…and so do I! Why in the world they have been so virulently anti-Zionist escapes me. The profound disgust with many groups of Israeli society and the total ignorance of motivations for why people act they way they do astounds me. How can it be that so many groups gain sympathy from this newspaper, but Israelis simply do not? I wonder what the real reason is, for so tired and loathsome a campaign takes real sustained effort.
In this article (”Israel’s Settlers“), the newspaper gives review to a book by Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar that documents the usurpation of “foreign territory” by occupation. In the terms of the article, occupation basically means both miltiary occupation and the government turning its head while its citizens created illegal settlements. Israel has “flouted” international law.
International law is an interesting creature, twisted to suit The Economist’s purposes. Neither all laws nor all claims to property are created equal.
All Laws are Not Created Equal
According to this article, “The Bilin case was just a variation on a tried and tested method: seize land illegally, establish hard-to-reverse “facts on the ground” and then legalise the claim retroactively through the courts or the government.” It seems then that the courts would attempt to give legitimacy to illegal acts. I have little doubt that some settlers have done terrible things to people in the occupied territories, and it seems Bilin may prove the point. What Bilin does not prove, however, is that Israel flouts international law. Yes, Israel should uphold and respect the possession of property by Palestinians or other persons as a matter of good property law and as a matter of natural law. That they do not is a serious concern. But I object to the argument that Israel is some nefarious actor in this drama. When considering a criminal’s actions, motivations and situations are important. We do not convict persons of murder, for instance, when they were not responsible for their own actions or when the persons acted in self-defense.
Just so, Israel does not have clear borders with its neighbors. Its neighbors are mostly countries that, if they are not outright hostile, it is because the United States helps placate them with foreign aid and secret police forces do the rest. In the long-run, it is in the interests of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran to have good relations with Israel from an economics perspective. A free trade area of the Middle East would lead to a flowering of culture, power, and growth that seems unimaginable today. It will take someone with vision to pull it off — and not by political actors whose main method of clinging to power is stirring up fear. Therefore, short-run concerns of power-grabbing and jockeying for prestige take precedence. The United States has been an outstanding force for pulling these countries out of their short-term horizons, but even a Trekker like King Abdullah can be pulled only so much. (On a side note, judging from the Queen, there is hope for Trekkers.)
Israel watches its neighbors closely. It knows about why political actors do the things they do. It has the same responsibility to take its security seriously as we do about ours. Given the country’s size and its proximity to its eemies, in the event of warfare, the country has precious little time to react. Furthermore, its reactions must be swift, sure, and effective. Even more to the point, the threat of attacks on and inside Israel are far more real than they are in most other countries.
One might think an article by The Economist on Israel’s settlers and the tacit permission of the governments (both Labor and Likud) to settle might mention something about the motivations relating to security. Instead, here is what we are offered: “The Labour governments that ruled until 1977 turned a blind eye to expropriations of land for “military” use that then became civilian.” Military in quotes? Are you joking? Will you look at this map and tell me it is not a necessity to possess this land?
What right does the international community have to tell Israel, at this point, that someone else has better claims to this land than they, when they have done so much to forfeit it? In my mind, the War for Independence was bad enough, but the Six Day War takes the cake. Here’s an example:
[NPR's] Mike Shuster: Most historians now agree that although Israel struck first, this pre-emptive strike was defensive in nature. In the spring of 1967, the Soviet Union misinformed the radical government in Damascus that Israel was planning an invasion of Syria. Syria shared this misinformation with Nasser, who responded with several threatening actions. He closed the Gulf of Aqaba to shipping, cutting off Israel from its primary oil supplies. He told U.N. peacekeepers in the Sinai Peninsula to leave. He then sent scores of tanks and hundreds of troops into the Sinai closer to Israel. The Arab world was delirious with support, says Michael Oren, author of Six Days of War.
MICHAEL OREN: This immediately ameliorated Nasser’s stature in the Arab world. He was elevated to almost a god-like status overnight and politically it seemed like a good bargain. The bad news was he wasn’t counting on Israel striking back militarily.
SHUSTER: It was not easy for Israel to make the decision to strike at Egypt. For three weeks in May and early June 1967, Israel’s leaders argued fiercely over what to do. The military wanted to attack. The chief of staff of the Israeli army then was a young Yitzhak Rabin, who suffered a short nervous breakdown under the stress.
