A couple weeks back I came out for a two-state solution–the "peace process"–and Saif Ammous, who generally endorses stuff I write, scoffed at me. I have to post our dialogue on the question. Will get to it soon. In the meantime, a point for Saif’s side. Efraim Sneh, the former deputy defense minister whose statement about the urgency of a 2-state solution I found persuasive, at the Israel Policy Forum annual leadership event on 12/3, just wrote something on the Jerusalem Post’s blog to the same effect. It ends with the following ringing declaration:
Last week marked the 60th anniversary of the UN partition plan which sought to establish two nations in the land of Israel. I would like to mention my father, Moshe Sneh, zihrono li’vraha (May his memory be blessed) who in 1947 stood at the head of the political delegation in Europe which lead to the decision. This ruling gave 56% of the land to Israel and 44% to the Palestinians. When we complete the [Annapolis] permanent agreement, we will hold 78% of the land while the Palestinians will control 22%.
After sixty years, seven wars and two intifadas, the upcoming agreement will be a true Zionist victory.
I find this chilling. This is victory? From a Labor Zionist’s perspective? Is that why all that blood was spilled? Would it be better if the Jews ended up with 80 percent? Sometimes I think that Israel is just a landgrab. Dignified by the Holocaust and the Bible–but a landgrab all the same, with racist overtones. I’m still for the peace process. But outside parties must govern it. And both brutalized sides must be gotten out of their narrow, wounded ways of thinking…
Related posts:
- Israeli Dep’y Defense Minister to American Jews: Help U.S. Make Peace Now or We Face 100-Years War
- Barring 2-State Solution, Israel Becomes South Africa–Without South Africa’s ‘Solution’, Israeli Minister Warns
- Is Shimon Peres the Israeli Minister of Propaganda?
- Secret database shows Israeli government to be active partner in settlement landgrab
- Israeli Defense Minister Calls Gaza Truce ‘a Success’
{ 12 comments }
Yes, your stats are correct; the deduction inescapable.
Land grab in the context of the American presidential election:
"An Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul
by Walter Block
Ron Paul favors the elimination of foreign aid to Israel. Many Jews, even those who favor free enterprise, individual rights and peace, thus oppose the most libertarian candidate ever to run for the Republican nomination for president. This enmity goes so far as to account for his being barred from the Republican Jewish Coalition’s candidates' forum. This is no doubt that this action was taken out of fear that if Congressman Paul’s policies are put into effect, they will be harmful to Israel.
At first blush, this seems reasonable enough. The U.S. gives lots of money to the Israeli government for use by its military, and if this were totally eliminated, it is not unwarranted to think that this country would thereby be weakened.
However, I contend that there are several good and sufficient reasons to doubt this popular belief. Consider the following.
I. Relative statistics
Dr. Paul by no means would single out the single country of Israel for an elimination of foreign aid. Much to the contrary, his is a thorough-going plan that would end this pernicious program for all countries. Indeed, each and every nation on the face of the earth that had been receiving U.S. tax dollars would be told that their ride on this particular gravy train had ended. Would this hurt Israel? Of course, at least in dollar terms (see below for the argument that foreign aid actually hurts the economies of the recipient countries). But, it would also harm every other recipient as well (I am still positing, arguendo, that foreign "aid" benefits recipient countries). In order to determine whether or not Israel would be better off or not, one must make a relativistic judgment. That is, will Israel lose more or less than its enemies?
