Ted Belman responds in red to Solow’s blog entry in TOI.
The imposition of West Bank annexation without Palestinian consent would set a precedent that could damage Israel’s long-term interests.
The only precedent it would set is “It’s our land, always was and always will be.” That would secure our long term interests.
No solution should be imposed on anyone or by anyone in the Israeli-Palestinian arena.
Nonsense. The Palestinians have no right to the land or to a state other than Jordan
As I have underscored for 15 years, “The is no diplomatic solution.” The only solution is a solution that gets imposed.
While American Jewish consensus around Israel policy has not always been easy to attain, this sentiment has stood for decades as the one universally accepted principle undergirding the quest for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – that it must be reached through bilateral negotiations between the parties. This precept allowed Jewish leadership to strongly urge American administrations of both parties not to attempt to implement their own vision of how to resolve longstanding differences between the two sides. Despite expressions of expected or preferred outcomes over the years, every President has endorsed this concept. This principle also allowed America Jewish leadership to credibly oppose unilateral attempts by the Palestinian Authority to declare a state or to otherwise take action without consent to change the status of disputed territories.
It has stood for decades, because for decades, the Saudis were calling the shots. And Europe and America were quite willing to appease them. That doesn’t make it right. Accordingly, they put a lot of pressure on Israel to give up her land and even the lives of her citizens.
While previous Israeli governments have allowed that the lands were disputed But this has many interpretations. Israel has the only right to the land and the Palestinians dispute such rights and assert false claims.
Today, however, with Israel’s new government sworn in on Sunday, we are facing a situation where Israeli leadership has announced its intention to annex parts of the West Bank unilaterally, without Palestinian consent. “These regions are the cradle of the Jewish people. It is time to extend Israel’s law over them,” Prime Minister Netanyahu declared on Sunday.”
Hallelujah!
This threat to proceed with annexation has teeth, both because the Netanyahu government seemingly has the votes in the Knesset to make it happen and because Israel has the military might to enforce its edict upon unwilling Palestinians. The fact that Israel may take such action with the express or implied authority of the United States does not convert this unilateral land grab into a bilateral agreement.
How dare you call it a “unilateral land grab”? The land belongs to Israel, because, the Jews are the indigenous people and because San Remo Resolution awarded it to us as did the League of Nations in the Palestine Mandate and the United Nations in its Charter. Israel is simply starting to apply its law to the land which they have every right to do.
American Jews have an obligation to speak out against imposing a solution on the Palestinians as a matter not only of intellectual consistency, but also because to do so protects Israel’s long-term interests as well as the critical US-Israel relationship. Standing by while Israel uses its military and political power to declare ownership over whatever it wants is a dangerous precedent. There may well come a time when the tables are turned.
It is for Israel to decide what is in her long term interests, not American Jews. It is these same American Jews who failed European Jews during the Holocaust and in the ’67 War, both before and after. For a complete list of American betrayals read. The 100 year betrayal of Israel by the West
The current US Administration has already demonstrated a propensity to change course on foreign policy in ways we would have once thought unimaginable. Who thought a US President would continuously undermine and attack our NATO allies? Do we want a future US President who decides that the legitimate claims of Israel are no longer in his or her political interest to be able to announce and impose new policies without Israel’s consent? That’s what Carter, Bush Sr and Jr, and Obama tried to do. This is what we have fought to prevent. And what if the Palestinians and their allies gain the upper hand and are in a position to undertake their own annexation of Israeli territory? All the more reason that we should secure our rights now in order to defend ourselves. What shall we say then after we have disregarded the insistence on mutual consent and decided that might makes right? Having abandoned the requirement of bilateral agreement, the United States at that point will be in no position to defend our ally Israel. As the saying goes, turnabout is fair play. No one but Trump haqs every defended our lives or rights.
The Democratic Party which is supported by American Jews to their discredit, is the defender of the Palestinians not the Jews. It supports the false narrative of the Palestinians at the expense of Jewish rights.
