Knesset rejects 'two-state' bill
The Knesset on Wednesday turned down a bill that would have prevented the government from
unilaterally annexing land outside the context of 'negotiations' with the 'Palestinians.'
The bill, proposed by MK Hilik Bar (Labor) would have only allowed land
in the West Bank or Gaza to be annexed as part of a peace treaty leading
to two states.
"You are reaching a moment of truth, in which you
have to look in the mirror of history and realize that we need to
separate from the Palestinians," opposition leader Isaac Herzog (Labor)
said to the coalition. "If you don't take this opportunity now, history
will judge you, because we will become an isolated, binational state."
Herzog called for coalition MKs to "overcome narrow political interests and don't make promises you know you can't keep."
"If you don't face the historic challenge, we will replace you and do it ourselves," he added.
Despite Herzog's warnings, the bill was voted down with 44 opposed, including MKs from Hatnua and Yesh Atid, and 25 in favor.
...
Deputy Minister for Liaison with the Knesset Ofir Akunis responded to
Bar's proposal, saying that the government is in the middle of
negotiations and will bring whatever agreement it reaches to the Knesset
for approval.
However, Akunis added, the legislature cannot decide the guidelines for talks with the PLO.
"Why do you have such passion to give away parts of our homeland?" Akunis asked Bar.
Good question.
Labels: annexation, Israeli Knesset, Labor party, two-state solution
You mean it was 'symbolic'?
Israel's Ministerial Legislative Committee voted 8-3 on Sunday to advance a bill to annex the Jordan Valley. Now, I've explained before
why the Jordan Valley is not going to be annexed in the foreseeable future (even though it ought to be along with the rest of Judea and Samaria. Still, I never thought until now that the bill was actually '
symbolic.'
In a show of support for the Jordan Valley which the Palestinians
claim should be an essential part of their state, the Ministerial
Legislative Committee voted 8 to 3 to annex it to Israel.
Justice
Minister Tizpi Livni (Hatenua) and three Yesh Atid politicians, Finance
Minister Yair Lapid, Health Minister Yael German and Science and
Technology Minister Yaakov Peri have all said they will appeal the vote.
Such
an appeal places the matter directly into the hands of Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu, a move which many believes effectively kills the
legislation, which can be revoted only with his approval.
The
bill, which was sponsored by MK Miri Regev (Likud) had the support of
ministers from her party as well as those from Yisrael Beiteinu and
Bayit Yehudi.
Livni and Lapid accused the ministers of attempting
to foil the peace talks with the Palestinians by supporting a bill that
had no chance of passing.
“This is an irresponsible bill and those who support it are irresponsible,” said Livni.
“It
is a proposal that harms the state of Israel and isolates it," she
said. “It is also designed to harm the government because this is a
matter of government policy and not [the subject] for a private bill,"
Livni said.
Does the Knesset still play a role in running this country? Or is it reduced to accepting the diktats of Netanyahu, Livni and Lapid?
Labels: annexation, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jordan Valley, Miri Regev, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Tzipi Livni, Yair Lapid
Likud ministers want to annex Jordan Valley
A bill to annex the Jordan Valley is supported by all the Likud ministers other than Prime Minister Netanyahu, and may be brought before the Ministerial Legislation Committee where it is expected to pass.
But....
If Regev’s bill becomes law, Netanyahu would be unable to accept the American offer
to put the Jordan Valley and border crossings into Jordan under
Palestinian control, with IDF soldiers posted at the border and the US
providing additional security.
According to Regev’s office, all Likud ministers other than Netanyahu
support the bill and it has enough votes to be authorized by the
Ministerial Committee for Legislation.
However, Justice Minister
Tzipi Livni, who is leading negotiations with the Palestinian Authority,
is the chairwoman of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. She is
likely to try to block the bill, either by not bringing it to a vote or
submitting an appeal if it is approved.
Still, Likud ministers could push the legislation forward and demand that it be brought to a general ministerial vote.
Please let me remind you all what happened on Wednesday with a bill that would have required 80 MK's to approve negotiations over our 'undivided capital' (legally annexed since 1981). Although the bill had passed the Minister Legislation Committee twice (over Livni's objections), it
failed to pass a first reading in the Knesset with only one coalition MK (Feiglin) voting in favor. Does anyone really believe that a bill to annex the Jordan Valley is going to do any better?
