, you're probably aware that both Syria and Iran helped orchestrate terror attacks within Israel to help derail Oslo.) Now regarding the benefits and costs of the occupation. What about the diplomatic costs? How about US public opinion? THis latter is something the Israeli government takes quite seriously, don't you think? Regarding benefits, the grudging peace with Egypt was purchased with the return of the Sinai in 1979. And Jordan renounced claims to the West Bank close to 20 years ago. So to the extent grudging acceptance of Egypt and Jordan were the benefits of the occupaiton, it would seem that they were acheived long ago. Wouldn't that mean that continuing the occupaiton since then was a net liability? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 22 2005, 03:40 AM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Rick, if the US is still in Iraq in 35 years I will be marching on Congress myself for us to get out. I have no objection to Israel having gone into the West Bank in 1967--the problem was them never leaving. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 23 2005, 03:23 AM Post #16 |
|
Cheers
|
bump. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 23 2005, 05:37 AM Post #17 |
|
Senior Carp
|
jon - What won Israel a grudging peace is winning several wars and not giving up. As for the occupation, I'd be happy for Israel to end it, as soon as there is a party to negotiate peace with. Neither Arafat's PLO or Hamas have ever been such a party, since they both desired the destruction of Israel. To negotiate with them is like negotiating with Hitler. Rather pointless. My view is the position of Ariel Sharon, and the vast majority of the Israeli public, as well. Until that point in time, the occupation is the least bad military option on the table. Israel offered in 1968 and most spectacularly in 2000 under Clinton and Barak to end the occupation for peace and a 2-state solution and tens of billions in aid and compensation. The results of each offer were the 1973 war and the 2000 intifada. In short, offers of peace have been seen as signs of weakness, and met with war and terrorism. In a real sense, the Clinton and Barak peace offer was responsible for the 2000-2004 terrorist war against Israel, and Sharon is responsible for winning it. My views are not unusual, they are similar to the overwhelming majority of Israeli citizens: as soon as there is someone to negotiate with, the occupation will end. So long as there is a situation of total war, the occupation will continue, as it is less bad militarily and politically than the alternatives. As for public opinion, you assume that this is something primarily under Israeli control. The only people who don't like Israel because of the occupation, are those who don't know the facts, or employ biased double standards they would never apply to themselves or the nation they live in, or have an unrealistic hyper-liberal view of military conflict, or some combination of the three. Your desire for peace should be directed to supporting the Ariel Sharons of the world, and not the Baraks and Clintons. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 23 2005, 06:05 AM Post #18 |
|
Cheers
|
Jeffrey - how about having a look at my questions? My questions are very specific, and have to do with the costs and benefits of the occupation, viewed purely from the standpoint of Israeli self-interest. You only address one. I asked whether you thought that deteriorating public opinion in the US should be counted among the costs of the occupation. Your answer was: "The only people who don't like Israel because of the occupation, are those who don't know the facts, or employ biased double standards they would never apply to themselves or the nation they live in, or have an unrealistic hyper-liberal view of military conflict, or some combination of the three." OK, so you say that those who's views of Israel are affected by the occupaiton are unjustified. For the sake of argument, lets assume I accept your premise, which of course I don't. Wouldn't that still count as a liability as far as Israel is concerned? Can you take a look at my other questions? I'll repeat them. (1) Do you really think that subjecting a civilian population of several million people to such things as curfews, restrictions of movement, checkpoints, and kafka-esque residency restrictions had no effect on the desire of those people to attack those imposing them? Identically zero effect? (2) Statistically speaking, and controlling for other relevant variables such as age, class, gender, content of religious instruction, etc., do you think that a person who had personal experience with subjugation, humiliation, or worse aspects of the occupation, would be more likely to resort to violence than someone who had not personally experienced these things? (3) Do you still believe that [the Arab governments find the plight of the Palestinians useful to deflect domestic dissatisfaction]? And to the extent that is true, how could the occupation have any use as a bargaining chip with the arab governments, if they find its continuation to be useful? (4) So to the extent grudging acceptance of Egypt and Jordan were the benefits of the occupaiton, it would seem that they were acheived long ago. Wouldn't that mean that continuing the occupaiton since then was a net liability? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Amanda | Jul 23 2005, 06:18 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