The fact is that nobody is credibly threatening Israel’s control over major settlement blocs in the West Bank which are generally recognized as likely becoming Israeli territory as part of a final status agreement. Israel’s continued control of these Jewish population centers is, as a practical matter, uncontested. The only reason to acquiesce to Israel taking them unilaterally now is to abandon the position that solutions are to be negotiated, not imposed. While some may take satisfaction in this more formal recognition of Israel’s long-standing and sensible claims to these blocs, it is a pyrrhic victory. It will be an announcement that Israel’s long-standing claims for adjustment of its borders to take into account post-1967 realities are not based on justifiable claims but rather on its ability to win wars. We should rue that result.
Wrong. Carpe Diem.
Alan P. Solow is a member of the Executive Committee of Israel Policy Forum and former Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Until Trump arrival, the SD, the Foreign office and le Quai d’Orsay were always against Israel. With Trump arrival a change is taking place in the SD and IL must take advantage of it. After Trump another pro-Israel president would be to Israel benefit. With Boris Johnson a more pro-IL policy may take place.
As far as the Fr. they are still dreaming about Eurabia but it is evolving in eurAbia!
The American Jewish Organizations must support IL and not get involved in the future of Israel. They do not live there!
As I have written before the Trump plan changes the parameters of previous plans and is a win for Israel, assuming Israel takes the win and applies sovereignty in Judea/Samaria. My analysis of the Trump Plan is below:
“the Plan gives Israel an opportunity to break the impasse and gives to the Palestinians the chance to get a state on the 70%.”
I am sorry, I didn’t realize that it’s OK for them to have the 70% if they are willing even though they’ll have to negotiate for it..
I got it.
I am not going to argue with you. I hope you are right.
Just FYI:
Russia offers to mediate between US and PA
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/280601
They suggested a summit possibly without Israel’s presence.
PA discusses cancellation of Oslo Accords [all agreements including security are off?]
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/280606
Did you think the US considers Jerusalem the Capital of Israel? Think again [the author is hoping it’s just a small mistake]
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/280551
Like I said, I am NOT going to argue, it’s just that:
The United States looks out ONLY for its own interests,
the US president does not have the power to do whatever he wants or likes – TRUMP has absolutely NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO GIVE OR PROMISE ISRAEL (or anybody else) ANYTHING WHICH DOESN’T BELONG TO HIM PERSONALLY.
He is NOT the Ruler of the World although he might pretend to be.
Anything that Israel does unilaterally and any response to its actions (good or bad) will be Israel’s responsibility alone.
That’s all.
@ Reader:
Wrong again. Trump recognized only part of what we are entitled to. Our sovwereingty over the whole of Area C is undisduted. He is just formalizing it over the 30%. The Palestinians have no right to the land and there is no way Trump could or would steal land over which Israel has the legal right to.Reader Said:
Nothing is being imposed on either. Instead the Plan gives Israel an opportunity to break the impasse and gives to the Palestinians the chance to get a state on the 70%.
Reader Said:
It is much easier to do it in pieces rather than going for broke. Its called salami tacktics. One slice at a time. Trump already said what we had to do to get his support.. This included a four year freeze only. After that we have no commitment but we have solidified our hold on the 30%
Reader Said:
Trump is trying to help us, not screw us. He is screwing the Palestinians instead. He argued that he had to give Israel something (30%) as an inducement to agree to a freeze over the rest. The Palestinians have no right to build in area C as you suggest.. They wouldn’t cut a deal when Obama offered them the ’67lines as a border with minor adjustments. They sure as hell con’t cut a deal reguarding the 70% Trump allocated to them. Besides they no longer can make promises to get somethinbg tangible from Israel. Now by Trumps’ Plan they actually have to do it before they get anything. Check out the conditions precedent.
Hell, they haven’t even agreed to negotiate. After a 4 year freeze, Israel can do what it wants. with the 70%.
I disagree with the Woman in green on this. I see zero risk in Israelaccepting the Trump Plan.. It is a huge opportunity. Women in Green do not want to put a Palestinian state in Area C on the negoptiating table. They feel it would set a dangerous precedent. Bibi has time and again accepted a Palestinian state subject to conditions during the last 10 years, if not more. So the precedent has been set.
Besides this Plan doesn’t require Israel to agree to creation of a Palestinians state on 70%. Accepting the Plan only commits her to negotiate in good faith with the PA for such a state. There is a big difference between the two.
You are worried for nothing.
In futur e quote from the Plan to make your case.Don’t leave it to me to correct your understanding.
