jbg Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 If the Palestinians were to get their way ang get an independent state with Israel returned to pre-1967 boundaries, what would the Palestinians do? What would their exports be? What would their economy look like? What share of the U.N. budget would they contribute? How would they select their leaders? What role would religious and ethnic minorities have? What rights would women have? What rights would gays have? I open the floor to answers to any and all of these questions, and discussion. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Bonam Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 If the Palestinians were to get their way ang get an independent state with Israel returned to pre-1967 boundaries, what would the Palestinians do? What would their exports be? What would their economy look like? What share of the U.N. budget would they contribute? How would they select their leaders? What role would religious and ethnic minorities have? What rights would women have? What rights would gays have? I open the floor to answers to any and all of these questions, and discussion. What does it matter? Palestine would be yet another moocher state like most of the third world, surviving mainly off of foreign aid extracted from guilty liberal consciences. Much like it does now. The important thing is it would be officially out of Israel's hair. Israel could seal up the border, finish off Iron Dome, and never have to deal with the Palestinians again. That, of course, is pretty much why talks toward a two-state solution never go anywhere: a two state solution is mainly beneficial to Israel, Palestinians gain nothing by having their own state, since their leadership is and always has been utterly incapable of state-building. Quote
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) If the Palestinians were to get their way ang get an independent state with Israel returned to pre-1967 boundaries, what would the Palestinians do? What would their exports be? What would their economy look like? What share of the U.N. budget would they contribute? How would they select their leaders? What role would religious and ethnic minorities have? What rights would women have? What rights would gays have? I open the floor to answers to any and all of these questions, and discussion. If the pre 1967 borders were really implemented Palestine could based much of its economy on supplying Israel with water. And at least they could have a basic agrarian economy which they cant have right now, because Israel imposes strict quotas on palestinian water use (about 1/5th what an Israeli uses). There would also be some tourism in Bethlehem, and Jerusalem and some of the other holy sky-god cult worship places. Exports would be things like Olives and Olive Oil probably, and as is the case now Jordan and Israel would be where most of them went. What share of the U.N. budget would they contribute? Probably very little or nothing. How would they select their leaders? They would probably expand what they have... They elect a president, legislature and local councils. [*]What role would religious and ethnic minorities have? They would be ethnic and religious minorities like they are now. [*]What rights would women have? Things have gotten better for Women in palestine, and the PA has gotten rid of some of the particularly bad gender descrimination that they inherited from Jordanian law. But theres a long way to go. In any case women would have a better plight than they do now. [*]What rights would gays have? Theres no civil rights laws that protect lesbians and homosexuals from descrimination, and until there is it will probably be crappy to be gay there for at least a while. Its really hard to say what the state would look like though. The UN and various world powers would probably play a considerable role in shaping it. Edited October 12, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) If the pre 1967 borders were really implemented Palestine could based much of its economy on supplying Israel with water. Something tells me a significant chunk of Palestinians and especially their leaders would rather see their people starve to death if it meant they could watch their neighboring Jew die of thirst first. And anyway, even if they did want to export water to Israel, if they charged prices high enough that it would be enough to "base much of their economy on", Israel could probably get the water much more cheaply by other means (desalination, condensers, etc). Edited October 12, 2010 by Bonam Quote
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 What does it matter? Palestine would be yet another moocher state like most of the third world, surviving mainly off of foreign aid extracted from guilty liberal consciences. Much like it does now. The important thing is it would be officially out of Israel's hair. Israel could seal up the border, finish off Iron Dome, and never have to deal with the Palestinians again. That, of course, is pretty much why talks toward a two-state solution never go anywhere: a two state solution is mainly beneficial to Israel, Palestinians gain nothing by having their own state, since their leadership is and always has been utterly incapable of state-building. That, of course, is pretty much why talks toward a two-state solution never go anywhere: a two state solution is mainly beneficial to Israel, Palestinians gain nothing by having their own state, since their leadership is and always has been utterly incapable of state-building. This is sheer fantasy. Israel gains nothing from a two state solution. If they give up control of the occupied territories they lose more than half of their fresh water supply. They would be unable to irrigate crops, and unable to provide food and water to their cities. Since when is drought and famine beneficial? And THAT is why talks go nowhere. Israel would have done exactly as you described a long time ago... but they cant. Because they need access to the mountain aquifiers, and they need to keep exclusive access to the Kineret Basin (which they got by taking the Golan Heights). Israels plan, and by far the most beneficial course of action, is to maintain the status quo... under which they can continue to have total access to vital water resources in the west bank, without having to assimilate the population which would threaten their majority jewish demographic aspirations. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 Something tells me a significant chunk of Palestinians and especially their leaders would rather see their people starve to death if it meant they could watch their neighboring Jew die of thirst first. And anyway, even if they did want to export water to Israel, if they charged prices high enough that it would be enough to "base much of their economy on", Israel could probably get the water much more cheaply by other means (desalination, condensers, etc). Desalination is extremely expensive. Without that water Israel would be unable to supply water or food to its cities. Supplying 1/3 of an entire countries fresh water would constitute a fairly large and lucrative industry by anyones standards. Plus, as I said they would be able to have their own agrarian economy which is severely restricted by Israeli water quotas right now. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted October 12, 2010 Author Report Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) Supplying 1/3 of an entire countries fresh water would constitute a fairly large and lucrative industry by anyones standards.Would the funds used to pay for the water be used to benefit the Palestinian people or would it wind up in a Swiss bank account, or worse used for terror? Plus, as I said they would be able to have their own agrarian economy which is severely restricted by Israeli water quotas right now. Are the Palestinians by nature industrious agriculturalists? Edited October 12, 2010 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Bonam Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) Supplying 1/3 of an entire countries fresh water would constitute a fairly large and lucrative industry by anyones standards. Sure, it's an industry. It's not enough of one to base a national economy on, however. Costs of desalinated water from new plants in Israel is $0.50 USD per cubic meter. Total water consumption is around 2.4 billion cubic meters per year. If the Palestinians supplied 1/3 of Israel's water at a cost competitive with desalination ($0.50/m3), that would generate a revenue of $400 million per year. The GDP of Israel is $200 billion. To have a comparable per capita GDP, Palestine would need a GDP of over $100 billion. The water export industry could provide less than 0.4% of the state's economic output if it was to have living standards comparable to Israel. Additionally, note that if Israel chose, it could devote just 0.2% of its GDP to make itself completely water independent from the Palestinians (replacing the 1/3 they would provide) via more desalination plants, which would likely be a first priority goal if a two state solution ever happened. Edited October 12, 2010 by Bonam Quote
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) Sure, it's an industry. It's not enough of one to base a national economy on, however. Costs of desalinated water from new plants in Israel is $0.50 USD per cubic meter. Total water consumption is around 2.4 billion cubic meters per year. If the Palestinians supplied 1/3 of Israel's water at a cost competitive with desalination ($0.50/m3), that would generate a revenue of $400 million per year. The GDP of Israel is $200 billion. To have a comparable per capita GDP, Palestine would need a GDP of over $100 billion. The water export industry could provide less than 0.4% of the state's economic output if it was to have living standards comparable to Israel. Additionally, note that if Israel chose, it could devote just 0.2% of its GDP to make itself completely water independent from the Palestinians (replacing the 1/3 they would provide) via more desalination plants, which would likely be a first priority goal if a two state solution ever happened. If Israel could replace the water with desalination that easily they wouldnt have been building permanent water infrastructure in the west bank for the last few decades. Take a look at a map that shows water resources. The whole place is maze of Israeli wells, pipelines, and pumping stations. In any case why would Israel build all those desalination plants, when it can maintain the status quo, use all the water they want and force the palestinians to use almost none? Which is of course why Israel is developing the resources in the west bank... they have no plans at all of giving back any part of it thats usefull to them. ($0.50/m3), that would generate a revenue of $400 million per year. The GDP of Israel is $200 billion. Your post is not realistic, because a Palestinian state would not have the same living standards as Israel for a very long time if ever. Palestines GDP will remain less than 20 Billion for the forseeable future, and the vast majority of that is internal production not exports. The 400 million you mention would be a usefull export industry. It would at least be 400 million the rest of the world doesnt have to come up with. Edited October 12, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 If Israel could replace the water with desalination that easily they wouldnt have been building permanent water infrastructure in the west bank for the last few decades. Take a look at a map that shows water resources. The whole place is maze of Israeli wells, pipelines, and pumping stations. It's also a maze of settlements, military bases, roads, etc. Water infrastructure naturally goes along with that, hence why there are wells, pipelines, and pumping stations. After looking at the economic numbers, I strongly suspect that your continued assertion, that the primary cause of the conflict is competition for water resources, is completely wrong. In any case why would Israel build all those desalination plants, when it can maintain the status quo, use all the water they want and force the palestinians to use almost none? Which is of course why Israel is developing the resources in the west bank... they have no plans at all of giving back any part of it thats usefull to them. We're talking about the hypothetical situation where a two state solution is implemented. But you're right, there is not much motivation for a change from the status quo, especially when the would-be leaders of Palestine have yet to even agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Quote
