A land for peace deal would be a mistake of historic proportions.

By Ted Belman

Ted 4Herb Keinon, writing in the JPOST, makes the point that in present negotiations between Israel and the PA, Sec. Kerry is prepared to concede on most of Netanyahu’s security demands but expects Netanyahu to concede the land demands of the PA supported by Pres Obama. This deal is called “land, with minor swaps, for peace”.

I believe,, and Keinon makes it crystal clear, that if Netanyahu gets the security he wants, even if limited to 10 or 15 years on some issues, that he will settle for the major settlement blocks and would abandon East Jerusalem, Ariel and E1 and the rest of Judea and Samaria.

Kerry is following the blueprint of Carter who achieved a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979. It was based on 100% withdrawal, i.e. land for peace. To achieve it, Carter insisted that Begin and Sadat be sequestered and silent about negotiations. Furthermore negotiations established two Framework Agreements; one on the terms/framework for Israel-Egypt peace agreement and the other on a framework for regional peace. Kerry is likewise insisting on silence and a framework agreement otherwise known as an agreement in principle.

In the latter framework agreement, both Carter and Sadat pressed Begin to agree to creating a Palestinian state but Begin would only agree to autonomy for the Palestinians. It should be noted that autonomy is limited sovereignty. Acceding to Netanyahu’s security demands effectively leaves the Palestinians with autonomy only.

But I view it as a mistake of historic proportions, that Israel doesn’t make borders and land the primary issue rather than security. That’s what the Israeli right wants but not what the left wants.

In a framework agreement Israel would have to agree to ’67 lines plus swaps and a divided Jerusalem. This formula is land, with minor swaps, for peace. She would also agree to a limited return of “refugees” based on family reunification. The details will subsequently be worked out in a future peace agreement. Palestinians would accept the security arrangements specified in some detail and mouth peaceful platitudes and might even accept Israel as the Jewish national home. That is, if they accept it at all.

What bothers me about such a deal is that it ignores that Zion and therefore Zionism is associated with Judea and Samaria and not the coastal plain where Tel Aviv is.  Israel would be giving up her biblical heartland. Herzl rejected Uganda when it was offered because, even though he was secular, he realized that the only place for the Jewish state he envisaged, was in Eretz Yisrael  which includes Judea and Samaria, because it is to Eretz Yisrael that the Jews prayed for two thousand years  to return. Nowhere else would suffice.

Ben Gurion, also secular, felt likewise though he accepted partition thereby giving up on our patrimony.  He felt it was now or never for an independent Jewish state.  At the same time he maintained our right to all of Palestine.  During the War of Independence, he passed legislation automatically extending Israel sovereignty to any additional land we might conquer.

Also, one of the factors that led him to his decision was the fact that in 10 years the status of Jerusalem was to be put to a referendum which he was certain would result in Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem. I don’t quarrel with Ben Gurion’s decision to accept half a loaf.  But I do quarrel with the idea that Israel should settle for security now, rather than land, Eretz Yisrael, especially since Israel never fought to keep it.

In accepting UNSC Res 242, Israel also accepted “recognized and secure borders” rather than rejecting such resolution and such borders and demanding our right to all of Judea and Samaria. Nothing has changed since then.  Even now, as Israel negotiates a final settlement, she doesn’t start by demanding all the land and supporting such demand with strong historical and legal arguments. Instead she doesn’t make such a claim and meekly says she will settle for security and recognition.

There is only one reason that Netanyahu is not stressing Israel’s legal rights and that is because he is intending to abandon them. He would not have entered these negotiations if he wasn’t so inclined. While he rejected the framework of ’67 lines plus swaps as the basis of negotiations, he is free to accept such a framework during negotiations.

Looking to shore up his support, he declared in a Likud-Beytenu faction meeting. “Any agreement reached will come to a referendum. I committed to it and this is essentially correct and would happen if any agreement is reached.” Naftali Bennett, head of Habayit Hayehudit, who is committed to keeping most of Judea and Samaria, said he would accept the will of the people as expressed in a referendum.

But the Referendum Bill that was recently approved by the Israeli Cabinet, applies only to agreements that commit Israel to relinquishing land subject to Israeli sovereignty. This would include Jerusalem and the Golan. The Bill is still under discussion. The right want it to be a basic law requiring 61 votes to amend and the left doesn’t want it all. Some want it to require a super majority to pass. The proposed law does not apply to giving up parts of Judea and Samaria (West Bank). So, just what such a referendum will entail remains uncertain.

I do not believe that Netanyahu is hoping to be saved by Palestinian rejectionism. I think he truly wants this deal. Like he said to the Saban Forum “I’ve made hard decisions to further peace negotiations. I’m willing to make even harder decisions to achieve peace.”

