Uncategorized

Why We Need a Fence

In his latest article in Haaretz, the economist Avraham Tal repeats the usual security claims in support of the wall/fence but also gives another, supposedly more important argument. Tal argues that if a Palestinian state was to be founded in the future, the wall/fence will be instrumental in separating the emerging, probably poor economy from the Israeli prosperous one:

Meanwhile, at a distance of a few kilometers, sometimes merely dozens of meters, from that backward Third World country [the future Palestinian state], will be an industrialized Western welfare state that provides a high standard of living and whose citizens hold valuable assets. Such wealth will render incursions into Israel a ceaseless source of attraction. The agricultural robberies of the 1950s and car theft after 1967, and the invasion of 150,000 illegal residents since then, will be a mere preview of coming attractions for what can be expected as the gap widens between the standards of living in the Palestinian state and Israel in coming decades.

If an effective fence does not divide the two, life in Israel won’t be livable and a quick process of abandonment will begin. Whoever claims there is no need for nor point to the fence has in fact come to terms with Israel committing suicide as a Western Jewish state, en route to establishing a binational Middle Eastern state.

If the flow of poor Palestinians from their newly founded country will make Israeli life “not livable”, one can only assume that Tal agrees that the Palestinian’s lives in the first place would be even worse (and his article seems to corroborate that). As long as the Palestinians will be behind a wall/fence, and of no concern to Israeli privilage and security (in that order), Tal doesn’t seem to care of them or their existence.

49 thoughts on “Why We Need a Fence

  1. As long as the Palestinians will be behind a wall/fence, and of no concern to Israeli privilage and security (in that order), Tal doesn’t seem to care of them or their existence.: ah, but why does Asaf care so much about Tal?
    By which I mean: obviously Asaf implies that Tal’s attitude is somehow representative or indicative of the motivations behind something. But all i can make of it is the very broad idea that those who want to erect barriers between countries — the U.S.-Mexico border, say — are failing in their duty of brotherly love.
    That’s a point I’d like to agree with, at least in theory. But I’m cheerfully willing to admit that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli and, particularly, Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the other hand, it may have something to do with tikkun and ve’ahavta and stuff.

  2. it seems that you’re saying that after 70 years of occasional terror and about 3 and half of frequent terror, the israelis owe the palestinians something. i think the word for the holder of such a belief is “freier.”

  3. bead, you gave me a good chuckle there. And while I am sure asaf knows all about freierim I think we need to take a look at the situation from a different perspective. Asaf seems to imply some kind of crunchy granola ethic where we need to worry/care about Palestinian welfare because it makes him feel all warm and fuzzy.
    Now that’s all good but I think we need to consider the issue. Avraham Tal’s perspective is note worthy but a little cold (typical economist) while asaf is admirably idealistic but totally unrealistic.
    I think we need to look at the issue from a perspective of enlightened self-interest. Consequently, while I do not advocate taking the fence down I do think we need to consider what can be done for the economic and social well being of our Palestinian neighbours. Certainly, living in peace will go a long way towards improving living conditions on both sides of the border. But whatever the case may be, it is clearly not in our best interests to callously disregard the welfare of our neighbours. The more livable a future Palestinian state is, the less likely it is that the conflict will continue.

  4. A fence would be good for them. They will have the opportunity to pull themselves up from nothing and become a blossom of the desert. Just like every single other Arab democracry on the planet.
    Do you know why the “green line” is so-called?

  5. (If i remember correctly, which i admit may not be so) It’s called the green line because that was the colour on the map that was used. There is also a myth that it’s because that’s where the desert stops blooming… i.e. Israel’s green and blooming, and they’re not.

  6. QUESTION on an entirely different topic:
    Who do iI send an e-mail to in order to advise of something Jewschool might want to report on?

  7. you can send a message to mobius or to any other writer you think would be appropiate (such as myself, theTownCrier, etc.)

  8. ck_dave:
    good assessment. i agree. however, israel itself is very much a welfare state (in spite of its high standard of living). i think it’s certainly in israel’s interest to have an economically viable Palestine. However, i also think that between the europeans and the oil kingdoms, there’s plenty of dough to go around. plus, corruption is so rife in the pa, that economic viability is a long, long way away.

  9. … I do think we need to consider what can be done for the economic and social well being of our Palestinian neighbours. Certainly, living in peace will go a long way towards improving living conditions on both sides of the border. But whatever the case may be, it is clearly not in our best interests to callously disregard the welfare of our neighbours. The more livable a future Palestinian state is, the less likely it is that the conflict will continue.?
    ck_dave,
    you still don’t get it. The Palestinian Arabs don’t want to improve their standard of living and have never demanded as such. You can’t buy peace with tvs and hollywood movies. It is a different culture, and it’s not only propaganda for them to say that they will be patient as they watch Israel crumble on itself.
    Stop assuming that everyone watches Mtv and wears Diesel jeans.

  10. The Palestinian Arabs don’t want to improve their standard of living and have never demanded as such. Okay, that’s just bizarre.
    Why do you think so many Palestinians wind up in Saudi Arabia or UAE and, from there, to Canada, U.S., Australia, etc? Why do you think there’s a giant shopping mall in downtown Ramallah? Why do you think Palestinians living under Lebanese and Syrian apartheid bother going to school, when they know it’s illegal for them to ply a trade?
    And on, and on. Speaking of bizarre: you can’t buy peace with tvs and hollywood movies. What do TVs and Hollywood movies — or, for that matter, the popularity of both in the Arabic-language sphere — have to do with one’s standard of living?

  11. I highly doubt there is any correlation between standard of living and the unrest of Palestinians.
    Before control the west bank was given to the PA in olso, the Palestinians enjoyed one of the highest standard of living in the whole Arab world. They had a higher GDP/ literacy level, employment rate/ homeownership rate etc. etc. than jordan, Syria Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt etc. Contrast this to the the 19 year period before 67, where the west bank was under jordan control. The conditions were much worse, yet there was far less unreset.
    If poor standard of living is what caused the unrest, the Palestinians would be just about the last Arab country to do so.
    There have been many liberal studies that have shown that there is no correlation between socioeconomic status and becoming a terrorist.
    I think its quite clear that the reasons for the Arab unrest is driven by ideology and politics, and not the poor standard of living that they brought upon themselves.

