By Martin Sherman
I am going to extend sovereignty and I don’t distinguish between settlement blocs and the isolated settlements…From my perspective, any point of settlement is Israeli, and we have responsibility, as the Israeli government. I will not uproot anyone, and I will not transfer sovereignty to the Palestinians. – Benjamin Netanyahu, Channel 12, April 6. 2019.
In a significant departure from his usual ambivalent and non-committal policy formulation regarding the final status of the territories of Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. “West Bank”), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came out with an unexpectedly robust and unequivocal statement of intent just a few days prior to the April 9 election.
Last Saturday, Channel 12 interviewer, Rina Matzliah, fired an almost taunting question at Netanyahu, asking him why, given the fact that he had a largely compliant government domestically, and a firmly supportive administration in Washington, he had not done more to extend Israeli sovereignty over Judea-Samaria. In response, the Prime Minister announced that that was precisely what he intended to—if reelected in the elections that were due to be held the following Tuesday.
Two-states increasingly unfeasible
Since the interview, the election results have come in, making it almost certain that Netanyahu will continue as prime minister and be tasked by the president to form the next government—putting him in a position to fulfill his pledge.
Nonetheless, while the election results gave an unambiguous victory to Netanyahu and the “Right-wing” block, it is still anyone’s guess as to how sincere he was in his statement of intention and how serious he will be about implementing it in practice.
Be that as it may, even at this early stage several issues are already clear.
The prospect of any measure entailing the transfer of large tracts of Judea-Samaria to Palestinian-Arab control is becoming increasingly unfeasible. Indeed, as Netanyahu pointed out in his interview, the likely outcome of such an initiative would be the creation of a mega-Gaza–twenty times the scale of what has developed in the South.
Accordingly, there appears to be growing awareness of the dangers entailed in any such policy—especially over time. After all, even if some “genuine Palestinian-Arab peace partner” could be identified as having sufficient pliancy to accommodate Israel’s minimal security concerns, and sufficient authority to enforce an agreement acceptable to Israel on a recalcitrant public, there is no guarantee that his hold on power could be ensured for long. Clearly, once Israel relinquishes control over territory, it cannot determine who will seize the reins of power—as the 2007 Islamist take-over of Gaza starkly underscores—and the pliant peace partner could be replaced—by the ballot or the bullet—by a more inimical successor…precisely because of the “perfidious” deal he cut with the infidel “Zionist entity”.
Lethargic support for sovereignty in new coalition?
But the election results also embody another message for the advocates of Jewish sovereignty. For they underscore just how tenuous relying on elected politicians to promote and implement any initiative for the extension of Jewish sovereignty across the 1967 Green Line can be.
For despite an ostensibly robust showing by the “Right”, when one examines the composition of the emerging coalition, the only strong advocate for extending sovereignty is the “United Right”, an amalgam of three factions, widely considered to be “ultra-right” religious Zionist parties, with four parliamentary seats. At the time of submitting this piece, neither the New Right (advocating extending Israeli sovereignty to Area C), nor Zehut (advocating Israeli sovereignty over all of Judea- Samaria) passed the minimal thresholds for election to the Knesset. So whatever the overall reason was for their poor performance, both these parties clearly failed utterly in rallying wide-spread popular support for the idea of extended sovereignty—whether partial or otherwise.
Moreover, none of the other prospective coalition partners can be said to be avid advocates of sovereignty—whether the ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah; the Kulanu faction, headed by former Finance Minister, Moshe Kahlon; or even Yisrael Beiteinu headed by former Defense Minister, Avigdor Liberman—who despite his bellicose rhetoric towards both the Palestinian and Israeli-Arabs has in fact expressed support for the two-state principle .
The need to generate greater public support
Accordingly, if the call for extending Israeli sovereignty over Judea-Samaria is not to be seen as a concept that is embraced almost exclusively by the religious right, strenuous efforts must be made to advance its legitimacy in the non- observant quarters of Israeli society.
For if this is not accomplished, it is likely to be dismissed as no more than a tenet of a radical religious credo, with little chance of it being adopted as a legitimate political objective by wider circles with the Israeli polity or society at large, beyond the ranks of the religious Zionist sector.
This is a consideration of utmost importance for sovereignty advocates. For given Netanyahu’s hitherto reticence in advancing the principle, it is not implausible to surmise that unless considerable pressure is exerted on him, he may, despite his impressive electoral success, be loathe to advance the issue of extended sovereignty with sufficient vigor to take full advantage of the clement climes in Washington—which cannot be counted on indefinitely.
There are three potential sources of pressure on Netanyahu.
The first is from within the Likud itself—where a good number of Knesset members and ministers support extending sovereignty to some degree or other. However, given Netanyahu’s intra-party dominance, it is unlikely that pressures from within the Likud will be sufficient to compel him to undertake far-reaching initiatives, which he is reluctant to adopt.
