SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Man
Topic Author
Posts: 1237
Joined: June 27th, 2002, 4:39 pm

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

May 30th, 2003, 4:36 pm

Some key actions are, the Knesset accepting the peace plan, and the majority of Israelis support a Palestinian state (whatever state really means, state of Israel??) are good steps for Israel.No more Arafat, and the negotiation between Abbas and Hamas to end attacks.....Without getting into "broken-record" arguments, what do some you guys with strong opinions, think?? Is this for real or just another fledging attempt???I am hopeful.
 
User avatar
kr
Posts: 1885
Joined: September 27th, 2002, 1:19 pm

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

May 30th, 2003, 4:44 pm

I'd like to be optimistic, but...Here: 1) Define an observable condition that would indicate the resolution of the conflict2) Choose a date, prior to which time you believe the resolution as measured by (1) will have occurred3) Choose a notional exposureYou may have a taker on the other side of this bet
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

May 30th, 2003, 5:10 pm

Last edited by ppauper on November 14th, 2004, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
BeautifulMind
Posts: 145
Joined: March 26th, 2002, 1:26 pm

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

May 30th, 2003, 9:56 pm

Unfortunately NO... almost surely...
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

May 31st, 2003, 12:50 pm

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?Probably not. I think the only thing driving Israeli acceptance of the Roadmap is pressure from the Bush Administration. Under the status quo, Israel continually confiscates more and more of the Occupied Territories, and I think that an awful lot of Israelis fully intend that one day the Occupied Territories -- cleared of those inconvenient Palestinians -- will be annexed by Israel. In the status quo, they are moving in that direction, with the costs (terrorist attacks and tanked economy) remaining bearable: I think more people have been killed in automobile accidents than in terrorist attacks in Israel during the latest intifada, so that's painful but bearable; and Uncle Sugar is available to pony up money to keep the economy from completely foundering. I don't think that the will exists in Israel to resolve the situation with the Palestinians.If the US gets serious, to the point of actually turning off the money pipeline, Israel has to do pretty much whatever we say. However, that's "if the US gets serious," and not just "if the Bush Administration gets serious." Sharon, by my guess, is making the sort of complying noises that will forestall the Bush Administration from doing anything until the Israel lobby can work over the political situation in Washington to the point where the Administration can't do anything. Can Bush be forestalled for six years, until the last possible day of his Administration? Probably.The only way I see the US getting serious about resolving the problem is if Bush gets completely pissed off at Israel, and decides to burn an awful lot of his political capital to torpedo their support. This would involve making the extent of our complicity in everything that Israel does, as well as how horrific some of those things are, common knowledge to Americans. And of course, that would subject Bush to being called an antisemite and worse. I don't see it happening.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

May 31st, 2003, 1:50 pm

i don't know if this round leads to anything, but i think situation changed big time in Mideast and we'll see it. There is not gonna be much done before 2004 presidential elections because Bush is just not gonna get serious with Israel until then. I actually am pretty postive on 1)US pulling out of recession by the end of the year 2) bush winning by a big margin 2004. If this happens i expect pretty rough handling of Hamas and the like. Including if needed incursions in Lebanon and Syria. At the same time Israel will be told to stop all the nonsense. My guess Palestine will exist as a state by 2006.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