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 Woudl the funds used to pay for the water be used to benefit the Palestinian people or would it wind up in a Swiss bank account, or worse used for terror? Are the Palestinians by nature industrious agriculturalists? Hard to be an industrious agriculturalist when youre not even allowed to drill a well on your own property. Its hard to say how fast they would grow their agricultural economy if they could irrigate crops. I dont claim to know how well they would do... I dont hate these people like you do so I dont automatically assume they will fail and I dont wish for them to fail. I really just dont know. In any case Im just answering your questions. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 Your post is not realistic, because a Palestinian state would not have the same living standards as Israel for a very long time if ever. Palestines GDP will remain less than 20 Billion for the forseeable future, and the vast majority of that is internal production not exports. The 400 million you mention would be a usefull export industry. It would at least be 400 million the rest of the world doesnt have to come up with. I agree. Like I said in my first post, Palestine would be yet another third world moocher state. Whether they have this 400 million industry or not, and they likely wouldn't have it for long. Quote
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 It's also a maze of settlements, military bases, roads, etc. Water infrastructure naturally goes along with that, hence why there are wells, pipelines, and pumping stations. After looking at the economic numbers, I strongly suspect that your continued assertion, that the primary cause of the conflict is competition for water resources, is completely wrong. We're talking about the hypothetical situation where a two state solution is implemented. But you're right, there is not much motivation for a change from the status quo, especially when the would-be leaders of Palestine have yet to even agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. It's also a maze of settlements, military bases, roads, etc. Water infrastructure naturally goes along with that, hence why there are wells, pipelines, and pumping stations. Sorry thats horseshit. Those pipelines, pumping stations, and wells have nothing to do with military operations. They are pumping that water OUT of the west bank and into Israel... because they vitally need it. After looking at the economic numbers, I strongly suspect that your continued assertion, that the primary cause of the conflict is competition for water resources, is completely wrong. Thats not what Israeli politicians say. Ariel Sharon said that giving up its claim to water resources in the west bank would mean "accepting death". When Israel annexed the golan heights they gave water access as the key justification. Israel threatend war with Lebanon in 2003 for pumping water out of their own lake. Not to mention opposing attempts by Jews and Arabs to control the headwaters of the River Jordan was one the direct causes of the war in 1967. If you dont understand the key importance of water in the conflict then theres no way youve even bothered to study it. BTW... if Im wrong about Israels reliance on that water (Im not... and even Israelis would laugh at your assertion that its not important) then why dont they let palestinians drill wells? The IDF strictly controls palestinians use of their own water. But I know... in magic land 2/3's of an arid nations fresh water supply (1/3 from the Golan heights, 1/3 from the West Bank) is not important. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 I agree. Like I said in my first post, Palestine would be yet another third world moocher state. Whether they have this 400 million industry or not, and they likely wouldn't have it for long. So what? Theyre a third world moocher state ALREADY by your standards. How is that a reason to keep millions of people in a permanent state of statelessness? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 Sorry thats horseshit. Those pipelines, pumping stations, and wells have nothing to do with military operations. They are pumping that water OUT of the west bank and into Israel... because they vitally need it. Where did I say it has something to do with military operations? I merely pointed out that Israeli presence and infrastructure of all kinds, not only water facilities, exists around the West Bank. Of course so long as Israel controls the area they would use the water. Why wouldn't they? It doesn't mean they couldn't make investments in other, slightly more expensive, sources of water if they had to. And, in an economic analysis, the military and diplomatic costs of maintaining control of the West Bank far far outweigh the costs of desalination plants to replace the water. Thats not what Israeli politicians say. Ariel Sharon said that giving up its claim to water resources in the west bank would mean "accepting death". When Israel annexed the golan heights they gave water access as the key justification. Israel threatend war with Lebanon in 2003 for pumping water out of their own lake. Not to mention opposing attempts by Jews and Arabs to control the headwaters of the River Jordan was one the direct causes of the war in 1967. If you dont understand the key importance of water in the conflict then theres no way youve even bothered to study it. BTW... if Im wrong about Israels reliance on that water (Im not... and even Israelis would laugh at your assertion that its not important) then why dont they let palestinians drill wells? The IDF strictly controls palestinians use of their own water. I agree that Israel is reliant on the water now. What I disagree with is that it would be economically impossible to become less reliant on that water in the future, if it were necessary to do so. So long as Israel controls the area anyway, they get their cheap water from there. If a two state solution came about, Israel would seek to maintain water security. They would not want to have their water supply under the control of its bitter enemies. Look at what happens to eastern European countries reliant on Russia for gas/oil whenever they have a disagreement. Israel would not want to be in that position and would quickly increase desalination capacity. But I know... in magic land 2/3's of an arid nations fresh water supply (1/3 from the Golan heights, 1/3 from the West Bank) is not important. Who says anything about giving up the Golan Heights? It is not part of any proposed Palestinian state, and Syria can go shove its claim up its ass. Anyway, I am a technologist at heart, and to me, many of the issues faced by societies can be overcome via the "technological fix". Conflict over water is not an unresolvable problem. If that was really all it was, it could be solved with a few billion dollars of investment. But instead hundreds of billions have been poured into the conflict over the decades. It is clearly more complicated than you claim. Quote
