Israel: fence in north has cut terror penetrations to zero

[Gimel]

Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim, speaking ahead of a Sunday cabinet meeting which will discuss construction and evaluation of the West Bank separation fence, said that in areas in which the barrier had been set up, terrorist penetrations had been reduced to "zero."

Boim said 200 kilometers of the barrier along the Seam Line border with the West Bank had been operating for 10 months. "It has gone from a situation of 600 terrorist operations and criminal activities a year, to zero. It saves lives, and creates quality of life."

The heavily populated Jerusalem section poses the thorniest issues. Work is being carried out on only 14 of the projected 64 kilometers of the Jerusalem section, with most of the rest tied up in legal challenges.

<snip>

Continued..

Boim conceded that the fence "does weigh on some of the population. We are not ignoring this." But he said that walls had been built in some areas in order to avoid demolishing houses, because a fence would require a large area to be cleared on the West Bank side.

[izzie]

1. I think in history walls work for a while.

All through out history we can read about them. Walled homes, walled towns, Wall cities, walled countries and many countries walled off. They have all ended up not lasting.

[Gimel]

2. why should it?

It is for defense in the short term, and not meant to be permanent. Once attacks are stopped, the causes of the conflict can be addressed.

[izzie]

4. Both sides always had that in front of them.

The reason for walls is always changing and I am sure this will also. I guess now they just go up and down faster than in history. Maybe it is because we all seem to go faster.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

5. let this one...

work for a while...

[Submariner]

3. What a great thing

to see more of my tax money wasted on an apartheid wall and without my vote. Thanks Chimpy.

[Gimel]

6. "without my vote"

You can bet your bottom dollar. What does your vote have to do with Israel's security?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyorican]

8. I guess the connection...

between "my vote" and "my tax dollars" is verboten with regards to Israel. Duly noted...

[Djinn]

9. Seriously Gimel

without the financial and military support of the US how long do you think Israel would have lasted for? therefore US voters have a vested interest here. Whatever ones views on the whole situation isn't it it plain ridiculous to dispute that?

[Gimel]

10. It lasted until 1981

Without help from the US. The Camp David agreement which Carter brokered, offering nearly identical aid packages to Israel and Egypt, while Israel returned the large tract of land the Sinai.

I think Israel would have continued without that added prosperity, and maybe the Soviet Union wouldn't have fallen either. Never doubt the commitment of a Zionist.

[Fight_n_back]

11. "how long do you think Israel would have lasted for?"

Let's see, what is one thousand seventy three minus one thousand fourty eight...

OK, 25 years without any US aid.
Now how long would Saudi Arabia last without our permission?

And if US aid was a measure of success then there would be no Israel at all since the US supported the Arab states with aid during the war of independence.

My tax dollars currently go to a regime that cuts the heads off women that aren't virgins when they are married. My tax dollars support a theocratic monarchy that attacked the largest city in the nation I live in.

I guess when you live in a democracy you have to take the good with the bad.

[Fight_n_back]

12. This is one of my favorite arguments

from those hardliners left over from the cold war...

Israel is powerful and doesn't need US aid but at the same time Israel could not exist without US aid.

Israel is in no danger from its neighbors yet would cease to exist without US military support.

[Djinn]

13. strawmen much?

I never denied any of the things you posit YANG (you seem to pop up everywhere I post at the moment - should I be flattered or concerned?)

I just found a posters insinuation that US voters have nothing to do with this erroneous.

Would you like to attribute any other beliefs to me or can we grow up now.

[Fight_n_back]

14. I could ascribe this to memory loss

You asked how long Israel would last without US support. I answered.

Pretty simple to understand...even for me.

[Djinn]

16. may simple to understand

but obviously not to comprehend - rhetorical - in response to Gimel claiming that US votes have "nothing to do with it"

[Fight_n_back]

17. Somehow you think it is good manners

to call me stupid as you hve insinuated many times.

Im not sure who taught you that but perhaps you should tell them that people who tend to think things are simple are generally just that.

