Thatt would probably count for a lot at meetings of the Berkeley City Council. It would probably get the United Church of Canada to push their panties EVEN FURTHER up their unmentionables.

It certainly will **not** change anything between our Eastern River and the Western Sea. Brush up on your Cherkassi-accented Hebrew, Jack. Could help you get through one of our checkpoints with a lower degree of strip-search.

>> and then Palestinians could claim the land as recognzied by UN resolutions and world community more than ever.

The big breakthru around here is the Ethiopit & the Bnei Menashe Tween-age kids getting interested in the ריקודים סלוניים championships that so far, the Russkies have had a lock on. Search Youtube with keyword “dancekesem”, Jack.

I am hardly exaggerating when I point out that the Palestinian economy *should* have been growing significantly faster in spite of any existing restrictions simply given the massive changes in conditions that have taken place since the end of the second intifada.

Nope, I don’t care about the settlements, at all. Settlements have been repeatedly shown to be removable. They are used as a proxy issue by the Palestinians for the insistence on the 1967 lines which are entirely unrealistic given Israel’s security interests. As such, they are an excuse used by those that wish to maintain the status quo on the pro-Palestinian side because they are unwilling to countenance the compromises required for peace and a red herring by those that have no desire to see peace in the first place. As long as that is the case I don’t see why I should care about the settlements.

You cannot expect growth under import/export restrictions. The international victimhood you mention has also allowed the molification of the population, overall. Your occupation has been subsidized by the US, EU, IMF and, occasionaly, Arab states. You do not seem to care about the settlements at all; I conclude you want these to continue to grow to expunge more prior residents.

The PA also collects its own income taxes, but it doesn’t collect anywhere near enough to fund its operations (even with the transfers from Israel). So, the PA does have direct revenue control, though it’s ability to increase taxes is limited because the Palestinian population is very averse to paying taxes and deems it more noble to beg the international community to fund its expenses as compensation for their victimhood. This was last visible when Fayyad wanted to increase taxes to cover some of the budget deficit he faces on a regular basis. He had to back down from that plan.

The West Bank population is already ‘polarized’. It has been polarized for the past 20 years and overt violence has already occurred and repeatedly. So, your menacing future is the present and the very concrete past and the threat of it is a weak motivator. You write like it is 1986 and the first intifada hasn’t broken out and the Palestinians still are governed by the Israeli civil administration. Did you miss the second intifada? You know… the one right after the peace offer was rejected by the Palestinians? You know.. the one which included the indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians? You know.. the one that was stopped cold by harsh Israeli repression (aka: kicked to the ground)? You know.. the one whose homicidal ‘martyrs’ the Palestinian Authority still celebrates on a regular basis?

If the PA is a client entity it is because it turned itself into one when it refused statehood and a peace deal. It also isn’t a very good client. Too expensive and really bothersome diplomatically for an incredibly weak entity which relies on foreign aid for any of its staying power.

Oslo is dead; the Israeli State simply uses the term when it wants. Since the PA does not have direct revenue control, at bottom it is nothing more than a client entity, a bantu arm of the State. Eventually, the West Bank population will polarize–overt violence will begin. Because the Israeli political engine works on settlement expansion, this outcome is ignored. The expulsions must stop in all forms, the vanguard settlements removed, and territorial expansion of the remainder frozen. Then you can ask why the PA fails to sue for autonomy. Until then, you are asking those kicked to the ground why they don’t get up.

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see what rights Oslo gives Israel that it doesn’t already have under the laws of belligerent occupation. If anything, it restricts the rights of the occupant, in return for, uh, peace. Oslo set up a Palestinian government, which is a benefit to Israel, and that’s not nothing. But it’s a political gain, not a juridical one. Settlement, tax collection, etc. – all those activities would have been just as legal or illegal under a straight occupation, without any Palestinian Authority, as they are today.

There’s also a very serious downside to the PA for Israel, which was especially obvious in the 1990s. You might have missed it because you seem naturally sort of pessimistic. (I like that in a leftist!) Oslo set up a framework where the PA spokesmen could talk all nicey-nice and moderate, in English, while the PA allowed the militias to commit tactical acts of terrorism to achieve political goals. The West could then ignore reality and feel really good about itself. That was very bad for Israel. So those of you who think you support peace, be happy about that one lasting element of Oslo.

Noam, you are a reasonable person, yes Oslo might appear hypocritical given the lofty way it was sold, but do you have a very different perception of how things will turn out from me? Because I can’t see them moving into any positive direction.