The West Bank

[George.]

Recently, it was claimed in this bilge that Israel needs to hold on to certain unspecified parts of the West Bank due to military reasons - something to do with making national defense more feasible. Yet no evidence was provided, when requested.

I do not mean this as a personal challenge, or as a trolling question. But in the context of the current withdrawal from Gaza, and of heavy press coverage, and speculation on whether or not a withdrawal from parts or all of the West Bank might be next - I ask again: what parts of the West Bank are strategically critical to the defense of the territory of Israel, and why?

[George.]

Oh, they can keep it, if they can assimilate it, Mlke. If they did, the Palestinians would probably be better off in the long run. It is well known that Israeli Arabs have the most freedom and best standard of living of any Arabs in the Middle East.

The problem is that they don't want to assimilate it, because it is full of Arabs, and they want Israel to be a Jewish state. So they don't annex it or let it go. Which is not a just way to deal with its civilian population - the only modern comparison would be South Africa's "bantustans".

So again I ask: if they won't annex it and assimilate it, then what is the strategic reason for keeping a few slices of it?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I've long thought that Israel has fallen into the trap of maintaining "natural" borders. There is a tendency for a state to extend its borders to what appear to be better militarily defensible boundaries, regardless of the fact that a disaffected population is thereby taken into the state concerned.

The case of France, Prussia and Alsace-Lorraine provides one parallel, but there are many others.

We British are very fortunate in that we reached the militarily defensible borders of our main island back in 1601, with the union of England and Scotland, but we fell very badly into the same trap in the case of Ireland. We were determined to hold onto Ireland because our borders (in our case, our coasts) were more defensible if we held Ireland. We were terrified of Spain or France occupying Ireland, so we occupied it.

The results are, to put it mildly, well known.

I think that Israel has fallen into the same trap.

[George.]

The only "natural" border I can see for Israel is the Jordan River. Given that they will not annex the whole West Bank to make it so, what other "natural" borders could they be aiming for?

[Norman Bernstein]

It is well known that Israeli Arabs have the most freedom and best standard of living of any Arabs in the Middle East.
That may be true. However, it is also true that Arabs constitute 20%, roughly, of the Israeli population... and receive only 5% of the social services offered by the Israeli government.

[peb]

If seems that Israel has three choices wrt the occupied territories.

1) Withdraw from the territories and hope for the best
2) Make a final complete claim to them and try to make them truly part of Isreal
3) Maintain the status quo

Number 2 will never happen. There are too many palestinians in the territories and if Isreal wishes to continue to be Jewish state, they cannot "assimilate" that many palestinians.

Number 3 has proved very intenable. Making it more difficult is that Isreal's international support (ie the United States) is showing signs of deterorating.

That only leaves number 1. So Sharon is doing in Gaza what is his only choice.

[ 08-26-2005, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: peb ]

[Norman Bernstein]

I suspect, peb, that Gaza is simply the 'carrot' part of the 'carrot and stick' principle. Gaza, with over a million Arabs and just a few thousand Israeli settlers, was indefensible, and Sharon knew that. The West Bank, on the other hand, features over a quarter of a million settlers, and they're just as fanatical as the Gaza settlers were. I suspect he has no intention of anything other than a symbolic withdrawal of a small numbwer of settlements on the West Bank.

Regardless of whether one views the Israelis as brave and noble people supporting democracy and freedom in the Middle East, or as occupiers exerting a poltiical tyranny over the Palestinians, I think it is inarguable that Israel has NOT been successful. The present standoff has gone on for nearly 60 years... and all the while, requiring over $2 billion dollars each year of American 'aid' to maintain.

It could go on another 60 years.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I fear that Norman is precisely correct.

Sharon will play up his gesture and "expect something in return" from Abbas, which Sharon knows quite well Abbas is in no position to deliver.

The whole bloodstained farce reminds me uncannily of Northern Ireland.

[Con LanAdo]

the last thing Normy is is correct, precisely or otherwise. When ya get around to it let me know that this correctness is based on which liberal israli hating media. Or even tell me that you were born there & are a 100% kabutsnic or even were an Israeli solder who took too mnany drugs.
You guys can self propel any sailboat or ballon with your hot air.

[George.]

Originally posted by George.:
I ask again: what parts of the West Bank are strategically critical to the defense of the territory of Israel, and why?No response.

So is the answer "none?" Is it all just a rethorical excuse to keep the settlements, and not have to deal with the incredibly hard task of dismantling them?

