By Ted Belman, Feb 2014 (also published on AMERICAN THINKER)
Michael Oren, the former Israel Ambassador to the US in a recent interview, said Israel should consider unilaterally withdrawing from parts of the West Bank and declaring its own borders if the current peace negotiations with the Palestinians fail. This idea has often been raised, and rejected, by Israeli leaders across the political spectrum
“I’m aware there’s no perfect solution here,” Oren concluded. “Every option involves risks, untold circumstances. But I can’t emphasize enough the importance of having what I refer to as the Zionist option: We do not outsource our fundamental destiny to Palestinian decision making.”
With that rational he proposes that Israel announce a Plan B that she would implement in the event the Palestinians act on their Plan B, namely to go to the international community for recognition as a state “Their Plan B includes international sanctions, targeting our economy, completely delegitimizing us in the world.” he said.
In essence, he is arguing for unilateral withdrawal from parts of Judea and Samaria which he says will differ from the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in that no settlers would be uprooted nor would the IDF be removed from the remaining land. He thereby fortifies the idea that PM Netanyahu mooted about leaving 150,000 Israelis behind in Palestine. Everyone knows that it would cost $150 billion to remove them and no one is talking about where the money would come from. So they are trying to avoid the cost by leaving them there.
He refused to discuss in detail where a unilateral border should be drawn if Israel were to withdraw from the mostly Palestinian areas of the West Bank. Nor would he specify what exactly would happen to Jewish settlers who would find themselves on the Palestinian side of such a line.
He stated his rationale for withdrawing:
- “If we declare our borders, that creates a de-facto situation of two nation states recognized by the UN — we may not recognize one another, but they’re already recognized by the UN — that have a border dispute. And we would be one of dozens of pairs of countries in the world that have a border dispute.”
Even after Israel unilaterally declared its borders, it could still say that it was interested in reaching a final peace deal, under which border adjustments could be possible, he added.
That being the case why does he not say we should declare the Jordan River our eastern border?
He does say that such a plan is being discussed.
“There are number of guidelines that are being discussed. I’m not the only one discussing it. This will determine what are [Israel’s] defensible borders, what are the borders that encompass the maximum number of Israeli settlers. What would enable us to reduce, to the greatest possible extent, our control over the Palestinians? In any such move, Israel would of course maintain its military presence in crucial areas. And it would also ensure the continued unity of Jerusalem.”
He won’t commit himself on where the borders should be but says “the principle is maximum number of Israelis within the State of Israel and maximum protection of Israel’s security,” .But the framework is all about the minimum of land we keep. As I pointed out in a recent article, we should design the border that would maintain our sovereignty in the Jordan Valley and reduce the number of Israelis that had to be remove by 100,000. This would save $100 Billion.
Last Friday, the Maariv newspaper reported that Yoaz Hendel, a former media adviser to Netanyahu, is also working on a plan that calls for unilateral withdrawal from parts of the West Bank. These ideas originally found expression in Kadima’s Convergence Plan and Netanyahu is obviously entertaining them.
As for maintaining the status quo he said:
“I don’t know if remaining in the entire territories, with control over a great number of Palestinians and being exposed to increasing international sanctions — boycotts and delegitimization — I don’t know if that brings you to peace, either. It actually endangers Israel,”
In this regard, I fail to see how his Plan differs. We still have to maintain the same restrictions on the Palestinians living in what we leave behind. How are Israelis better off?
Withdrawing unilaterally from parts of the West Bank also “won’t end” the pressure from European Union and others in the international community pushing for a final-status agreement, Oren added.
But argued, it would help take the wind out of the growing BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, particularly in Europe. “The goal is helping to maintain our integrity as a Jewish and democratic state, one whose security is preserved.”
The last quote is a non-sequitur. I don’t see how unilateral withdrawal helps this goal. Nor do I think that Israel’s integrity as “a Jewish and democratic state” is in peril. That is simply a meme of the Europeans and the left. Speak to anyone on the right and you will learn that they aren’t the slightest bit concerned and are not concerned with the threat of Israel turning into a Bi-National state. They believe that their majority, even if Judea and Samaria would be annexed in totality, would afford them sufficient protection.
Gadi Baltiansky, the director-general of the Geneva Initiative, a nonprofit promoting a two-state solution said that he conflict would continue, and “no international body will recognize the borders that you drew unilaterally. You will not get international legitimacy, or recognition of Jerusalem.”
Uri Avnery, a former Knesset member and veteran far-left activist, went even further. “It’s stupid,” he said bluntly. “It’s considered a symptom of insanity when you do something and fail, and then try to do the same thing again and again,” he said, citing the Gaza pullout.
“You can’t make peace on terms of continued occupation. What these people call unilateral withdrawal is continuation of occupation by other means,” he said.
Oren dismisses these arguments as irrelevant. “The irrelevance is that we’re talking about what happens if we can’t make peace,”
I would imagine that Israel is attempting to cut a deal with Obama wherein Israel unilaterally withdraws to borders more to its liking then what is in the Framework discussions. The key is , the US must agree to recognize said borders. Highly unlikely.
That aside, I fail to see how Oren’s Plan B differs from Min Naftali Bennett’s plan to extend Israeli sovereignty to Area C as described in the Oslo Accords. Both plans require a new fence to delineate what we claim from what we leave to the Palestinians. It seems to me that both would keep parts of Area C and some of Area B in order to produce a viable border. The only difference being how much land each plan keeps.
Bennett is under no illusion that Israelis can be left on the other side of the fence so he wants to minimize the number to be evacuated by keeping more land than Obama would agree to. Oren and Netanyahu, in order to keep less land and comply with the Obama dictates, argue that Israelis can be left on the other side.
