Just as David Ben-Gurion established the State of Israel despite the exceedingly unfavorable UN partition plan, it is now incumbent upon us to seize the moment and apply sovereignty wherever we can in Judea and Samaria.
By Ariel Kahana, ISRAEL HAYOM
Mere weeks before a historic window of opportunity opens up, concerns are growing within the Israeli right-wing camp. “We can’t accept the Trump plan as is. I don’t accept a Palestinian state or the handing over of territory, I don’t accept isolated communities in the heart of [Judea and Samaria] or the fact that most of Judea and Samaria will be in Palestinian hands,” said Likud MK Gideon Sa’ar. “When a plan ends with the creation of a Palestinian state, I think this is a misleading component that doesn’t comply with the reality,” said MK Zvika Hauser (Derech Eretz). “If the plan’s outcome is a terror state in Judea and Samaria, and will encompass isolated communities and include a construction freeze, then we are prepared to forego sovereignty,” said Yesha Council Chairman David Elhayani.
Indeed, the American administration’s peace plan is not perfect. Theoretical as it may be, the willingness to recognize a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital, is a tough pill to swallow. Even a settlement freeze limited to four years is “convenient code-speak for someone who really means ‘eradicate'” (Benjamin Netanyahu, A Place Among the Nations).
This fastidiousness, however, is misplaced. Israel needs to adopt the Trump outline, because of the fact that right now it doesn’t exact any price from Israel.
As US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman told Israel Hayom, the Israeli government is not obligated at this time to adopt the plan in its entirety. From the perspective of the Americans, Netanyahu’s agreement to enter talks with the Palestinians on the basis of the Trump plan is sufficient, and there will be room for improvements and adjustments later on. Until then, aside from a construction freeze, the plan’s deficiencies are strictly theoretical.
Hence the fundamental question is whether Israel will be in a better situation with the plan or without it, and the answer is that the plan’s three basic components – total Israeli security supremacy, unrealistic preconditions for the establishment of a Palestinian state and immediate Israeli sovereignty over one-third of the territory – will give it good starting position in any future scenario.
And what are these scenarios? In six months, Trump could lose the presidential election. Replacing him could be Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, who has clashed with Israel in the past over its plan to build homes in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, and has already voiced his opposition to the application of sovereignty.
Under the assumption that Biden is the next president – wouldn’t it be better to confront him with one-third of the territory already in our hands? Wouldn’t it be better to be armed with the tangible conditions of the Trump plan, when he demands the creation of a Palestinian state?
Yes, Biden could rescind Trump’s promises, and yet a modicum of governmental continuity between administrations still exists. Harsh dictates to Israel are one thing. Harsh dictates that also violate promises are Another thing altogether, and even a rigid Democratic administration would think hard before doing so.
The other possibility is a Trump victory and another four years in the Oval Office. In this scenario, the Palestinians will likely continue to boycott him and us. In the meantime, after the four-year waiting period stipulated by the plan and toward the end of Trump’s second term, Israel will be able to ask to expand its sovereignty in Judea and Samaria beyond the 30% currently offered to it. Shouldn’t we also take this scenario into account?
To be sure, the glass is not completely full. That’s always the case in life. However, just as David Ben-Gurion established the State of Israel despite the exceedingly unfavorable UN partition plan, it is now incumbent upon us to grab history by the horns and apply sovereignty wherever we can in Judea and Samaria.
@ Edgar G.:
FYI: Arutz7 Ben Ariel , 27/05/20 06:14
“Samaria Regional Council launches campaign: No to ‘half sovereignty'”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/280928
@ Reader: The US is not giving the land to Israel. The gift is the US support of the decision ,while Trump is President, that Israel takes. The gift is not an illusion. Your analogy of the blind people and the elephant does not apply.
@ Reader:
You know I actually agree with your first line plus-(the rest is irrelevant)- I’m amazed at myself; but you DO strike important points- I noticed the very same wriggly few words and echoed your comment above- It makes the whole deal sound suspect, and contingent on another undisclosed action-Although Netanyahu (and Israel) is convinced Israel can go ahead and extend sovereignty-
This brings back Trump’s original comment that moving the Embassy would carry future cost– I wonder if getting only 30% plus an Arab state was what he had in mind-?? Just speculating– !!
@ greenrobot:
“The 30% is a gift” Except that the US has absolutely NO RIGHT to give Israel (or anyone else) such “gifts”.
The “gift”, therefore, is merely an illusion in someone’s mind.
Situations like this one cannot be viewed from one aspect only. Someone who does that is in danger of being like those blind men in a well known story who tried to define what an elephant is by each man touching and describing a different part of the elephant thinking this part IS the whole animal.
The key phrase is “at this time”. Friedman is OBLIGATED TO SERVE the AMERICAN INTERESTS as AMERICAN AMBASSADOR.
What are those interests?
To “restrain” Israel by finally creating another Arab state in the midst of it as “the final solution” to the “peace process” (likely also hoping for a lot of appreciation from the Arab world).
All the perks given to Israel by Trump administration can be easily reversed by another administration for (most likely) the reasons of security.
Friedman is sweet-talking Israel into accepting a POISONED BAIT.
“and the settlers are not the players” How’s that?! They happen to LIVE THERE.
These are the people who made their life’s work settling its Biblical Land for Israel.
Don’t you think they (whose lives and whose life’s work may eventually be at stake) ought to have a voice in the process which might prove to be their and Israel’s undoing?
The Pals are not going to meet the conditions. The conditions cannot be met with words alone. The actions required will not be done by the Pals . The settlers saying what if are ignoring the 53 years of demonstrated intransigence. The thing is a starting point for negotiating not a guaranteed endpoint. The 30% is a gift. Take it and start again as though it is the beginning point again. Just like the Pals have done with every concession made to them. But who am I ? An onlooker. Hopefully the government can be the player. In spite of everything done, the settlers are not the players.
@ Zachary:
“what are the chances” They’ll agree and then renege and it will be too late, and Israel will be helplessly watching how its worst nightmare is coming true (possibly after 4 years of humiliation, settlement freeze and terror attacks).
Same as when Germany agreed to stay demilitarized and pay reparations after WWI (The “Last” War) – everyone knows what happened next (except in this case the situation for Israel will be 1000 times worse than for the countries attacked by Germany in WWII).
Take the win! The opponents have left the playing field (negotiations based on Trump Plan) so Israel should apply sovereignty to all the “Settlements” so that the homes of about 500,000 Jews and their communities will be living under Israeli Civil Law and their homes become permanently part of Israel along with the vital Jordan Valley and North Dead Sea Area.
Agree. Move fast! Because, what are the chances that the Palestinians will meet the requirements under the Plan for a statelet? Nil.