  12. a few things:
    “There have been many liberal studies that have shown that there is no correlation between socioeconomic status and becoming a terrorist.”
    Jimbo, while I cannot dispute that, what I can tell you is that the only time since WWII that 2 countries from the top economic tier fought each other was the Soviet incursion into Hungary in 56. I’m not suggesting we put a KFC up on every corner in Jenin, but economic prosperity of the Palestinians cannot be written off as a possible factor that may help bring about peace. If you’ve ever visited Palestine before the intifada then you’ve seen the prosperity achieved there relative to the utter poverty that can be observed today. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Palestinian people, if left to govern themselves, would choose to work in their own pizzerias and cafes, instead of blowing up ours.

  13. Actually, most comparative politics theory speculates that unrest is not caused by poor standards of living, but by precisely what the Palestinians have been experiencing — a rise in standards, followed by a fall. It’s the raised expectations that create problems. If people are just downtrodden, they can stay that way for hundreds of years, like serfs in Russia. It’s only when something gives them the idea that things can improve that you get unrest.

  14. “It’s only when something gives them the idea that things can improve that you get unrest.”
    Thats exactly avraham tal’s point – he claims that palestinians will be flocking to israel. thats why i dont get how he can be blind to the fact that building ghettos to palestinians wont make them dissappear.

  15. “It’s only when something gives them the idea that things can improve that you get unrest.”
    Yes, but this improvement had nothing to do with standard of living and everything to do with a perceived weakness of the Israelis after Israel withdrew from leb and started making major concessions to Ararat.
    We all know that after the Palestinians receive the west bank the terror and incitement will continue, just as they existed before israel had the west bank.
    I can already see the argument liberals are going to use to explain it: “oh, but they are poor and they see how well israelis live.” This completely ignores the fact no citizens of other improvised countries routinely commit terror attacks against its neighbors because of their higher standard of living.
    I find it difficult to understand how anyone think that palestinian terror is driven by anything but ideology.

  16. Jimbo,
    lets say the palestinians are driven by ideology. Dont you think this leaves us with very important questions?
    firstly, why has this ideology become so strong? why has support for hamas, manifestation of this “ideology’ become much stronger only in the last years?
    ok thats just one question. many more to come.
    leaving the occupation out of the equation is being blind to reality that shapes ideologies in israel.

  17. “why has this ideology become so strong?”
    “why has support for hamas”
    These are two separate questions.
    First hatred of israel has always been very strong. Im not sure it has become stronger as of late, but rather, it is now that they have decided to act on their ideology.
    As I laid out in the post above, do you really think it is a coincidence that the uprising came soon after the withdrawal from leb and negotiations with the PA leadership? Im sure you dont. The Palestinians decided to act on it, precisely then, because arafat thought, and understandably so, that such an uprising may gather enough international support that it can successfully pressure a “weak” israel (and why not. It made sense for the PA to think they can bring israel to its knees. The PA even has scores of jews making excuse for them every step of the way, and trying to prevent every defensive measure along the way)
    Historically and presently (except maybe 48), arabs have attacked israel, not when they were at there at their angriest against israel, or had their worse standard of living, but when they felt they could be successful. That is why no arab country attacks israel anymore- because they no they cannot win. If they believed they could win, as arafat did, all the arab countries would attack in a heartbeat.
    a suggested motive for an actions is disproven, when the action occurs without the said motive being present.

  18. wait, let me get this clear – are you talking about leadership or about people? you seem to be mixing the both up.
    You still didnt answer how come the support for hamas and militant resistance has risen so much. we all know there were days we walked the shuks.

  19. “wait, let me get this clear – are you talking about leadership or about people? you seem to be mixing the both up. ”
    Leadership influences the people by indoctrinating them from cradle to grave. The leadership wants to start an uprising, the palestinian people will be more than ready, after years of pent up anger and hatred.
    Ill address the hamas question shortly.

  20. Gotta second Jimbo here.
    Asaf, the ‘occupation’ really is secondary to everything else. You’d do yourself a favour by stop accepting that excuse.
    Hamas has risen to power because Rabin was suckered into a deal with the PLO by Beilin, and then he actually thought that he was dealing with the less of two evils. His big mistake was that the PLO is in general not as religious (moral) as Hamas (Arafat the great married a ‘Christian’!) and they ruled through the regular corrupt tactics to suppress populations that dictators like. It would be interesting to know ‘what if’ the Hamas had become the P.A. and not the PLO.
    Asaf, I’ll remind you once again that after the PLO took power, the Palestinians ‘enjoyed’ a steady year-after-year decrease in GNP, even with the billions of transfer payments pumped into the economy that went to the ‘leaders’ you so adore and trust with Israel’s future.
    In the late summer of 2000, after Arafat came home from Camp David with nothing, the Palestinians took to the streets to protest that and their discontent with the PA in general, NOT the ‘occupation’ because it didn’t even exist, and Israelis were actually the best consumers they could enjoy. In September 2000, the P.A. successfully deflected that rage toward the Israel and the easy Jew scapegoat.
    Please stop being no naive and emotional and instead study a bit of the facts past your short-term memory of a few years.

  21. “Thats exactly avraham tal’s point – he claims that palestinians will be flocking to israel. thats why i dont get how he can be blind to the fact that building ghettos to palestinians wont make them dissappear.”
    -Asaf, should we then tear down the existing control of the US-Mexican border? They are poorer than us, but they are people too, right? Your intentions are great, but how can you envision a relationship between Palestine and Israel without a vigilantly enforced border?

