More than 600 people took part Thursday in the Hevron Conference on the topic of annexing Judea and Samaria (Shomron). Experts who spoke at the event said that many of the so-called barriers to annexation actually pose no problem.
Attorney Itzik Bam of the Land of Israel Legal Forum told the audience that legally speaking, Israel is able to annex the land. What currently exists in the region is a “sovereignty vacuum” where no country claims the land, he said.
Another speaker, Samaria Regional Council head and attorney Gershon Mesika, said Israel will find a surprising amount of support if it states its claims openly. Mesika noted that in his own meetings with leaders in Israel and abroad, even Arab leaders showed respect for Israel’s claim to the land when it was stated proudly.
Former Israeli attaché in Washington Yoram Ettinger, a demographer, said that Israel would not risk its Jewish majority by annexing the region and giving citizenship to the Arabs currently living under the Palestinian Authority. Ettinger has done several studies showing a clear, consistent and growing Jewish majority in Israel, Judea and Samaria.
Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post said that if Israel is to extend its sovereignty over Israeli towns in what is known as “Area C” – parts of Judea and Samaria currently under Israeli authority – it should annex the rest of the region as well. “The price will be the same either way, so it’s a shame to spent it on just half… “ she said.
Among the other speakers were coalition head MK Zev Elkin (Likud), MK Miri Regev (Likud), and Israel Prize winner Geula Cohen.
Cohen recalled her battle in Knesset in favor of extending Israeli sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem that had fallen to Jordan in the War of Independence.
@ Shy Guy: Sorry Shy Guy. my comment was intended to follow up on my reply to Salomon Benzimra
@ Shy Guy: I would like to add that the GOI has in the past held that it is in the best interest of the state of Israel to kill Jews with opposing views: cooperation with the British, Altalena, etc.
Salomon Benzimra Said:
thank you for your reply. I am not sure which statement of mine you are referring to but I believe it is the following:
Bernard Ross Said:
I made this statement because you never answered my question regarding the LEGAL feasibility of a suit. Instead you offered your personal stance regarding what position you would take towards such an action. I had assumed that we were discussing legal positions rather than personal positions and that you might be an attorney based upon your affiliation with the canadian group for Israeli LEGAL rights. It was odd to me that a person versed in law would consider the petitioning of Israeli courts to fulfill their legal duties would be divisive. Whether it is divisive or not is a separate non-legal and moral issue.(E.G. It was divisive for US citizens to pursue civil rights for blacks in the segregationist south; it is divisive that almost daily leftist Israeli NGO’s petition the GOI for “palestinian” rights). Your position is extremely interesting to me because it is a perfect illustration of everything that the GOI has been doing wrong, and perhaps illegally, throughout the past decades. It appears to me that you have the best interests of Jewish rights to settle in your heart however, like the GOI, your seemingly practical and pragmatic stance has caused you to forget or ignore the actual legal questions. There are a few LEGAL questions I put to you in my posts in the hope for LEGAL OPINIONS. An attorney can separate the giving of his legal opinion from his suggested course of action(which might be not to pursue the action even if right). Instead of giving a legal opinion you stated that you would not do it and that the action is foolish.
Salomon Benzimra Said:
For decades the GOI has been burying the Jewish rights of settlement west of the JOrdan river most likely because they do not want to absorb the arab populations because they believe they have to give citizenship. Even the Levy Report does not emphasize that basic international right. Like you, the GOI’s have concluded that their analysis, that the pursuing of these rights is detrimental, means that any discussion of those laws is irrelevant. They have substituted their opinions, regarding what actions to take, for actual LEGAL facts and withheld those LEGAL facts from the Israeli public and world Jewry. The result of this stance is now obvious: much of the world is not aware of these rights, most jews are not aware of these rights, majority jewish opinion and world opinion has ignored these rights, Israels enemies have exploited these “oversights”, red herrings focus discussion on “palestinian” rather than jewish rights, Jewish refugees from arab lands are ignored, Israel and the Jews have become the thieves. All of these outcomes directly lead back to the unbelievable(perhaps intentional)hiding, and not pursuing, of the basic rights of all jews to settle west of the jordan river. This principle, though major, is always just a passing detail and other red herrings such as occupation & and GC issues take their place(e.g. Levy Report). Israel has not kept insisting to the world why the jewish rights exist LEGALLY. If Israeli govts believed it was not in their best interests to pursue jewish rights of settlement then their duty would first have to been informing succeeding generatins that these rights do in fact exist and that they have decided to ignore those rights because it is in the best interests of the state. Also, they should have considered whether their perspective of ignoring world Jewry settlement rights is not a coflict with representing WORLD Jewry in this issue. YOu are basically doing the same: you are ignoring my legal questions and substituting instead your view regarding how to proceed. If you are interested in educating the world then the prime education regards the dissemination of the Jewish right of settlement west of the Jordan river and this mantra should be repeated ad infinitum for how many generations it is still an issue. The solutions to other problems(arabs, boundaries, etc.) should NEVER take the place of the knowledge of those rights. Even if a GOI were to give away land it should be done with the full understanding, on everyone’s part, that the Jews have those settlement rights which still exist(or are you saying those rights no longer legally exist). Bringing a legal action to Israeli courts would educate the world to jewish legal rights regardless of the outcome: global news networks would follow the case almost like the eichmann case. The reason that the enemy is able to propogate myths that the jews are the thieves is because the jews dont propagate their rights. Hamas demands the jews to leave “palestine” even though they are not able to accomplish the task. The jews pursue nothing because the GOI decided what is possible and what is not.
