Israel knows that peace just doesn't pay - Amira Hass

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Successive Israeli governments since 1993 certainly must have known what they were doing, being in no hurry to make peace with the Palestinians. As representatives of Israeli society, these governments understood that peace would involve serious damage to national interests.

Economic damage:

The security industry is an important export branch - weapons, ammunition and refinements that are tested daily in Gaza and the West Bank. The Oslo process - negotiations that were never meant to end - allowed Israel to shake off its status as occupying power (obligated to the welfare of the occupied people) and treat the Palestinian territories as independent entities. That is, to use weapons and ammunition at a magnitude Israel could not have otherwise used on the Palestinians after 1967. Protecting the settlements requires constant development of security, surveillance and deterrence equipment such as fences, roadblocks, electronic surveillance, cameras and robots. These are security's cutting edge in the developed world, and serve banks, companies and luxury neighborhoods next to shantytowns and ethnic enclaves where rebellions must be suppressed.

The collective Israeli creativity in security is fertilized by a state of constant friction between most Israelis and a population defined as hostile. A state of combat over a low flame, and sometimes over a high one, brings together a variety of Israeli temperaments: rambos, computer wizards, people with gifted hands, inventors. Under peace, their chances of meeting would be greatly reduced.

Damage to careers:

Maintaining the occupation and a state of non-peace employs hundreds of thousands of Israelis. Some 70,000 people work in the security industry. Each year, tens of thousands finish their army service with special skills or a desirable sideline. For thousands it becomes their main career: professional soldiers, Shin Bet operatives, foreign consultants, mercenaries, weapons dealers. Therefore peace endangers the careers and professional futures of an important and prestigious stratum of Israelis, a stratum that has a major influence on the government.

Damage to quality of life:

A peace agreement would require equal distribution of water resources throughout the country (from the river to the sea) between Jews and Palestinians, regardless of the desalination of seawater and water-saving techniques. Even now it's hard for Israelis to get used to saving water because of the drought. It's not difficult to guess how traumatic a slash in water consumption to equalize distribution would be."

more

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

9. How do you come to that conclusion from an article by a left-wing Israeli Jew in Ha'aretz?

There is enough real antisemitism in the world, and with regard to this conflict, without seeing it where (IMHO) it is not present.

[azurnoir]

2. One of the most succinct assessments of the situation

I have read thank you

[Jim Sagle]

3. What REALLY doesn't pay is facing up to the fact that the Palestinian leadership has no interest in

peace. (They say so quite pointedly every chance they get.)

Then the "anti-Zionist" left would have to zero in on the US - a much dicier proposition.

[Chulanowa]

6. Are you ever curious why?

Well, no, you're probably not. Most people who belabor the point of Palestine's leaders "refusing peace" are quite content to just brush it off as being what Arabs and Muslims do. I hope you're different, of course, but, the record is pretty consistent that the pro-Israel sorts around here also tend to be pretty fucking bigoted towards Arabs and Muslims. Again, I hope you're an exception.

Your mistake, like many others, is assuming that the Palestinian leaders and the Israeli leaders are on equal footing. This is a common mistake. Bill Clinton made it in Oslo, other negotiators have repeated this mistake. I suppose it's an attempt to show respect for the Palestinian leaders or something, but in effect, that's exactly what means no negotiated peace has ever been successful.

This mistake is thinking that the Palestinians and Israelis have equal negotiation power. The Israelis have a veritable cornucopia of things to bargain with. Land, aid, power, food, mutual defense, international recognition, resources, expertise... But all the Palestinians have to offer is either fighting more, or fighting less, depending on the mood at that particular time.

That's really it.

Peace deals in the past have always approached the two as equals. This basically results in Israel, for lack of a better word, bludgeoning the Palestinian side. It's not some sort of international conspiracy to favor Israel, as some would posit. It's just that Israel has the power to make demands, and Palestine lacks the power to counter them.