@ Ted Belman:
In addition, what would prevent the PA from unilaterally “annexing” the remaining 70% and declaring war on the rest if Israel unilaterally “annexes” the 30%?
What will Israel say?
“But the US told us WE MAY!”?
WHAT DOES THE PERCEIVED US PERMISSION HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Does the US have the right to impose its solution of the problem on the “Palestinians”? Or on Israel?
NO, of course not, and the US knows it.
This is why the US said it’s UP TO ISRAEL TO DECIDE whether to “annex” the 30%.
This was merely a suggestion (in my opinion, a PROVOCATION) not grounded in any law.
“My boss told me to do it” is not a defense.
If Israel is going to do it on the grounds that Judea and Samaria is Israel’s anyway, why not annex the 100% or why conduct ANY negotiations whatsoever, why keep freezing the settlement construction for decades?
@ Ted Belman:
I sure hope I am wrong.
I already explained numerous times in several posts what I am worrying about.
In my opinion this is a crooked attempt on the part of the US and the PA to make Israel to “voluntarily” give the PA 70% of Judea and Samaria as their state.
The settlers themselves seem to think along these lines – they don’t like this idea, and Women in Green object to it too.
Freezing construction without any effort on the part of the PA to give an inch shows that Israel is more interested in negotiations than they are, is willing to give away land, and that pressure and terror attacks work.
Israel should at least refuse to freeze construction (the Arabs are NOT freezing theirs).
This is no way to negotiate anything.
The Arabs are READY to take the 70% which Israel will obediently hold for them (if not, then why freeze the settlement construction YET AGAIN).
The whole process will be described as a reward to the poor “Palestinians” for the vicious annexation of “their native land”.
If and when this happens, it’s going to be a huge problem, just look at the map of the settlements.
“That doesn’t mean we have to make a deal with them not to our liking.” Yes, it does.
Alan Solow supported the JCPOA. Why would we take advice about Israeli sovereignty from Alan?
@ ngottlieb:
Alan P. Solow is a member of the Executive Committee of Israel Policy Forum and former Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
@ Reader:
You are so wrong that I don’t know where to begin.
In the deal proposed by Trump, we get 30% immediately if we agree to freeze construction on the remaining 70% for the next 4 years. During this time we are obligated to negotiate with the PA if it comes to the table. That doesn’t mean we have to make a deal with them not to our liking. So what are you worrying about?
I have no idea who Alan Solow is… is he a hasidic Jew? should we wait for the Messiah? or accept that the Messiah is Yasser Arafat? should all Jews submit to the “great visions” of Peres Rabin Barack Olmert Gantz? oslo acord?
in 1948 Jerusalem was in Jewish hands… well… not so kosher hands… they were not Haganah…
we all come to Menahem Begin’s words: The Jew bows before no man only God
This is the ACTUAL CREATION OF THE “PALESTINIAN” STATE DRESSED UP AS “ANNEXATION”.
“Palestinians” will get 70% of Judea and Samaria as their state while Israel will be FRAMED AS AGGRESSOR.
How is it going to work with the Jewish settlements SCATTERED throughout the “West Bank”?
The only way to do it will be to expel the settlers or make their lives hell by freezing all life there and making each settlement into a fortress.
Abbas has been talking with Putin. He wants Russia to be the 3rd party in the negotiations. He told Putin that he is EAGER to participate in the negotiations for the TWO-STATE SOLUTION but he needs the 3-rd party involvement because he doesn’t trust Israel and the US.
This is NOT a historic opportunity, THIS IS A TRAP DISGUISED as a historic opportunity to make it more palatable to the masses.
Judea and Samaria are NOT NEGOTIABLE, period.
Why are they even playing these games?
I seriously doubt that Netanyahu doesn’t understand it or that Israel’s government hasn’t considered this possibility.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=abbas+talks+to+putin
Who actually believes that the “principle” that all things are to be negotiated has any reality or that the Palestinians would ever, under any circumstances, respect that principle should they be able to act unilaterally? With that principle in place, all one side has to do is refuse to negotiate and nothing would happen; this is a reductio ad absurdum of the “principle.”
As Ted writes: “As I have underscored for 15 years, “The is no diplomatic solution.” The only solution is a solution that gets imposed.” This is the answer to every single person out there questioning the concept. Thanks Ted.