The need to generate greater public support (cont.)
The second is from his coalition partners, but as pointed out previously, apart from the United Right with only 4 seats, sovereignty has not been a central issue for the remainder of the coalition members, who are unlikely to make this a cardinal condition for their continued support of Netanyahu, should he balk at honoring his pledge.
The third—and most important, but sadly, the most neglected—source of pressure is from the public. It is here that “Right-wing” benefactors in general, and sovereignty supporters in particular, have been especially remiss.
In previous INTO THE FRAY columns, I have been at pains to point out that whoever controls the political discourse controls the political decision makers’ perception of the possible alternatives open to them and the unavoidable constraints confronting them. Accordingly, by controlling these perceptions, whoever controls the political discourse controls the political decision making process.
It is precisely here that “Right-wing” benefactors have misread the ideo-political battlefield—see Failed Philanthropy; and Like a Man in a Bucket: Failed Philanthropy (Cont.) . For as I have pointed out in these and other columns, whereas “Left-wing” benefactors have funded frameworks and mechanisms to advance political agendas, “Right-wing” benefactors have channeled support largely to causes more concrete and tangible in nature.
Accordingly, by focusing on the concrete rather than on the conceptual, “Right-wing” benefactors have allowed the “Left-wing” to hijack the discourse and acquire influence on the political decision making process—and hence on policy formulation—far beyond its electoral success at the polls – see The Limousine Theory: Understanding Politics in Israel- How It Works And Why It Doesn’t .
Learning the “Oslo Lesson”
Indeed, the “Right-wing” can learn much from the modus operandi of the “Left”.
After all, at the beginning of the 1990s, advancing the notion of Palestinian statehood was considered borderline sedition. Contacts with Yasser Arafat’s PLO were an offense punishable—and punished—by imprisonment. Yet, undeterred, the Left persisted—and because it was resolute in its aim, resourceful in its pursuit, and successful in raising resources, it managed to convert an idea, that was not only marginal and marginalized, not only illegitimate, but illegal, into the principle political paradigm that dominated the discourse for decades.
Indeed, in this regard, it is important to recall that the Oslo Accords, which essentially catapulted the pursuit of Palestinian statehood from being an act of treason to the internationally acclaimed centerpiece of Israeli foreign policy, were not born in the political system or created by incumbent politicians. They were born in Israel’s civil society and created by unelected civil society elites, who then imposed their agenda on the—often reluctant—elected incumbents.
There is an important lesson here for the advocates of extended sovereignty.
The key to implementing Netanyahu’s pledge to extend Israeli sovereignty to Judea-Samaria may not lie in direct efforts to persuade elected politicians to embrace it, but by investing resources in dominating the public discourse so as to mold decision-makers’ perceptions of what can be done and what must be avoided.
This then, should be the most urgent post-election priority for sovereignty advocates and their benefactors—especially in light of the looming specter of the Trump “deal of the century”, rumored to include demands for significant Israeli concessions:
Intensive investment of resources in civil society ideo-intellectual frameworks and mechanisms, that can not only draw the idea of extended Israeli sovereignty into the mainstream discourse as a legitimate political objective, but as one that can dominate that discourse.
That is the most reliable, hands-on approach to restoring Jewish sovereignty to the heart of the Jewish homeland.
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
D’you know Adam, after I wrote that, I felt perhaps I had mistaken earnestness for unctuousness. So I’m glad you accepted it without offence. But be sure, that after experiencing all the give-and-take…and pros-and-cons on this site I “know where your heart lies”…… So no thanks warranted..
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
It seemed that way to me on two occasions. Perhaps I was wrong as Edgar suggests.
@ Edgar G.: Thanks for your support, Edgar.
As to your earlier criticism that my comments tend to “unctuous and moralistic,” I plead guilty. I have always had a tendency to be unctuous and moralistic when discussing political issues. This may lead some people to feel that I am “talking down” to them or even insulting them. That is never my intention, however. I simply become very passionate when discussing political issues that I care deeply about.
One of my personal heroes, John Adams, shared this character flaw. He once admitted to his wife Abigail in a letter that he was said by many people to be “obnoxious and disliked.” This was probably because he became so heated in political debates and harshly critical of the opinions with which he disagreed. Many people interpreted his argumentativeness as personal attacks on them, but it is unlikely that Adams ever intended it this way. His personal integrity and patriotism, however, were beyond question (no, I am not claiming to be a great man like Adams!).
@ Ted Belman:
I don’t believe it merited stringent focus… I didn’t see it the way you did. Apart from my own criticisms of Dr. Sherman’s style (notice please I said “style” )…. because of his message I generally read everything he posts. To me ….”talking down” means denigrating the capacity of a person to a degree, and I believe your interpretation is too harsh.