Labels: annexation, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jerusalem, Jordan Valley, Likud party, Miri Regev, Tzipi Livni
The one (Jewish) state solution: An idea that can be discussed in public
There was a conference in Hebron last Thursday, attended by more than 500 people, at which the only viable long-term solution to the Middle East dispute was discussed:
The one Jewish state solution.
It's an idea that until recently was not politically correct to discuss (and still isn't politically correct in some circles). But here in Israel, many people aren't just whispering it. They're saying it out loud. There’s nothing new about far-right groups holding events in which speakers fantasize about “Greater Israel.” But Thursday’s conference was different: It indicated that the idea of the one-state solution has become respectable within a larger segment of society, including the ranks of Israel’s ruling party.
[Likud MK Tzipi] Hotovely was right: For years, moderate right-wingers tiptoed around the question of what they envision for the future of the territories Israel captured in 1967. Only hardliners openly admitted what perhaps many others secretly desired, but knew to be politically too incorrect to openly demand.
...
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on record saying that he does not want to rule over the Palestinians and is ready to accept a Palestinian state. But that no longer prevents some members of his party from openly demanding a one-state solution. MK Miri Regev, speaking on a recorded video clip, boasted that she recently founded the Knesset Lobby for the Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judean and Samarian Communities. The Likud constitution requires the application of sovereignty over the settlements, she said.
“It’s time to change the discourse in the State of Israel about Judea and Samaria,” said MK Ze’ev Elkin, the chairman of the coalition, also in a prerecorded statement. “For 20 years, we talked about what to give and why. Now the time has come for an entirely different discourse. This is our land, and it’s our right to apply sovereignty over it. Regardless of the world’s opposition, it’s time to do in Judea and Samaria what we did in [East] Jerusalem and the Golan. It’s time to end this system in which the Palestinians take and take and we give and give.”
Most speakers focused on Israel’s right to The Land — all of it — and tried to reassure the audience that they need not fear the so-called demographic threat. Israel would not lose its Jewish majority if it annexed the West Bank and granted citizenship to the Arabs living there, nearly all the speakers promised.
...
Former Israeli ambassador Yoram Ettinger used his 15 minutes — the organizers strictly enforced every speaker’s time limit — for a slideshow in which he presented a lot of data ostensibly proving that there are a million fewer Palestinians in the West Bank than generally assumed. How come? Because the Palestinian officials dealing with statistics are either incompetent or lying, he said.
Ettinger’s graphs made it easier for subsequent speakers to dismiss the demographic argument against a one-state solution as left-wing demagoguery. Gershon Mesika, the head of the Samaria Regional Council, for instance, called the demographic threat a “big bluff.” Even most Arabs don’t believe the idea of two states for two people would work, he added.
And so the evening went by, with speaker after speaker preaching to the choir, rarely challenging the audience with provocative questions about, for example, Palestinian national aspirations. “This is not Arab land. This is the holy land of God,” said Hebron Rabbi Uzi Sharbaf, adding that it was “absolutely forbidden” by Jewish law to retreat from any centimeter of the Promised Land.
My guess is that if we actually annexed Judea and Samaria, a lot of the 'Palestinians' would leave (and whine about being refugees and demand international assistance). In any event, the idea ought to be publicly discussed, and if enough conferences like this take place, it will be discussed more and more.
Some of you may be surprised to see me refer to the one Jewish state solution as the only viable long-term solution. Aside from the Jewish right to the entire land conveyed in the Bible, please allow me to explain why I believe that the one Jewish state solution is the only one that is viable in the long term.
1. The 'Palestinians' have proven that they will never make peace with a Jewish state.
2. The 'Palestinians' insist that a 'Palestinian state' be
Judenrein.
3. Therefore, anything other than a one Jewish state solution will result, God forbid, in a mass slaughter of Jews.
4. On the other hand, Israel's Jews have proven for the last 64 years that they are willing and able to allow an Arab minority to coexist among us.
Simple enough? Anyone who wants to disagree is invited to challenge those four assertions, with proof. That, I believe, is an impossible task.