June 1st, 2003, 9:37 am

I will confess to an error in my view of Sharon.When he came to power, I rather hoped that as a hawk, it would be easier for him to bring peace than a moderate would. A hardliner has the advantage that he is not easily accused of weakness to the enemy, whereas a dove risks being seen to sell out.Of course I implicitly assumed equal competence between hawks and docs. Alas, Sharon is a moron, that is the reason he has put Israel's survival chances in danger, not being aggressive.Fact is you can win aggression, but you can't "win" being stupid.To be sure, Bush isn't the Nobel prize winner you see in "The West Wing", but the USA is not surrounded and outnumbered by people who want them dead.In the long term American support for Israel is a bigger danger to it survival than Islamic militancy. This support allows Israel to behave badly and stupidly. If every Moslem alive today miraculously became a Hindu, I guarantee you that within the month Israel would start killing cows and finding some way to piss off India.Ask a Vietnamese how wise it is to rely upon long term support from America. This is not to cast the USA as the worst of allies, but look at any alliance and it does not last forever, or indeed more than about 50 years. The only alliance that I know of that has managed any longevity is the one between Britain and Portugal. Few alliances between nations survive even one generation, indeed few nations last even one century intact.If my sacred duty was the survival of Israel, I'd wonder about the day that the US walks away.
 
User avatar
Man
Topic Author
Posts: 1237
Joined: June 27th, 2002, 4:39 pm

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

June 1st, 2003, 5:20 pm

DCFC,QuoteAlas, Sharon is a moron, that is the reason he has put Israel's survival chances in danger, not being aggressive.More aggressive? In what ways and policies?QuoteIf every Moslem alive today miraculously became a Hindu, I guarantee you that within the month Israel would start killing cows and finding some way to piss off India.Could you expand on this a little more? Why would Israel "find some way to piss off India?" If the pretense that, Israel would piss off people of Hindu faith, was correct then why would they not more readily piss off a Hindu converted Muslim country (e.g. Jordan, Syria)? Why India?
Last edited by Man on May 31st, 2003, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

June 2nd, 2003, 7:05 am

More aggressive? In what ways and policies?Sharon has been very aggressive against the Palestinians, bombing raids, shottings, locking them up en masse.It hasn't worked.Could you expand on this a little more? Why would Israel "find some way to piss off India?"Because there are a lot of Hindus in India.Israel has managed to get itself hated in Indonesia, which is much further away, and in no way directly affected. I passed over Pakistan because it is mostly moslem.My point about Hindus is that unlike Christianity or Islam, there are no shared holy places or issues over territory. So you might be tempted to believe that if Israel bordered Hindus there would be peace. I chose Hindus because there is no obvious cause for fighting.But.Because it is supported by a superpower, Israel does not discipline itself to behave rationally. Thus if you were simply to remove the cause of current fighting it would find others.If Israel did not have this support, it would try a lot harder to get people to like it.Alternatively, it would conquer them, and force them to do its bidding.The price of the USA stopping Israel from losing is that it stops it from winning as well.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

June 13th, 2003, 12:19 pm

I think it's time to stick a fork in the Road Map.Briefly, since the meeting in Aqaba, Abbas has declined to use violence against radical Palestinians at this time; Hamas and others attacked an occupation outpost in the West Bank; Israel responded with an assassination attempt against a Hamas leader in an urban area (Bush mildly criticized the action); Hamas carried out a fairly major suicide bombing in Jerusalem; US lawmakers and lobbyists blasted Bush for criticizing Israel; and Israel resumed its war with Hamas at full scale with Sharon saying no exsuses were necessary, and Bush gave his approval.So Abbas has lost whatever legitimacy he ever had because he cannot deliver to the Palestinians an end to Israel's violence.In George W. Bush, Israel perhaps for the first time had in an American president someone who actually believed in Israel's cause rather than just wanting to win the Jewish vote in the next election. Israel had claimed it could not make peace with the Palestinians on terms that were anywhere near reasonable for the Palestinians because (a) Arafat was and is a terrorist. Okay, so the US manuevers to pull the rug out from under him, and supplies Abbas as the "Palestinian leader lite" that Israel can deal with. But Israel still cannot make peace with the Palestinians because (b) it has so many hostile neighbors. Okay, so the US takes out the only regime that really posed a threat to Israel in Iraq. Earlier administrations would only have expressed their sympathies, and done nothing.So now Israel needs Hamas to be completely destroyed. Hamas might have been effectively rendered powerless with a carrot rather than with a stick, had it been demonstrated that the Palestinian leader imposed by the US and Israel could actually deliver some sort of gains to his people. But clearly he cannot do this. Short of ethnic cleansing -- and we're not as far short of ethnic cleansing as some might imagine -- Hamas will not be destroyed with a stick: the more they are attacked, the angrier the population gets, and Hamas and the other radical groups thrive on anger.If I had to guess what would ultimately end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, right now my answer would be "Nukes from Iran."
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