jon, since you asked my opinion too... In the most concrete and specific terms I could give, I would have to say I agree with Jeffrey about the occupation. Unlike you, I do not believe the Israelis as a whole have any massive ulterior motive for the Occupation (water or significant land gain). As I have said, I see it (and the settlements) as a bargaining tool. No, it is NOT a "good thing". It’s just the lesser of two evils, as well as can be projected. As far as your repeated requests to assess the "net" gain/loss picture, I have to say that I do not believe Israel's so widely condemned behavior in the Occupation has significantly changed anything. That is, in terms of the rising power of Hamas and the suicide bombers. I see this not as a function of the Occupation (I know you do, mostly, right?) - but rather as a result of the rise of radical Islam which has exploited both the Palestinian situation, and other "sins" of Israel and the West. As long as the suicide bombing tactic was introduced, the same retaliation would have been evoked from a desperate Israel. In retrospect, maybe it would have been better to start the Wall, immediately and terminate employment of Palestinians in Israeli businesses - and how would THAT have sat with World opinion? Who would have seen this coming? The only possibility I can imagine for a significant difference today, would have been if an alternate fuel had been invented and converted to, in the West. Then the current power struggle in most of its particulars, might have been avoided. It's possible (but I've heard otherwise) that the absence of the immensely charismatic figure of Bin Laden would have made a difference too - or a Gore presidency. I believe the "provocation" of Israel was exploited on the other side to radicalize. If it hadn't been the Occupation , other ways of eliciting a “galvanizing” reaction from Israel would have been sought strategically. And probably found. Not, incidentally, by the Palestinians but by those funding, educating - and using - them. The all-important education for hatred began - as I have said many times – long before the '67 War, with the establishment of the refugee camps. It was immensely aggravated by the Palestinians’ secret weapon, enormous fertility. In any other international revanchiste situation, this number of displaced refugees would have been a non-problem a long time ago – especially considering the fluidity of the surrounding population They kept the pot boiling. Not Israel. Or rather, let me state my belief that if Israel’s behavior had been as close to perfect as any real-world country and Army can be, the situation today would be substantially the same in all particulars. That is, made out and presented the same, to a receptive world who perceived it the same! Sad. Tragic. Words do not suffice. About the absence of a Leadership to negotiate with - true enough. Why cede your only weapons to unreliable guarantors? "Unreliable", either because they are not stably in control, or because their agenda is to lie and temporize until they achieve their goal - retaking all of Israel. For that matter, one wonders whom in the US can be counted on to offer real guarantees to Israel - to guarantee what they would get in return for returning land. Peace? Says who? Clearly one of our differences , is that I don't see the atomic capability of Israel as having the amazing deterrent power you do . This is basically a guerrilla war fought WITHIN Israel! Bomb who? Where? (Guess I should post this in WTF too) |
|
[size=5] We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.[/size] "Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005 | |
![]() |
|
| Amanda | Jul 23 2005, 06:27 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
Afraid if I just edit this in, you'll miss it. Another major factor I can see making a difference today, is if 9/11 had been thwarted in advance. Had not happened. In other words, it instead, there had been the requisite extraordinary foresight and intelligence to preempt it. This would have also meant a difference in understanding our national interests and underground Arab movements! Among many other differences, this would have dramatically affected US public opinion about Israel (NOT the Occupation - hahaha). BTW, you did NOT answer my question about this change since 9/11. I added a lot "Over There". Can't think what thread now... (means frustrated at fact, not you)
|
|
[size=5] We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.[/size] "Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005 | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 23 2005, 06:44 AM Post #21 |
|
Cheers
|
amanda - its hard enough keeping these threads on point when there's only one conversation going on at a time. i'll reply to this post in our thread. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 23 2005, 06:50 AM Post #22 |
|
Senior Carp
|