In fact the way he used to exhaustively say the same thing more than once using different terms, could be regarded by some as an “insult to our intelligence”. I believe I mentioned this once. It could be the unconscious remnant of earlier lecturing to students…. I recall saying several times that the same info could have been legibly imparted using a third of the space.
Again all my personal opinion only.
You’ve made the same remark in the past, so Adam was not unaware of your scrutiny .vis a vis articles by ms.
. You may have overlooked that I wrote “intentionally”…My second last sentence lays out the whole matter.. If Adam had felt he was “talking down” to a man he respects as he does Dr. Sherman, he’d be appalled and highly embarrassed. He certainly can recognise such.
I saw his comments as a proper difference of “means and ways” to achieve the same ends. The first time I read Martin’s plan here, I seem to recall that the total amount he envisaged hovered around $200 Billion. (please correct if wrong) I recall writing VERY critically about this, to no protests. Then someone produced info that a family home in Jordan was $40,000 and the same in Egypt was $20-22,000. You yourself some considerable time later, informed us that you had been working with a company which could produce multiple storied buildings for the lesser amount per unit.
And of course…as I wrote, it’s (only) my candid opinion. We just see it differently. Perhaps I ‘m not inclined to dissect too strictly.
@ Ted Belman: Ted, I’ve never talked down to Dr. Sherman. I agree with many of his ideas, and disagree with a few of them. Ihave debated with him over several years, in both published and private communications about one issue only because I hope to win him over to my point of view that the obstacles to achieving his goal need to be identified and addressed.
As I have said many times, I agree in principle with his proposal for encouraging and facilitating the resettlement of the Palestinian Arabs in countries other than Eretz Israel . Our only area of disagreement has been my view that he has failed to address the massive obstacles to carrying out his plan, and to suggest practical measures to overcome these obstacles and ultimately achieve his objective. In my comments on his most recent post, I expressed satisfaction that he has begun to address this issue and has made an excellent proposal as a starting point this process. And I proposed some additional measures for opening a path towards his goal, which do not conflict with his most recent proposed action plan.
@ Edgar G.:
Why are you generalizing in his defense..Read the quote and tell me that it is not talking down.
I’ll look for others.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted ….my reading of Adam’s comments and the knowledge I’ve garnered over the time he and I’ve been kibbtizing together, convinces me that Adam is not “talking down” ….at least not intentionally. to ms. What I’m fairly sure is, because it always strikes me that way…. is that he has from time to time, a moralistic and unctuous approach. That’s what I believe it is. He is far too polite and courteous to deliberately takl down to anyone, let alone a man he respects and mostly agrees with.
Just my opnion for what;s worth.
@ STEPHEN A AMES:
HI, Stephen
Modern Israel began mostly as an idea in Theodor Herzl’s mind, which was ultimately translated into facts on the ground — the State of Israel, which we see today. The “Resistance” bloc has been trying since 1947 and before, to put forth its own ideas and undo Hertzl’s work, garnering the UN, EU, Russia, China, India and nearly all the world in its struggle; yet Hertzl keeps coming out on top.
Hertzl’s idea actually didn’t have much to do with land. He was willing to have the Jewish Homeland located in any number of places. Neither did it strongly consider the Arabs living there. His idea was about one thing: SOVEREIGNTY.
I believe that is at the heart of the matter. At the end of any “peace process”, the Arabs will have a couple dozen independent, sovereign states. What matters is that in the JEWISH state, the Jews are fully sovereign. One state? Two states? Three states? I’m not fussy. I just want to be sure that in the Jewish state of Israel, the Jews are in control and secure. I imagine most Israeli Jews hold a similar opinion.
I have been going on semiannual missions where we visit the settlements in J and S as well as families living in E. Jerusalem, Hevron and the Jordan Valley. We get the consistent reaction from our pioneers living there: Except for like minded people such as our mission members who come all the way from the US to encourage and support their effort and sacrifice to commit to Jewish settlement in all of Israel, they rarely see any Israelis from the coast. Israelis love to travel but mostly travel abroad. What about sponsoring some internal tourism/fact-finding missions within the aforementioned areas to show Israelis who may be ignorant of the facts to see with their own eyes the view from the ridgeline in J and S how entire country is strategically dominated from that territory making it impossible to consider Arab control there? Similarly the heart and soul of Judaism in Jerusalem and Hevron can never be relinquished to Arab control for Jewish rights in those places to again be abused.
Most of my secular friends in Israel have never been to either the Temple Mount or the Cave of Machpelah since before Oslo. We need to get the secular Israelis to appreciate the need to retain the holy places and territories forever by getting them to tour these locations with the right guidance and explanations.