Whether his coalition or the Israeli people are prepared for such a deal, remains to be seen.

 

December 14, 2013 | 61 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 61 Comments

  1. @ Ted Belman:
    Maan News reports that Abbas rejected any possibility of the IDF remaining in the Jordan valley and he gave a letter containing his redlines, one of which was that the Pals will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

    Ted, Abbas wants an independent state. Open borders are the sine qua non of independence. If Abbas surrenders that, then what will he get but the status quo.

    The fact that you and I agree on is this: The minimum that a Palestinian gov’t would accept is more than Israel would give. The maximum that Israel would give is far less than any Palestinian gov’t would accept.

    This is why I am opposed to the TSS. I know Israel will never give independence to the Palestinians; and I do NOT want to pressure Israel to do it.

    But you can’t fault Abbas for wanting an independent state for his constituency.

    What should scare you is that the Palestinians might ask for the vote.

    Ehud Barak
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/israel_demography_democracy_or_apartheid

    If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic… If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don’t, it is an apartheid state.

    Ehud Barak said that, not me.

    But still, Israel is faced with a nightmare.

    Israel cannot safely give the Palestinians real independence.

    The Palestinians are starting to realize this; and now there is a movement to ask for the vote – and get a bi-national state.

    What will Israel do then? Israel can defend itself against the Apartheid charge now; but it will have a harder time if the Palestinians say: Give us Independence or the vote.

    I am amazed the Arabs have not said it already. Be grateful you are dealing with Arabs who have no sense of how to bargain democratically.

    What else is there to say?

    Pay the Palestinians to leave.

  2. CuriousAmerican Said:

    How do you do that apart from war?

    the course being touted by the left and being pursued by Israel will likely render Israel weak, subject to terror and existential threat, and lead to an existential war that will necessitate killing and driving out the enemy. I doubt that peace, oft touted, is on the horizon. Had Israel pursued an opposite policy in a ruthless and clear fashion towards the enemy then peace may have had a chance. The Japanese are great allies of the US as a result of the A bombs and no lack of clarity. There is no room for weakness and vagueness, it leads to the current debacle.

  3. Ted Belman Said:

    What to do, instead of a two state solution, has been and will be debated for years.

    Utterly defeat the Pals, ony when the Israelis defeat the Pals will nagociations with become possible. Have never played Poker? Nobody ever shares the pot!

  4. CuriousAmerican Said:

    The problem is not the land, but the Arabs on it.

    although you spend all your time here trying to get the jews to focus on the pals perspectives and problems I don’t believe they are a major problem. The problem are those jews who appear to be in the pockets of foreign interests. The Jews could deal with the arab “problem” without many problems but they have bowed to foreign and local leftist interests.
    Instead of talking about arab interests,arab problems and arab perspectives Jews need to focus on Jewish interests. the arabs are tertiary at best. Here is a problem and Livni basically does what you do: she focuses the Jews on arab and foreign interests.
    http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Livni-blocks-bill-limiting-foreign-govt-donations-to-far-left-NGOs-335059
    LIvni is the agent of foreign interests and her protestations are self opportunistic. Everything she does is for the foreign considerations. She, and the other leftists politicians likely receive benefits from these foreign donors while pretending to protect “democratic” values. The question that begs an answer is why did Netanyahu appoint her as Justice Minister and in charge of negotiations. Netanyahu has never answered these questions. The electorate elected a rightist govt and got a leftist in charge of most important issues to the foreign saboteurs. The one that engineered this situation had to know that this is the outcome. BB was part of the US CFR; perhaps Livni is his fig leaf so he can pretend to be a right wing leader. BB must explain why he chose Livni, was it an instruction of foreign govts? It is BB’s responsibility and fault; he should get rid of this leftist or resign as a right wing leader.

  5. yamit82 Said:

    What Honey

    You called?????????????? When ones looks into my eyes, Darlin one never knows what ones goin get!!!!! When I wrote about taking you into to the woods and tying you to the “whipping post”,despite Dove’s” hyterical defence” of you, Darlin Zev you do know what I ment. I don;t there to be any misunderstanding between us. Just back from the flea market, bought gems.

  6. Internal autonomy for the Arabs in Judea and Samaria — and in Gaza when Israael retakes it –should be enough to shield Israel from world opprobrium. That is all that is required by the Palestine Mandate. It only requires that they not surrender any rights. They had no right except for internal autonomy when they were colonized by Turkey for 400 years prior to the Palestine Mandate.