The facts for a recent year appear below. Here are the top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2005:
1. Israel 2.58 Billion
2. Egypt 1.84 Billion
3. Afghanistan 0.98 Billion
4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion
5. Colombia 0.57 Billion
6. Sudan 0.50 Billion
7. Jordan 0.48 Billion
8. Uganda 0.25 Billion
9. Kenya 0.24 Billion
10. Ethiopia 0.19 Billion
11. South Africa 0.19 Billion
12. Peru 0.19 Billion
13. Indonesia 0.18 Billion
14. Bolivia 0.18 Billion
15. Nigeria 0.18 Billion
16. Zambia 0.18 Billion
Israel, as can be expected, is right at the top of this list. It would lose $2.58 Billion, under President Paul’s administration (I have to confess that I really like the sound of that phrase. I think I’ll repeat it: President Paul’s administration. Perhaps this sounds even better: President Ron Paul’s administration. Or maybe this: The Administration of President Ron Paul? Okay, okay, back to business, now.) However, let us add up the amounts received by only these few countries, all of them mainly populated by either Muslims and/or Arabs:
2. Egypt 1.84 Billion
3. Afghanistan 0.98 Billion
4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion
6. Sudan 0.50 Billion
7. Jordan 0.48 Billion
If we do so, we arrive at the figure of $4.5 Billion. So, yes, Israel will lose $2.58 Billion, but its enemies, both actual and potential, are out of pocket a far larger $4.5 Billion. If we sum up the amounts received by all countries which harbor anti-Semites, we reach a much higher figure. If we define this broadly enough, this might well include just about every other nation on earth. No matter what statistics we consider, Israel is relatively strengthened by the Ron Paul policy on foreign aid. It loses, but its actual and potential enemies lose more. Thus, it becomes relatively stronger. Note, also, that these figures do not include the vast amounts currently spent by the U.S. on and in Iraq and Palestine, certainly no friends of Israel.
II. Private giving
There is nothing, nothing at all, in Ron Paul’s program that would even in the slightest interfere with private foreign charitable giving. In other words, Jews in the U.S., and non-Jewish American supporters of Israel, would be just as free as at present, to donate to this country. In fact, there is every reason to suppose that these private gifts to Israel would increase, not decrease. For one thing, with the slight (foreign aid comprises only in the neighborhood of 1% of GDP) reduction in taxes this would imply (in a Ron Paul administration, such savings would be funneled into lower taxation, not into other programs; did I mention that I really like the sound of that phrase, a Ron Paul administration?) more disposable income for all. Since Jews are in higher income brackets than the average person, and we presently suffer under a progressive income tax (which, by the way, would also be ended by President Paul) the largest donors to Israel would have even more income at their disposal. Then, too, this community might be so upset at this action of President Paul (I really like the way that phrase rolls off the tongue; ah, the sheer alliteration!), unwisely so, but still, so that they would donate additional monies.
III. Foreign aid weakens the economy
If we learn anything from Peter Bauer, it is that government-to-government transfers of income do not constitute foreign "aid." Very much to the contrary, they typically amount to foreign detriment. Much of the money goes to the three Ms: monuments, Mercedes and machine guns. The first need not be in the form of a statue of the leader: it could also take the form of a mill that produces steel at a multiple of the price available on world markets. The second includes not only automobiles, but also, invariably, engorged Swiss bank accounts. And the third is usually utilized by third-world dictators to keep the citizenry in thrall. Then, too, while foreign "aid" is a small part of the donor’s economy, it accounts for a large percentage of that of the recipients’. Instead of the best and brightest of their young people aiming at careers that can help economic development (doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs), they engage in training that will help them divert some of the boodle to themselves, and their relatives and friends (civil servants, lawyers, bureaucrats).
In Israel, the main negative implication of U.S. largesse has been promotion of socialism. Had our country not been financially supporting a heavily unionized and socialized economy in Israel, these policies would likely have never been as large as they were, and would have diminished much sooner. There are strong empirical illustrations attesting to the correlation between size of government and economic regulations, on the one hand, and attenuation of the economy on the other (Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson and Walter Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975–1995, Vancouver, B.C. Canada: the Fraser Institute. For a non-empirical treatment of this phenomenon, see Smith, Adam. [1776] 1979. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund).
That is, without U.S. "aid" to Israel, the economy of the latter would have been stronger. But a richer country is usually a safer country. One of the effects of Dr. Paul’s policy, then, would be the strengthening of the Israeli economy.