Labels: annexation, demography, Hebron, Judea and Samaria, Miri Regev, one-state solution, Tzipi Hotovely, Yoram Ettinger, Zeev Elkin
Gordis defends the indefensible
Daniel Gordis defends his
signature on a
letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Significantly, he does so at
Haaretz - Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily - and not at the Jerusalem Post where he normally writes his op-ed's (Hat Tip:
My Right Word) (Full article
here).
The question is how Israel should conduct itself in the face of that stark reality. A wise Israeli leadership would do everything in its power to communicate to the world that beyond those two existential issues, which are not negotiable, Israel will discuss virtually anything. There are matters on which Israel will compromise, and others on which it will not. Israel, though, must continually and publicly urge the Palestinians to come to the table; and when they refuse, Israel’s leaders must then make clear that it is the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who are the obstructionists.
Adopting the Levy Commission report would make it impossible for Israel to make that point. While the Levy Commission insisted that its findings were legal and not political, that distinction would be utterly lost on the international community. Observers everywhere would read the adoption of the Levy report as tantamount to annexing the West Bank. It would be read as putting the Palestinians on notice that Israel plans never to evacuate any settlements, and that hopes for a Palestinian state are dead. The damage to Israel – in the international community and even among more Zionists than this government realizes – would be profound.
Internally, the damage would be no less significant. Israel today faces a profound educational challenge, one that it has not even begun to address. Intentionally or not, adopting the Levy Commission report would signal to Israelis that their political leadership believes that the status quo is actually the ideal and that young people should give up even dreaming that the conflict might, one day, be behind us. Can we imagine ourselves in an interminable conflict without numbing our moral sensibilities? How do we encourage our citizens to be willing to fight for this country, without making hatred of our enemy a foundation of their Israeli ethos? Israel needs to educate a generation of young people and new leaders passionately committed to the proposition that a Jewish State needs to be defended vigorously, all the while hoping that our enemies might someday become simply neighbors.
I cannot buy into Gordis' argument for three reasons.
First, because a report issued by a former Supreme Court Justice that asserts our legal rights certainly does not close the door to the sovereign State of Israel deciding on its own and of its own volition to waive some of those rights. The current situation - in which we stand silently as the world asserts that we have no rights - just encourages the 'Palestinians' and their Arab, Muslim and European sponsors to maintain their maximalist demands.
Second, because the 'two-state solution' is not a holy grail and has no rights of exclusivity. There are other possible ways to resolve or live with the conflict - yes, including the status quo - that are less risky to the lives and livelihoods of Israelis. From 1967-93, almost no Israelis advocated for a 'two-state solution.' Even in Prime Minister Rabin's last speech to the Knesset in 1995, he said that there would be no 'Palestinian state.' And in the time in which Israelis have declared themselves open to a 'Palestinian state,' the 'Palestinians' have asserted and proven time and time again that their intention is that a 'Palestinian state' be a stepping stone to the replacement of the State of Israel, and not a final result of coexistence. It is time for Israelis to acknowledge that reality and act accordingly. It is time to move on from the Oslo paradigm.
Third, the truth is that we ought to annex Judea and Samaria. Now. What form that annexation should take - whether it ought to include the Arab population that lives there today or only the Jewish towns and the land on which they sit plus access roads to them - is a matter for discussion. But we ought to annex Judea and Samaria if for no other reason than once we have done so, it will give the 'Palestinians' an incentive to compromise on their outrageous demands. We have expelled Jews from their homes before for the sake of an illusory peace. No one should doubt that Israel would expel Jews from their homes (hopefully in a more humane way that was done until now) for the sake of a real peace. But we have to acknowledge that a real peace is nothing but a pipe dream today and to stop living in FantasyLand and ignoring reality.
For the last 19 years, we have gone around in circles and have sacrificed over 1,500 Israeli lives to 'Palestinian' terrorism while pursuing a 'two-state solution.' It is time for another solution.
Labels: annexation, Israel is a Jewish state, Levy Report, one-state solution, Palestinian terrorism, two-state solution
Netanyahu prevents annexation measure from coming to a vote
His father must be rolling over in his grave.
Prime Minister Netanyahu on Sunday
prevented a measure that was designed to impose Israeli law on Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria from coming to a vote before a ministerial legislation committee.
