Why 'Greater Israel' Never Came to Be

[Violet_Crumble]

By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: August 14, 2005

FOR those who long considered it folly to settle a handful of Jews among hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the decision to remove them starting this week seems an acceptance of the obvious. What possible future could the settlers have had? How could their presence have done the state of Israel any good?

But for those, like Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who created and nurtured the settlements, the move to dismantle them is something very different. It is an admission not of error but of failure. Their cherished goal - the resettlement of the full biblical land of Israel by contemporary Jews - is not to be. The reason: not enough of them came.

"We have had to come to terms with certain unanticipated realities," acknowledged Arye Mekel, Israeli consul general in New York. "Ideologically, we are disappointed. A pure Zionist must be disappointed because Zionism meant the Jews of the world would take their baggage and move to Israel. Most did not."

David Kimche, who was director general of Israel's foreign ministry in the 1980's, noted: "The old Zionist nationalists' anthem was a state on 'the two banks of the River Jordan.' When that became impractical, we talked about 'greater Israel,' from the Jordan to the sea. But people now realize that this, too, is something we won't be able to achieve."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/weekinreview/14bron.html

[tucoramirez2005]

1. It never came to be

because someone else was living there, and not in the mood to sell.

How would anyone ever emigrate to an unstable situation like that?

During Argentina's recent banking crisis (in which banks were closed while money depreciated), the settlements sales force showed up to convince Argentina's Jews to move to the settlements. As unhappy as they were with the economic crisis, the Argentine's knew a good thing when they saw it, and politley refused. They could see right through the nice pictures and talk of government stipends.

The fact that "Israel" tried to force Jews leaving the former Soviet Union into their sham state (as opposed to letting them come to the US, where many preferred to emigrate) is a perfect indication of why it failed.

Imagine having to escape to the US (from our "best ally").

[bemildred]

2. I was thinking about that last night.

The Western European colonial ventures of the last 500 years were probably the most successful such things in all of history, and the USA in particular the most successful of those. This seems to have lead to a certain naive attitude about the expected response of territorial defense from the colonized, witness the messes in Iraq and Vietnam, and certainly the I/P situation falls in the same category. In the old days, the European technical and intellectual edge was sufficient to keep the lid on for an extended period, and to some degree that hegemony continues in the 3rd world. But the peoples of the former colonial world, not being actually inferior or even particularly different, other than culturally, have been catching up and catching on, and hence the match is more even and the battle a lot more destructive.

[not systems]

3. Sounds like the "Gun's Germs and Steel" idea...

I think that the avialbility of cheap automatic rifles
has been a major factor in stopping colonization worldwide.

[bemildred]

4. Related, yes.

As far as the guns, you are correct. One reason I do not fear a police state here in the USA is because of the vast numbers of guns littered about. With just a machete you are screwed, with a gun you have a shot at getting some payback, and being a cop is a lot more dangerous.

The huge investment being made in hi-tech arms etc. can be seen as an attempt to restore that former technical edge accruing to the state and the colonizers, but it is unlikely to succeed since the cultural gap cannot be restored.

Edit: Mr. Kalashnikov has affected history more than he may have intended. One thinks of Mr. Nobel and Dynamite.

[not systems]

7. The hi-tech arms tip...

the balance between states but not between colonizers
and the colonized. As we are seeing in Iraq it was easy
for the US to destroy the Iraqi state but not easy to
control the population.

I guess some of these new big brother like surveillance
and tracking systems may have that effect but even with
a sensor on every telephone pole what keeps people from
just dismantling the surveillance system.

One benifit of the heavly arm society is home invasions
by the police are much more dangerous.

[bemildred]

8. Yeah, sort of, when you remain short of a MAD situation.

But conventional war is essentially obsolete, or obsolescent, IMHO, unless one party is badly disadvantaged; and even then with modern resistance methods you can't hold what you win, witness Iraq, etc.

But politically war is still very popular, as it remains a great prop for self-serving and incompetent political leaders.

[tucoramirez2005]

5. To complicate matters

the Palestinians are used as a labor force, and as such are always in close proximity to their colonizers.

It is therefore very easy to inflict damage.

[bemildred]

6. I don't think I'm going to get into that.

Although I could. There are some interesting issues. No offense, but it just leads to giant pointless flame wars. I've probably said more than I ought as it is.