IV. The U.S. handcuffs Israeli policy
Because of its monetary transfers to Israel, the U.S. is in a position to dictate policy to its client state. Sometimes, perhaps, maybe, this is in the best interests of the nation of Israel. At least, it does not constitute a logical contradiction to entertain such a notion. But there are numerous cases where the U.S. has obviously handcuffed the Israelis, not to the benefit of the latter, at least as the Israelis saw their own best interest.
Perhaps the most famous example of this phenomenon is when Eisenhower forced the British, French and Israelis to pull back from their invasion of Suez in 1956.
According to one historian: "President Eisenhower of the United States pressured Britain, France and Israel into agreeing to a cease-fire and eventual withdrawal from Egypt." Forget about the rights and wrongs of the matter; they do not concern us. My point is that it is extremely difficult to interpret this little episode as being in the best interests of the security of the state of Israel, at least insofar as the leaders of that country saw their own best interests in this regard.
A more recent case in point took place when Condoleezza Rice forced the Israelis to postpone the bombing of a possible nuclear facility in Syria. This was done in the context when the Israelis certainly saw quick action as being in their national interest. According to a news report:
"A mysterious Israeli military strike on a suspected nuclear site in Syria last month was opposed by Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, because she feared it would destabilise the region, according to a report this weekend.
"Rice persuaded the Israelis to delay their operation…"
Say what you will about these two events, which are only the tip of a very large iceberg, it cannot be denied that they constitute a serious drawback to the safety of Israel, at least in terms of how the Israelis themselves see their own best interest. Needless to say, this sort of interference would come to a complete, abrupt and utter halt under a Ron Paul presidency.
V. Guarantor
Forget about the money, at least for a moment. The U.S. also provides Israel with a guarantee: any country trying to overrun Israel will have to deal with the armed might of the U.S. Iran, the member of the "evil axis" du jour, had better watch out.
But just how good are U.S. guarantees? As but one example you can ask the Vietnamese who supported the U.S. incursion into their country all about that.
Would an Israel completely untied to the apron strings of the U.S. be able to take care of itself? There seems little doubt that not only would Israel be able to defend itself, it would be more able to do so without the U.S. continually orchestrating matters in a paternalistic manner.
How about in the face of nuclear-armed Iran? An Israel able to operate on its own, without a by your leave from Uncle Sam, might be better able to prevent just such an occurrence. If not, that nation has its own nuclear weapons at its disposal. If the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. could endure decades of cold war, with only Mutual Assured Destruction keeping the "peace," it may well be that Israel and its Arab neighbors will have to go through the same process. At the very least, this present tossing of missiles from Gaza over to Israel would have to come to an end; it would be far too dangerous in a Middle Eastern MAD. Without the U.S. in the neighborhood, the major Muslim/Arab powers such as Iran/Egypt, Syria would never tolerate such risky acts.
Having given several reasons for doubting that Ron Paul’s program would harm Israel, let us move on to a conclusion.
Perhaps, if Ron wanted to help Israel vis-à-vis its enemies, it would end government to government transfers of income to that country, and double or triple it to every other nation, particularly to its most vociferous enemies. With the poison of foreign "aid" applied to its enemies, but not to Israel, the latter might become even the more strengthened relative to them. This is an interesting speculation. But this is not part of Ron Paul’s program. For one thing, there is nothing in the Constitution allowing, let alone requiring, such a policy. (Ron really ought to give a free copy of this document to his Republican debating partners.) For another, it is highly incompatible with libertarian prohibitions against stealing.
The action of the Republican Jewish Coalition in barring Ron Paul from their debate was thus a shonda for the goyim. A disgrace. We Jews are supposed to be the people of the book. That is, open to intellectual dialogue. How is it possible to reconcile this with a refusal to hear out one of the major Republican candidates for the presidency. I urge all Jewish Republicans and libertarians to express their dissatisfaction with this act, and to join Jews for Ron Paul.
