Matthew Yglesias

"I think this particular set of appeasement concerns, that Israel can't be seen as "giving in" to terrorism is one of the more misguided Israeli security concerns one can imagine. Israel is vastly more powerful militarily than the surrounding Arab states."

Oh, please.

Matt -- I can only refer you to Israel's disastarous pullout from Lebanon. THAT was seen as an appeasement, a victory for Hizbullah and a principle cause of the Intifada in 2000.

Running from terrorism only encourages more terror.

Israel -- no matter where the final border might be -- cannot build a wall on the Green line. This will prejudice negotiations -- to the extent they ever take place -- because they will set the starting line for talk at the Green line. If Israel ever wants to succeed in negotiations, it must be seen to be giving somthing (and the palis must be seen to be getting something) in exchange for an end to the conflict. If Israel retreats to the Green Line, what can it give?

You really seem to have an appeasement mentality. You'll buy any argument against Israel taking action.

Thank G-d that your kind are not running our country.

In short -- I think you are a classic wimp.

Tim

I couldn't agree more - please see my post entitled "What was Sharon Thinking?" on my website.

Matt,

You make important points.

1. Retreat, even if rational in and of itself, can signal weakness and encourage the enemy.

2. Refusal to retreat to avoid signaling weakness can lead to unnecessary losses.

3. Retreating after a show of strength avoids signaling weakness. Kill the head of Hamas, then retreat on your own terms. Withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, but only after overthrowing Saddam.

If Israel retreats to the Green Line, what can it give?

Well, Israel could withdraw to the Green Line except in greater Jerusalesm, and in addition maintain a few military bases to the east, on some of the higher hills. These plots of land could be used for negotiation purposes, in addition to the final staus of Jerusalem, in addition to water rights, in addition to a trade treaty. I doubt very much a Palestinian state could function economically without trading with Israel.

Matt, I think your analysis here is exactly right.

Continuing to do something just because the terrorists don't want you to do it even if the action doesn't make sense on its own terms is stubborness, not bravery.

Although with regard to maintaining West Bank settlements, I will say one suspects it is Israeli domestic politics that are in play here more than concerns about what the terrorists want.

I agree with your point on the territories. They're clearly a major obstacle to a negotiated peace, if such is possible.

It's less clear to me, though, that it would solve the problem with Hamas. After all, most of the suicide bombings are taking place in Israel proper. Hamas isn't willing to settle for Gaza; they want Greater Palestine--a goal mutually exclusive to the continued existence of Israel.

Maybe building the wall will work in the longer run, but Israel has to do something in the meantime.

matt,

that's just it, we got out of iraq after clobbering saddam. that's the best argument for the iraq war, appeasing AQ without really appeasing them. of course, they've moved the goalposts. so yeah, I think israel should figure out what their border is, pull back to it, but do some high-level clobbering on the way out.

now, two years from now, if israel has pulled back to the fence and stopped occupation, when the suicide bombers continue, then what should they do? I guess they could continue airstrikes. hm.

Two additional points given the current comments:

1. The idea that Israel MUST retreat to the Green Line bears no relation to (i) security, (ii) reality and (iii) Resolution 242. First, the 1967 Borders were called -- by US and Israeli security professionals alike, "Auschwitz" borders. The are on the low plains and away from the West Bank acquifiers. Insecure borders after 100 years of war are not a recipe for stability, whether Israel retreats unilaterally or as part of a negotiated solution. Two, most of the settlements are near the green line. They will stay. It is simply impossible to move Ma'aleh Adumim (near Jerusalem) or many others. Sorry, it just won't be done. The Palestinians can have the triangle in return, thus lessening the demographic pressure of a high Arab birth rate in Israel proper. Third, Israel is NOT required to give up all territory per Resolution 242. There is extensive literature on this as the Security Council -- at the time -- believed that Israel was fighting a defensive war. Thus, Israel was asked in 242 to give up "terrorities" captured in the war not "the territories".

My other comment is that you seem to miss the point of deterrence vis-a-vis an enemy sworn to your destruction. It is NOT deterrence to do something reasonably "tough" to you (e.g. slamming Hamas before leaving Gaza). It must be considered tough vis-a-vis your enemy. Let us hope that Rantisi is next.

now, two years from now, if israel has pulled back to the fence and stopped occupation, when the suicide bombers continue, then what should they do? I guess they could continue airstrikes. hm.

Well, I think Matt's point rests on the feasibility of having a truly defensible, Iron Curtain or 38th parallel degree of separation between Jews and Arabs (with a corresponding paucity of terrorist incidents of the Israeli side of the border). If a wall doesn't work, then there isn't much sense of putting one up.

The assasination of Sheikh Yassin really wasn't that bad an idea. They should have done it years ago though -- it not matter as much now. But I don't think it will make much of a differe in the way the upcoming withdrawal from Gaza is percieved. It'll be seen as a victory for HAMAS, and a defeat for the PA and secular Palestinians. I don't think there is a way around that.

Tim -- Note that, despite being so rosy cheeked, MattY is reputedly suprisingly strong for such a short man. I wouldn't call him a wimp to his face.

I'm of two minds about the Gaza pull out.

I think that whatever happens, Gaza will be uninhabitable in the nest 20-40 years (no water), and that there is not much in the way of non-military value there.

