1. Uzi Kattan said:

What an idiot!
Sharon is to blame as are the Labor and Likud sicknesses who plotted this atrocity. Yimach shemam vezichram.

2. Omri Ceren said:

Oh come now Uzi - maybe you disagree with the conclusions, but surely you can't think that it's idiotic to believe that the world is highly unsympathetic to Israel.

3. Peretz Rickett said:

I'd like somebody to explain to me why we should care about international pressure. The UN is nothing but a collection of bloviating windbags - what are they going to do? Invade? That would require direct US involvement. Whether any given administration is friendly to Israel is irrelevant - no administration could even contemplate such measures against Israel without burning its own political house down. So I just don't get it. Why would any policy be based on international pressure? Sure, you can consider it, but it shouldn't be a controlling factor.

4. t said:

This article reminds me of the slogan "WE are German first". That one didn t work to well and it took six years to be liberated from the death camps! Why would we cave under US pressure for our own destruction? THe US govt has their head so far up the Saudi's ass it shows it would do anything to appease the creators of 911. Why doesn t the US appropriate Iraqi oil?

5. Omri Ceren said:

It's not that Israel _should_ care about US or international pressure - it's that Israel eventually always _does_ end up caring about international pressure. Does anyone really believe that Israelis would tolerate being in a pariah state, with citizens unable to travel to other countries and international companies unwilling to give them jobs. Or that Israel could long survive under US economic pressure?

6. sk said:

Omri, the ultimate pariah state is, one would think, North Korea. It's been around for a long time & shows no signs of falling part. Why not? Well, in part because it is useful to China, which props it up, and because our policians are too scared to take action against it.

Are you seriously claiming that North Korea can find security in this world and make no concessions at all but that Israel is some delicate flower that needs to cut out pounds of its flesh for fear of US economic pressure? You know what? Israel could have a real foreign policy that provided it alternatives to the US in every avenue. That it has not is an interesting problem having little to do with your visions of US threats. It may surprise to you hear this, but some regimes in the world don't like the US and would be pleased to improve relations with Israel if Israel were not such a US lapdog.

All things being equal, the US should have more power over Mexican foreign policy than Israeli policy. And yet, the US does nothing to halt an official Mexican government policy to evade our immigration laws. What does this tell you about simple conclusions based on the relative power of two states?

7. Omri Ceren said:

SK: North Korea is willing to let its citizens starve, and they aren't allowed to travel accross the border anyway. North Korea loses nothing by being an international pariah - Israel loses everything. Seriously, do you believe that Israelis would long tolerate not being allowed to travel to other countries because their visas weren't accepted?

Israel could withdraw from the international community - but Israelis are quite right to be unwilling to do so. Bravado is little comfort when Israel's economy has crashed because US military aid has been cut off and Europe has ceased accepting Israeli goods - and when Israelis can't travel to any country to get away from that bad economy.

8. JP said:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20050819.shtml

I hope Krauthammer is right but I doubt it. Regardless of the practical reasons for withdrawing from these territories the status quo has not changed. It has been reinforced. This is clearly exhibited in Arab/Palestinian rhetoric and "coincidentally" in the NYT article that C.K. alludes to.

I posted this because it parrallels Omri's position. I don't for one minute believe that Sharon blindly or selfishly or solely decided on disengagement. On the surface it fits too neatly into the paradigm. ie "Today Gaza, tomorrow Jerusalem." ie Occupation, Historic Palestine. ie Hamas "the political branch."

I think that addressing Arab violence would have been a proper and just response. The Expulsion/Disengagement doesn't address the aggressor. Not only does it bleed Israelis once again but it defines the future course.

I'd rather be told that I'm wrong and proof given.

9. sk said:

Omri, you have not addressed the points that I raised, and you have introduced further errors of your own. I brought up North Korea to show that even the nastiest states seem to survive surprisingly well in our international system if they are useful to someone, even if not to most. In other words, there are opportunities even in the most inhospitable international climate. You reply with an irrelevancy--North Korea is full of starving people. Well of course, because it's a totalitarian regime with not a speck of capitalism. However, the domestic situation there does not derive from the US's enmity or from the "international community's" enmity, but from the regime itself. Indeed, the US even sends food over there, as does Europe. I used Mexico as an example of how many disincentives there are for strong powers (e.g. the US) to project their power economically or militarily. What don't you understand about this? This is the way of the world.

You want to say that Israeli is badly hated, and thus subject to "pressure" from its few (one?) friend. But then you fret that Israel doesn't want to become a pariah state. If Israel has so few options, that is because it already IS a pariah state. The thing is, the Israel Left (which has included much of Likud) has presided over the slide in Israel's international reputation. And if Israel continues its dysfunctional self-amputation, its danger will increase and its reputation will decline (if possible).