That idea gets little traction among Israelis.
babushka Said:
LOL
Unilateral withdrawal has been such a rousing success in Gaza, why not implement a reprise? Oren is a liberal, and liberals love to emulate failure. His proposal is so incomprehensibly stupid that I expect it to gain widespread support.
I love the end when he points out how G_D is benificent and humiliates her in from of her pets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn_tiAPxdmY
Oren really should read what he writes. If Israel cannot make peace it means there is a case for MORE supervision and control of the PA as opposed to Less. Orens ludicrous answer to failure and danger is to lessen Israels ability to control what happens in the PA. Gaza proves exactly what happens when you cant make peace and you withdraw: the terror follows you into Israel as opposed to keeping the battle in their areas.
All of his conclusions are illogical to the point of already proven absurdity. When Israel withdraws there is no ebb in BDS as BDS is a war agianst the Jews and not a debate. when Israel withdraws the terror threats are increased not lessened as proven in lebanon and gaza. Oren sounds like a typical leftist who wishes to give away vacant land of the jews in C for the arabs to settle instead of the Jews.
If Oren is this idiotic, naiive or dishonest then everything else he says is questionable. I wonder how a person with such poor judgment can rise to the top in Israel.
right now Israel can manage the pals with the principle that any terror results in pain and suffering to the arabs in C.
The main problem with Oren’s plan is Israel would get no credit from the West for any unilateral pullout.
On the contrary, it would convince the Arabs Israel is on the run and they can up their pressure for more.
Israeli concessions will not bring about peace nor persuade the Arabs to give up their warfare against Israel.
I don’t see it going anywhere.
Into the Fray: A public challenge to Michael Oren
By Martin Sherman,
Salubrius Said:
I fully agree with your statement. I may be wrong, it seems to me, Israel doesn’t have an effective PR campaign against the repeated propaganda/lies of its enemies. Repeated lies have been accepted as “truth”.
Before annexing, educate the public on Jewish political rights to territories and falsity of claim of alleged Palestinian”people” alleged right under international law to self-determination.. After years of propaganda, illegality of Jewish occupation has become a poetic truth. Initial propaganda was carried out by the UN after it became dominated by Arab and African bloc. See SSRN.com/abstract=2385304 Henry Cattan, member of Arab Higher Comittee led by Haj Amin al Husseini was behind propaganda effort along with his friend W.T. Mallison. Cattan also represented Arabs in UNSCOP hearings in 1947. According to Julius Stone, you would have thought the UN could have found more objective lawyers.
Rather than WITHDRAW from Y & S Israel should ANNEX. If it is not feasible to do areas A, B. and C at once then go gradually and leave
what remains in dispute to be dealt with later. This will send a very clear message as where the situation is heading and could promote
emigration of Arabs from Y & S.
“Michael Oren: ”What happens if we can’t make peace?””
That is a wrong question. Since when such a complex issue has been resolved by one side short of complete surrender since recorded human history?
Rubbish! Israel withdrew from Gaza and BDS became even more aggressive!
More rubbish! israel is proven to be treated differently than all other nations and always to the negative side of being treated differently.
You would think that intelligent people, high up, with years of experience, would be able to recognize historical facts and patterns and be able to distinguish facts from hopes and desires.
why is there is need to be the one who must take action? There is no greater example than gaza as to what will happen. It is insane. Israel needs to start seriously thinking about how to reduce the hostile threat and should begin to employ deportation to Gaza for hostile arab residents of the west bank. The same noise about the GC would continue but the aggressive male hostiles can be thinned out. Also, it would start accommodating everyone to deportation as a strategy. The only reason it is Israel under pressure is because Israel fails to deal aggressively enough with attacks on Israelis. It is not rocket science that if you clobber your enemy for the slightest whimper he will end up clobbered permanently.
this plan, and all state plans, do not take into account the possibility of arabs flooding into the PA from other countries. That is an existential danger as real as them flooding west of green line.
The best long term realistic solution is the Pals taking over Jordan and then they will have to accept all their Pal brothers from other nations. They cant take over Jordan and then refuse to admit their Pal brothers. Jordan is only temporarily more stable than the other borders and we can see how unreliable long term stability is. Once they take over Jordan there is a place for them to go that they can call home.
@ Yidvocate:
The world had nothing to say because the removal from Gaza was an action of the Israeli Army. I new many non–Jews who were horrified by the events, especially farmers and rancher who understood what it takes to build an agricultural life.
Unilateral withdrawal is the answer. That is the so called palys being unilaterally withdrawn to Jordan and we’re done. The world had nothing to say when 10,000 peaceful and productive Jews were unilaterally withdrawn from Gaza and northern Sumeria so why should they complain now? Pull out the Levy Report and the legal history of the Palestinian Mandate since WWI and we have our iron clad case for taking charge of our ancient patrimony. The 80% of OUR land given to us by the international community in recognition of our reconstitution of our national home, stolen by the same hypocritical body should be amply sufficient to house those Arabs. Why do we owe them more of our scant 20% remainder? Besides that we have every right to remove a demonstrated enemy population after we have offered them time and again more than any other nation, by far, would ever have offered only to be rejected each and every time. Hell they don’t even recognize us! Show them the door!
@ Bear Klein:
You think???
🙁
Bennett’s plan is the only practical plan. We annex land where all the Jews live. No one vacates their home. We keep security control of all of Judah and Samaria. Arabs do not flood Israel. Failure to do this offers a repeat of Gaza, with worse consequences.
Oren as the former ambassador is not helping Israel. Every Israeli official and ex-offical has his own plan. This is why it is hard to get even people who like Israel to buy into us keeping areas beyond the 67 lines. This lack of unity is a nightmare.