  7. By reason of the unconscionable creation of Jordan, and by reason of the creation of Jordan as a Judenrein Arab state, then the only way to remedy to the unjust enrichment of Jordan should be to evict all Arabs living in Israel (including Judea and Samaria) towards Jordan.

    The constructive trust would be the only just and lasting solution to compensate the Jewish People which have been deprived of their inalienable rights.

    How do you do that apart from war?

  8. @ Mr. Belman said: “How can a solution be imposed in your opinion

    If Israel was governed by individuals demonstrating fairness and rule of law, then Israel would have killed the two birds with one stone (i) the land issue, and (ii) the Arab population.

    1. LAND ISSUE

    First of all, Jordan did not exist at the time of the drafting and signature of the Mandate. As a result, the Arab population was spreading all over the territory of Palestine, including in the future territory of Jordan.

    Because of the non-existence of Jordan at that time, when the terms of the Mandate referred indirectly to Arabs and to the protection of rights under Jewish governance of the population on site, it was referring to the population inside the current Israel (Judea and Samaria) and Jordan.

    When the illegal detachment of the major portion of the Land occurred, Jordan was created in an already mature condition, in other words, already populated by Arabs.

    Therefore, the two-state solution has already been implemented from the very beginning: Israel state and Jordan state.

    2. ARAB POPULATION

    By reason of the unconscionable creation of Jordan, and by reason of the creation of Jordan as a Judenrein Arab state, then the only way to remedy to the unjust enrichment of Jordan should be to evict all Arabs living in Israel (including Judea and Samaria) towards Jordan.

    The constructive trust would be the only just and lasting solution to compensate the Jewish People which have been deprived of their inalienable rights.

  9. “Causing Israel to leave Judea and Samaria would spell its doom”. Abbas Zaki, member Central Committee of Fatah

  10. @ Bill Narvey:
    You know as well as I do, a lawyer makes the strongest case he can before negotiating settlement and the weaker side always invites settlement negotiations.
    The Palestinians don’t hesitate to make their maximum demands, nor should Israel.

    Bill Narvey Said:

    Taking such bold uncompromising position, would increase the risk that a TSS would be imposed on Israel by the U.S. and world community.

    I did not say that Israel should be uncompromising. How can a solution be imposed in your opinion.

  11. @ Ted, I disagree with your statement:

    “There is only one reason that Netanyahu is not stressing Israel’s legal rights and that is because he is intending to abandon them. He would not have entered these negotiations if he wasn’t so inclined. While he rejected the framework of ’67 lines plus swaps as the basis of negotiations, he is free to accept such a framework during negotiations.”

    There is another very plausible reason. If Netanyahu were to stress Israel’s legal rights to J & S, it would not only make negotiations impossible, but would bring him in direct conflict with the U.S., Israel’s primary tangible benefactor, let alone international opinion. Taking such bold uncompromising position, would increase the risk that a TSS would be imposed on Israel by the U.S. and world community. By focusing on security concerns and needs, enables Netanyahu to play the TSS talks game where he would be free to frame his negotiating stances with an eye to security and a closer eye to Israel’s legal rights.

    That said, assuming Netanyahu could ingeniously and successfully push Israel’s legal rights to J & S while seemingly not doing so, still leaves the question as to what would Israel’s position be as regards the Palestinians in J & S and East Jerusalem?

    Suggestions on this vary from forcing Palestinians out of the region, inducing them to leave by paying them off or absorbing them into greater Israel, either to be citizens of Israel or citizens of Jordan which of course demands Jordan go along with that.

    If Israel ever got to the point that it could act on the idea of compensating Palestinians to leave J & S, should it be Israel that foots that bill or the international community that continues to this day to financially support Palestinians because they remain a welfare society incapable of becoming financially self reliant.

  12. @ Ted Belman:
    @ bernard ross:

    Intermediate agreement option ‘worrying’
    Disputes regarding Israel’s negotiations with the Palestinian Authority are likely to continue as talks progress, he said. Orbach warned against putting too much emphasis on the Jewish Home-Yesh Atid conflict, however.

    “The Likud is in the government, too,” he noted wryly. “Everyone is so busy with the fight between Jewish Home and Yesh Atid, but the Likud is also in the picture. The Likud will need to bring the results of negotiations for debate, to put it on the table.”

    “We have influence, and we’re trying to exert that influence now, before getting [negotiations] results we find unsuitable,” he added.

    Orbach expressed some concern over the possibility of a temporary “intermediate” arrangement between Israel and the PA.

    “I don’t believe there’s any law requiring a national referendum over an intermediate agreement… It’s worrying,” he said.

    Orbach said he does not think an intermediate agreement is likely, but added, “The government isn’t sharing enough information to allow me to say so decisively – and yes, that statement could be taken as criticism.”