  22. lets say the palestinians are driven by ideology. Dont you think this leaves us with very important questions?
    There’s almost no doubt that the Palestinian terrorists (Asaf talks of “Palestinians”, but he’s wrong to imply that all Palestinians are terrorists) are driven by ideology. The discussion of Avraham Tal’s article, and of its lack of love-thy-neighbour ideology which Asaf rightly, I suspect, condemns — does Israel really want to go down the road that the U.S. and Mexico, Yemen and Saudia, etc., etc. have followed? — is something quite different. It’s not about why many Palestinians support terrorism. It’s about why they’d want to move to Israel.
    Still. firstly, why has this ideology become so strong? why has support for hamas, manifestation of this “ideology’ become much stronger only in the last years? Let me suggest that this question isn’t going to get answered in this forum.
    If it does, the dozens of social scientists who spend their lives studying suicide bombing will be most anxious to hear about it. This includes those who study Japanese kamikazes. It includes the still-ongoing Tamil Tigers suicide bombers, who are said to have inspired certain Islamist groups. And it includes the Islamic Brotherhood and its offshoots, such Hamas, whose effectiveness in the Arab world has been remarkable — as demonstrated by suicide attacks they have successfully carried out in Aghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Kashmir, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia, Turkey, the U.S.
    In fact, practically the thing we can say for sure is that suicide attacks have nothing to do with standard of living; the overrepresentation of the middle class among them is a demonstration of that. You still didnt answer how come the support for hamas and militant resistance has risen so much. we all know there were days we walked the shuks. Well, here’s a theory: ’cause of the massive symbolic resources — Islamist groups like Hamas, nationalist groups like Fatah, religious leaders from Al Azhar on down, television broadcasters from Al Jazeera to Al Manar, newspapers from Al Hayat to al Quds al Arabi — all putting out a consistent and racist message of us vs them, and with nary a dissenting voice that isn’t soon crushed or delegitimised.

  23. “but how can you envision a relationship between Palestine and Israel without a vigilantly enforced border?”
    what does the current fence/wall have to do with a border? its the greatest obstacle except the settlements that Israel has in order to achieve a border.

  24. “Well, here’s a theory: ’cause of the massive symbolic resources — Islamist groups like Hamas, nationalist groups like Fatah, religious leaders from Al Azhar on down, television broadcasters from Al Jazeera to Al Manar, newspapers from Al Hayat to al Quds al Arabi — all putting out a consistent and racist message of us vs them, and with nary a dissenting voice that isn’t soon crushed or delegitimised.”
    Let me offer another theory, which does not necessarily contradict your.
    7 years the palestinians were being promised peace while more settlements than ever were being built around them, army invasions were frequent and occupation was still an occupation. the israeli peace camp was lying to israelis, promising them a “cafe peace” while nothing was changing in the palestinian street. Thus started the popular resistance. Obviously hamas and PA may have jumped and the wagon, there is no doubt about it.
    btw it was no incident that the radical left knew that an initifada is going to break (so did the army intelligence).

  25. “what does the current fence/wall have to do with a border?”
    Asaf, lets not shift the argument to semantics, now. You were just arguing that you didnt like the idea of having a wall separating the two economies. Now that it seems clear that it would be quite useful for israel to separate the west bank’s poor economy from their own, you have resorted back to a completely different argument.
    The article is discussing the general benefits of a wall that separates the two economies.
    I dont think he is claiming that it has to be along the exact lines that the current wall stands. Whatever the final border agreement is, having a wall separating the two is a very good idea. Do you agree or not?

  26. Jimbo,
    Avraham Tal was writing his article in response to the ICJ decision:
    ” The ICJ judges would settle for dismantling the fence that is on Palestinian land, whereas our Israeli fence dismantlers [bagatz] would not. They don’t want a fence anywhere, for if the fence tempts and provides incentive for terrorists, it matters not whether it is located on one side or the other of the Green Line.”
    Tal is simply lying or just got it wrong. The ICJ ruling was against the current wall, which is simply illegal. a wall on the green line will be legal by international law. thats what was the ruling all about.
    So i just wanted to clear that, first of all.
    Regarding a wall separating the two economies- If it was for Avraham Tal, the wall/fence would be absolutely sealed, without any movement through it. But anyone with a little sense in their minds would understand that if we were to have a legitimate, legal security wall/fence on the green line (which will sadly never happen) it will have to be able to let flow of goods and people from one side to another. Tal doesnt see the wall as a border but as a ghetto.

  27. Let me offer another theory, which does not necessarily contradict your. 7 years the palestinians were being promised peace while more settlements than ever were being built around them, army invasions were frequent and occupation was still an occupation. the israeli peace camp was lying to israelis, promising them a “cafe peace” while nothing was changing in the palestinian street. Thus started the popular resistance. Obviously hamas and PA may have jumped and the wagon, there is no doubt about it.
    Obviously I agree with you about the Israeli political leadership and its negotiations. I won’t go so far as to call the Israeli administration’s duplicity “awful” — let’s be fair: this is how politics tends to work; what we demand of Israeli negotiators is the kind of honest, straightforward position which is a higher standard than very many other politicians are held to.
    But that’s just fine. And it’s maybe even necessary in a situation where there is absolutely no goodwill, room to fudge, or details to be left until later. But, even then, I don’t agree with that theory as an explanation for the terror. Reacting with suicide bombings, etc. is not just reprehensible. It is enabled by the Islamic Brotherhood’s remarkable success in playing the Arab world so as to cultivate suicide bombers in the service of what it is selling as a race war.
    So, in thinking about this, we need to separate the justifiable frustration of Palestinians — and of Saudis, Yemenites, British-Pakistani Muslims, and those of many other nationalities who have acted as suicide bombers — from the way in which that frustration has been cultivated and channelled. Heck, just look at the Palestinians, who are one of the Arab/Muslim populations from which suicide bombers are successfully being recruited. They have not committed suicide bombing against apartheid Lebanon. They have not committed suicide bombing against the corrupt betrayals of the PA. Clearly, there is something more going on.
    That something more is the successful channelling of the feelings into a race war. I think it’s quite significant. It’s why I believe one of the simplest, and very important, measures that Jews need to undertake is to learn Arabic and become part of Arabic-language media audiences, so we can be part of that conversation.
    Now, in a perfect world one can argue that, simply, noone should be frustrated — or, more accurately, that noone should have feelings that can be cultivated into frustration. Under that argument, sure, the deception of corrupt Israeli negotiators is a contributing factor to terror. But that seems like a terribly silly position: a world without frustration is a utopia that will not be with us anytime soon.