If you put yourself in their shoes, you see first that you have no option but to strike. You also see that you improve your security by taking land from the enemy. I have no idea why anyone calls this an occupation. In past centuries, this would amount to a taking that would permanently become a part of Israel. Nowadays, the elitist international status quo must be satisfied, whether it works for peace or not. What connection do they have to the situation? What are their interests? There are two injustices in my mind here. One: Israel does not respect the rights of persons whose land they took. But far greater, two: Israel does not own the land that The Economist claims it occupies.
All Claims to Property are Not Created Equal
Perhaps The Economist denies all this, or ignores it, because of the United Kingdom’s role in this. There wasn’t a terrible lot of competition for claims on the region for a very, very long time. Once held by the Roman Empire for what seemed like an eternity, it later fell under the dominion of the Ottoman Empire. After that, the British Empire. As a part of this Empire, the land would be known broadly as the British Mandate of Palestine. During this time, the United Kingdom, under successive governments, played games with both the Palestinians and the Jews who inhabited the area or wanted to move there. Vigorous lobbying by the Zionist movement had begun in earnest at the turn of the century and reached a fever pitch after World War II through both official diplomacy and terrorism. The Palestinians and Arabs clearly had a majority in population as well as property ownership. Despite that, Britain, in coordination with the vaunted United Nations, basically bottled two velociraptors in a jar and hoped for the best. This is negligence at best, and far more likely to be knowing, willful intention to harm in my view.
It is true that they set this path when they carved up the Ottoman Empire, and the history of Post World War I political decisions is replete with foolhardy assumptions and downright stupid decisions. Given this disastrous position, it may seem a bit harsh to unduly criticize them for making the best of a bad situation and just giving up and going home. I can see the point. Nevertheless, why does The Economist ignore all this at every opportunity? And when they do talk about it, it’s always just to bash religion. I have never seen a substantive critique of the policy from the newspaper without unending references to radical Zionists.
In the face of British incompetence, the Zionists were left to fend for themselves. What are they supposed to do? They made a state and invited Arabs/Muslims to become a part of it as well. To this day, they hold the same right to vote that Europeans/Jews do.
Whatever the case, I truly do not understand why this is called an occupation. If decades of unremitting hostility and an inclination to destroy Israel doesn’t forfeit some of those small lands that now act like buffer zones, what would?
The Economist is referring to the West Bank as occupied territory. Have the United States recognized Israeli claim to the West Bank and Gaza Strip? At least according to the Wikipedia, we could not have done so, since Israel did not annex the West Bank formally after the Six-Day War.
You are technically correct that the Security Council has not, under Chapter VII of the Charter, bindingly designated the West Bank and Gaza Strip as “occupied territories” under international law. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… (As a side note showing how silly international law is: Germany was de jure occupied until 1990.)
Although I can’t be bothered to find a link at the moment, The Economist takes pains to discuss or at least mention the British failure in many major articles on the wider subject of Israeli-Palestinian peace. There was one such piece within the last year, I believe. And in any case, it seems a bit unreasonable to expect an exhaustive dissertation (how’s that for velociraptive hyperbole?) from a review of a book on a relatively narrow subtopic.
And frankly, Admiral, your own harping on the British failure and its effect sounds rather like my own harping about the CIA restoration of the Shah and its ripples to this day: even if it’s true, so what? The failures of the past do not fully excuse the world of today from making things worse, though they must temper our judgments, as you note.
Do you think that the expropriation of Palestinians is going to make Israel safer? You, Admiral Waugh, who preach the Mystery of Capital? From an incentives perspective, immiseration at gunpoint strikes me as counterproductive, to say the least.
I have other issues with this posting, but they will have to wait.
As you will note, I go out of my way to point out many of the failures of the Israeli state in dealing with the Palestinians, including the so-called occupied territories. I don’t give a flipping darn who has recognized the Israeli claim to the territory. I find it extraordinary that anyone could claim anyone BUT Israel *has* a right to it. The onus is on Israel to treat those citizens well.
I only brought up the British failure to show the real origins of the conflict. Imperialism in the region in the Post WWI context must be considered a failure. However, we can change that if we start getting serious with these countries and engaging them to open up. Blaming religious zealots is so stupid that it’s way beyond The Economist’s dignity to deal with.
Why *shouldn’t* Israel settle those areas? Why shouldn’t they be parts of its territory? If anyone, in any article, could make an argument otherwise I would be really impressed. It hasn’t happened yet. The Economist’s crack team of Israel Scholars likes to lob grenades (yes, as I do on occasion) without much to back it up.