    Principles more important than U.S. opinion
    When asked if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will be able to openly disagree with the Obama administration over the concessions it has sought to the PA, after disagreeing on the Iranian issue as well, Orbach said, “It’s all tactics… He has to stand up for the security of Israel’s citizens, and for Israel’s sovereignty in the land of Israel, and that’s more important than the tactics of how to manage things vis-à-vis America.”

    “Of course we want to maintain good ties, but that’s not a reason to concede our fundamental principles,” he added.

  13. @ bernard ross:

    I think it’s a temp case of self interest over religious theology. Right now they are fighting the hated Shia and Iranian influences and intentions, Once solved they will revert.

  14. Bibi has been playing with fire parroting the idiotic “secure borders” paradigm which according to some was a ploy, a dilatory technique. It was all too clear from the start that it is bound to explode in his face and cost Israel dearly.

    What is surprising is that the Palis didn’t seize the opportunity sooner to play along. Promise ‘security’ and then break the promise, and blame Israel for its breach. It is as simple as that.

    Jews may be reputed to be smart, but when it comes to politics, self-interest, and corruption trumps it all.

  15. Maan News reports that Abbas rejected any possibility of the IDF remaining in the Jordan valley and he gave a letter containing his redlines, one of which was that the Pals will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

    What else is there to say?

  16. Pro-settler video parodies Miley Cyrus
    American-Israeli Ariel resident Orit Arfa turns Cyrus’s ‘We can’t stop’ into ‘Jews can’t stop’

    Here is a sampling of her lyrics:

    It’s our land, we do what we want.

    This is our home, this is our rules.

    Can’t you see it’s we who own the land, can’t you see it’s we who take a stand.

    And everyone in line to make peace, trying to get a Nobel for peace. We all so fed up here,?getting fed up here, yeah, yeah.

    We build things, things don’t build we. Don’t take nothing from John Kerry.

  17. bernard ross Said:

    these sentences appear to me to be a contradiction. My understanding is that Liku’s central committee is to the right of BB and of Likud.

    Some are but party politics is parochial and based to a large extent on self interest. Likud stalwarts remember Lieberman once a Likudnik and some say an early Kahanist abandoned them and formed his own party taking mandates power and jobs from Likud loyalists. To absorb Yisrael Beitanu they would lose jobs and knesset seats and ministerial portfolios as Lieberman demands more than they feel he controls in actual electoral strength. They also feel they lost more than they gained by running on the same list. According to polls Lieberman now controls 11 of the Likuds 31 mandates and his real electoral strength in the last election was considerably less.

    Lieberman has no standing with the Israeli political center or left and all he has is the poltical right. For him to make it to the top position he will need considerable support from the religious right being Shas and Bennett. He is on Very good terms with Shas and Bennett and has some support with the ideological Likud members of whom most are not ideological but based on self interest and tradition. He can’t support BB on negotiations and still maintain credibility with the ideological right or even most of his Russian base who are mostly against giving up territory. So his only option is opposing BB fro the right or giving up any ambition to succeed BB. That may happen but now that his legal shackles are off and he is back in the FM job he has again positioned himself politically for a run at the top. Lieberman is if anything smarter than BB politically and tough minded, He orchestrated BB’s first election campaign was given the job as director general of the PM office one of the most powerful and influential jobs in government. He has served as a minister in every government since. He knows BB as does Bennett who organized BB’s second run for PM and then served as BB’s chief of staff. Both Bennett and Lieberman know BB up close and personal and know all the dirty secrets or dirty linen in the PM’s closet. Since there is no such animal as a successful clean or honest politician I don’t expect purity but I do hope for strong ideologically balanced and smart leaders who don’t wilt under pressure even if it’s Obama. I think a partnership of Lieberman and Bennett make for a good team especially when you add some of the Likud ideologues to the mix.

    Once we get rid of BB many possibilities open up and none worse than what we now have under BB. Remember Lieberman still lives in the West Bank settlement and he didn’t have to. I live among many Russian immigrants here and if they are any example Lieberman still gets their loyalty. Remember that many about a third of lapid’s 19 mandates came from the center and right wing who voted for social change and have deserted lapid over his handling of the treasury and his positions of the peace process. pundit figure it amounts to at least 6 mandates that will go right in the next elections from Lapid.

    So no real contradictions, Lieberman will tailor his positions to timing circumstances and targeted constituents. I was always opposed to him and consider him corrupt but I have to weigh alternatives and any serious alternative to BB must be considered positively. I started to like Lieberman after he dumped Danny Ayalon who married a christian missionary and was on their payroll promoting christian missionary projects in Israel. I suspect he himself was a closet christian. I don’t know if that was the reason he dumped Ayalon but it worked for me.