[Jim Hillman]

George I was looking for a good topo map of the area but I came up short. Basically they will be looking to secure a route to Jerusalem and keep command of the heights of the mountainous region just above it.

[George.]

Right. Which is why I have posted that I perfectly understand why they should keep the Golan heights.

But the West Bank, AFAIK, is just hilly ground, dropping to the Jordan River valley. Unless you actually control most of it, up to the Jordan, one hill is as good as the next.

[Jim Hillman]

Originally posted by George.:
Right. Which is why I have posted that I perfectly understand why they should keep the Golan heights.

But the West Bank, AFAIK, is just hilly ground, dropping to the Jordan River valley. Unless you actually control most of it, up to the Jordan, one hill is as good as the next.It's also the narrowest part of Israel. 20 or 21 KM at it's narrowest makes it easy for an enemy force to cut the country in two and let's not forget Jerusalem. You cannot leave Jerusalem hanging out in the wind.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/is-map.gif

[George.]

Yes. But making that 23 or 25 km doesn't make much strategic difference, does it?

Again: I can understand the military reason for keeping the whole West Bank. I cannot understand the military reason for keeping a few bits and pieces of it. Unless someone explains it, I'll have to assume there is none - it's just a pretext to take some Palestinian land without taking the Palestinians that come with it.

[Donn]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/vulnerablemap.jpg

The West Bank is high ground, overlooking much of Israel. As long as Israel holds it, no one can sit in the hills and lob Scuds and such into Israel.

[Donn]

http://www.defensibleborders.org/images/map4.jpg

http://www.defensibleborders.org/images/map7.jpg

[ 08-26-2005, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Donn ]

[Jim Hillman]

Leave it to Donn to know where the good maps are, thanks.

[Paul Girouard]

George How about this mind set .

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1125022806787.

Taking note of the last line of Paragraph two.

Sure you can deal with terrorist. When they kill you. Deal is done.

The pull out will only fuel the fire, IMO.

[George.]

Thanks for the maps, Donn.

They seem to reinforce my point. Controlling the entire West Bank, or at least to the reverse slope that drops to the Jordan River, would make strategic sense.

Controlling a few slices of it, particularly the ones that the infamous Wall is slicing off, appears to make little or no difference in terms of getting Israeli population centers out of rocket range.

[Donn]

I don't know what your frequently mentioned "few slices" refers to, but here's a snip from the same website the maps came from. The strategy is pretty clearly spelled out there, defensibleborders.org.

"The current West Bank security fence cannot become a future eastern border for Israel. Israel's security fence in the West Bank was only designed to neutralize the threat of infiltration by suicide bombers; it does not affect the threat from long-range sniper fire, mortars, and other high-trajectory weapons. The security fence would also not neutralize shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles that could pose a threat to all commercial aviation. Defensible borders in the West Bank must include adequate security zones that take into account this terrorist weaponry that has been used in the past and will likely be used in the future.

Defensible borders must provide Israel with the capability to fight terrorism successfully, as well as to defeat a conventional military assault if Israel is once again attacked. For these reasons, defensible borders must include the following three elements:

Control of the external border of the West Bank along the Jordan Valley "in the broadest meaning of that term," as Israel's late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin asserted one month before his assassination. (This applies equally to the border between Gaza and Egyptian Sinai.)

Broadening the narrow corridor connecting Jerusalem with Tel Aviv from both the north and the south, as well as establishing a defensive perimeter protecting Israel's capital.

Shifting Israel's boundary eastward so that militarily vital territory does not end up under Palestinian control (e.g., the hills dominating Ben-Gurion International Airport and areas adjacent to Israel's former narrow waist along the coastal plain between Tel Aviv and Netanya)."

[George.]

Back in 2001, Palestinians were offered 97% of the West Bank. They rejected it. Some stay they were stubborn and stupid to do so. But one wonders - what was so important about the 3% of the land for Israel? It did little to alleviate the legitimate security concerns that Donn mentions.

Now there is talk of evacuating 85% of the West Bank. The 15% Israel intends to keep is where the bulk of the settlers are, which does coincide with the "wall," and does not always coincide with areas critical for strategic defense - in fact, a lot of it makes defense more complicated by needlessly extending the border and making it more convoluted, with corridors, enclaves, etc.

Why? Just too hard to move out the settlers that should never have moved in in the first place? Why should anyone imagine that the Palestinians will buy that?