[Gimel]

15. US voters

US voters do have something to do with support for Israel, but as far as deciding whether or not to build a wall, it was never a question of support from the US voters or even from Bush. It was a security issue, and Sharon, as well as other PM's have made it clear that Israel's security is not going to be compromised by outside opinions.

[Liberal Classic]

18. Israel won its independence with little help from the U.S.

without the financial and military support of the US how long do you think Israel would have lasted for?

In the 1948 war, the Six-day war, and the Yom Kippur war, Israel received *vocal* support from the U.S. primarily in the form of backing U.N. resolutions. but little else. It is way wrong to suggest that the U.S. has financially and militarily supported Israel since the beginning to such an extent that Israel wouldn't exist otherwise.

therefore US voters have a vested interest here. Whatever ones views on the whole situation isn't it it plain ridiculous to dispute that?

Of course I dispute it, because it's incorrect. U.S. voters have an interest deciding if and how much the U.S. supports Israel. However, if Israel were to view U.S. policy as being contrary to their own interests I am certian they would not follow the U.S.'s lead and go on and do their own thing.

[tinnypriv]

19. Actually

You're 1/3 correct.

Israel did receive only limited backing during the 1948 war of independence/conquest (recognition probably the most important + loans also), but it received quite strong support during the 1967 war (support was close to euphoric after), and massive support in the latter stages of the Yom Kippur war and directly after.

In fact, there is an open question as to whether Israel would have recaptured the territories had it not threatened a nuclear response in order to bring about a huge shipment of weapons from the US (and other countries), which it received.

Also, the Yom Kippur war would probably have been avoided had the US not embarked on a course of Israel-first ("stalemate" - i.e. support for Israeli expansion indefinitely) during 1967-1973 - based largely on racist contempt of the Arab states, US/Israeli economic interests, power politics etc.

Though it is wrong to say that:

"The U.S. has financially and militarily supported Israel since the beginning to such an extent that Israel wouldn't exist otherwise",

it is not wrong to say that U.S. financial and military support of Israel is unprecedented in scale and character, and Israel would probably (maybe very likely) have been destroyed at some point had such support not been in place.

Certainly that is the case during the 1967 period until today, as recognised by pretty much everyone. For two minor examples, Israel would not have been able to expand into the occupied territories without American support, and nor would it have been able to direct its forces towards the north had America not bought Egypt off with client-state status (in the form of military assistance, aid, diplomatic contacts etc).

Though you could argue that such actions reduce Israel's security in the sense of pre-1967 Israel, that is not the Israel of post-1967 or today. That (expansionist) Israel would have been wiped out had it tried to pursue those policies without American backing, just as it would no longer be the "most powerful in the Middle East", and "stronger than ever", without such backing in the present (in fact highly vulnerable, given technological developments).

All this is of course putting aside actions which the US takes of its own accord which help Israel as a predictable side-effect; i.e. direct consequences of the "special relationship" - say, the US invasion of Iraq (eliminating the "Eastern Front", eliciting euphoria in Israel), sanctions on Syria, pressure on Iran (also acquiescence to direct Israeli inteference in Iran, also supply of "special weaponry" etc). All quite substantial.

There are also things such as tacit agreement to allow Israel to penetrate (more accurately: rob) the Iraqi reconstruction program (co-ordinated at the highest level, suppressed for fear of a "political explosion" if the facts were known) etc. All possible thanks to the US system of domination in the region - support for Egypt and Jordan being the most important (the latter the "sheep-dipper" of Israeli products to be sold in Iraq, to use military terminology) - and vital for the Israeli economy, particularly during the current Intifada.

As for Israel "going on to do its own thing", you're half right. It is doing that right now - causing the US considerable discomfort with its covert operations in the Kurdish areas of Iraq, inflaming Turkey, Iran, most of Iraq and others. That's because Israel views U.S. strategic policy towards post-war Iraq as contrary to its interests and it is therefore committed to destablisation - which is not the U.S. goal, but there is little Washington can do about it for the moment.