  18. yamit82 Said:

    He can’t attack BB from the left or center but only from the right. It’s likely the Likud central committee will reject Lieberman’s party from formally joining the Likud and if so his options would be open..

    these sentences appear to me to be a contradiction. My understanding is that Liku’s central committee is to the right of BB and of Likud. Therefore, if Liberman was appealing to the right why would the Likud right want to split from someone they saw as more aligned with their views? In my view, wrt YS, Liberman is to the left of BB. In any case BB will get the settlement blocks and liberman doesn’t look for more. why do you think that liberman appeals to the right wrt YS. I have never read where he seeks more than BB of YS. Perhaps he appeals to a right which does not demand any part of YS. Also, it is intimated that BB would veto a break with liberman. therefore, it appears that the left side of likud is more for liberman. Perhaps there is a deal between liberman and BB where liberman supports BB and when BB is done he supports liberman. So far they appear not to be in much polarity.

  19. yamit82 Said:

    My comment was directed to your implied connection with the GCC. Israel remaining in the Jordan valley for the Jordanians have nothing to do with the GCC.

    Perhaps I was unclear. I am saying that the non israelis, like the GCC and Jordan, dont care about the pals AND don’t believe pal “freedom” would be of value to their interests. The Pals, hamas, etc. were hijacked from GCC influence by Iran and the shias and I believe that they are not as intersted in the anti israel card as before: it backfired. I used Jordan as an example of that, not for Israels sake but obviously for their own, in the same way that any cooperation on other issues are for their own interest. I was using Jordan also as an indication of the GCC viewpoint regarding the pals as I believe they are, these days, closely aligned in interest with Jordan. Although I have been saying there have been understandings between GCC and Israel I also believe, and said before, this can easily change. E. G. If the sauds decide to rapproche with Iran they may then take all those jihadis and turn them on Israel. In fact I see the whole situation as one of interests rather than the ideologies we are meant to be focusing on.

  20. @ bernard ross:

    They are working closely with the GCC

    My comment was directed to your implied connection with the GCC.

    Israel remaining in the Jordan valley for the Jordanians have nothing to do with the GCC.

  21. @ bernard ross:
    Wrong lieberman wants to be PM. Since his acquittal the way is now open. He can’t attack BB from the left or center but only from the right. It’s likely the Likud central committee will reject Lieberman’s party from formally joining the Likud and if so his options would be open.. If what BB seems to be doing will alienate the right wing not only of the Likud but most others, as a pragmatic politician I predict he will align with the opposition to BB over an agreement. THERE IS TALK ABOUT YISRAEL BEITANU AND BAYIT YEHUDI MAKING SOME FORM OF POLITICAL ARRANGEMENT???? Joint list such as today with the Likud or more? It’s Lieberman’s wet dream to unite all of the Israeli right under one roof with him as PM. I see the eventual breakup of the Likud between those who are ideological and those who are political opportunists with no nationalist ideology like Ya’alon BB and a few others. BB is aware of all the permutations and he will not agree to any thing that will jeopardize his being PM.

    I disagree with Ted that BB will not sell out Israel. Because he is no ideologue if he can get away with it and still stay in office he will sell out Israel. He is a Power Junkie but also an American agent stooge implanted among us to do the Americans bidding just as Barak was and Livni and Olmert are. The Americans never put all their eggs in one basket. Our IDF General staff is also compromised. Money wealth and power are mighty effective incentives and the Americans know how that game is played. They have done it all over the world sometimes very effectively in South America and the ME. Small countries like Israel are the easiest and for the Americans the cheapest.

  22. yamit82 Said:

    Jordan for the Hashemites own self interest and protection do not want a contiguous border with the palis. Their support for the Palis ends at their own border with Israel.

    that;s what I said:
    bernard ross Said:

    In any case I dont think anyone(leadership) cares about the pals or wants them free to make trouble. Witness Jordans support for Israel remaining tn the Jordan valley.

  23. bernard ross Said:

    Witness Jordans support for Israel remaining tn the Jordan valley. They are working closely with the GCC

    Jordan for the Hashemites own self interest and protection do not want a contiguous border with the palis. Their support for the Palis ends at their own border with Israel.

  24. yamit82 Said:

    I have said it before and I say again Lieberman is Key, if he bolts the Likud and opposes the agreement BB will have a difficult decision.