  28. “But, even then, I don’t agree with that theory as an explanation for the terror. Reacting with suicide bombings, etc. is not just reprehensible. It is enabled by the Islamic Brotherhood’s remarkable success in playing the Arab world so as to cultivate suicide bombers in the service of what it is selling as a race war.”
    Agreed. But what i am talking about is not the “awfulness” of israeli negotiators. TheIslamic brotherhood started with its social operations in the end of the 1980’s and Yassin got approval and support from Israel in order to start the Hamas – an Islamic opposition to Hamas. It is no surprise that Israel under Shamir and the Likud wanted to do so. the PLO was secular and willing to compromise the whole of palestine, which puts supporters of the whole Israel in a weird position. Diving the palestinians by supporting a fundamentalist religious group made a lot of sense to Israel.
    It seems that Israel is continuing the same strategy of undermining the moderate voices in palestinian society to this day- by opressing non-violent resistance agains the wall, and by brutally attacking palestinian civilians in the last 4 years. no wonder the support for the Hamas has grown so much since the beginning of the initifada.

  29. “Tal is simply lying or just got it wrong”
    –what tal is doing is called making an inference, something we do all the time. Because the ICJ said that a wall would temp terrorists, tal is inferring (and reasonably so) that this would always hold true, and terrorists will always be tempted because of a wall (didnt you claim the exact same thing???)
    “If it was for Avraham Tal, the wall/fence would be absolutely sealed, without any movement through it.”
    Please tell me exactly where in the article you read this? He never said anything of the sort. No economist would make such a proposal. In case you didnt get it, he wasnt saying we should put up a wall so NO Palestinian could ever get into israel. He was saying we should put up a wall so that israel will be able to control the flow of Palestinians into israel (“Such wealth will render incursions into Israel a ceaseless source of attraction.”) . The wall would prevent “incursions” into israel. He never said it should keep out those who enter legally.
    My question still stands: do you favor a wall that would help separate the ecomies of israel and the west bank?

  30. Jimbo,
    Tal’s assumption regarding the court ruling is rediculous. the court discussed legality. anyhow following the logic of the judges the wall wont be an incentive if it is built on the green line. i am not saying if this is true or false – i am just showing that Tal’s logic is twisted.
    Regarding Tal – Tal is following Barak’s recipe – us here, they are there. As a serious economist he should know that it is impossible to separate the future palestinian economy from the israeli one.
    So that answers your question – the wall should have nothing to do with keeping palestinians starving and Israelis privileged. (as Tal beautifully puts it)

  31. i misread tals quote, he never said it was the icj that discussed the “tempting terror” issue, he said it was the israeli detractors (such as yourself). He, in fact, did say that the judges would be OK if the wall was on the green line. He said it would be YOU that would not be ok with any wall whatsoever. And judging by your responses, he seems to be dead on. (would you support a wall along the green line? in no, then tal is correct in his assumption.)
    Oh, and whats this?? You never pointed out to me where tal said it would have to be absolutely sealed?? I guess thats because he never said anything like that. He NEVER said there has to be a COMPLETE separation. He is trying to prevent ceaseless incursions into israel, and he thinks a wall will help.
    And thanks for avioding my question once again. Why dont you just be forward and say “i will never support a fence under any circumstances.” Because,as tal pointed out, that is what you seem to be getting at.

  32. I will support a temporary fence on the green line, obviously depending on many factors of its form, but in general yes. But supporting a fence on the green line is the same as supporting the end of the settlement projects as zionista pointed out. Israel made it clear that this will not happen any time soon.
    In any case, unlike Tal I do not see such a fence serving as a border for the creation of a ghetto. Tal did not talk about a completely sealed wall in his article, but his idea is clear – the palestinians stay in their ghetto, we stay with out “western” privilage.

  33. It seems that Israel is continuing the same strategy of undermining the moderate voices in palestinian society to this day- by opressing non-violent resistance agains the wall, and by brutally attacking palestinian civilians in the last 4 years. no wonder the support for the Hamas has grown so much since the beginning of the initifada.
    I can’t agree — you’re still speaking as though the only determining factor in the Palestinian world is what the Israeli government does or doesn’t do. That’s just not so. Sure, israeli action has provided grist for Hamas’s mill. But Hamas’s popularity in Palestine is not very different than the other Islamic Brotherhood offshoots’ popularity in other Arab and Muslim environments. To chalk it up to Israel is to infantilise the Palestinians — as though nothing happened in their world unless Israelis made it happen. And I just don’t buy it.
    In any case, unlike Tal I do not see such a fence serving as a border for the creation of a ghetto. Tal did not talk about a completely sealed wall in his article, but his idea is clear – the palestinians stay in their ghetto, we stay with out “western” privilage.
    Same thing here. It may or may not be a good idea for Israel and Palestine to adopt the world’s openest border and break with normal international relations by creating a checkpoint-less border.
    Whatever israel does choose to do on its eventual border, though, that will not create a ghetto for Palestinians to the extent that Israel is not the only other country in the world, or even the only other country neighbouring the future Palestine. There’s Egypt. There’s Jordan. By airplane — an independent Palestine will have to revive the Gaza airport, frinstance — there are the UAE, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and on and on.
    And, of course, there will be Israel. I’ve looked over the Tal article, and it’s hard to find support in it for this no-israel-ever idea: as Jimbo says, the idea seems to be closing off all entry that doesn’t take place at border crossings. But that’s not very unusual.
    But supporting a fence on the green line is the same as supporting the end of the settlement projects as zionista pointed out. Israel made it clear that this will not happen any time soon.
    Perhaps. But nor will very many of the things that you’re pulling for. This seems much more attainable than most, and a relatively promising goal for political change.