IN OTHER WORDS, Israel's bad status is an OUTCOME of Oslo-esque behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because no alternative has been tried!

US military aid is not necessary to Israel. What is it? $3 billion? That could be saved by not expelling Jews from Gaza. Europe not accepting Israeli goods? Oh Europe is great at enforcing embargoes. What will a European democracy do when there is demand for something made in Israel? Like, say, Intel chips? In any event, clearly Israel has no trouble selling to China.

Or, Israeli elites can continue to subvert their democracy and enrich themselves, lop off more land to serve as bases for their enemies, throw around more cliches about "the international community" and "occupied territories," and destoy the host on which they (the elites) are parasitic.

Omri, I'm not responding to you again unless I feel you have addressed my arguments seriously. Otherwise, it's a waste of my time.

10. BobW said:

I read the post and the 9 comments. My comment is that the most important aspect re Gaza was not discussed. I've got a position re withdrawal and I've presented it here. Still, the critical point is being missed.

Israel lacks a representative form of government. The Gaza withdrawal was decreed as if the divine rights of kings was exercised. Now, turn the glass of water for a different view of the miniscus. The other side also cannot claim legitimacy. Thus, if the PM refused to withdraw from Gaza, the citizenry would still be divided WITH CHARGES OF ILLEGITIMACY.

There is a second segment to my comment. Israel lacks the schools to teach Jewish statesmanship. A western audience accomodates representative political concepts much differently than those Jews from the former Soviet Union. Arab Megreb Jews also hold to different views.

Omri, how would Norman Podhoretz or Elliott Abrams know about all US pressure on Israel? If I read the names Richard Luger (Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman) or John Warner (Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman), I wouldn't be typing this. How would Podhoretz or Abrams know if IRS gave a favorable tax ruling to, let us say, an oil company? Could this not place pressure on Israel? A change in the armaments trade regulations of a third country could pressure Israel. I doubt if Podhoretz or Abrams knows when all countries take actions affecting international commerce and thus Israel.

Without a representative form of government based on geographic areas fielding political representative to the Knesset, even the new enclave of Israel will not survive. A Jewish government is urgently needed.

Kol tuv,
BobW

11. Ted Belman said:

SK

You are wrong to draw comparisons to N. Korea. Israel is the pariah state par excellance. According to European polls it is the greatest danger to world peace. North Korea amd Iran barely worth a mention. Also, Israel and Jews are an emotive issue. They are hated. Neither N. Korea nor Iran are hated.

No one likes top swim up stream all the time. The answer you suggest is to find another stream. Would China use its veto in the SC to protect Israel? They are a huge importer of oil. Would tghey alienate tghe Arab world. They also have a Muslim problem. What different stream are you talking about.

As for the $3 billion, Israel is trying to wean itself away from it. Israel has many options in doing so like selling military hardware where it wants and producing military planes etc. So I agree with you on that.

I don't see disengagement as a reward for terror. I see it as in Israel's best interest. Gaza was a burden and not a benefit. Israel is stronger for having gotten out. Stronger to deal with terror and stronger to resist pressure. The hated Roadmap will now be used as a shield. The Pals must fulfill their obligations before before the second stage comes up. All attemps by the Quartet to bypass their Roadmap should be resisted.

12. Omri Ceren said:

SK: as I understand your position - and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to caricature you for the sake of argument - it's that Israel is already as much of a pariah state as it possibly could be (or: that the international community has no pressure left with which to leverage Israeli concessions). Only such an assumption could possibly justify your apparent view that Israel need not heed international pressure. I don't think that, if properly examined, that assumption could be defended. At a minimum, international pressure could cut off the following:
(1) Israeli's ability to travel overseas,
(2) export markets for Israeli goods which are necessary for their economy - your claim that European democracies would bow to popular pressure for Israeli goods is counter-intuitive: pressure for embargoes against Israeli goods are popular and bottom-up in Europe, not top-down),
(3) military assistance in the form of hardware and intelligence necessary for Israeli defense (I can't imagine you were serious in your glib claim that "US military aid is not necessary to Israel... [and] could be saved by not expelling Jews from Gaza").
For you to be right, SK, the world would need to lack either the motivation or the means to harm Israel. It seems to me undeniable that they lack neither.

BobW: the point about Podhoretz and Abrams was Soccer Dad's point, not mine. I conclude that there's US pressure on Israel the same way everyone else does: by reading about it in the newspaper.