UN rep. backs declaration of Palestinian state in next year

[Reffo]

I think Israel should NOT cut off ties with a Palestinian state. I think that if 3 million refugees are going to be coming to the West Bank - they're going to need housing, electricity, mobile phone services, etc. There's a commercial opportunity there for Israeli companies which already provide many of these services, especially as tens of billions in international aid pour in to the country. Except, once they're a state, Israel won't be providing these services as charity - it will be for money.

And you too are right at least in theory that Israel would be better off having close economic ties with the Palestinian Arabs. And not just Israel, they would be better off too ...

But in practice I am not so sure. The last time Israel allowed freedom of movement, between 1993 and 2000, during the so called Oslo peace accords, Arab extremists orchestrated numerous attacks against Israeli employers and other Israelis in general. Lots of murders, knifings, shooting, kidnappings etc ...and it ended up going both ways because it provoked one of our own nutters Baruch Goldstein but in fairness he was the only Israeli who went as far as he did. Others retaliated in their own ways but none were as drastic.

Of course after the outbreak of the second Intifada things got even worse.

My fear is that given the opportunity, they [Arab fanatics] would do anything, again, to make sure that any attempt at economic cooperation would fail again.

[farmboy]

Medio I disagree with you.

I think Israel should NOT cut off ties with a Palestinian state. I think that if 3 million refugees are going to be coming to the West Bank - they're going to need housing, electricity, mobile phone services, etc. There's a commercial opportunity there for Israeli companies which already provide many of these services, especially as tens of billions in international aid pour in to the country. Except, once they're a state, Israel won't be providing these services as charity - it will be for money.

In fact, I think Israel needs to make sure Palestine is so well integrated into the Israeli economy that it is entirely non-viable without Israeli backing. If Israel supplies all (or large percentages of) electricity, natural gas, telecom/hightech, food products, etc. AND Israeli investments in Palestine make up a significant % of total investment, so that, say, at least 10-20% of Palestinan GDP relies heavily on Israeli support, Israel will have good leverage over all Palestinian governments into the future.

Israel gains absolutely nothing by cutting off all economic ties. This leaves existing economic infrastructure unexploited, and leaves a vacuum which can only be filled by other Middle Eastern states - investment from the Gulf, trade through Jordan, and an opening for Iran which is the only state in the region with anything remotely resembling a real economy.

The aim should be to neutralise the Palestinian threat, by both military means (demilitarization) and non-military means (domination of their economy so that people are dependant upon Israel for their livelihoods, and governments are dependant upon Israel for the continued support of their people). Leaving a vacuum there is a bad idea.

EDIT:

And Reffo is right. UN peacekeepers are worthless.

It seems a nice Idea and initialy it could work. Looking at recent events of boycotting by the arabs I think that Israel will only be tollerated as long as it is useful which will be untill the other arab countries can establish their own trade links there. Add another 3 million resentful arabs to the mix and sure as eggs are eggs there will be trouble.
Short term, big dollars maybe. Long term? I dont keep bees.

[wat0n]

watOn

Like I said, Israel has no reason to trust the effectiveness of UN peace keeping forces. Here is just one example of how they behaved in the past:



There are other examples too:

1. The case of the Norwegian commander of peace keepers who actively got involved and helped terrorists escape from the custody of Israel's ally (the SLA)
2. The UN peace keepers have done bugger all to stop Hezbollah rearming itself after 2006 in spite of the terms of the cease fire agreement and the mandate of the UN peace keepers to stop them.
3. The 1967 war was actually triggered by the fact that the UN meekly removed it's peace keeping forces after Nasser told them to scram when he felt ready to take Israel on militarily.

And it wasn't just in Israel. The UN peace keeping forces were worse than useless even in the Balkans. It was right under their noses that Muslim civilians were massacred I think in Srebrenica or somewhere ...

I was thinking of NATO or even Jordanian forces to do the job. Also, these forces should have a quite strong and broad mandate, allowing them to carry out full-fledged millitary operations (using artillery tanks, even aircraft, etc).

If not, it will be a failure like UNIFIL, as you pointed out.

[curlyg]

Imo putting Jordan in there is a good option because both Israel and Jordan have an interest in keeping Palestine down. The flip side to that is that Jordan can't be seen as being overly harsh on the Palestinians because the monarchy is and always has been completely artificial and lacking all legitimacy.

NATO is more trustworthy than the UN but we have to realise that the presence of friendly forces in the West Bank effectively prevents Israel from exercising its right to self-defence should the need arise, for fear of hitting American or European military forces...

Of the two I'd say NATO is better.

[wat0n]

Imo putting Jordan in there is a good option because both Israel and Jordan have an interest in keeping Palestine down. The flip side to that is that Jordan can't be seen as being overly harsh on the Palestinians because the monarchy is and always has been completely artificial and lacking all legitimacy.

NATO is more trustworthy than the UN but we have to realise that the presence of friendly forces in the West Bank effectively prevents Israel from exercising its right to self-defence should the need arise, for fear of hitting American or European military forces...

Of the two I'd say NATO is better.

Well, if the world wants Israel to leave the WB then it has to make sure Israel won't have any reasons for returning again.

[Mediocrates]

Non Arab Infidel troops? Oh there's an idea.