June 13th, 2003, 1:03 pm

, so the US takes out the only regime that really posed a threat to Israel in Iraq. My understanding is that Israeli wasn't at all keen on the attack on Iraq. Far from being a threat, Iraq was a divisive force amongst Arabs, and its abilty to project force wasn't all that good over that sort of distance. Hard to see Iraq getting much support for an attack on Israel.Indeed the reverse is now true. Iraq will be better run now. The Iraqis will be exploited, and their oil stolen, and their culture corrupted, but this was happendng before. But now it will be exploited by people who are good at it.US arms makers will help the new regime to defend itself, by not only selling it the weapons that defeated it last time, but will train its troops (for a fee), build a democracy (on a US government contract), and building infrastructure in things like telecoms (to help Cisco and Motorola) that will turn it into the least unpleasant part of the middle east.A modernised, democratic Iraq is the worst possible scenario for Israel. Modern and demoratic do not equal "nice" half so much as they equal "efficient".
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

June 13th, 2003, 1:41 pm

Dominic --I don't think Israel's real position is that important; their rhetoric, especially as bought wholesale by Wolfowitz and the other architects of the new Middle East order, was that they were threatened by continuing hostility from Iraq. The supposed rewards given to suicide bombers' families indicated the Iraqi attitude; and the natural resources etc. of Iraq indicated the potential for harm. I think the Bush folks actually intended to make progress in the Middle East, and Iraq was one of the perceived impediments to Israel making concessions that could affect its security.It probably is true that Iraq post-Saddam has more potential for danger to Israel, but in the planning phases I believe it was actually thought (as the rhetoric constantly proclaims) that an Arab democracy would be more amenable to peace with Israel than a dictatorship. A whole lot of fairy tales went into justifying the conquest of Iraq, and some of them were only told by Bush Administration personalities amongst themselves.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

June 17th, 2003, 6:50 am

an Arab democracy would be more amenable to peace with Israel than a dictatorship.Does anyone really believe that ?Why do so many people confuse "democracy" with "the good guys" ? Democracies are perfectly capable of fighting long bloody wars, indeed their greater efficiency makes them more able to do so. In any case Arab dictatorships are just as vulnerable to public opinion as democracies. To be sure the mechanisms don't work well, and they jump rather than slide, but a dicatator fears uprisings.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

June 17th, 2003, 1:20 pm

Actually democracies are efficient only long-term. One finds little correlation between degree of democracy per se and success in a battle, when one controls for other factors. If anything, correlation is negative. When timely decisions have to be made like they have to in a war, authoritarian government is far more efficient. That's why even ancient Greeks and especially Romans had to repeatedly suspend democracy in periods of wars. in terms of Mid East, it doesn't look like Abbas means anything. Can Abbas get rid of Hamas, rhyming unintended? Stupid question. In current situation I think he'll get killed in half an hour. It looks to me that if there is a ruling force in palestine it is Hamas. So somehow people will need to deal with it. Hamas official banner is there is no such thing as Israel. Could it be negotiated with? It will be tried, but i can't imagine anything will come out of it. I think that in time Bush will try seriously to cut out their financial supporters, kill their existing leaders, and buy out their followers. I don't believe that could start happenning before he is reelected.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict actually be close to resolution?

June 17th, 2003, 1:30 pm

One finds little correlation between degree of democracy per se and success in a battle, when one controls for other factors. My view is that you can't separate out "other factors". Like you I observe no particular advantage to being a democracy at the battle front.However, war on a large scale is economics, and democracies tend allocate resources more efficiently.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On