Incidentally, is it clear to anyone that the people would be better off under other regimes in those areas? There is no doubt in my mind: Israel must do better. We should challenge them to do so. But those are orphans of the Arabs, dealing with consequences of bad decisions by Arabs and imperialists. The situation will sort itself out, but it should be on Israel’s terms and that includes holding those territories as long as it takes, perhaps permanently.
I don’t give a damn about the ultimate causes of the situation, Admiral. (Shall we blame Titus for scattering the Jews across the West? Edward III for expelling them from England?) That’s hyperbole, yes; I do think it important to keep in mind the failures of the British and other imperial powers in discussing the evolution of the conflict. I simply think 1) there are length requirements for a book review; 2) Israelis are more directly responsible for the settlements than are the British (there was a good, twenty-year’s lapse between independence and the Six-Day’s War, and therefore 3) the omission of the British from the article is reasonable.
You’re right, Admiral: the West Bank is something of a black hole in that it “belongs” to no state. But Israel has not annexed or claimed it. (With the exception of East Jerusalem. And that’s fine by me.) It does not grant citizenship to the residents of the territory, and it runs roughshod, however understandably, over their lives and industry. There’s not even the fig-leaf measures taken for Alsace-Lorraine by the Germans. This is un-annexed land, subject to extensive movement controls and military incursions by a foreign power. It looks like an occupation; it walks like an occupation; it quacks like an occupation.
The reason Israel shouldn’t settle the area is because it’s already settled. This isn’t some terra nova with only the odd savage easily susceptible to the pox; this is a populous, and (whatever Sammy might say) civilized region. I wouldn’t even mind expropriation so much if it were for things like checkpoints, police stations, and other things that could contribute to order and prosperity. But to transfer the land to private settlers, who will require increased security provided by the state? Good God.
And I don’t know that the West Bank and Gaza wouldn’t have been better off belonging to other Arab states. That’s a pretty huge contrafactual, Admiral, but GDP (at PPP) per capita is three-and-a-half times higher in Jordan than in Palestine.
In any case, why is it so stupid to blame religious zealots? Are you saying that The Economist is wrong in holding that zealots have been able to arrange policy to their advantage? Moreover, well intentioned secularists come in for a licking, too. I just don’t get how “blaming religious zealots” equates to anti-Zionism.
Frankly, this whole post seems a muddle: you take issue with a narrowly focused book review as opposed to a full report on the conflict (of which The Economist has produced several over the years written by their Jewish correspondent); you denounce the expropriation but throw up your hands in saying vaguely, “it’s for security purposes, so anything is okay” (my words in your mouth).
Fisk-ing to follow:
“Nevertheless, why does The Economist ignore all this at every opportunity?”
Outright incorrect. Check the archives, Admiral.
“And when they do talk about it, it’s always just to bash religion.”
Where’s the bashing of religion? I don’t see YHWH inveigled against, nor Judaism or Islam denounced. I see “radicals” denounced, yes. So I suppose that denouncing bombings by extremist Christians of abortion clinics would be an attack on Christianity? Give it a rest, Admiral.
“I have never seen a substantive critique of the policy from the newspaper without unending references to radical Zionists.”
Perhaps, and I’m ignorant of this, a point of the book being reviewed is that no discussion of the settlements would be complete or even reasonable without extensive coverage of the radical Zionists.
“If decades of unremitting hostility and an inclination to destroy Israel doesn’t forfeit some of those small lands that now act like buffer zones, what would?”
I don’t object to Israel’s creating a “buffer”, but a point of the book under review seems to be that far from buffering Israel and providing breathing space for peace, these settlements act as magnets for attacks and increased Israeli presence. Something along the lines of the Korean demilitarized zone would be a buffer.
In response to your first response ( and given the length of them, maybe you should write some posts someday! ), I really only need to make one point because I think you have one central point.
It is completely, wholly, undeniably irrelevant what you call what is going on in those territories. If you want to call it an occupation, it really, truly doesn’t matter. The point is, whatever you call it, is legitimate and necessary. In other words, Israel has the right to control those territories, be it by occupation or not. So you and I can argue all day about the nature of the occupation (some people think we occupy Puerto Rico!), but I think you would find we agree on most of that issue. I am teasing that issue apart, instead taking aim at The Economist’s obsession with the “occupation of foreign lands.” Make no mistake: the only reason they even bothered with this book review is to grind its ax against the occupation. That’s why it perks theirs up.