@ Ted Belman: I respect you Ted, and the work you are doing for Israel. But this whole Jordanian Option thing still sounds like wishful thinking to me. I don’t Israel can rely on Jordan, no matter who is in power there, to solve Israel’s conflict with the Palestine Arabs. Israel will have ultimately find a resolution unilaterally–whether by “kinetic” or “non-kinetic” means, to borrow Dr. Sherman’s terminology.
Adam Dalgliesh Said:
Who are you to constantly talk down to Sherman. Sherman, for many years has argied aginst the two state solution and kept asking that more money be budgeted to change minds both in Israel and in foreign lands. Furthermore he has articulated his humanitarian solution as an answer to the Two-staters.
My contribution to this stalement has been has been to mount a plan needing only the support of Trump. We will know soon enough whether I have convinced Trump.
A slight correction to an earlier post: I had actually attempted to write “security- demographic” problems, but my computer program, which has a will all of its own, typed “security-democratic problems” instead. But my computer program was partially correct, in that Dr. Sherman is concerned about Israel’s lack of democracy as well.
The only reason so many right wing Jews don’t back extending sovereignty to the Jordan River is because they don’t want more Arabs in the State of Israel.. Bennett tried to limit extension of sovereignty to area C in order to reduce the number of Arabs that would become citizens of Israel.
Because of the problems inherant, many Israeli Jews still back the two state solution if only in theory.
The Jordan Option promoted by me solves these problems and will ultaimately find favour with the Jews of Israel.
1. Mudar Zahran, the future ruler of Jordan, will extend Jordanian citizenship to all Palestinians as soon as he takes office. He will also invite all foreign citizens of Jordan to emigrate back to Jordan. Thus israel will be free to annex all the land to the river without having to worry about demands for giving citizenship to Arabs.
2. The peace treaty will remain between Jordan and Israel. That treaty accepts the Jordan river as the border between the two countries.
3. All area A will remain in which the Arabs with Jordanian citizenship will have full autonomy. Jordan will ultimately administer those areas in the place and stead of the PA which will wither away.
4. It is rumoured that the Trump Plan will involve the emigration to Jordan of at least 1.1 million Palestinians from Israel as extended. I am pushing for this number to be 2 million.
There are more good things, but what’s not to like?
All this will happen without the need for Israeli Jews or Arabs to agree. The only thing for Israel to decide is to what extend should she support Arab emigration from Israel to Jordan.
A front-page editorial in today’s Jerusalem Post by Jeremy Jonah Bob, the Post’s overt in-house spokesman for Israel’s ruling judicial-prosecutorial-police ruling clique, should be read carefully by every reader of Israpundit, especially Dr. Sherman, because Bob spills the beans, in his grippingly hate-filled language, on the clique’s absolute determination to remove Netanyahu from office by any and all means within their power, including thoroughly illegal ones. He also describes how an initially reluctant Mandelblit was badgered, and subtly bribed to bring the charges against Netanyahu despite his initial reluctance. Without intending to, Bob spills the beans about the ruling cliques plans. His column demonstrates the urgent need to organize Israelis to organize effective political resistance to the “High Court of Justice’s” nefarious schemes.
I am extremely gratified to see the Dr. Sherman has begun to grasp the need to move away from arguing on behalf of an ideal “solution” to Israel’s security-democratic problems to working on developing strategies for overcoming the united opposition, by both Israel’s ruling class, and the “international community,” to any and all such plans. It is a waste of precious time and effort to argue in favor of “Plan Z,” when one is still stuck at “A” and haven’t even begun to move toward “B.”
Plans “B” through “Y” have got to focus on how to move the Israeli polity away from its long-standing moribund policies toward policies that will win the war against its numerous and powerful enemies, who are extremely well-armed with both guns and words, and who have unlimited access to funds. Changing the “terms of discourse” will prove extraordinarily difficult when Israel’s ideological enemies control the mass communications media both inside Israel and throughout the world. But of course strenuous and continuous efforts to achieve this goal must be undertaken, beginning immediately, and continuing over many years.
Even more essential, however, is to work to rally the Israeli public around a concrete, practical political program for removing the pro-appeasement minority of Israeli Jews from their current position of absolute power, and restoring power to the overwhelmingly patriotic majority of Israeli Jews. This requires an expose of the massive abuses of power by unelected judges and government lawyers, who are appointed to office by their offices by their predecessors, and who can be removed by no-one at all. In order to even begin to address Israel’s security and demographic needs, the Israeli public must be made aware of this concentration of power in the hands of an elite that they never chose to be ruled by, and motivated to turn onto the streets, and go to the voting-booths, to elect legislators prepared to make the fundemental changes in Israeli laws necessary to restore power to the Israeli-Jewish people. This is a cause that the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews can be motivated to rally around. And it is a necessary precondition to winning the war with the Arab-Muslim world.