By Ted Belman
Shmuel Rosner in the New York Times, under the title “Please – Draw me a state” wrote
- “The core issue right now is, how do we get sovereignty for the Palestinian people and how do we assure security for the Israeli people?” That is to say, settlements no longer rank high on his agenda because “if we solve those two problems, the settlement problem will be solved.”
In the past Obama has mooted this idea by saying if you first agree on borders then you agree where settlements can be built.
Rosner argued,
Basically, he replaced the contentious issue of settlements with an even more contentious matter: boundaries.
- As Obama explained in both Ramallah and Jerusalem, drawing the future border of a Palestinian state — “real borders that have to be drawn” — is the crux of the matter. Indeed. Jerusalem had good reasons to object to a settlement freeze — including for making the Palestinians less likely to compromise — but it also knew that any freeze would be, or could be, temporary and reversible. Drawing a border between a state and a would-be state is a far more significant step, and potentially far more permanent.
-
If settlements are about claiming disputed territory, delineating borders is about giving it up, which is a considerably more sensitive move.
Today we read that Israel has agreed to impose a de facto freeze on construction on all the settlements save for the settlement blocs. Isn’t that like drawing a map. Where we build will presumably remain in Israel and where we don’t will be given up. But it is not as bad as presenting a map.
David Newman, dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Ben-Gurion University in Borderline Views: The Obama and Kerry map comments on the matter.
- Since [Oslo], there have been numerous attempts at map-drawing. Various versions of borders have been proposed at countless “track II” discussions, by geographers, cartographers and diplomats. Government ministers, each of whom has had aspirations of being the ultimate “peace maker,” have proposed new contours for the future borders of a two-state solution. In reality, they are not vastly different from each other.
-
They all use the Green Line as a base from which they try to deviate so as to incorporate as many of the settlements as possible, especially those in relative proximity to the Green Line. During the past decade, some of these cartographic scenarios have also included the proposal for land swaps, with Israel annexing settlement areas inside the West Bank, in return for which the Palestinians would receive land inside Israel which is unsettled and, in this way, maintain the same proportions of land for Israel and the West bank which existed prior to 1967.
But, he says, since that time the settler population has doubled.
I think he is wrong to say,
- The construction of the Separation/Security Barrier/Wall/Fence has been the only attempt to actually implement a border on the ground and although it can be removed far more quickly than it was ever established, its course indicates the political thinking of Israeli leaders during the past decade concerning the ultimate route of a border.
First and foremost the fence location was to protect Israel from suicide bombers and was stated to not be a border to satisfy the Supreme Court.
He comments in detail on the position of Min Naftali Bennett,
- It is no surprise that the new Economy and Trade minister, Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett, has suggested that the separation barrier should ultimately be removed and that Palestinians should eventually be allowed back into the Israeli workforce. This is, in his worldview, the only way to prevent the two-state solution, to which he is totally opposed, from eventually becoming a reality.
For Bennett and the new right-wing coalition government, any talk of borders has to cease. In their view Israel has to return to a situation in which the entire territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River is a single entity, never to be divided.
The crux of the problem as he sees it, is that,
- The far Right (continued occupation) and the radical Left (a binational state) share the same basic criteria – namely, that we should not be drawing borders and that we should be relating to the entire territory as a single political and administrative unit. Despite the geographic similarities however, the contrasting sets of power relations are clear for all.
-
Under a Bennett solution, there would be first- and second-class citizens and the state would retain its formal Jewish status, while under the binational scenario, all would be equal and there would no longer be a State of Israel defined by its Jewish identity.
-
What Bennett and his supporters on the Right constantly fail to realize is that, by the abolition of borders, and the continued construction of settlements throughout the West Bank, they are the people who, more than any others, are bringing about the one-state scenario and the end to the Jewish state.
I beg to differ.
He comes to his conclusion because the ’67 lines plus swaps would necessitate the evacuation “of tens if not hundreds of thousand settlers” and that is “simply not going to happen”.
- No Israeli government has the ability to implement such a scenario in the face of the massive opposition it will entail. There will always be settlements on the wrong side of the border, even those borders which have been drawn to include the major settlement blocs close to the Green Line.