This inequality will always remain so long as the third parties involved keep pretending that the Palestinian side has any actual power. If the goal is peace, then the negotiators need to stand behind Palestine, lending it some of their power to negotiate as well. Of course, this may not work, given the machismo of the Palestinian leadership, but, never know till you try.

But as a result, a lesson the Palestinians have learned is that in all honesty, they get about the same results at the negotiating table that they do from fighting - And they're guaranteed to lose all the time at the former, while there's a chance (a very small one) of the latter being productive.

[Vegasaurus]

11. The Palestinians lose because they "think" they have equal power

and don't have to give anything up or compromise.

Why else would they continue with the "Right of Return" charade?

Compromise means they are not getting all the land they seek (nor will the Israelis keep all the land they seek).

Compromise means acknowledging that there is a Jewish state.

Seems the Palestinian leadership is intent on never having a state, since they believe that they have the negotiating power to make demands that will never be met.

The Palestinians leadership "bludgeons" their own people, by not negotiating or compromising.

[Chulanowa]

12. As I said, the machismo would be an issue

But again, never know till you try. Lending aid to the Palestinians has never been tried in negotiations. Every third party has either strove for total neutrality, or leaned to the Israeli side of the table.

The system being used in negotiations needs to be reexamined before the demands of either side are addressed.

[Sezu]

14. And then there is the attitude of religious men in one of the

2 two Arab states that actually HAVE "peace," with Israel.

"Fatwa in Egypt: Source of pigs is Jews

http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/245488

Posted: 11-05-2009 , 07:56 GMT


A new fatwa published in Egypt determines that the source of all the existing pigs in the world is Jews, who were cursed by Allah. The new edict was issued by Sheikh Ali Osman from the Egyptian Waqf ministry.



Due to their Jewish roots, Sheikh Osman says, it is permissible to slaughter all the pigs. The religious scholar was quoted as saying by a Jordanian newspaper that he personally believes the source of the pigs is Jews and thus the consumption of pork meat is banned in Islam.




He added that a person who consumes swine flesh is considered as one who consumed another "impure person." Sheikh Osman said his fatwa is being supported by the heads of al Azhar, but they fear to publicly confirm it. He said he still wait for response from al azhar fatwa committee to get an official approval for his new edict."

Encouraging, wot?

Guess Obama will not be having eggs and Jews for breakfast when he speaks there soon.

[JDPriestly]

4. So, what is the price of peace for the Palestinians.

Based on my experience, parties negotiate settlements and peace accords when one or the other or both decide that fighting on will harm them more than agreeing to peace on the terms offered or the terms by the other side. To get a peace agreement, both sides have to agree to the terms. Sounds obvious, but the OP seems to be ignoring the fact that Palestine would not keep fighting if it didn't think that fighting on is better for it than peace. Same for all sides in all disputes.

[safeinOhio]

7. All those people employed in security

and no one can stop the settlers from attacking kids on their way to school or farmers trying to work their fields?

[LeftishBrit]

8. Well, it's very true that peace is not very good for the military-industrial complex and the related

security industry - though they can still continue to profit from the *possibility* of war - e.g. the 40-year arms race between America and the Soviet Union.

However, I'm not convinced that peace is generally bad for the economy. Looking at the various countries of the world, those that are doing best economically tend to be the ones that have no recent involvement in wars.

There are no doubt people and groups in Israel that profit from the present situation; but that doesn't translate into its being generally good for Israel. I am sure that the average taxpayer might prefer less expense on defence/security spending, for example.

The present situation is undoubtedly horrendous for the *Palestinian* economy - but neither Israel nor Hamas seem to care that much.

[varelse]

10. I'm halfway through "The Iron Wall" by Avi Shlaim

and have already slogged through Noam Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle" and have read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine". It's not looking good for most of what I believed to be true about Israel's history. All of my former beliefs have been challenged.

Before reading these and a handful of other books on the subject*, I would have assumed this article was satire or hyperbole. Now, it appears to merely be biting, but truthful commentary on a tragic and ultimately unsustainable situation. :(





*including a modern history of the Middle East

[Sezu]

13. What a load of horse manure. n/t