Is Prof. Jacobson right?
Professor Jacobson notes my post about Hamas being overwhelmed with goods that are causing prices to drop, and pats himself on the back for calling Israel the winner of the 'flotilla crisis.' On Sunday, June 20, 2010, at 9:35 p.m. E.S.T., I posted Israel Outmaneuvers The Flotilla. The central thesis of the post was that Israel was the ultimate winner in the Gaza flotilla confrontation, because with the easing of the civilian aspects of the blockade the naval military blockade had been recognized as legitimate by Europe and the U.S.From an economic perspective, Professor Jacobson may be correct. Hamas may have been weakened. They are certainly going to lose some of their previous profits on the tunnels, but that loss may be mitigated as described below.
To which, Carl in Jerusalem responded: "I wish Jacobson was [right], but he's not."
On June 22, 2010, at 8:37 a.m. E.S.T. I posted the now classic Tunnels for Sale, Cheap, noting that the easing of the civilian blockade was collapsing the Gaza tunnel economy and thereby a critical source of Hamas revenue.
With the benefit of dreaded hindsight, and thanks to some tips from Soccer Dad, I now am able to declare victory.
The main reason I argued that Israel was not the winner in the Turkish flotilla crisis was that Israel got nothing in relation to Gilad Shalit, and gave up its only leverage for Shalit's release by weakening the 'blockade' in a way that ensures that the average resident of Gaza has no incentive to advocate for Shalit's release. That result still stands.
Even from an economic perspective, Hamas got a cool $50 million in cash this week as a consolation prize for the Amalthea docking in El Arish. Will they get that kind of prize every time Israel successfully turns away a 'humanitarian aid' ship? If so, have we really won economically? How long does it take Hamas to earn $50 million from the tunnels?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:31 AM
3 Comments:
The point is that in order to maintain the naval blockade, Israel had to switch to a containment policy. It means Hamas will be entrenched in Gaza for decades. That's the bad news. The good news is it also ensures no Palestinian state will emerge in our lifetime.
I should add Dr. Jacobson is right on one point: Hamas in getting more goods into the territory has lost the propaganda point its Western leftist fellow travelers used to successfully beat Israel over the head with: that Israel was making life miserable for the Gazans. Now that argument has been removed, what is clear is not that Gaza suffers from a shortage of goods but that Gaza is a dysfunctional society dependent on international welfare and whose main obsession in life is to hate the Jews. That's not really an attractive case to be made for an Arab Singapore on the Mediterranean and we won't see one emerge there any time soon.
There is a one state solution concept brewing and - no - its not from the Left. Its from the revanant right. Listen to Tzipi Hotovely:
"Every choice entails a price. The status quo carries a heavy price, the two-state idea carries a heavy price, and the approach I am now presenting also carries a price. Coping with the Arab minority is a lower price than the danger of the Qassams, the delegitimization and the immoral actions we will commit in coping with them, and also preferable to giving up parts of the homeland, including Jerusalem."
"Once the Palestinians become citizens, things might lurch out of your control. Some will say you are playing with fire."
"Everyone is playing with fire. There is no solution that is divorced from the world of risk in the Middle East. The risks in the two-state conception are not virtual, they have already been actualized. The risks I am talking about can be addressed in a rational process lasting a generation."
Of the two dangers you discern - a binational state or a Palestinian state - which would you choose?
"Unequivocally the binational danger. In the binational process we have a degree of control, but the moment you abandon the area to the Palestinian entity, what control do you have over what will happen there?"
That is Hotovely talking, not Yossi Beilin and not Uri Avineri. The reason is an Israel with a large Arab minority is preferable to a Palestinian state over which Israel has no real control. Yes, a Jewish State over the entire Land Of Israel. There is no reason to be afraid of such a future. Jews were once able to survive as a minority in their own country and if it should come to that again, they will survive. The important thing is Israel remains one country forever.
There's more here in the Weekend Haaretz Magazine: Read it all
Post a Comment
<< Home