A private bill to impose Israeli law on all Jewish settlements in the West Bank was brought to a vote at the Ministerial Committee on Legislative Affairs on Sunday but was eventually withdrawn after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's intervention.
In practice, the bill means that military rule will not be applied in settlements. Imposing Israeli law on Jewish settlements is de facto annexation of the West Bank. [I think that should say, 'military rule will be applied in settlements. CiJ]
Proposed by MK Miri Regev, the bill was brought to a vote at the Ministerial Committee – a prelude to a Knesset vote.
Five ministers initially voted in favor, including Likud ministers Gideon Sa'ar and Limor Livnat. Minister Benny Begin protested and said, "The government is being forced into a decision which must be left to a specially-designated cabinet meeting."
Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, who chairs the Ministerial Committee, wished to postpone the vote by 15 minutes to consult with the prime minister. Upon his return he said, "I wish to postpone the vote by a month and coordinate the matter with the government and the prime minister. This is a political bill and cannot be passed without such coordination."
...
After the ministers realized that Netanyahu wants to postpone the vote and take it off the agenda, nine of them opposed the bill, including Sa'ar and Livnat who said they had originally thought they were voting for a delay in the vote. Five abstained and one – Stas Misezhnikov - voted in favor.
When and where will this country's 'leadership' find courage? Instead, we keep listening to wimps like Dan Meridor.
What could go wrong?
Labels: annexation, Benny Begin, Binyamin Netanyahu, Dan Meridor, Judea and Samaria
Creeping annexation?
A bill that has been introduced in the Knesset to put museums located in Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria is not just intended to provide a funding vehicle says sponsor
Uri Ariel (National Union). It's also meant to be the beginning of a process that will
annex the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria to the State of Israel.
On the surface of it, the bill is about museum funding and allows those institutions to apply for government money on an equal footing with museums within the pre-Six Day War armistice line.
But the bill’s author, MK Uri Ariel (National Union), has been blunt about his plan to annex Judea and Samaria through a de facto legislative process, by which each Israeli law would be amended to apply to West Bank settlements. At present, they are under military law.
On Wednesday, the Knesset Education Committee, during a meeting in which only three members were present, Ariel and Israel Beiteinu MKs Robert Ilatov and Alex Miller unanimously approved the museum bill for its first reading by the legislature. It becomes law only after a third reading passes.
“It could be voted on in the Knesset plenum [for a first reading] as early as next week or the week after,” said Miller, who chairs the Education Committee.
...
As a resident of the Ariel settlement in Samaria, Miller told The Jerusalem Post he sees how the problem with the region’s museums are part and parcel of the larger issue of living in an area of the country which is under military law.
Currently, he said, an “absurd situation” exists in which Israel is a democratic country, and yet in Judea and Samaria its citizens do not have the same rights as other Israelis.
Waiting to hear howls of protest from Obama, the EU, the 'Palestinians' and the UN.... But this is a direct consequence of the 'Palestinian' refusal to come to the table. Actions have consequences.
Labels: annexation, Uri Ariel
Knesset pushing to annex Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria
The leaders of four Knesset factions sent a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu on Tuesday asking him to consider
annexing the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria, and to sanction the 'Palestinian Authority' for its behavior at the United Nations. Three of the four factions behind the letter are from within Netanyahu's coalition, and one of them is his own party.
The letter, written by caucus leaders Likud faction chairman Ze'ev Elkin and MK Arye Eldad (National Union), as well as the faction chairmen of Shas, National Union and Habayit Hayehudi said that sanctions will show the PA that "Israel will not agree to be its punching bag."
"Israel will defend its interests, and turn the crisis into an opportunity," the letter reads. "Any diplomatic attack will be turned into a victory."
The Land of Israel Caucus called for a gradual annexation of settled areas in Judea and Samaria, as well as increased building and development of the region. The letter also demanded that any Palestinian construction in Area C be prevented, and that funds no longer be transferred to the PA.
"The Palestinian commitment to avoid unilateral steps is the only thing Israel got in return for all it has given up since the Oslo Accords," the MKs wrote. "The PA's unilateral bid for recognition of statehood in the UN is a clear violation of the agreements, which for the last 18 years cost us a high price."
