You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Occupation has cost Israel dear, says report
2008-06-04
Israel's occupied territories and conflict with the Palestinians has undermined the country's economic growth and has cost at least an extra 36.6bn shekels (£5.7bn) in defence spending over the past two decades, according to an Israeli thinktank.

Calculations by the Adva Centre, an independent policy centre in Tel Aviv, suggest Israel's economy has been held back, inequality within the country has grown and there have been significant government budget cuts to pay for mounting defence spending.
Come to think of it, occupation is indeed expensive. Adva doesn't mention the costs associated with the anniliation of one's society, however, so it's hard to make a comparison ...
Adva openly admits that its findings, contained in a new report published today and entitled The Cost of Occupation, challenge the widely received opinion that Israel's economy is successful despite the conflict: economic growth last year reached 5.3% and was above 5% for the previous two years.

However, Adva's report said: "The truth is that the conflict with the Palestinians is like a millstone around the neck of Israel: it undermines economic growth, burdens the budget, limits social development, sullies its vision, hangs heavy on its conscience, harms its international standing, exhausts its army, divides it politically, and threatens the future of its existence as a Jewish nation-state."
All that is true: the Paleos are a millstone around everyone's neck, not just Israel. If giving up the occupation were easy, most Irsaelis, I suspect, would have voted for that long ago. The problem is that the Paleos aren't just a begrieved people looking for a home, they're a bloodthirsty cult looking to murder all the Jews. So occupation seems to be the most reasonable temporizing option.
Adva's figures show Israel's economy grew 43% between 1997 and 2006, well behind world economic growth during that period of 67% and growth of 68% in the US and in the EU.
One other reason that wouldn't be mentioned is that it's taken until recently for Israel to throw off all the shackles of socialism.
Although it is almost impossible to calculate an accurate cost of the occupation of the Palestinian territories because much of the defence budget is secret, Adva said that additions to the defence budget to pay for increased military activity in the territories came to 36.6bn shekels between 1989 and 2008. That amount is greater than the government's budget for elementary, secondary and tertiary education in Israel this year, it said.
So to hell with defending oneself, let's spend it all on health care!
In addition, the cost of the withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza in 2005 came to 9bn shekels and the cost of the West Bank barrier, which Israel is now building, is estimated at an extra 13bn shekels.
The alternative was to continue to 'occupy' Gaza. Now the report is being schizophrenic: are they for or against occupation?
"Israel is paying a heavy price for the continuation of the conflict and for the absence of a fair and agreed-upon partition," the report said.
One of the reasons for the "absence of a fair and agreed-upon partition" is that one side wants to take everything and kill everyone on the other side.
Last year the Israeli government appointed the Brodet Commission to undertake a rare review of the country's defence spending. Adva quoted the commission's report as saying: "The important point is that the conflict with the Palestinians is becoming expensive, mainly from the standpoint of the diversion of limited military resources like manpower and command attention; all that on an ongoing basis and without much change on the horizon."
Something Sharon recognized a few years back -- hence the pullout from Lebanon and withdrawal from Gaza. Had Sharon not suffered his stroke I think we'd be seeing at least a partial pull-back from the West Bank by now. And people would be complaining, of course.
Adva said that one in every five Israeli families now ranked as poor, against one in every 10 in the 1970s, which it said was partly a result of the conflict and partly due to the arrival of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Soviet Union and Ethiopia who have struggled to find work. Social security payments, particularly child allowances, unemployment compensation and income maintenance, were cut significantly between 2001 and 2005, at least in part because of rising defence costs.
Don't underestimate the cost of immigration: Israel took in plenty, and immigrants always cost more in the beginning. Eventually they'll get all those costs back as the immigrants settle in and contribute, but in the short-term it hurts the finances.
Posted by:Steve White

#4  This Amalek dude, shia or sunni?
Posted by: George Smiley   2008-06-04 19:41  

#3  Too bad the ad appearing here is "Talk with single Arab women", instead of "Talk with single Israeli women."
Posted by: Uneagum McCoy7470   2008-06-04 14:27  

#2  It's the costs of relearning the 11th commandment---"Thou shall not try to make Peace with Amalek!".
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-06-04 04:37  

#1  Compared to how much extra military spending is required if the muslims are in East Jerusalem and Golan? I think not.
Posted by: ed   2008-06-04 00:42  

00:00