Note the narrow scope of this article. I am not engaged in any discussion of shoulds or oughts. I take no position, whatsoever, on whether Eisenhower was justified in forcing an end to the Suez crisis, nor whether Condoleezza Rice was justified in postponing the more recent Israeli bombing of (possible) Syrian nuclear installations. I am addressing myself solely to the narrow question of whether Ron Paul’s plan to eliminate all foreign aid will likely help or hurt Israel. The mainstream Jewish community fervently believes the latter. And this to such a degree that they have acted disgracefully by barring Dr. Paul from their debate. With leaders like that, the Jewish community in the U.S. hardly needs enemies.
November 3, 2007
Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable."
The victory for Israel is over the long haul.
That is, compared to 60 years earlier, facing the prospect of global annihilation, the Jewish community has a homeland, self-governing, a confident state.
"When we complete the [Annapolis] permanent agreement, we will hold 78% of the land while the Palestinians will control 22%. After sixty years, seven wars and two intifadas, the upcoming agreement will be a true Zionist victory."
Not only is this statement chilling — as Philip rightly says — but also, it's a Pyrrhic victory that's being celebrated here. A balkanized Palestinian state on 22% of the land cannot possibly support its population. Even with permanent international aid, this setup is dysfunctional. It is designed to fail.
One can only surmise that Israelis still dream of discouraged Palestinians simply drifting away from their cramped, fractured, isolated statelet, into Jordan, Iraq, or somewhere else in the Moslem world. This is a most unlikely fantasy.
As much as it horrifies zionist sensibilities, a unified state is the only viable, sustainable approach. Yet Israel carries on building its Maginot line, while the quartet conducts its equivalent of the Versailles peace conference. Just as the post WW I goal of imposing crippling reparations on Germany merely set the stage for Naziism, imposing a punitive, unfair settlement on a rump Palestinian statelet is not a path to peace, much less 'victory' for Israel.
The cluelessness of the major actors in this drama suggests that a tragic train wreck is in the making. Unlike former president F. W. de Klerk of South Africa, who shared a 1993 Nobel peace prize for negotiating a unified South African state from the wreckage of failed bantustans, Efraim Sneh isn't going to be winning any awards with his chauvinist triumphalism. Instead, his overreaching land grab is setting up Israel for a hard fall.
Walling out starving millions of Palestinians on the worst, most parched land of the West Bank is not a sustainable future for either side. The "two-state solution" is no solution at all; it's a chimera. But the quartet's "Versailles conference" grinds on in its vain, futile glory, as Israel's future darkens, thanks to its leadership of false prophets.
of the 78%, 50% is the Negev.
What would a viable 2-state solution actually look like? Is there research out there as to what would be necessary for a viable Palestinian State?
Some ideas:
1) Enlarge Gaza by moving the border 10 miles East. You could literally double the area for Gaza. This could even be made conceivably bigger.
2) Roll back to the 1967 borders and transfer ownership of the settlements to the refugees. You could implement a creative exchange for their property lost in Israel. For example, if I lost a home in Israel in '48 that is now worth $400,000, than I would get a $400,000 home in one of the settlements. I can move in there or sell it and do something else with the cash. I could even sell it to the settler that is living in it now if they wanted to live in the new Palestinian state and I cared to sell it to them. The Israeli government could build new homes for the Israeli settlers in the Gaililee area and in the Negev.
3) Build a connector between Gaza and the West Bank. This could be an elevated highway or a tunnel.
4) Set up a free trade zone between Israel, Jordan, and the new Palestinian State.
Just throwing these out there. Anyone have thoughts on them?
Jews need to find the integrity to pay for their own state. It is hardly right to ask the US to bail them out. Furthermore, a backlash is building here in the US as well as in the Islamic world.
Sneh's comment is rather cute, but modest even by his own expectations, and misleading.