Now the two minds:

* Sharon is doing this because he is in the middle of a corruption investigation, and he's looking at deflecting this or his legacy.

* He figures that Israel pulls out, the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa folks come out into the open to fight over control, and then he takes them out.

Unfortunately, I'd put odds on the former rather than the latter.

The problem is Yglesias's Zionist assumptions underlying any discussion of Israel: Israel was created by and is maintained by force against its own native inhabitants, the Palestinians. It is based on a crime.

As is America, so we better give it back to the indians.

Re: the pullout from lebanon - it probably did embolden the Palestinian extremists, especially during the first days of the current unpleasantness. But it also effectively neutralized Hizbollah as a military threat to Israel. Sure, there's still some penny-ante stuff happening on the border all the time (which, to be sure, really sucks if you happen to be one of the people affected), but it is nothing near the open wound the Lebanese occupation was.

A Matthew Yglesias Israel post that I can totally agree with! Must be a first. Note that Matt isn't saying that the wall *must be exactly along the Green Line*, he's saying that it should be sensible and not screw up the lives of hundreds of thousands of non-Israelis.

Although I'm kind of disappointed that no-one has at all mentioned the *7 other people who were not terrorist leaders* also being killed.

You'd almost think that their lives were considered worthless!

Rather more worrying is the fact that Israel and the Palestinian population need each other economically. It's great that a wall can keep out bombers. but not at the cost of losing hundreds of millions of dollars in GDP through effectively barring movement of goods and labour. It's really not in anyone's interest to make people wait several hours a day to cross the barrier, unless it is really essential for security. We saw the same thing with the airlines: the solution was to spend more on the checking process so that more people could be processed without compromising security. This would pay for itself in increased economic activity.

"7 other people who were not terrorist leaders"

You mean the bodybuards? Nope, don't feel sorry for them either.

I won't miss Sheik Yassin, but it's unrealistic to think it will increase the personal security of Israelis (worse now than at any time since the founding of he state).

One of the salient points of the failed Oslo Agreements is they provided a structure for both sides to make concessions without appearing to be acting under duress. Very unfortunately, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians took much advantage of this opportunity (we can open another thread about which side was worse). Now both sides are stuck in the other direction: neither can make any concessions without appearing to give in to raw force, whether the suicide terrorists' or the IDF's.

Even with a wall built along a sensible course, which I reluctantly assent is the best solution for the moment, Israel has many carrots to offer other than territory, in the form of investment capital and work permits. In any case, the idea that Israel is bargaining land for peace is utterly rejected by the Israeli right, which has no intention of relinquishing land. T-m would seem to be an adherent of this faction, with his reference to Auschwitz borders, a concept that was more important when the enemy was conventional military force, so I wonder what inducement he has in mind? A first-class ticket for Amman, instead of coach?

BTW, Tim, do you live in Israel (or the Territories), or is the "our country" something more metaphysical?

Andrew --

Ummm, "our country" clearly refers to the United States. I don't want appeasers running the country, get it?

And FYI, I am for separation. To think that "jobs" or "investment captial" will be an inducement to Palestinians is unconscionably to misunderstand the Middle East. Investment capital and jobs (which would never be management jobs by the way, only manual labor) are inevitably seen as a form of domination. Palestinian society is not yet in a position to accept investors and job opportunities as a positive means of mutual growth. That was Peres' open borders, new middle east idea. So 8 years ago.

If you have paid attention to the mideast in reality instead of the mideast in your head, you'd see that both Sharon and Olmert have spoken of unilateral separation. That is the current idea in play (and against which the Yassin assassination should be seen). Separation means "giving up" the land --- and by right wingers as well.

Geez, Andrew, read a book, please. Don't post moronic ideas that died with Oslo.

Tim, Sharon and Olmert are very, very recent converts to unilateral separation. The wall was actually part of Avram Mitznah's campaign in the last election; Sharon came around later. (He coudln't afford to antagonize his right base.) If you paid attention to the Middle East (or, like me, used to live there), you would know that. You also completely misunderstood the import of my reference to Oslo, as a failure, and the possiblity of using economic inducements after construction of the wall, but I imagine it's clear to anyone else

BTW, guys who use words like "Wimp" and "Moron" ought to post without pseudonyms, got that? Kfotz li, pachdan.

Andrew,

A semester at TAU doesn't count? I myself was born there -- Ichilov hospital 1967. And I grew up on Sderot Ben Gurion.

You must be a Democrat/Laborite/Clintonite since you revise your opinion when someone points out your original opinion's inadequacies.

What's so "clear" about using economic incentives? Sounds to me like your putting a western interpretation on things. The Palis are not motivated by monetary incentives. They're motivated -- at least their active political/terrorist branches -- by a cult of death and a desire to reclaim what they see as their land.

If economic incentives were an issue, then why would the Palis be intent on committing suicide and making their lot worse?

Tim, people who don't revise their opinion when someone points out its inadequacies are both stubborn and stupid. I'd say that fits you to a T.

For the record, I most certainly revised my opinion of what was happening in the so-called peace process after the intifada began. My assumptions about the intentions of the PA leadership were refuted by events.

However, I don't notice any change of my opinion on this thread. The fact Palestinians are not currently responding to economic incentives does not mean they never will. Meanwhile, what incentives do you offer the Palestinians? I was right with that guess, a more comfortable transfer wagon to Amman, wasn't I?