<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: General Lapidot: The Occupation is Draining Israel&#8217;s Resources</title>
	<link>http://www.gaditaub.com/eblog/general-lapidot-the-occupation-is-draining-israels-resources/</link>
	<description>Gadi Taub's Site and Occassional Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Rod Davies</title>
		<link>http://www.gaditaub.com/eblog/general-lapidot-the-occupation-is-draining-israels-resources/#comment-24</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.gaditaub.com/eblog/general-lapidot-the-occupation-is-draining-israels-resources/#comment-24</guid>
					<description>General Lapidot's arguments appear sound, but he does not articulate the costs of the alternative. While it undoubtedly is costly and damaging to Israel to maintain the occupation, a negotiated peace settlement with the Palestinians may not be achievable.
In the event that Israel unilaterally withdraws from the West Bank (and the Golan Heights?) Israel will need to maintain a highly developed and responsive defence system to protect it from the type of attacks that emanate from Gaza currently. There must be a cost to this, and there will be significant costs if due to the threat of attack from the West Bank businesses begin to move away from Tel Aviv etc. 
Ideally there should be a negotiated peace and withdrawal, following which there would probably be a significant peace bonus for Israel (&#38; Palestine). 
But if the Palestinian government cannot progress to being a national government capable of managing a stable civil society and attract massive inward investment. Then it is highly likely that they will continue to allow the armed forces to prosecute a low level war against Israel to ensure societal cohesion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>General Lapidot&#8217;s arguments appear sound, but he does not articulate the costs of the alternative. While it undoubtedly is costly and damaging to Israel to maintain the occupation, a negotiated peace settlement with the Palestinians may not be achievable.<br />
In the event that Israel unilaterally withdraws from the West Bank (and the Golan Heights?) Israel will need to maintain a highly developed and responsive defence system to protect it from the type of attacks that emanate from Gaza currently. There must be a cost to this, and there will be significant costs if due to the threat of attack from the West Bank businesses begin to move away from Tel Aviv etc.<br />
Ideally there should be a negotiated peace and withdrawal, following which there would probably be a significant peace bonus for Israel (&amp; Palestine).<br />
But if the Palestinian government cannot progress to being a national government capable of managing a stable civil society and attract massive inward investment. Then it is highly likely that they will continue to allow the armed forces to prosecute a low level war against Israel to ensure societal cohesion.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