There will be no Annapolis permanent agreement. The Palestinians will preside on far less than the ex-green line 22%. And however small this useless residual will be, none of it will be 'controlled' by the Palestinians.
Ethnic cleansing as a principle, condemned under the Nazis, glorified under Zionist's flag wavers (the comfortable unwitty Witty to the fore), entrenched forever as a legitimate vehicle of racial supremacists and colonisers. Certainly something to celebrate.
Israel and the Palestinians will negotiate the core issues of their conflict in a special committee to be headed by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and former Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qureia.
Negotiations over the core issues – refugees, Jerusalem and borders – will begin after U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to the region this week, while the remaining issues will be discussed in other committees.
The agreement being finalized between Livni and Qureia changes the format of negotiations over the core issues which, until talks stopped in 2001, were discussed in three different committees.
Advertisement
A senior political source said Saturday that the special committee will allow the two sides to engage in a real dialogue. "This way it will be possible to carry out negotiations without pressure – neither political nor through leaks – and we will be able to make more progress," the source added.
Bush is due to arrive in the region on Wednesday at the start of an eight-day visit which aims, according to the White House, to bolster American allies in the Middle East.
The U.S. president will visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority and will then leave for Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
In addition to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Bush will hold talks with the heads of the countries he will visit on Iraq, regional security and economic relations.
Since the Annapolis conference in late November, in which Israel and the PA pledged to strive for a final-status agreement within a year, talks between the two sides have been low-key with no progress evident. The sense of an impasse intensified following contentious meetings regarding continued Israeli construction in settlements and in East Jerusalem.
However, Haaretz has learned that Livni and Qureia have achieved significant progress during a number of meetings that did not receive media attention. For example, during a meeting last Wednesday the two agreed in principle that the negotiations would be held on three levels.
At the top level, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would continue to meet every two weeks and focus on monitoring the progress in the negotiations, while they serve to break deadlocks in the negotiating committees. Livni briefed Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on this agreement.
The second level would include the main committee, in which Livni and Qureia will coordinate negotiations on the core issues. The two sides have not yet agreed on which of the issues will be discussed first. The meetings will be between Livni and Qureia, and possibly some aides will be included.
The third tier will include subcommittees, which will be created to negotiate every other issue.
In parallel the two sides will discuss matters that will affect a final-status agreement, through various committees. Central to the discussion will be issues such as security, its implementation, road map obligations, disarmament, the deployment of a multinational force and dividing airspace.
The committee on security issues is likely to be headed by the chief of the Political-Security Department at the Defense Ministry, Major General (res.) Amos Gilad, and Palestinian Interior Minister Abd al-Razek al-Yihiye.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/941836.html
Haaretz,
Unfortunately, the "Palestinian Authority" is a joke. It is NOT the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people, and until negotiations are held with Hamas, there will be NO forward progress. Bush, who has publicly stated that the Americans will support Israel's right to retain ILLEGAL settlements of Israeli citizens who were illegally transferred onto occupied land in contravention of international law, has NOT A SHRED of legitimacy in the Middle East, nor in the rest of the world for that matter. The PA, running dogs of the Israelis and Americans, regularly accept arms from Israel and the US, both of whom love to pay for and see Palestinian violence on other Palestinians. Are you so naive as to think that the Palestinians don't know this?
Solution Seeker,
There has been a lot of research, smoke-screens, talk about how "complicated" and "controversial" everything is, etc. etc. etc.
I recommend you check out the following link, which is a Democracy Now debate between Dr. Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Israeli Foreign Minister, and an important negotiator at Taba.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=140
Shlomo Ben-Ami describes the Clinton parameters below. In my humble opinion, going back to these parameters and trying to revive the negotiations are the best chance for a two-state solution. Unfortunately, the situation "on the ground" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories have worsened considerably, settlements have been expanded, roads for Jews only extended, and of course the Apartheid Wall. In other words, the powers to be in Israel are doing EVERYTHING they can to ensure that NO FAIR SOLUTION is possible. Unfortunately, the are doing this with the blessing and continued support of the American government, which means the American people, and it's really starting to rankle some of us.