    Lieberman appears to me to be on the left of likud wrt YS. I dont see a split between BB and liberman, they dont seem opposed on this issue. the question is who will control likud: I wager it will continue as usual with a “symbolic”, and meaningless, show of dissension by those pretending to be for the settlers.
    There is a difference between what we would like and what is likely. I agree that only war would make a radical difference regarding YS and transfer. Once the major settlement blocks are kept who is left to oppose?

  25. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Stalling is no longer possible.

    there is no basis for this statement. All the past stalling was preceeded with the same statement. Stalling is the most likely outcome but with an appearance of movement.

  26. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Israel has avoided dealing with the problem, as if it would go away. It has not. Stalling is no longer possible. Stalling is not an option. Something has to be done. I say compensated relocation. Yamit says expulsion. But the status quo is not viable.

    Although I am for transfer I do not see it happening. regarding the status quo not being viable I thnk it has proven otherwise. The only thing missing from viability is the foreign objection. I beleive that both the EU and the GCC want to be rid of the “pal” problem and are not actually sympathetic with them but the PR for the pals in those nations has become a problem. Any sort of agreement that allows the EU and the GCC to jump on board I beleive they will do. If anything I beleive their involvement will seek to make the pals satisfied with less.
    there is always the possibility that this is all a show meant to end in failure. In any case I dont think anyone(leadership) cares about the pals or wants them free to make trouble. Witness Jordans support for Israel remaining tn the Jordan valley. They are working closely with the GCC

  27. @ Ted Belman:
    yamit82 Said:

    Against BB would be at least half of the sitting Likud MK’s around (10) of their (20) MK’s. Jewish home (12) Lieberman (11)

    This sounds very much like the same deal I remember reading about from Pal sources last spring as having been already agreed: a 10 year deal done in phases. If this is the case anything can be given away in YS and no referendum would be required until any swaps west of green line took place. Therefore Israel can retain the settlement blocks and Jerusalem in the interim without any vote and in the future the swaps can be exchanged for settlement blocks in a final phase. what i remember reading is that various agreements were made regarding dual citizenship in Jerusalem and a choice of citizenship and remaining for those areas outside the major settlement blocks that would be left. In other words those areas of YS outside the major settlement blocks would over the 10 year period get a choice to take money and leave or to stay and take pal citizenship. IDF would retain posts in Jordan Valley and over time would relinquish or would resolve the issue under the jordan israel peace treaty with the pals going under a pal/Jordan confederation.

    As an outsider here is my observation wrt negotiations or peace deal and the parties:
    1-Lieberman has no problem with giving up YS. He has not had a platform of keeping YS.
    2- Likud members supposedly for keeping any part of YS have never done anything to buck BB that amounted to facts on the ground. They make noises but jump in line for whatever reason.
    3-only Jewish Home and further right wants to keep any part of YS.
    It appears to me that YS, other than the large settlement blocks, have been or will be ceded as not enough parties or voters have ever demonstrated any objectively measurable action in obstruction to that trend. The only interest in Israel that I see in YS are the settlers and they appear to be in a large minority. I am not taking into consideration political talk and polls but rather the behavior I have observed over the last few years. I have yet to see the polls amount to anything. I think the Israeli public will reflect the views of the majority of the politicians wrt YS. Jerusalem is a separate issue that will be delayed and might be resolved more symbolically than actually; in the same way that diplomatic compounds have sovereignty over their diplomatic areas. This could make it appear that Israel retains control. Swaps for settlement blocks; the details and referendum to come later and perhaps never. However, as everything will be over phases I think right now they will just transfer parts of C close to arab dense areas, in order to maintain their expansion close in, and some part of the Dead Sea coast. Perhaps they surmise that the whole thing can break down in the future or area C will still be in limbo if problems arise. I expect that perhaps BB gets an overall deal with the Sunni GCC and Arab nations in exchange for this “phased” agreement. That could be a selling point to the Israeli public.

  28. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Stalling is no longer possible.

    Stalling is not an option. Something has to be done.

    But the status quo is not viable.

    Why not??

    The weakness if any is in the resolve of the Jews not the resolve of America and Europe to impose an artificial settlement. Yet even if a settlement could be imposed on us it would lead to war and give us an opportunity to drive them all out or kill them once and for all. Eventually everything will fall into place it’s only the path and the human tragedies that will differ by accepting one path over another. In the end it will come right.

    In the words of OUR Jewish prophet Amos:

    In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof, and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old;
    That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations, upon whom My name is called, saith the LORD that doeth this.
    Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.
    And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
    And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

    What Honey 🙂

  29. @ CuriousAmerican:

    Your only suggestion is to Jew us down . With the millions owed us by the church – THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY SHOULD COME FROM – BACK INTO THE HANDS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE. That doesn’t mean we would use it to ‘pay them to leave’. Hashem probably has a better plan!!