  34. the palestinians are under a military regime. their future depends more on America and Israel than it does on their own leaders. This is just a sad fact. Israel has brought the PLO from Tunis to create an illusion where it seems there is a leadership that can take responsibility for the Palestinians and their stuation, thus leaving Israel without any responsibility. But this is the greatest lie of the occupation. the PA is the creation of Israel just as the Hamas is.
    dinner. more later.

  35. Asaf,
    Why must you make a fool of yourself?
    “the palestinians are under a military regime. their future depends more on America and Israel than it does on their own leaders. This is just a sad fact. Israel has brought the PLO from Tunis to create an illusion where it seems there is a leadership that can take responsibility for the Palestinians and their stuation, thus leaving Israel without any responsibility. But this is the greatest lie of the occupation. the PA is the creation of Israel just as the Hamas is.”
    In an effort to denounce what you percieve as the great transgressions of Israel, you’ve reduced and rewrote Palestinian national history to fall squarely , as you see it, on the “colonizers” shoulders. This is the same faulty mechanism that allowed Fanon to inspire to early PLO and subsequently for the PLO’s same abandonment. Again, your theories are raised from idea that one can apply the postcolonial model to Israel and The Jews and their relationship to the Palestinians and the Arab peoples in general. VS Naipaul should take you out to a nice kosher lunch and tell you “There is no greater imperialism than that of the Arabs.”
    If you’re dribblish statements prpve true, then Black, Jewish, Gypsy, and other diasporic liberations are debunked because they seek to consolidate dispersion in the face of “the native revolt” that seeks to disperse the same diasporic liberation, and thus diffuse it.
    I think you should get off yr New Left rocking chair, you sound like an old man.

  36. “In an effort to denounce what you percieve as the great transgressions of Israel, you’ve reduced and rewrote Palestinian national history to fall squarely , as you see it, on the “colonizers” shoulders.”
    Simply untrue, and definitely not “New Left”.
    To begin with, the Palestinian National Organization is not THE palesitinian National movement. Palestinians national aspirations didnt start in 1964 with the creation of the PLO.
    Actually, nor in 1994 witht he creation of the PA:
    look at my quote carefully. I didnt write PLO but PA. This is the illusion that Arafat can actually claim responsibility of the palestinian people. at certain points in recent history it seemed that this might be possible. but Israel again and again didnt let this happen. thus the PA transformed to being Israel’s wettest dreams – someone to blame for everything that is happening to the palestinians. dont we all expect arafat to stop terror from his 3 rooms in ramalla right?
    Thus dont start assuming stuff that are simply not true. i never “rewrote” palestinian national history.

  37. I wrote: you’re still speaking as though the only determining factor in the Palestinian world is what the Israeli government does or doesn’t do. That’s just not so. Sure, israeli action has provided grist for Hamas’s mill. But Hamas’s popularity in Palestine is not very different than the other Islamic Brotherhood offshoots’ popularity in other Arab and Muslim environments. To chalk it up to Israel is to infantilise the Palestinians — as though nothing happened in their world unless Israelis made it happen.
    Asaf responded: the palestinians are under a military regime. their future depends more on America and Israel than it does on their own leaders. This is just a sad fact. Israel has brought the PLO from Tunis to create an illusion where it seems there is a leadership that can take responsibility for the Palestinians and their stuation
    This doesn’t address the issue and, parenthetically, is misleading.
    It doesn’t address the issue because it continues to position Palestinians as noble-savage children whose every action is in fact someone else’s — as opposed to actual human beings. The support for Hamas is, in this insulting vision, simply the choice that Israel and the U.S. have made for Palestinians. But this view of Israeli masters and snivelling Palestinians is almost impossible to square with the fact that Hamas is in no way unique. Everywhere in the Arab world, the Islamic Brotherhood has parlayed visions of a race war to success. In Palestine, it is no different.
    It is, incidentally, misleading because it decribes the return of PLO leaders from Tunisia, and then the assigning of actual responsibility to the same PLO leaders, as yet another Israeli plot. This is probably the only position that is consistent with the view of Palestinians as immovable objects, incapable of doing anything on their own. But not only is it cynical in the extreme: it also requires a nearly fantastical rewriting of history, from the erasure of the Israeli attack on Tunisian PLO headquarters to the implication that almost all of at least one of two PLO factions, as well as large portions of the Arab League, were in fact either Jewish or subject to Jewish mind control.
    To further argue this point of view, Asaf makes another series of surprising assertions, organised around the illusion that Arafat can actually claim responsibility of the palestinian people and a PA transformed to being Israel’s wettest dreams – someone to blame for everything that is happening to the palestinians.
    Let’s be consistent: Israel put everything on the PA’s shoulders because the PA was the only body mandated under international law to act. Israel knew that any incursions into the PA-controlled territories, and in a sense any act against terrorist groups, could be construed as against international law unless it was clearly established that the PA was not doing its job of policing its territories.
    Was the Israeli public-relations stance of blaming the PA constantly a cynical ploy? Of course it was. But not to “transform” the PA: to try and establish a lack of culpability for actions they were going to take anyway.
    Finally, as to Israel again and again didnt let this happen: that the Israeli government went directly after PA operatives, there is absolutely no doubt. One popular explanation — Asaf is borrowing it — goes like this: Arafat and the PA absolutely had good intentions. They simply wanted to govern the Palestinian territories properly. But israel did not want to see that happen. So they attacked the PA repeatedly, preventing the PA from doing the job that it was prepared to, because that would have given too much credibility to Palestinian self-governance.
    That seems like a poor explanation to me. Were a government of genuinely good faith in place, I think Israel would have been prepared to work with it, not against it. I genuinely do believe that there is a connection between the PA’s continued support for Palestinian military aggression against Israel — in the form of terror attacks, obviously — and Israel’s opposition to the PA.

