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

Me:
I never, ever said that Israeli democracy makes it impossible for any PM to
dismantle any settlements.  You're reading that into my posting, but there's
nothing there to support it.  An Israeli government could - and will, in my
opinion - eventually agree to withdraw from the settlements as part of a
grand bargain establishing a two-state agreement.  That is inevitable, it
simply depends on when the Palestinians decide to give up on their murderous
madness.  Israel will not commit suicide, and Israel will not be destroyed
by its enemies.  The oxygen of fanaticism is victory.  Deny it victory and
fanaticism chokes.  Cultures do change.  The United States defeated Japan in
the most convincing of all possible fashions - and a culture steeped in more
than a _thousand years_ of extreme militarism became virtually pacifistic in
almost the blink of an eye.  No Israeli government can agree to withdraw
from any large grouping of settlements _and receive nothing in return_.  As
part of a larger settlement?  Of course it would - any such settlement must
involve a massive realignment in Israeli politics.  Furthermore, the
settlements occupy very small portions of the West Bank.  Not even 5%, as I
recall.  So simply maintaining the status quo - or even significant
expansions of the settlements - do not at all imply annexing large chunks of
the West Bank.

The major difference between us is that you think those you disagree with
are villains, and I think that the democratically elected Prime Minister of
an American ally is probably doing the best he can, even if I happen to
disagree with him on settlement policy.  Which I do, in point of fact.

Gautam

Reply via email to