  30. @ yamit82:
    You gave yourself away. If it would be true that the only enemy jews have are the christians there would be available for reading books that researched the topic at least to the degree of accuracy of the research done re islam and its legacy of jihad, of jew-hatred and christian-hatred too. I would be happy if you could direct me to those works. I am always open to suggestion. In the meantime I stick with what I already know and can prove. There is no viable solution to the ME problem as long as the neighbors call jews apes and pigs and ask for their extermination. Reform islam from within if anything.

  31. @ Ted Belman:
    What to do, instead of a two state solution, has been and will be debated for years.

    Look, I am NOT in favor of the TSS; but something has to be done or a TSS will be imposed on Israel.

    Israel has avoided dealing with the problem, as if it would go away. It has not.

    Stalling is no longer possible.

    Stalling is not an option. Something has to be done.

    I say compensated relocation. Yamit says expulsion.

    But the status quo is not viable.

  32. @ monostor:
    I am familiar with Bostom and have read other experts essays and books re: Islam. All I asked since you brought it up was what are your own conclusions based upon your reading and understanding of Bostom and others, re: ROOT CAUSES!

    Further.. Until the 20th century why was it that in the conflict between christianity and Islam the Jews almost invariably sided with Islam against the christians?

    Further…While popular understanding posits that Israel and the Jew’s greatest existential threat is from Islam, some myself included maintain that the christian West is our greatest existential threat still but that tactics have changed like in support of Muslims to kill us instead of christians directly.

    Esau (Edom, the christian west) has partnered with Ishmael (Muslim Arabs) to destroy Jacob (the Jews)

    Thus it is written: “It’s an immutable Law…Esau (the non Jew) hates Jacob (the Jew).”

    “And Esav took Machalat the daughter of Yishmael…He went to Yishmael and said to him, ‘let us join together, I and you and we will rule the whole world.”
    Prof. Eugene Narrett Z”L: Eugene Narrett, 64, who lived in Maynard, was struck and killed Friday night by a hit-and-run driver in Brattleboro, Vermont.

    Torah states that “Esau, he is Edom” and that Edom is “the wicked kingdom,” Rome, the “fourth beast coming up out of the west… exceedingly terrifying, awesome and strong, devouring, trampling and crushing …” and that its prissy mouth will “speak haughty words and he will plan to change the seasons and the law” (Daniel 7:7-28).

    “The greater the ingathering will be, the stronger the forces of impurity (sitra achra) will become (to work against the ingathering). There will be an increase of Divine prosecution of those who do not partake of the ingathering of the exiles, since the Redemption will start through it. Then, there will be survivors in Zion and Jerusalem and from among the remnant.” Rabbi Hillel MiShkolov, The Kabbalist and prime student of the famed Vilna Gaon, in Kol HaTor, a treatise of the Vilna Gaon’s Vision of Redemption, Chapter 1, letter 10

  33. yamit82 Said:

    BB wants to remain PM more than he wants a deal. Initially polls will be determinative. If Polls favor BB he might buck internal opposition and go for it. BB does his own internal polling. He will look right and left to see the parameters and contours of a post agreement coalition with him as P.M.

    I disagree. I don’t believe that Bibi will sell out Israel in order to remain as PM. But I do believe that the polls on a prospective deal may influence his decision to accept it. Which is another way of saying, I don’t think he is an ideologue.

  34. Look, I am not getting into ad hominem finger pointing. Read Bostom’s and many other experts’ books and we can talk turkey. Syria is the stage of a muslim civil war and power struggle. Islam was not conceived for the benefit and the welfare of the masses but for their submission to Allah and his Prophet’s will and command. The imams tell you to eat your own-you-know-what you better do it or else.

  35. CuriousAmerican Said:

    You are going to have a hard time explaining to the world why 1.6 Million Arabs inside the ’49 lines have the vote; and those 2 Million Arabs inside Judea and Samaria do not.

    Minor problem, we can outlast them and drive them out little by little over time with the right policies. More Palis leave on their own volition than are born in Y&S.

    OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM ARE THE ARABS HOLDING ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP. First priority is divesting ourselves of that 5th column Trojan horse.

  36. @ monostor:

    What in your opinion and Bostom’s are the root causes?

    Syrian clerics plead for help after fatwa on eating dogs and cats, dead humans (cannibalism)

    The fatwas permitting eating dogs’ and cats’ meat has also been issued by an imam in the Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus, according to Asharq al-Awsat.

    The Yarmouk camp has been under siege for three months, and humanitarian conditions have deteriorated drastically. The Syrian regime is preventing the entry of food and relief items.