According to his thinking,
- But the ultimate removal of borders will eventually bring about one of two equally unacceptable scenarios for most Israelis – either apartheid and institutionalized discrimination or a binational state.
Again, I beg to differ.
Israel would ensure equal civil rights to all should the land be annexed and thus in no way would it be an apartheid state. The “institutionalized discrimination” refers to what flows from Israel being defined as a Jewish state as proposed in the Jewish Nations Bill. Such an outcome would be totally acceptable to most Israelis. All Arab states are Islamic states and many European states are Christian states as provided it their constitutions. Israel could pass a basic law making the state a Jewish state. Nothing wrong with that.
Furthermore, annexing all the land would put an end to the alleged right of return. The so-called refugees would have to be resettled as all refugees are. Dividing the land would open up the possibility that a million Arab “refugees” would be settled in the new State of Palestine. This would greatly destabilized Palestine and Israel.
What most Israelis are against is giving the Arabs in Judea and Samaria, citizenship. It is for this reason that Bennett is only proposing, at this time, annexing Area C with its 60,000 or so, Arabs. Thereafter negotiations would commence on the refinement of their present autonomy in Areas A and B augmented by some of Area C. During negotiations Israel could financially induce Arabs to emigrate. These negotiations could go on for decades.
What a huge majority of Jews are against is a binational state.
The only non-emotional map would move the “Pal, refugees or not” East of the Jordan river. The whole world knows it.
I am not an extremist (independent).
Where is the problem? Give them the border-delimitations of the land mass reserved by the League of Nations for the re-establishment of Jewish National Homeland and we might, just may..eventually, if they behave well consider to let them keep Jordan (75% of the land!)to relocate the Arabs from Jerusalem,Judea & Samaria. Fair deal..by all means! After all most of Arab countries as we know them today resulted also from the League of Nation’s parcellation of the defunct Ottoman Empire..If Israel is not allowed to keep what is “legally” hers, then the rights and legality of those Arab countries should also be contested and reviewed…
NormanF Said:
I disagree. Only a small minority believe this. Or better still they believe that we must keep trying. The vast majority have no such illusions,
RaymondF Said:
The main problem Israelis have is the pleasant illusion that peace is still possible. In the coming years, events will show some thing will need to be done about the Arabs. America may not be able to save itself but I can’t see Israel sitting around with hands folded and doing nothing to save itself.
yamit82 Said:
Yamit, I don’t think the Arabs will grow that fast – and in any case aliyah from Western Europe and America remains a serious possibility. The number of Arabs in Israel can be reduced through the right policies and encouraging more aliyah. The Israeli elite simply has to summon the will to avert your scenario. I do not think the Jewish future is grim as you paint. When the Jews were a minority in the country, they flourished in spite of all the odds. I would not be so quick as to ring the curtain down on Jewish history that soon.
there must be no agreement on borders because that agreement validates a criteria for a state. the question is under what circumstances can an Israeli govt repudiate past agreements, specifically UNSC 242 which creates the pr 67 lines as the benchmark to measure from. This benchmark was created prior to Jordans relinquishing claims on the west bank. It is imperative, if Israel does not annex, that it states that the entire west bank is disputed terrotory subject to negotiation. especially there is no reason to assume, as Israel and the world assumes at present, that unpopulated land on the west bank should be assumed to belong to the pals. Based on extortion and fear, Israel has left the impression that it will withdraw to approx pre 67 lines with slight variations.
@ yamit82:
“In Israel proper we cannot allow the Arabs to reach the 35% level as it will be or could be sufficient to control Israel by a coalition of anti-Israel minorities.”
How true, but for the life of me I don’t understand how the Arabs can get away with keeping their areas Jew-free (with the exception of the settlements, which are only on a tiny portion of the land), while the rest of the country has to maintain a 20% Arab presence.
And then you talk of neo-Nazi types roaming around spewing antisemitic slogans. Not to mention 150,000 illegal Arabs? How crazy is that! What about mass deportations?
I know we have a huge problem with illegals here in the US, and there doesn’t seem to be the national will to deport them, but with Israel’s existential problems something has to be done.