The letter also explains that any country that cooperates with the PA in its statehood bid may no longer serve as a mediator in future peace talks.
If Netanyahu does not take such steps, the MKs wrote, he will "encourage the Palestinians to continue acting against [Israel] in the international arena."
"The international damage to Israel from the UN vote is much smaller than the damage Israel may inflict on itself if we do not follow the principle of 'if they give, they will get, if they don't give, they will not get,'" the letter reads, referring to a well-known quote from Netanyahu's first term as prime minister. "This principle has saved Israel from deteriorating into the abyss opened by the engineers of the Oslo Accords."
I'm all in favor. The fact that the 'Palestinians' have paid no price for their behavior - and that the world continues to oppose Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria - is absurd.
Labels: annexation, Arieh Eldad, Aryeh Deri, Binyamin Netanyahu, Judea and Samaria, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), Yaakov Katz, Zeev Elkin
Showdown coming in the House?
Democrats in the US House of Representatives may soon have to choose between loyalty to Israel and loyalty to Obama. That's because Representative Joe Walsh (R-Il) is introducing a resolution expressing
Congressional support for annexation by Israel of Jewish cities and towns in Judea and Samaria.
“We’ve got what I consider to be a potential slap in the face coming up with the vote in the U.N., which is absolutely outrageous,” Walsh told POLITICO. “It’s clear that the United States needs to make a very strong statement. I would argue that the president should make this statement, but he’s not capable of making it. So, the House needs to make this statement, if the [Palestinian Authority] continues down this road of trying to get recognition of statehood, the U.S. will not stand for it. And we will respect Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria.”
...
Walsh is moving forward with his resolution after meeting last month in Israel with Danny Danon, a deputy speaker of the Knesset and Likud Party member known for criticizing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from the right. Earlier this year, Danon introduced a bill that would annex all of “Area C,” a large portion of the West Bank that includes Jewish settlements and rural lands but would spare the largest Palestinian cities. Danon’s now leading a campaign to pressure Netanyahu to move forward with the unilateral annexation.
Walsh, who said he’d been considering a similar measure before arriving in Israel in August, confirmed that he and Danon “bounced some ideas off each other” on the resolution.
...
“This is perfect timing for us and the right decision for us, not just from ideological perspective but security perspective as well,” said Jonny Daniels, a senior adviser to Danon, who said he also worked with conservative commentator Glenn Beck when he was in the country last month for his pro-Israel “Restoring Courage” rallies.
Walsh says he plans to spend the rest of the week gathering cosponsors.
Maybe someone should ask the Democratic candidate in NY-9 how he would vote on this.
Labels: annexation, Danny Danon, Joe Walsh, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Facebook page supporting annexation of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria
Many Israelis believe that Israel's response to a unilateral 'Palestinian' declaration of independence should be to annex the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (and, presumably, the roads that run through Area C that are used by Jews).
A group of Israelis has set up a Facebook page to promote that notion. If you agree with it, you can 'like' the page
here (Hat Tip:
Amnon N).
Labels: annexation, Danny Danon, Facebook, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Annex Judea and Samaria now!
Likud MK Danny Danon has set up a
Facebook page calling for Israel to annex all of Judea and Samaria in response to the 'Palestinian' unilateralism at the United Nations. If you click on the link, it will take you directly to that page's wall, where you can 'like' the page. You can tell that it's just getting started: Right now, it has less 'likes' than I have (that's okay - you can
like me too). Here's more about
the page and the campaign.
“The campaign will call for the Israeli government to respond to the Palestinians’ unilateral step by taking a Zionist unilateral action of annexing the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria,” Danon said.
The Likud legislator said the campaign was intended to remind the public and the government that many major decisions by Israel were taken unilaterally, including declaring the state by former prime minister David Ben-Gurion, annexing eastern Jerusalem by former prime minister Levi Eshkol and the annexation of the Golan Heights by former prime minister Menachem Begin.
He neglected to mention former prime minister Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
Support for such a move is growing as the Palestinians’ September 20 initiative comes closer. More than half the Likud faction has endorsed the idea, including ministers Gilad Erdan, Yisrael Katz, Moshe Kahlon, and Yuli Edelstein.
Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon has also spoken about Israel taking unilateral actions without being specific. Outside the Likud, Israel Beiteinu minister Uzi Landau and Habayit Hayehudi’s minister Daniel Hershkowitz have endorsed the move.
“The Prime Minister’s Office doesn’t comment on the issue, but it helps Netanyahu to show that there are possible internal actions for Israel and political risks for the Palestinians,” Danon said. “The Palestinians need to know that they have a lot to lose by taking a unilateral approach.”
Meanwhile, 'Peace Now' director general Yariv
Guggenheimer Oppenheimer expresses confidence that the coalition will not take such a 'suicidal action.' I would say that right now, the most suicidal action we could take would be coming to the table on the 'Palestinians' terms.
But please go ahead and 'like' the page. The Leftists on Twitter are complaining about how few 'likes' it has.
Labels: annexation, Judea and Samaria, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, unilateral declaration of statehood
Israel's only two options
Caroline Glick writes that it is time for Israel to acknowledge reality. Israel has only two choices with respect to Judea and Samaria:
Either the 'Palestinians' will control them or we will.
If the Palestinians take control, they will establish a terror state in the areas, which - like their terror state in Gaza - will use its territory as a starting point for continued war against Israel.
It isn't only Israel's experience with post-withdrawal Gaza and South Lebanon that make it clear that a post-withdrawal Palestinian-controlled Judea and Samaria will become a terror state. The Palestinians themselves make no bones about this.
...
The second option is for Israel to annex Judea and Samaria, complete with its hostile Arab population.
Absorbing the Arab population of Judea and Samaria would increase Israel's Arab minority from 20% to 33% of the overall population. This is true whether or not Israel grants them full citizenship with voting rights or permanent residency without them.
Obviously such a scenario would present Israel with new and complex legal, social and law enforcement challenges. But it would also provide Israel with substantial advantages and opportunities.
Israel would have to consider its electoral laws and weigh the prospect of moving from a proportional representation system to a direct, district system. It would have to begin enforcing its laws toward its Arab citizens in a manner identical to the way it enforces its laws against its Jewish citizens. This includes everything from administrative laws concerning building to criminal statutes related to treason. It would have to ensure that Arab schoolchildren are no longer indoctrinated to hate Jews, despite the fact that according to the Israel Project survey, 53% of Palestinians support such anti-Semitic indoctrination in the classroom.
These steps would be difficult to enact.
On the other side, annexing Judea and Samaria holds unmistakable advantages for Israel. For instance, Israel would regain complete military control over the areas. Israel ceded much of this control to the PLO in 1996.
The Palestinian armies Israel agreed to allow the PLO to field have played a central role in the Palestinian terror machine. They have also played a key role in indoctrinating Palestinian society to seek and work toward Israel's destruction. By bringing about the disbanding of these terror forces, Israel would go a long way toward securing its citizens from attack.
Furthermore, by asserting its sovereign rights to its heartland, for the first time since 1967, Israel would be adopting an unambiguous position around which its citizens and supporters could rally. Annexation would also finally free Israel's politicians and diplomats to tell the truth about the pathological nature of Palestinian nationalism and about the rank hypocrisy and anti-Semitism at the heart of much of the international Left's campaigns on behalf of the Palestinians.
Read the whole thing. Until now, the calls for annexation that I have seen called only to annex the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria. That might also be worth considering. But if you're not worried about that fake demographic time bomb, Glick's ideas are not far-fetched either. Hmmm.
Labels: annexation, Caroline Glick
Dayan: Annexation 'not an option right now'
Yesha Council chairman Danny Dayan tells the Washington Times' Ben Birnbaum that annexing Judea and Samaria is '
not an option right now.'
"I don't think that annexation is an option right now," he says. "It's not an option because of the international arena, because of constraints that we are well aware of. Also because of the question of citizenship for the Arab population and other practical questions. I think that every person that watches the developments understands that annexation is not within the range of realistic options Israel has."
Though the proposition of annexing the West Bank has lost ground with Israeli voters in recent years, largely because of fears that a formalized "Greater Israel" would imperil the state's Jewish majority, it retains support among many settler activists and several right-wing Knesset members.
Mr. Dayan says that though he theoretically supports annexing the West Bank "in the long term," any such move would have to be preceded by a shift of "one of the major geopolitical parameters."
