Monday, March 27, 2006
This is one of the more powerful arguments I've read against unilateral disengagement, which I support, but the economic issues here, if accurate, cannot be ignored. Disengagement will cost Israelis an enormous amount of money out of pocket, and if they look at the sacrifice and still see that it will do nothing to stop suicide bombers, rockets and international villification, then it's not surprising they may just opt for the status-quo.
Ehud Olmert's "convergence" plan could affect 20,000 families, or about 90,000 residents of Judea and Samaria. Some will be moved to within the 1967 border; others to "consensus" settlement blocs. What does this massive program mean in economic terms?
If we take the evacuation-compensation model, the State of Israel will be required to pay 20,000 evicted families direct compensation, at a cost of about NIS 66 billion (about USD 14 billion). And if we use Gaza as an example, temporary housing, moving costs and new infrastructure will cost an additional NIS 13 million (about USD 2.7 million).
The Ministry of Defense estimates that a unilateral disengagement from Judea and Samaria will cost the army about NIS 16 billion (about USD 3.4 billion).
And so initial estimates of a second disengagement program stand at about NIS 95 billion, or USD 20 billion. Put differently: 17 percent of the entire output of the State of Israel.
But that's not the whole story. Far from it...
There's more. (H/T: David)
"... then it's not surprising they may just opt for the status-quo. "
And what does the staus quo cost?
Before the disengagement they were coping with "suicide bombers, rockets and international villification, " plus the cost of maintaining some 20 thousand troops and infrastructure for some 8 thousand civilians. What was that cost?
Now it is a much cheaper border security with Gaza; but State's "relatively low key meddling did cause security problems for Israel so how long will they, State, keep it relatively low key with a continued status quo?
Israel has to keep the international vilification down to a minimum while at the same time defending itself, and that will be, thanks to the simplistic thinking of people like Rice and Wolfensohn in govt., a true balancing act, while rubbish from Moonscheiner and Gewalt manipulates America's citizens into misunderstanding the reality and the MSM's kumbaya logic tries to maintain its hazy reality.
How much will the staus quo inluence the fickle foreign investor whithout whose money there won't be the employed's earnings for the taxes?
Just take a look at the roller coaster ride Israelis had from just before Rabin till Sharon. Thanks to Sharon Trump is going to invest in the country.
The staus quo unfortunately does not just affect the political aspect but also growth and development which are so important for security, physical and social, as well.
Now if the Israelis had a China to cover their back in the UN and elsewhere it would be so much simpler.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143468705503&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
It's true, it's true...there are costs to every decision.
Re the link, Caroline Glick always leaves the equation unbalanced and seems to finish up having Israel acting in a vacuum.
BTW, YES, that's my problem with Glick's writing, too. I like what she says, her analysis is spot on, it should be read by outsiders to understand what's really going on there...but there's always something missing, and that is that, like it or not, the world does matter.