  38. “It doesn’t address the issue because it continues to position Palestinians as noble-savage children whose every action is in fact someone else’s — as opposed to actual human beings. The support for Hamas is, in this insulting vision, simply the choice that Israel and the U.S. have made for Palestinians.”
    No no no and again – no. The only thing I claim is that whether not the Palestinians support the Hamas – thats not the most important factor. The more important factor are Israel, i.e. America.
    “…But not only is it cynical in the extreme: it also requires a nearly fantastical rewriting of history, from the erasure of the Israeli attack on Tunisian PLO headquarters to the implication that almost all of at least one of two PLO factions, as well as large portions of the Arab League, were in fact either Jewish or subject to Jewish mind control.”
    No no no and one more no. If you really want to find a so called contradiction in my words, you should have quoted my argument that the Hamas was supported by Israel to be a religious opposition to Hamas. Why, you should ask me, would Israel put an opposition to its own “creation”? First of all, a lot has changed since the Tunis days. Once, The PLO was an Israeli nightmare – secular and willing to compromise. but now we are faced with a completely different situation where the whole israel dream is impossible. the PA plays an important role in this as I pointed out (and so does Tal).
    “Was the Israeli public-relations stance of blaming the PA constantly a cynical ploy? Of course it was. But not to “transform” the PA: to try and establish a lack of culpability for actions they were going to take anyway.”
    Israel looks at Arafat as irrelevant and at the same time blames him for being unable to stop terror. this is in essence the new role of the PA. I suspect this was Isralei intention since 1993 at least, with the beginning of the Olso process. Once you have a PA, you have a supposedly equal enemy when nothing can be farther from the truth.
    “That seems like a poor explanation to me. Were a government of genuinely good faith in place, I think Israel would have been prepared to work with it, not against it. I genuinely do believe that there is a connection between the PA’s continued support for Palestinian military aggression against Israel — in the form of terror attacks, obviously — and Israel’s opposition to the PA.”
    You put words in my mouth. I NEVER said Arafat “absolutely had good intentions” as you seem to argue about me.
    You are missing the whole point. Of course Israel would prefer that a civil war would erupt and that Arafat would destroy terror. If he would succeed – all is good. all human rights violations are not on their hands. If he would fail, well, we then he can be blamed and the IDF can fight terror itself, with a very good jutification in hands. Thats what oslo is about. That’s what in fact happened with operation defensive shield. it is fair to assume that arafat had an interest in establishing a monopoly power for the PA against Hamas and other oppositions, but simply couldnt.

  39. “Israel looks at Arafat as irrelevant and at the same time blames him for being unable to stop terror.”
    sorry let me reprhase this – i wrote this post hastly. I meant to write: Israel looks at arafat as irrelevant and at the same time demands the PA to fight terror.

  40. continuing my argument in the last post –
    arafat never had real power to fight hamas and jihad. but israel still blamed him for not fighting terror. in this last intifada israel gave one (last?) blow to the PA during operation defensive shield, leaving a lot of anarchy and terror gangs in the occupied territories. thus PA’s role as responsible for terror has been fulfilled, and Israel was able to proceed with opression of the palestinian people in the name of fighting terror. as a result, in the last 4 years the power of the hamas terribly grew. the support for hamas is not a choice of Israel, but definitely benefits many politicians and generals. the question if this was intentional is impossible to answer.

  41. No no no and one more no. If you really want to find a so called contradiction in my words, you should have quoted… er, thank you. But I continue to find the idea that the PA is an Israeli puppet regime downright strange. In particular, I find it impossible to reconcile most of the PLO and PA histories with this idea, from Israel’s choise in Tunisia to bomb this apparent puppet regime’s key personnel, to the Arab League’s support of this apparent Zionist creation, and so forth.
    The only thing I claim is that whether not the Palestinians support the Hamas – thats not the most important factor. The more important factor are Israel, i.e. America. I think we’re talking about different things here. The discussion had been about why has support for hamas, manifestation of this “ideology’ become much stronger only in the last years? Obviously, whether or not Palestinians support Hamas is relevant to whether their ideology has become stronger among Palestinians. You seem to have moved on to something else here.
    this is in essence the new role of the PA. Yes, obviously: it is the role of any government which, under international law (and by definition) is charged with maintaining a monopoly over the means of violence in the country. Once you have a PA, you have a supposedly equal enemy when nothing can be farther from the truth. It’s not about whether the Israeli and nascent Palestinian government are equal. It’s simply about what their job is as government; that’s how countries are defined, is it not?
    Hence: Of course Israel would prefer that a civil war would erupt and that Arafat would destroy terror. I doubt that a civil war in Palestine would be good for Israel — but whether the PA is capable or incapable of dealing with Palestinian criminals, it is nonetheless the organisation whose responsibility it is to make that call; if it is incapable, its job is to call on international bodies for help. Instead, all it does is convene emergency meeting after emergency meeting in the UN to condemn Israel, hoping noone will address its unbelievably rotten domestic affairs.
    So whether or not Israel wants the PA to destroy terror is not really relevant to the PA’s duty; that’s simply the job that Arafat signed up for as president of Palestine. So: I meant to write: Israel looks at arafat as irrelevant and at the same time demands the PA to fight terror. Yes, obviously: the PA’s job is to fight terror, and Arafat has led the PA at cross-purposes. This is quite unsurprising, is it not?
    I NEVER said Arafat “absolutely had good intentions” as you seem to argue about me. Not that you said it — but that, I’m suggesting, that’s what the argument you’re making seems to require. If Arafat didn’t have good intentions, after all, then you can hardly fault Israel for refusing to believe that Arafat would fail to do his job with regard to illegal Palestinian attacks — and for, therefore, acting accordingly. arafat never had real power to fight hamas and jihad. but israel still blamed him for not fighting terror. Okay. First of all, I am unconvinced by your assessment of Arafat, at least in the early days: when he chose to, he was able to use his massive police force to shut down Hamas and Jihad surprisingly quickly. And his authority over Fatah was, obviously, far greater but, there too, he chose to exercise it.
    But, second, whether or not we agree on that doesn’t really matter; the point is not what Arafat was capable of doing, but what he and his administration had legal responsibility for doing as the Palestinian government. If, as you contend, he simply had no power — even if he was of good faith, you’re saying, he just couldn’t do a thing about it — then it was his responsibility and duty under international law to find a way to get the job done, including appealing for emergency forces, reforming media messages to try and win support, and all other means necessary.
    That he chose not to brings us back to the security barrier issue. With a security barrier on the internationally-recognised Israeli-Palestinian border — this is something you say you support as a temporary measure, if I understand correctly — Israel is saying, in effect: the PA is responsible for Palestinians, not us. That lends credence to the temporariness of the security barrier, the idea being that once the PA begins to govern its territory and imposes rule of law, which is something you’re arguing (through Arafat’s or the PA’s apparent impotence) doesn’t currently exist in the Palestinian territories, the justification for the security barrier would have disappeared.