@ yamit82:tHANKS. i CORRECTED IT.
RaymondF Said:
I am not basing my opinion on demographers but actual demographic statistics from the Israel government Bureau of statistics. Nothing easier in Israel than to cite stats of births deaths and age groups gender religion and ethnicity. These stats are used and not questioned by any demographer. The debate between Ettinger’s group and main line academic demographers are assessing the rates of Arab growth in the territories not Israel.
While mass immigration was what saved Israel in the past I can’t see from where any sizeable immigration can come from once you discount North America. Only France seems to have some potential. You have to balance the religious high birth rate in Israel against the smaller # of secular Jews. and over 35% of Israels are beyond the age of reproduction.
Consider as well that their are almost a half million Slavs who are not Jewish but listed as such on the National registry. Many in this group came as antisemites and they and their children are christian in every way including celebrating Christmas even attending christian churches. (Christian TV station are permitted to proselytize in Russian) many of their youth even openly sporting neo Nazi dress and slogans.
Many Israelis carried on our national registry are ex pats living abroad many, for many years and one can assume have no intention to return. Most new immigration just about cancels out emigration.
There are at least 150,000 illegal Arabs living in Arab villages not carried officially on the registry rolls but no-one knows for sure just how many.
I reject the Pollyanna projections by Ettinger and what I call revisionist demographics he presents. It might be good PR and alternative talking points but in the end it may be a disservice because it distorts the truth.
In Israel proper we cannot allow the Arabs to reach the 35% level as it will be or could be sufficient to control Israel by a coalition of anti Israel minorities.
Bernard Ross Said:
Borderline Views: The Obama and Kerry map
@ yamit82:
Sorry, Yamit, I’m with NormanF on this one. What part of “the demographers have always been wrong” don’t you get?
Of course you can put up Arab vs. Jewish age range statistics that make things look grim for Jews but don’t forget that Jews live far beyond 65 and stay vital and connected to society far into their old age (and their survival age is among the highest in the world).
Olim will continue to arrive for many years and settlement population will continue to swell, reaching a million in the not-too-distant future. The confidence and dynamism of Israeli Jews will militate against surrender to Arabs and world opinion.
I have the greatest optimism for the Jewish nation and strength in the diaspora. Gloom and doom serve no purpose here.
Ted, this link does not work
NormanF Said:
http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st02_19&CYear=2010
Facts Israel has an aging population by % much larger than the Arabs.
Per 1000:
ARAB Age Range: 0-4 169.5/ 5-9 179.9/10-14 157.6 /15-19 133.7
Jewish Age Range:: 0-4 541.1/ 5-9 476.4/ 10-14 476./15-19 414.3
Jews in Israel have a much higher elderly population than do the Muslims by quite a wide margin over the age of 65. Arab women begin having children at an earlier age than Jewish women by almost 10 years. That gives them a multiplier effect over the Jews.
What the above indicates is than in 10-15 years with no changes in trend, the Arabs will have reached close to 35% of the voting public. They potentially can with the cooperation of the Israeli left and others become the dominant political block in Israel in all that means in terms of maintaining a Jewish identity as a state and nation.
yamit82 Said:
Yamit – the demographers have always been wrong. Simon Dubnow thought there would be no more than 500,000 Jews in the Land Of Israel by the turn of turn of the 21st Century. Now there are 6 million. Incidentally, more Jews live in Israel today than lived in the country in antiquity. The demographic scarecrow is always bunk. There is no danger of Israel ever turning into a bi-national – let alone an Arab state.
Video Replies to BB and Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUmRHEz8108&NR=1&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS5SmNnIOU
With all the money that the EU, Saudi Arabia, individual European states, and America have invested in maintaining and building a Palestinian state, they will not allow a buyout by Israel of the Muslim inhabitants. Without their money, the Palestinians would fall into chaos, thus instigating immigration due to economic decline. They would much rather bankrupt themselves to prevent a Greater Israel. That is the level of their animus. Indeed, a Palestinian state with borders would allow continued support by these players, so they might continue pressure on Israel to disappear as a “Jewish State.”