[Mediocrates]

Medio I disagree with you. I think Israel should NOT cut off ties with a Palestinian state.

They have to demonstrate a few things first:

That they are willing and capable of running their own affairs with some semblance of modernity at more or less the level of corruption and fascism that their regional Arab neighbors adhere to.

That they are willing and capable of operating a state with all of the accoutrement that attend that: running a government, a post office, a passport office, a national bank, establishing credit, building bridges and roads.

That they abandon any and all claims on Israel.

That they abandon any and all claims on repatriation.

That they own their own security situation and quell violence directed at another state.

That they are capable of joining regional efforts, treaties and tariffs and work toward their successful conclusion.


I could think of 20 more but the point is, if they want a state they have to BE a state. Then there's plenty of opportunity to make money.

[Kachah]

NATO is a defensive democratic mechanism, I don't think it is up for this job. The UN forces are a joke. Can't really see an anternative to the coalition of the willing in some new incarnation, but certainly anglo-countries must be at the core.

[curlyg]

One option would be to have Israel join NATO in an expedited process and have NATO forces stationed in Israel, so that any attack by a state - Palestine or some other - would trigger the collective security clauses of the treaty. I think this would be the clearest statement of their commitment to peace. If they believe that the treaty they are pressuring Israel to sign will truly end the Arab-Israeli conflict, I see no reason why they shouldn't be willing to stake their own blood on that claim. It would also be a very powerful deterrent against further aggression by Arab states in the future.

Then, perhaps, UN forces with a broad mandate in Palestine could be sufficient.

[Kachah]

... to have NATO forces stationed in Israel, ...Then, perhaps, UN forces with a broad mandate in Palestine could be sufficient.

This is pretty .. mmm.. let's say "optimistic" for a man who claims to be in touch with reality.
Surely the same Dutch soldiers who were passively watching mass killings in Srebrenica and who were "too tired" to provide air support for the Aussie commandos in Afghanistan - surely they'll stake their blood on the Israeli security. If they are not relieved by the Lithuanians on rotation...

[Reffo]

For Israel to put it's trust for it's own security on anyone else other than itself is unrealistically optimistic at best and utterly foolish at worst. And anyone who doubts this just needs to look back on recent history in 1983 after Israel was presuaded by the Reagan administration to give a safe passage to Arafat and his cut-throats after which American Marines and French troops replaced Israeli troops who were required to withdraw to the border regions. And how long did the American and French presence last? Not long. They left in a hurry after multiple suicide truck bombers killed hundreds of them while they were asleep in their barracks ...

Of course I am not critical of the Americans and the French for their hasty retreat. After all it wasn't THEIR war so why should they risk the lives of their young soldiers? But of course Israel's case is different. They haven't got anywhere to retreat to from Israel which is THEIR home. That's why Israel can only rely on ITSELF to defend itself which is the way that it should be. But of course that also means that outsiders should not constantly try to tie Israel's hands behind it's back but allow Israel to do whatever is necessary to defend itself. And even if they do try to tie Israel's hands, Israel should just ignore them. Whoever they may be, whether the Europompous politicians or President Obama ...

[curlyg]

It's very easy to say "Israel should rely only on itself." The fact of the matter is there's very little chance of Israel being allowed to keep a substantial troop presence in future-Palestine, which means we need to try think of the next best thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with relying on NATO support - NATO won't REPLACE the IDF, it would work with the IDF.

EDIT: As for the French, I would consider their guarantees to be worth even less than those of the UN. Israel has already been stabbed in the back by France on more than one occasion.

[dayag]

...As for the French, I would consider their guarantees to be worth even less than those of the UN. Israel has already been stabbed in the back by France on more than one occasion.

I wouldn't trust the Americans as well. Their policy changes every four to eight years. Agreements George W. Bush made with Israel concerning settlement construction were forgotten in January 2009. Promises made by Eisenhower concerning the rights of Israeli ships to pass through the straits of Tiran were not upheld by Lyndon Johnson.

[dayag]

On the bright side in American politics:

Republican members of the House of Representatives have written a letter to US President Barack Obama in which they urge him to veto any attempt to pass a Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state, which they said would predetermine the results of peace negotiations.

A UN resolution would cause serious damage to peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, they said.

The Republican representatives are blaming the president of causing the Palestinians to threaten to turn to the UN by publicly demanding Israel to halt settlement construction.

The letter was sent following recent reports on a Palestinian plan to turn to the UN for a vote on the establishment of a Palestinian state should direct talks reach a dead end.

It is estimated that the republicans will win a majority in the House of Representatives Tuesday at the Congressional midterm elections.

The letter noted that Israel's decision to halt West Bank settlement construction for 10 months was not only a gesture of goodwill meant to encourage the Palestinians to resume negotiations, but was extremely unpopular with many in Israel.

It was stated that the Palestinians never conditioned direct talks with a freeze of settlement construction.

The republicans said that a UN resolution regarding a Palestinian state would have a devastating effect on peace prospects. By turning to the UN the Palestinians are trying to avoid meeting their commitments and advancing negotiations with Israel, they said. "The US must not reward such behavior," the letter noted.

They also called Obama to support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand from the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...976883,00.html

[wat0n]

Israel joining NATO? It's interesting, but Turkey would veto that, right?