  42. “… er, thank you. But I continue to find the idea that the PA is an Israeli puppet regime downright strange. In particular, I find it impossible to reconcile most of the PLO and PA histories with this idea, from Israel’s choise in Tunisia to bomb this apparent puppet regime’s key personnel, to the Arab League’s support of this apparent Zionist creation, and so forth.”
    I dont think the PA is Israel’s puppet regime. I am just giving you a good explaination why Arafat wasnt assasinated together with Yassin. PA needs to exist symolically for Israeli interest.
    “It’s not about whether the Israeli and nascent Palestinian government are equal. It’s simply about what their job is as government; that’s how countries are defined, is it not?”
    The PA is not a government as far as I know. More about this below.
    “So whether or not Israel wants the PA to destroy terror is not really relevant to the PA’s duty; that’s simply the job that Arafat signed up for as president of Palestine.”
    Thats why arafat is playing into the hands of Israel and is doing a really bad job as a leader. obviously he and his currupt elite dont seem to care – they benefit from the whole situation as well. In this sense, I hold Arafat responsible for the disaster of the Palestinian people.
    “If Arafat didn’t have good intentions, after all, then you can hardly fault Israel for refusing to believe that Arafat would fail to do his job with regard to illegal Palestinian attacks — and for, therefore, acting accordingly.”
    no – what I would like to argue is that whether or not Arafat had good intentions doesnt matter. Gilad’s (and Israel’s) doctrine in the last intifada is that Arafat is not a partner, and operation defensive shield made sure that doctrine would be a fulfilled prophecy. during the oslo period, when arafat was still a so-called partner, he was fulfilling the role of the leader with responsibilities – a joke, considering the fact that Israel was continuing to built settlements, invade the territories, and continue in general with the occupation routines. So both during oslo and this intifada- arafat’s intentions didnt matter. It is true, though, I think, that during the oslo period arafat had more power to control terror.
    “Okay. First of all, I am unconvinced by your assessment of Arafat, at least in the early days: when he chose to, he was able to use his massive police force to shut down Hamas and Jihad surprisingly quickly. And his authority over Fatah was, obviously, far greater but, there too, he chose to exercise it. ”
    It might be argued that during the Oslo days Arafat had more power (and thus responsibility, as the equation goes). There are many factors that can explain this, but it would crazy to claim that PA has the power of a government to control the palestinians. THis is true both for Oslo and since october 2004 even more. But now there are facts on the ground, created by Israel – This intifada Israel destroyed the PA’s power and strengthened the Hamas, under the “no partner” doctrine.
    Question: Why would Arafat want to loose his power monopoly in the territories?
    “But, second, whether or not we agree on that doesn’t really matter; the point is not what Arafat was capable of doing, but what he and his administration had legal responsibility for doing as the Palestinian government. If, as you contend, he simply had no power — even if he was of good faith, you’re saying, he just couldn’t do a thing about it — then it was his responsibility and duty under international law to find a way to get the job done, including appealing for emergency forces, reforming media messages to try and win support, and all other means necessary.”
    Again I am no expert in legal matters – but i dont think the PA constitutes as a government. In any case, the PA and Arafat are corrupt. They are acting as powerless authority, thus betraying the palesinian cause and playing into the interest of the occupation regime.
    “Israel is saying, in effect: the PA is responsible for Palestinians, not us.”
    Maybe de juro (I have no clue as I said) but not de facto. As long as Israel put seiges, roadblocks, invading towns and villages and controlling palestinian lives with military means under such a regime, the responsibility over the palestinians is under Israeli hands.
    MOREOVER- if indeed the palestinians are under the responsibility of the PA, the wall must be built on Israeli territoriy/green line, not on palestinian land, and Israel must defend itself in borders. Israel must choose – does it have responsibility over palestinians with all that entails – an undemocratic military regime, or does the PA have that responsibility? If the latter is the case, Israel must redraw its forces from all palestinian land.

