>But isn't that the point of building settlements? To try to make it >impossible for any future Israeli government to avoid annexing large >chunks of the West Bank? > >Brad DeLong > >Me: >Do you have evidence for that? I mean, do you have actual declarations by >Sharon or something equivalent that this is the case, or are you just >attributing malign motives to him? Sharon is committed to the settlements >because they're popular in Israel. They're popular in Israel because Israel >is a itty-bitty little country that is 8 miles across at the waist, and the >settlements can give them more space to live. The far right in Israel does >want to annex the West Bank, yes, but Sharon is not a member of the Israeli >far right. Sharon is the head of the Likud Party, one of the two largest >parties in Israel. He's not even the most right wing major member of the >Likud - Bibi Netanyahu is on _his_ right, and Bibi is, in my opinion, the >best person for the job of PM in Israel right now. N.B. that during >Netanyahu's term in office, _not one_ Israeli citizen was killed by >terrorist action. It's not a coincidence. One of the handicaps of being a >democracy - particularly one with a Parliamentary system as screwed up as >Israel's - is that it is hard to create coherent policies. Governmental >actions tend to become the product of logrolling - I support your policy so >you support mine. One of the logs that got rolled was the settlement >policy. So far as I know Sharon supports the settlements at the moment >because he believes - correctly, imo - that if he retreats from the >settlements the Palestinian terrorists will perceive it as a victory. He >believes - again, correctly, imo - that these terrorists are not appeasable. >They want to destroy Israel, and any sign of Israeli weakness only >strengthens their hand. Notice that his intervention in the West Bank has >been a stunning success. He has shattered the terrorist infrastructure of >the West Bank, found conclusive proof that Yaser Arafat was directly >responsible for the terrorist attacks on Israel, and virtually ended >terrorist attacks within Israel proper. A win on all counts. He seems to >have finally found a policy that works. The Europeans may not support him - >but the Europeans have never shown any signs of caring if Israelis get blown >up, either, so why should he care? > >Gautam
You start out claiming that I'm wrong. Yet by the middle of your paragraph you are talking about how Israeli democracy makes it impossible for any Israeli Prime Minister to dismantle any settlements. A little bit after the middle you say that Israel shouldn't withdraw from any settlements because the "terrorists will perceive it as a victory." And by the end you say that Sharon's "never give up--never surrender" policy "works." So it seems to me that you agree with me: no Israeli government can afford, politically, to withdraw from any large grouping of settlements; therefore future Israeli governments will be unable to avoid annexing the (large) chunks of the West Bank in which those settlements are located. The major difference between us is that I think this is a bad thing, and you seem to think that this is a good thing. Brad DeLong