jon - (0) "liability" I suppose it is, but not a liability that can be avoided by Israel. It would have happened anyway, unless Israel decided to commit national suicide, and let people attack it and play the victim and not the winner. Some people just don't like seeing Jews defend themselves. Better to be hated and alive, than dead and loved. I have explained this to you before. I will stop replying to you on these topics, if you don't bother to read what I say. (1) The checkpoints etc. are necessary to avoid Israeli civilian casualties. Whenever Israel in a burst of niceness, or as a result of international pressure, lifts these against IDF wishes, more Israeli civilian casualties result as Hamas takes military advantage of Israel's niceness. Therefore, I conclude that the checkpoints etc. are in Israel's interest. When the Palestinians organizations stop the war against Israel they have been in since 1948, the occupation will end. I believe the distress and duration of the occupation that resulted from the Palestinians losing the 1967 war has reduced Palestinian desire to destroy Israel entirely, as they realize it is not possible and start looking for other options for how to live their lives. Arafat's maximalist strategy is widely seen among the Palestinians as a failure. We now have Abbas and a few others who want to move forward and build rather than fight endlessly. I personally think is will take several more generations before there is peace, but I am happy to be proven wrong. (2) Statistically speaking, terrorists are rational people who murder when they think it will profit them. It is not related to any of the factors you cite. Terrorism surged after Barak and Clinton offered a peace deal for 97% of the disputed land with tens of billions of dollars of aid attached, as Arafat went in for the kill on what he perceived to be a demoralized enemy tired of fighting. It declined after Sharon re-occupied the West Bank militarily and killed some Hamas leaders (and indirectly Arafat as well). Terrorism increases when Israel shows weakness, it declines when Israel takes appropriate military action. (3) Bargin chips - I believe Israel is in a superior negotiating position vis a vis both neighboring states and the various Palestinian organizations in 2005 than 1965, as a result of having more land and rescources under its control to discuss. It would have been better and less costly for Israel to have reached a negotiated peace in 1968 or even 1948, but all surrounding factions (only recently minus Jordan and Egypt) committed themselves to war against Israel and this attitude persists until today. The occupation is costly for Israel, but preferrable to the alternatives. (4) I don't follow the logic of this question. Israel is still at war with most of the surrounding groups. While most Arab states are getting mighty tired of self-indulgent Palestinian whining and lack of a productive strategy, they are still officially at war with Israel (and Iran and Syria are actually in a proxy shooting war with Israel). The occupation will continue as as a defensive military strategy against terrorism and as a barganing chip, until the Palestinians come to a peace deal, subject to cost-benefit analysis and modification, as Sharon is doing with Gaza. I think things have happened more or less as they should. While Arafat was in charge, withdrawing unilaterally would have been a mistake, as it would have increased terrorism. With Abbas, it is a calculated risk, but probably correct, especially with a place as worthless as Gaza. Obviously, the occupation should be evaluated for cost-benefit ratio both in terms of preventing terrorism and in terms of an eventual negotiated solution on a regular basis, as Sharon is clearly doing. Oddly, I think the IDF and the voting population of Israel are doing a better job of evaluating their options, than you are. Your arguments are those of the traditional Israeli liberal-left. They were refuted soundly by the events of 2000-2004 (the peace offer and the terrorist war in reply). |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jul 23 2005, 06:56 AM Post #23 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Excellent thread so far. No need anymore for the thread I started. Anyway, it wasn’t really the brainstorming session I envisioned. I knew what jon meant by my initial proposal. But I chose not to harp on it because I thought it might nevertheless go somewhere. However Tom saw to it that it wouldn’t. I no longer know what Tom’s agenda is in these CRs. Frankly, I no longer care. |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 23 2005, 07:01 AM Post #24 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hay Frank, if you didn't notice I was getting all of those "I don't know if you are an anti Semite or just ignorant." Over and over. Speak nicely to me and I will reply in kind--otherwise.
|
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Jul 25 2005, 02:23 PM Post #25 |
|
Cheers
|
Jeffrey - sorry for the hiatus, I was a piano-practicing machine yesterday, and never went to TNCR.
I don't doubt that it would be better to be hated and alive than dead and loved, but its not clear to me that that is the choice Israel faces with respect to the occupation. Would quitting Gaza in, say, 1995 have killed the Jews? I think most reasonable observers would say no.
Yes, but they could have had checkpoints at the border without the occupation, couldn't they? So thats not really an answer to my quesiton.
You say that someone's willingness to committ terrorist acts has nothing to do with their religious instruction? Or the anger that they personally feel toward the Israelis? Do you really believe that? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









(means frustrated at fact, not you)

4:12 PM Jul 10