  43. Question: Why would Arafat want to loose his power monopoly in the territories?
    He wouldn’t, quite obviously. He hasn’t, I’d argue. He miscalculated, all would agree.
    Again I am no expert in legal matters – but i dont think the PA constitutes as a government. In any case, the PA and Arafat are corrupt. They are acting as powerless authority, thus betraying the palesinian cause and playing into the interest of the occupation regime.
    They don’t formally constitute a government, in the same way that the Palestinian Territories don’t formally constitute a country. But that’s not the whole story. if it were, then obviously the PA would be officially a non-entity and there would be no such thing as an Israeli “incursion”, since Israel could legally move around as much as it liked.
    But the PA does constitute a quasi-government. The Palestinian Territories does constitute what amounts to a quasi-country. And the PA does have the responsibility of policing. When it fails, you have a failed quasi-state on your hands.
    That’s the whole point here. Earlier, you distinguished between the PLO and the PA. That, too is the whole point, because it is the difference between them. The PLO is just a faction: corrupt? don’t like it? no problem; it has no formal authority. The PA is just the opposite: it is the UN-recognised representative of the Palestinian people; it holds elections; it is the official Palestinian party to the conflict; and it is what amounts to the Palestinian government, to the extent that they have a government, a police force, and so forth.
    So if the PA’s broke, there is no option to abandon it. The only option is to fix it. It’s their responsibility to police Palestinian illegal activities exactly the way it’s Israel’s responsibility to police their own citizenry’s illegal activities.
    But don’t just take it from me. Terje Roed Larsen, who had been the EU representative and more recently was the UN envoy for the peace plan, just finished his term. Ha’aretz’s quote from remarks following his final monthly report to the Security Council: “The PA, despite consistent promises by its leadership, has made no progress on its core obligation to take immediate action on the ground to end violence and combat terror and to reform and reorganize the Palestinian Authority
    The Guardian pulls the same quote. Electronic Intifada carries a summary of his speech here, which includes: The perceived Palestinian Authority abdication of responsibility had led many Rafah residents to take matters into their own hands, up to the point where some of them had established a private checkpoint, preventing Palestinian Authority officials from crossing to Egypt or from entering Rafah. Jericho was becoming the only Palestinian city with a functioning police. That collapse of authority could not be attributed to the Israeli incursions and operations inside Palestinian towns. The PA responded by banning the soon-ex UN envoy.
    MOREOVER- if indeed the palestinians are under the responsibility of the PA, the wall must be built on Israeli territoriy/green line, not on palestinian land, and Israel must defend itself in borders. Yes, yes. That’s what I’ve been saying over and over again. There can be no legal defence of Israeli citizens as long as Israeli citizens are stationed in Palestinian territory. It’s time to remove the settlements. Israel must choose – does it have responsibility over palestinians with all that entails – an undemocratic military regime, or does the PA have that responsibility? With respect, the UN has already chosen. The PA has that responsibility. When it fails that responsibility, neighbouring states have the right to act to defend themselves. That’s why Israel kept leaning on the PA and accusing them of failure. It was a way of gathering legal justification for repeated incursions of areas under Palestinian control.
    Sadly, they were in part in the right. That’s because the PA has been either so hopefully inadequate or, more cynically, interested in something else than governing in good faith inside the 1967 lands. Either way, they do not escape responsibility. Unless I’ve misunderstood it, that was one of the points Roed-Larsen was making to the Security Council.

  44. 8opus, you are totally ignoring the fact that Arafat is confined to 3 rooms in ramalla and that the PA was squashed in the last operation defensive shield. You are also ignoring the fact that Israel itself saw arafat as irrelevant in the last 4 years. if he is irrelevant, how can he be held to any kind of responsibility?
    The PA is obviously playing into the hands of Israel by claiming to be what they are not. It is comprised of corrupt elite, and I wouldnt expect anything else.

  45. 8opus, you are totally ignoring the fact that Arafat is confined to 3 rooms in ramalla and that the PA was squashed in the last operation defensive shield. You are also ignoring the fact that Israel itself saw arafat as irrelevant in the last 4 years. if he is irrelevant, how can he be held to any kind of responsibility?
    Look, I don’t want to make this into a federal case. it doesn’t sound like we disagree drastically. But:
    – Arafat is not the PA, only its President, and
    – Israel’s actions towards Arafat are not necessarily lawful: Israel would have to be able to justify them on grounds of necessary incursion into Palestinian affairs for self-defense reasons. Which would, I suspect, be very hard to justify.
    As to the PA being totally squashed and inoperative, however, this is simply incorrect to the extreme. They continue to function as the quasi-government. They continue to administer a wide range of activities in everyday life. And, yes, the PA’s corruption is certainly a major problem and impediment to peace in the Middle East.
    If you are arguing that the PA’s authority should be rescinded and that Israeli should take back governance of all of the Palestinian Territories, though, that is a rather radical argument to make. I have only heard it from extreme right-wingers — it is a “regime change” argument. The more responsible course of action, in my view, is to hold the PA accountable for its actions, and work to reform it.
    That’s certainly what Terje Roed Larsen reported back to the U.N. as its representative: the PA is on the verge of collapse and it will need to take urgent action to restore law and order. I think he’s absolutely right. But he didn’t call for regime change, and I doubt that that would be a magic bullet to fix things.

  46. to Asaf shatul
    I can’t believe how stupid some jews are. I am sure you either live in the US or some nice place in Israel. I read all these comments and realize you only think terrorism is born of poverty becuase you THINK so using your rationalizing mind and what you have heared of other stupid people who just think without giving themselves the chance to experience the truth. I think you better live in some Arabic country or Iran (where I come from) for a while befor you think too much!! you just can’t understand when a child leanrs to shout “death to Israel” every day first thing in the morning in the school, when he grows up, he will become just an anti Israel demon no matter how rich or poor he is. give him all the riches in the world and he will use it against you; no matter how much goodness you show him, he will hate you without knowing why becuse it really dosn’t matter why. Palestinians who live in other Arabic countries face descrimination from other Arabs becuase no body in this damn world cares about others. why don’t they complain? because of Arab nationalism (facism) but if Israel gives them everything they will still want to destroy it beucase this is what they have brought up to believe they should do. Iraq and Iran fought for eight damn years and I cleary remember a few days after the war finished the then president of Iran who always called Saddam and Iraqis infidels, wrote a letter to Saddam about exchanging pows calling him, dear Moslem brother , mr saddam hossein !!! why ? becuase they are taught that no matter what Arabs do to them they are still their moslem brothers but if Israel gives them everything and every freedom that no Arab has in their own countries, it is always evil. you just can’t understand the constant programming that is going on in islamic countries against Israel. It is one thing to think and rationalize (like mr. chomsky) and one thing to experinece the truth. Can you name one writer among millions of Arabs who says that Arabs should be accepting of Israel’s existence ? no. But this stupid chomsky is such a self hater that you can constantly read about his shit in Iranian newspapers using him to show they are right to hate Israel. I used to read stuff about him saying shitty things about the religious jews. I am not religious but he dosn’t understnad that for moslems jew is jew and when the time comes they don’t care about who is relirious or not or who believes in what. You can’t undestant how much they hate jews. I will have to write a book if I want many experiences but just please stop thinking. thinking without the real experience is NOTHING BUT EMPTY THOUGHTS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.