Shlomo Ben-Ami:
"Well, the Clinton parameters say the following. They say that on the territorial issue, the Palestinians will get 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank, plus safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank to make the state viable. There will be a land swap. The 97%, which I mentioned, takes into account the land swap, where they will get 3% on this side, within the state of Israel, so we will have the blocks of settlements and they will be able to settle refugees on this side of the border.
About Jerusalem, it says what is Jewish is Israeli, and what is Palestinian is — sorry, and what is Arab is Palestinian. It includes full-fledged sovereignty for the Palestinians on Temple Mount, on the Haram al-Sharif, no sovereignty, no Jewish sovereignty on the Haram al-Sharif, which was at the time and continues to be a major, major problem for Israelis and Jews, that these things mean to them a lot. And then, with the question of refugees, it says that the refugees will return to historic Palestine, to historical Palestine, and that Israel will maintain its sovereign right of admission. That is, it will have to absorb a number of refugees but with restrictions that need to be negotiated between the parties. But the bulk of the refugees will be allowed to return to the state of Palestine. This is the essence of the Clinton parameters."
Could peace be made with these guidelines and good faith on both sides? I believe so.
Is it possible that Israel will allow this to happen? I fear not, at least not without considerable outside pressure, specifically from the United States. Unfortunately, there is NO pressure coming from the US, for some reason. I wonder why?
Since Richard Witty tells me that American Jews make their political donations mostly based on issues like the environment, the American economy, social justice, and rational foreign policy, it couldn't be because every spineless American politician is shaking in his boots that any straying from the Zionist party line would put him in the crosshairs of AIPAC, could it?
Hi Paul,
I think there is beginning to be a bit of a change of in the American Jewish community. At least based on the conversations I have had with people who actually follow events in the Middle East to any degree. From what I've observed, and based on my own personal experience, many American Jews expected Israel to do the right thing by the Palestinians and facilitate a 2-state solution much like you describe above. Oslo seemed to be the actualization of this hope and desire.
The repeated attempts by Hamas to derail the Oslo agreements made some of American Jews lose faith that a peaceful resolution with the Palestinians was ever possible. American Jews sadly ignored the Israeli government's continued development of the settlements and what a poisoining effect it had on the peace process. I think that this partly stems from the limited amount of attention many American Jews actually pay to the conflict and what gets reported and remembered. Continued settlement activity was reported, but on page 7. Suicide bombings always make the front page. This is not necessarily due to a concerted effort to bias the news, but due to the type of capitalist media we have – i.e. sell papers by featuring sensationalist news as much as possible. Have you read the latest on Brittany's custody battle?
As time has gone by and Israeli society has changed – the influx of Russian immigrants over the last 18 years has made the country more conservative and harsh – and Israeli politics have become more corrupt – many American Jews, like myself, are taking a more critical view of Israeli actions and seeking to support the forces for positive change there. Had the Palestinians had less corrupt leaders, been less inclined to embrace terrorism, and had Islamic fundamentalism not been a overhanging threat, it would have helped in speeding this process along.
While many American Jews (and non-Jews) still remain opposed to a just and viable 2-state solution, more and more American Jews are coming around to understanding that it is not only morally correct to support such a solution, but, as Olmert commented recently, suicidal for Israel not to. With this appreciation and understanding there will be pressure coming from the American Jewish community to Israel to realize such a solution. Olmert seemed to refer to such in recent comments.
My hunch is nothing really significant will happen in 2008, but a new administration in 2009 will create an opening for significant change.
My political donations will be going to Barack Obama, and my charitable donations will continue going to http://www.abrahamfund.org/main/siteNew/index.php
Comments on this entry are closed.