College is a whole four years, but not everyone goes through with it.
In the meantime, the status quo has been made more bearable thanks to the architects of the peace process, who have spent billions to prop up the Palestinian government, create conditions of prosperity for decision-makers in Ramallah, and dissuade the population from confronting the occupying force.
Israel, for its part, has consistently opted for stalemate rather than the sort of agreement outlined above. The reason is obvious: The damages Israel would risk incurring through such an accord are massive.
There could also be bloodshed during forcible evacuations of West Bank settlements and rifts within the body implementing the evictions, the Israeli army, whose share of religious infantry officers now surpasses one third.
Israel would lose military control over the West Bank, resulting in less intelligence-gathering, less room for manoeuvre in future wars, and less time to react to a surprise attack. Israeli intelligence services would no longer control which Palestinians enter and exit the occupied territories.
But chief among them would be the blow dealt to efforts to delegitimise Israel and the normalisation of relations with other nations of the region. Israeli businesses would be able to operate more openly in Arab states, and government cooperation with such countries as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would go from covert to overt.
Through a treaty with the Palestinians, Israel could attain the relocation of every Tel Aviv embassy to Jerusalem, and receive additional financial and security benefits from the US and Europe.
But all of these combined do not come close to outweighing the deficits. Nor have the moral costs of occupation for Israeli society been high enough to change the calculus. For all the recent fretting about decreasing American Jewish support for Israel, the conversation today is not so different than it was at the time of the first Likud-led governments decades ago.
Similarly enduring — and endurable — are the worries that occupation delegitimises Zionism and causes discord within Israel. Israelis have grown adept at tuning such criticisms out. It was, is, and will remain irrational for Israel to absorb the costs of an agreement when the price of the alternative is so comparatively low.
The consequences of choosing impasse are hardly threatening: Israel will go on absorbing the annoying but so-far tolerable costs of complaints about settlement policies. And it will likely witness several more countries bestowing the State of Palestine with symbolic recognition, a few more negative votes in impotent university student councils, limited calls for boycotts of settlement goods, and occasional bursts of violence that the greatly overpowered Palestinians are too weak to sustain.
There is no contest. The real explanation for the past decades of failed peace negotiations is not mistaken tactics or imperfect circumstances, but that no strategy can succeed if it is premised on Israel behaving irrationally.
Most arguments put to Israel for agreeing to a partition are that it is preferable to an imagined, frightening future in which the country ceases to be either a Jewish state or a democracy, or both. Israel is constantly warned that if it does not soon decide to grant Palestinians citizenship or sovereignty, it will become, at some never-defined future date, an apartheid state.
But these assertions contain the implicit acknowledgment that it makes no sense for Israel to strike a deal today rather than wait to see if such imagined threats actually materialise.
If and when they do come to be, Israel can then make a deal. Or, perhaps, the West Bank will be absorbed by Jordan, and Gaza by Egypt, a better outcome than Palestinian statehood, in the view of many Israeli officials.
It is hard to argue that forestalling an agreement in the present makes a worse deal more likely in the future: Israel has continued to reject the same Palestinian claims made since the s, albeit with a few added Palestinian concessions.
In fact, history suggests that a strategy of waiting would serve the country well: Israel could instead wait until that day comes, and thereby enjoy many more years of West Bank control and the security advantages that go with it — particularly valuable at a time of cataclysm in the region.This isn’t like a fight between siblings, where the parent says, 'It doesn’t matter who started it.' Yes, it does.
Editor's note: This article was originally titled “We Can't All Just Get.
|Support Aeon||Sep 15, 6:|
|Ferguson Won't Change Anything. What Will? | Boston Review||He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature.|
|Model Answers for IELTS Essays January||Could possibly lead to weight loss or body weight.|
|Where can one find positive change?||Olaf Cramme 27 November Six months before the European elections, supporters of EU integration are on the defensive across much of Europe.|
|Top Seven Reasons Why People Immigrate! | Canada & Australia Immigration Consultants||In turn it is food that greatly affects how long you live and the chance of diseases like type 2 diabetes catching up with you.|
Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted The term “social media” refers to the wide range of Internet-based and mobile services that allow users to participate in online exchanges, contribute user-created content, or join online communities (Dewing).
Jan 05, · For this reason many well-meaning people who long for change have seized on Brown’s death as a golden opportunity to organize. But the facts giving rise to the protests are important. In Brown’s case, as the grand jury’s findings confirm, those facts are sources of trouble, as they would be in just about any similar situation.
I am a shy person and at times I feel incredibly awkward around people, especially those that I don’t know. I am the type of person who will hang back and observe strangers before making the decision about whether or not I want to join in with the group.
New Gun Policies Won’t Stop Mass Shootings, but People Can But in a real way, we are our brother’s keeper; and an ethic of “see something, say something” is a vital part of community. 1) Work with young people and to make a difference Of the who responded to this question, just over 80% said they wanted to teach because they enjoyed working with young people.