Bonam Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 So what? Theyre a third world moocher state ALREADY by your standards. How is that a reason to keep millions of people in a permanent state of statelessness? Yep, well, they are already third world moochers. Not a third world moocher state though. But you're right, it's not a reason to keep people stateless. In fact, as I've said many times, I fully support a two state solution. I just don't think Palestinians would materially benefit much from one. In fact, polls show that support for a two state solution among Palestinians has been rapidly dropping in recent times. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 When Israel annexed the golan heights they gave water access as the key justification. Israel threatend war with Lebanon in 2003 for pumping water out of their own lake. Which lake? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 Which lake? They wanted to pump water out of the Wazzani to about 20 villages in southern lebanon. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 Yep, well, they are already third world moochers. Not a third world moocher state though. But you're right, it's not a reason to keep people stateless. In fact, as I've said many times, I fully support a two state solution. I just don't think Palestinians would materially benefit much from one. In fact, polls show that support for a two state solution among Palestinians has been rapidly dropping in recent times. Sure they would materially benefit from it. They would be able to control their own resources, and use their water for farming. Thats a material benefit right there. Not to mention that if the settlement was done based on international law Israel would have to pay them for all the water pumped out of the territory since 1967. And of course they wouldnt have to deal with Israel building settlements all over palestinian land either. The material benefits for Palestine would be objectively huge. If you spend some time living under a brutal military occupation, my guess is that youll understand why theres a material benefit to NOT living under one pretty damn fast. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 Sure they would materially benefit from it. They would be able to control their own resources, and use their water for farming. Thats a material benefit right there. Not to mention that if the settlement was done based on international law Israel would have to pay them for all the water pumped out of the territory since 1967. And of course they wouldnt have to deal with Israel building settlements all over palestinian land either. The material benefits for Palestine would be objectively huge. If you spend some time living under a brutal military occupation, my guess is that youll understand why theres a material benefit to NOT living under one pretty damn fast. If the benefits are so huge, why do only about 50% of Palestinians support a two state solution? Why has this number dropped from 2/3 to just 1/2 in recent years? Meanwhile, almost 3/4 of Israelis support the two state solution. Quote
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 If the benefits are so huge, why do only about 50% of Palestinians support a two state solution? Why has this number dropped from 2/3 to just 1/2 in recent years? Meanwhile, almost 3/4 of Israelis support the two state solution. The polls Im able to find show strong support amonst both Israelis and Palestinians. But Id have to see the polls your referring to and find out exactly what the question is. One obviously reason why some palestinians might not support a two state solution, is if that solution didnt re-implement the legal 67 border for example. Theres also the reality that a lot of palestinians have become radicalized against Israel by the occupation... still stupid enough to think Israels existance as a state is temporary. But all that is irrelevant to your claim about "no material benefits" which is objectively false regardless of how anyone over there answers a poll question. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 But all that is irrelevant to your claim about "no material benefits" which is objectively false regardless of how anyone over there answers a poll question. What I meant was that they are third world moochers now and will remain so with their own state, as you yourself conceded. Much of the West Bank's existing economy is based on trade with Israel. If it was a separate state, I think that trade would decrease greatly, Israel would have no reason to go on dealing with them. Quote
dre Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 What I meant was that they are third world moochers now and will remain so with their own state, as you yourself conceded. Much of the West Bank's existing economy is based on trade with Israel. If it was a separate state, I think that trade would decrease greatly, Israel would have no reason to go on dealing with them. From what I can tell most of the states in the area including Israel are moochers and dont ever even go a year without foreign welfare checks. Do you have any idea how much money Israel and Egypt have been give over the last couple of decades? If it was a separate state, I think that trade would decrease greatly, Israel would have no reason to go on dealing with them. Israelis and Palestinians need things from each other... thats why they have always done a lot of business with eachother as do most countries that share borders. And an agreement on water exports (which lets face it would have to be in place for a 2 state solution to work) would greatly increase trade, because they would be paying for something that they current use military force to steal. But again... We would have to wait and see (except it will never happen to this whole excersize is hypothetical). My guess is Palestine would remain a fairly poor state, but that they would have a chance to make things a lot better than they are now. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted October 12, 2010 Report Posted October 12, 2010 They wanted to pump water out of the Wazzani to about 20 villages in southern lebanon. I believe that is a spring on the Hasbani system rather than a lake. Either way, daming rivers/creeks will no doubt get some 'sabres rattling' as there's an unratified agreement re: water usage on the Jordan and its tributaries. Israel was concerned that the dam would have negative results all along the entire Jordan...especially if the project grew in scope. But...it (the rock dam) got built...and Israel didn't attack Lebanon over this issue. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.