Which leads me to your second post. NO, I do not denounce the expropriation. I denounce those who decry it! I give some reasons that I think are very legitimate for possessing that land. You have to have some kind of legitimacy, somewhere along the way, to have title to land. In America, we generally have bona fide purchasers. If there’s a wild deed, there are ways to remedy that. We hope that other regimes would recognize property rights the way that we do. They don’t, and Israel has not done that adequately in the “occupied” territories. Neighboring countries forfeited this property at the Six Day War. It should pay the consequences for its constant, unrelenting, unremitting hostility toward Israel — a democracy where Arabs and Muslims may vote as equal citizens to those of Jewish heritage. The reason I brought up the history is because I’m not sure any of those states had a legitimate claim to the property to begin with. A state has to become legitimate somehow. Egypt has at times had a more legitimate regime than at other times and the same goes for Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran. Excuse me if I don’t sympathize with the dictators of these countries and give them incentives to continue their hostility.
( Incidentally, please spare me the notion that Israel hasn’t laid claim to these territories. They didn’t want these territories to begin with but have basically been forced to take them because of security reasons. Yes, they are willing to ensure their state is protected by settling them. Why won’t you address this? )
I confess that the post (you can see the time it came up) is a bit of a muddle, but thankfully I believe it’s becoming clearer thanks to your responses. In several recent posts on the subject, The Economist has ignored this in favor of bashing religious zealots. The newspaper has a long history. I am sure it has addressed it at some time or another. I find it interesting that they did not do so in this article. They will go out of their way to give necessary caveats on other subjects (the outlandish military/evangelical caveat in this article: http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9681023), and you better believe it would do so for any criticism of a global warming phenomenon.
And no, one can find a constant strain of anti-religious sentiment permeating The Economist’s reporting. Just because an article doesn’t come out and explicitly say “RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS” doesn’t mean that it isn’t there covertly. These people stick their noses up at anything that doesn’t fit the trendy, intellectual, cosmopolitan tone it now strikes.
I went back and searched through past articles of the newspaper seeking evidence for the argument. I have found a lot that supports me and a lot that supports you. The campaign may not be concerted, but it’s just extraordinary to me that you wouldn’t agree with most of what I am saying here.
“Perhaps, and I’m ignorant of this, a point of the book being reviewed is that no discussion of the settlements would be complete or even reasonable without extensive coverage of the radical Zionists.”
Ummm, and I think that no book review on this subject would be complete without mention of the points listed above. Radical Zionists are such a small part of the equation that it saddens me. They are pawns in the game, not any prime mover.
In response to your last point, the world has gone nuts already just putting a fence up. Can you imagine what mining those territories would do? And anyway, who wants to? So the Israelis have better ideas of how to build buffers — Jerusalem is more insulated and the enemy has to try harder to wound them. This is a kind of buffer, as many annexations in history have been. One of my points has been that this territory really ought to be formally brought into Israel’s fold, but the international community (which created and continues to foster this crisis by acting like it has any right to meddle) would never allow it.
Good God. This is a prime example of exactly why I’m so disengaged from posting: a hefty exchange on something I really don’t know much about and thus shouldn’t be spouting off about. It is in every figurative way all sound and fury signifying nothing. I simply don’t have the energy or background for this kind of exchange, or the desire to put my ignorance on display, especially on this topic.
I’d ordinarily have left over this piece in silence, but your Economist bashing simply got on my illness-irritated nerves: you’ve got one or two good points of criticism, Admiral, but you blow them way out of proportion with your hyperbole and with such charged terms as “treason,” “betrayal,” and “anti-Zionist.”
I’ve got another reply drafted, but I’m not sure I want to bother with it.
Blogging doesn’t require in-depth knowledge, although I know it keeps both you and Matt from posting sometimes. Part of blogging is relaying news, as you have done with Multum in Parvo. Part of blogging is learning about things while you blog. Obviously, I know next to nothing about economics proper… but I have learned while writing and reading. It’s really an exercise in my view. Some bloggers have turned their blogs into books. Some have turned their work into papers. Some into careers.
What we really need is contributions from other posters and some kind of advertising scheme, whether it’s commenting on other blogs and leaving our link there or what. I am really unhappy with our Technorati ranking. We’re way better than some of those others. Mankiw just cited to the Technorati-based econ blog rankings and we are like #145. BS!
Something I have been thinking of doing is periodic reviews of academic papers. Summaries, discussion sort of thing. Like book club but on the blog.