    Last year, a similar fatwa was also issued in the city of Homs allowing the consumption of cats, dogs and donkeys.


    Report: Fatwa allows starving Syrians to eat cats and dogs

    The clerics said it was a cry for help to the whole world, adding that if the situation continued to deteriorate, the living would have to eat the dead. (BBC)

    Kerry and the world ignores suffering Syrian Arabs and pali refugees in Syria which America is complicit in causing their misery and suffering and is obsessed with Israel and the Jews? You believe you and Bostom have a handle on the root causes???

  37. BB wants to remain PM more than he wants a deal. Initially polls will be determinative. If Polls favor BB he might buck internal opposition and go for it. BB does his own internal polling. He will look right and left to see the parameters and contours of a post agreement coalition with him as P.M.
    The left 100% will support him meaning first of all the Arab parties (10)mandates in the Knesset and Meretz (6) mandates. Coalition partners would be Mofaz- Kadima (2) mandates, Labor (15) mandates, Livni with 6,mandates Yesh Atid (19) Total 58 I believe yesh Atid will agree to sit with Shas (11) mandates and the Haredi Parties (6) for an agreement and restoration of the haredi budgets reduced in the last budget.

    Against BB would be at least half of the sitting Likud MK’s around (10) of their (20) MK’s. Jewish home (12) Lieberman (11)

    Here is the problem. Without Lieberman The Likud has 20-21 mandates Yesh Atid has (19) The party with the majority generally gets to head a government and if lieberman bolts the Likud or does not support BB along with some defections from the Likud BB will not lead a majority in the proposed coalition. Lapid would. Would Lapid subordinate himself and his party to a likud minority? Would Labor? Would the religious parties?

    BB could possibly manipulate the numbers through massive budgetary bribes get a majority to support him as PM but I don’t think it could hold beyond the agreement signing. BB will have limited support from his own base and would be a slave to the demands of every member of his cobbled coalition. Most of the sitting Likud ministers would also lose their jobs a big disincentive for most of them to support BB. All this to appease the Americans and for a less than final status agreement?

    Don’t see it but anything is possible. I have been disappointed by the so called Israeli right too many times to depend on most of them to do the right thing.

    If BB agrees to the Kerry initiative I believe he believes he has the numbers to survive the fallout from the right and his own Likud.. He has been wrong in his calculations in the past and is counting on the right having no apparent replacement leader to himself in the Likud and from the right. They have no Sharon to rally around if they reject BB.

    I have said it before and I say again Lieberman is Key, if he bolts the Likud and opposes the agreement BB will have a difficult decision. He could also call new elections and use the results as a referendum but only if he believes he would loose a referendum and not have the internal numbers to support him.
    Funny nobody has raised the issue of costs in ethnically cleansing over a 100K Jews from outside the settlement blocks.

    The Sinai withdrawal created the longest recession in Israels history almost 20 years. Drove housing costs through the roof, and caused tens of thousands of our best and brightest to leave the country for greener pastures. It’s anyone’s guess how the more right wing and religious Israelis will react???

    Yes BB has always wanted such a deal either because he really believes it’s for the best or because he is bucking for a Nobel is not relevant. He will do it if he believes he can survive politically as PM. On paper he has the numbers but his survivability is less assured otherwise he would have done the deal long ago.

  38. The other day I was booed for saying that comments on the site revolve around the various degrees of jew-hating without ever touching in an obvious manner the root cause of the ME problem as a whole that being in my honest opinion learned from the experts on the matter, islam. Dr. Andrew Bostom whose articles appear on this site from time to time had to write a whole book to correct the distorted view of PM Netanyahu re the relation between the famous/infamous Jerusalem Mufti and the Nazis. (the book maybe purchased on Amazon).
    “Revenons a nos moutton”, a.k.a. back to the topic: territorial concessions are indeed unforgivable mistakes for which historians in the future will not be too kind to the Israeli politicians who decade after decade only cut little pieces out of the “body” of the State hoping for an illusory peace treaty with a enemy that wants to see that very State whipped off of the map.

  39. One way around this is for Netanyahu to do what he promised to do; and submit all deals to a referendum.

    I doubt any Israeli will give up the heartland. The Israeli people would scotch the deal.

    ============

    That still leaves Israel with millions of Palestinians.

    Half inside ’49 Israel; half in Judea and Samaria.

    You are going to have a hard time explaining to the world why 1.6 Million Arabs inside the ’49 lines have the vote; and those 2 Million Arabs inside Judea and Samaria do not.

    That is the issue that should be dealt with, NOT surrendering land.

    Deal with that issue.