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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.