"For instance, I can foresee that if some day there is a regime change in Jordan, which is a country with a predominantly Palestinian population, that will be a major change that will open a whole range of solutions that today are not viable and suddenly will become viable."
He quickly emphasizes that he does not advocate Israeli action to precipitate such an outcome.
I'm willing to wait right now, because I think it will be a lot easier to accomplish if Jordan is more widely recognized as the 'Palestinian state.' But what happened in Tunisia over the weekend makes it much more likely that autocratic rulers in Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Libya and other countries will eventually be displaced. If it happens in Jordan, you can bet that the 'Palestinians' will try to take over. And there would be nothing wrong with our backing them.
I don't buy the demographic time bomb nonsense, as most of you already know. I think Dayan pretended it exists in order to avoid making adverse headlines.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: annexation, Jordan is Palestine
Do you really want to go there?
Yitzchak Klein warns that the 'Palestinians' may be making a serious mistake by trying to
unilaterally declare a 'state' (Hat Tip:
Daily Alert).
In the near and middle term, a unilateral Palestinian application to the UN for recognition would produce bad press and a manageable level of international discomfort for Israel. In the long term, it would prove to be a serious Palestinian blunder.
The object of a unilateral application for recognition would not be to force Israel to recognize Palestinian independence in principle. Israel has already accepted the idea of “two states for two peoples.” Rather, the object would be to use UN recognition to force Israel to accede to Palestinian territorial claims in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem without the Palestinians making any concessions in return. In this the Palestinians would almost certainly fail.
History is strewn with the wreckage of international declarations that did not correspond to actual power relations on the ground. In the long run, the international community adjusts to de facto power, and declarations that are not founded on substance fade into oblivion. This will happen to the Palestinians’ attempt to claim territory without controlling it. Palestinians right now control some towns and villages in Judea and Samaria through their American-trained police force. The writ of the IDF runs everywhere else.
UNILATERALISM IS a two-way street. By abrogating the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians make it legitimate for Israel to withdraw from its own obligations to negotiate a final settlement and to recognize a Palestinian state. If the Palestinians unilaterally seek international recognition, Israel should move with all deliberate speed to create, unilaterally, a territorial arrangement that suits its interests: Separation from the Palestinians, while establishing control over territory needed for security, for its water resources and yes, for the security and further development of communities in Judea and Samaria.
This will require a few years. Roads and fences should be constructed to ensure that Palestinians can move freely between their own population centers while never entering territory to which Israel lays claim. Israel could end up controlling up to 60 percent of Judea and Samaria. After a decent interval, Israeli sovereignty should be extended to these areas.
The result will be a Palestinian entity that is cantonized but enjoys de facto independence. The Palestinians will object to cantonization. In response, Israel should say: “If you’d like to negotiate the matter, the prime minister’s number is in the phone book.”
This policy would accord with what we know of Israeli public opinion. Most Israelis do not want to rule the Palestinians. Neither do they want to uproot more Israeli communities, divide Jerusalem or surrender territory needed for security. Most do not expect to achieve a peace treaty with the Palestinians – and couldn’t care less.
As for Jerusalem, if the Palestinians make a move toward declaring independence unilaterally, Israel should move quickly to offer east Jerusalem residents a choice in a snap referendum: Either ratify the status quo, or else choose to join the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria – losing Israeli identity cards, the right to enter Israel, to work and to receive Israeli social services. The result is likely to be gratifying and to put paid to the legitimacy of Palestinian claims to a state “in the 1967 borders, including east Jerusalem.”
Read the whole thing.
Yitzchak is making two underlying assumptions that I hope are correct but fear may not be. One is that Israel will follow his diplomatic prescription (the rest of the article) and not buckle under inevitable pressure from its allies (as Prime Minister Netanyahu is currently doing).
The other assumption is that the 'international community' - and particularly the Obama administration if it is still in power then - does not take
Samantha Power's prescription for how to create a 'Palestinian state.' (If you haven't seen it before, click through to that link and watch the video).
Unfortunately, neither of those assumptions is automatic.
Labels: annexation, Palestinian state, unilateral declaration of statehood, Yitzchak Klein