The reason for "half right" is that Israel does not have the room for independent action you seem to be ascribing to it. To note a minor example, the U.S. is currently damaging the Israeli pharmaceutical industry quite significantly in a dispute over patents (the largest producer may leave Israel in fact). The Israeli lobby is nowhere in sight, and there is nothing Israel can do about it, because the patent move is favoured by powerful interests in the United States, which don't care about Israel one way or the other. In this case, Israel cannot go on to "do its own thing", because its entire economy is artificially based on massive foreign investment and capital, shored up by US aid, credit loans, and bank guarantees.

Though that is a domestic example, the underlying principles extend to foreign affairs.

[Liberal Classic]

20. I stand corrected, though

I did qualify my statements. perhaps I did not qualify them enough. After the 1948 war the U.S. declared an arms embaro on the whole area for a time. This stance had reversed itself by the 1960s, of course, and Israel wasn't the only nation to take advantage of it.

The U.S. is a large arms exporter. As you noted, Israel was buying arms from more nations than just the U.S. I suppose we could debate what kind of support arms purchases constitute. If Israel was paying hard currency for military equipment, and I would differentiate this from military loans and grants. It's always thorny when we don't define terms. Military assistance to me means supplying troops not simply the purchase of equipment, and financial backing to mean means aid grants, though I suppose loans too. Certianly we can agree that substantive support for Israel increased over time, especially after the Six-day war. However, I still believe it is wrong to ascribe Israel's existance as being thanks to the U.S.

The point I was answering was the idea that Israel would simply not exist without the the U.S. I tend to think this is wrong. As for Israel probably being destroyed, I don't care to play the 'what if' game. Hypotheticals aren't very useful, and tend to become nasty.

[tinnypriv]

21. I pretty much agree

And appreciate the careful qualifications and interesting reponse.

With regards to defining terms, that by now is pretty much impossible, certainly in terms of "aid" and "military assistance".

For one example, Rafael (Israel Armament Development Company) is currently moving a huge amount of production over to the US, in order to integrate into the US armament system more closely, syphoning spin-offs to Israel (US too).

It so happens that most of the research and development that Rafael and the likes of Lockheed base their products on derives from public-funding to a significant extent. Also, American largesse opens key markets to Rafael, in addition to providing a taxpayer cushion in case of unexpected funding losses (via guarantees to Israel from international lending institutions - ultimately underwritten by the US).

So, if the US uses taxpayer subsidy to buy Israeli bullets, from a company whose stock price in Tel Aviv is based on US loan/credit to Israel (otherwise the market would crash), is that "aid" to Israel? Probably not. More accurately, aid from the US and Israeli taxpayers to the "military defense (sic) base" - i.e. huge corporate institutions (whose officers move back and forth between the corporate world and the governmental world).

The point of the hypothetical is to note that Israel is also a large arms exporter (as you can read in the Globes business daily just last week), but wouldn't be without U.S help and constant assistance (to illustrate; sales approved: Iran in the 80's, disapproved: China in the 90's).

Also, one item you failed to note is the discount Israel often receives when purchasing American equipment. That's quite a substantial chunk of the "aid", which of course is often not literal "aid", because the money flows back to US-based corporations.

I agree that the hysterical charges about U.S. support for Israel since its founding are unwarranted. They've been thrown with such abandon in the last few years that, IMO, they're not even worth a response. If you want my opinion, they largely derive from the fact that some people don't seem to hold a high regard for Israeli nationalism or independence.

Though I don't want to play "what if" (agreeing with you that it is mostly pointless), I do disagree with the statement that Israel's existence is not "thanks to the U.S". It is right now, and will remain so unless the region integrates Israel in some fashion, just on the basis of economic and technological development of the surrounding countries. That's assuming an embargo of the region, including Israel and the other states.

Assuming a worst-case scenario (support for the other states and not Israel) - I stress this is 99.9999% implausible - then Israel would be destroyed in next to no time (probably taking the region with it, Samson-Style). You can see this just on the basis of the tech the U.S. provides to states like the UAE, which has almost the same new fighter bomber that was recently delivered to Israel (less range, no "special weaponry", to quote the Hebrew press).

[Gimel]

22. Question

So, if the US uses taxpayer subsidy to buy Israeli bullets, from a company whose stock price in Tel Aviv is based on US loan/credit to Israel (otherwise the market would crash), is that "aid" to Israel?

As this seems to be an important link in your argument, are you saying that the bullet purchase is the "aid to Israel"? Because the loan guarantees are not considered financial aid. The bullet purchase, you imply. is inappropriate, or a misuse of taxpayers money. Is that what you are aiming at? The bullets are bought at an above market price in order to boost the stock market value of the company? If Israel is able to buy on credit (and with interest added to the loan, of course) how does that increase the value of a military industry? There are many other arms purchasers, by the way. New contracts have been made with France, India and Turkey, among others.

[tinnypriv]

23. I answered that question

When I said that such interactions are "probably not" aid to Israel.

They, "more accurately" are:

"aid from the US and Israeli taxpayers to the "military defense (sic) base" - i.e. huge corporate institutions (whose officers move back and forth between the corporate world and the governmental world)"

Incidentially, and this may be naivéty, I happen to think that the entire military system is a "misuse of taxpayers money". But that's another topic.

To answer your other questions: the bullets are not bought at any "market price", since the market is barely involved - these are state-to-state military procurement interactions, and when you look at the subject in detail, you'll find that most of this stuff barely enters the "market". The same is true with "trade" generally. Economists estimate that about 60-80% of "trade" is actually centrally managed cross-border movement (say, GM shipping auto parts to a Mexican GM plant for assembly counts as "trade", but is not trade in the literal sense).

The fact Israel is able to have a favourable credit rating with international institutions is because of US support - withdrawal of the support would crash the Israeli economy (and cause heavy damage to the US one as well, which is why that won't happen). No serious Israeli economist thinks for one moment that Israel could maintain its military industry if that happened. That's putting aside the enormous aid package.

Note that Israel's economy is so fragile that it even has to subsidise the wages of its own corporations in order to prevent them from going under, or transferring production to places like China. Check out OFFIS for a recent case.

This is by no means the only example - "reciprocal procurement arrangements" are another scam with virtually no relation to the "market". Israel relies on them heavily as well. In fact, because of the "economic climate", they are a "priority", to quote Minister of Industry Trade and Labor Ehud Olmert.

Yet another example is so-called "missile defense" - a project paid for by the US taxpayer which is a large cash-cow for Israel, because of the Arrow project (basically an off-shore US project run by Israel). There are two main companies involved - Boeing (which, incidentially has a $5bn almost no-bid contract with "Homeland Security" as well) and IAI (Israel Aircraft Industries). Their interactions have nothing to do with the "market" either, because, as noted in the Israeli business press (Globes), you have the ridiculous sight of Boeing making parts for IAI, not the other way around (with final assembly in Israel).

Why? Because if IAI makes the parts in Israel, they are paid for by Israel with US loans. If IAI sub-contracts production to Boeing, they are paid with US aid ($144m in the case of Arrow). Boeing and Israeli therefore both get a freebie, and the US government gets a trial-run of miniature missile defense. None of this would be possible without US subsidy and US political backing (note that Boeing and IAI have a "strategic teaming agreement" tacitly approved by Congress).

[Gimel]

24. Not quite, as I understand it

the bullets are not bought at any "market price", since the market is barely involved - these are state-to-state military procurement interactions, and when you look at the subject in detail, you'll find that most of this stuff barely enters the "market". The same is true with "trade" generally.

The "interactions" must have some value, even if it isn't a "market value" per se. If it is a commodity that is balanced for some other commodity going in the opposite direction, it still has a value.

If it has no market value, then why would it even relate to the stock prices?

BTW, Israel's credit rating is based on on-schedule repayments, not US support. While grants received are often used to pay the loans, it does not justify calling the repayments US support. The Israeli credit rating did drop to an A- due to the Intifada and questions about security issues, not related in any way to US support.