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard, I would appreciate if you wouldn’t put words in my mouth.
YOU said:
Never would I intent such foolish action or even entertain the thought of it.
Vinnie Said:
Their argument would be that even if Levy is 100% correct, Israel should go on killing itself nevertheless, because Shimon Peres’ “New Middle East” is just around the corner.
@ Salomon Benzimra: I assume that you are saying that a class action suit is feasible. I do not see it as divisive to use the Israeli courts to compel an Israeli govt to encourage jews to settle the west bank. In fact by painting the Isreali govt as opposing such a complaint it allows a pro settlement govt a cover to ease out of the failed paradigm of no settlement. As a matter of fact the Levy report also may have been set up to allow a pro settlement govt to begin moving from the old paradigm and I am just suggesting another approach. My approach would focus the public, through a court case, on the Jewish rights rather than through a govt appointed committee. It would not have to be successful but it would definitely be followed globally and would provide an opportunity for pro jewish settlement PR to reach the world. I thought that you were for jewish settlement west of the Jordan and for educating the world to jewish legal settlement rights.
@ Shy Guy:
Rest assured that these clowns do NOT represent all American Jews, or even most.
I can tell you from being involved with grassroots Israeli advocacy here for the past ten years, that conflicts within the Jewish community here are growing sharper over these issues. Increasingly, rank-and-file Jews here are getting fed up with the tuchas kissing ways of such so-called “leaders”.
It is particularly noteworthy that the authors/signatories of this letter offered no objective, legal or historical rebuttal to the Levy report. Now, if the Levy report is wrong as they say, then they should tell us WHY, on what grounds, it is wrong. They cannot do this.
@ Shy Guy:
The snakes are being forced to shed their pro Israel skin facades, and they are about to stand naked as so-called Jewish leaders without the Israel fig leaf as cover for their treachery.
@ Bernard Ross:
Sorry, Bernard, but if you envisage to launch a class action suit, by Jews, against Israel, count me out. And I hope you will get less than a handful of Jews willing to engage in that divisive ploy. I elaborated on that in previous comments.
US Jewish
leaderskaposAnd I know one of them very well.
Salomon Benzimra Said:
I re-read this an the following question occurred to me: would not any Jew,who is a member of the collective class, have legal standing to sue the Israeli govt for a breach of its mandatory duty, as mandate trust successor, regarding the prime directive to settle jews west of the jordan river. The suit could show that Israel has repeatedly breached its duty as a result of a conflict of interest in that it has subordinated the rights of the collective class of Jews to its perceived state interests(fear of arab demography). Furthermore it can be shone that both duties as mandate trust successor and of Israeli state interests, can be performed separately. EG if the state does not want to acquire JS it can still perform its mandate duties to encourage settlement and then allow the settled Jews to fulfill their rights to self determination separately. Couldn’t there be an actin to compel compliance and/or an action to remove the agency for the world jewry? I say this because the bringing of suits in the israeli courts would give a forum and grant focus to the issue of the settlement rights and the right of Jews to reasonably expect that the mandate dues are fulfilled west of the Jordan river and not only west of the green line.
@ Salomon Benzimra: Thank you for your reply and patience. answer to 1) I beleive that the first step is the education of the people to the fact that successive Israeli govts have restricted internationally binding legal rights. My problem with Levy’s report is that it does not highlight the fact that there has been no cancellation of Jewish rights of settlement WEST OF THE JORDAN RIVER and that by not encouraging this settlement there is a violation of international law and of Israels fiduciary duty as representative of the Jewsih people. Levy has focused on GC conventions rather than mandate trust obligations of Israeli govt as successor to British. Successive govts have colluded in keeping the Jews in ignorance over the fact that this right exists, in much the same way that demaguogues and Saudi prices keep their masses in ignorance. An educated electorate can change its leaders but a legal battle in Israel courts with jewish settlement rights, and Israeli govt breach of mandate trust, as a focus is necessary.
@ Salomon Benzimra:not the entire middle east just in the declared area for close Jewish settlement WEST OF THE JORDAN RIVER. Before Israel was a soveriegn state these rights were to be encouraged in international law. Why cant these rights continue to be encouraged by the state of Israel under the same legal clauses?
Salomon Benzimra Said:
Granted they are rights granted to the collective Jewish people as a whole and they do need a recognized entity to represent them. However, it appears that the recognized entity has breached its duty by doing the opposite of its duty to the collective Jewish people. Those controlling the entity can be replaced vy an educated electorate but right now thoat electorate is gien red herrings. The levy report focuses of Israel not being an occupying power thus speaking to Israels status as a state. However, it appears to ignore what I consider to be the paramount international legally binding principle that should be given focus: THE JEWISH RIGHT OF SETTLEMENT WEST OF THE JORDAN RIVER. Perhaps the reason for the omission is shown in Levy’s suggestions which mainly to increase state power rather than further the Jewish right of settlement. Beyond replacing ignorant political hacks with educated politicians elected by an enlightened population there is also legal redress. Jewish representative organizations should bring legal actions in Israeli courts which seek to focus on the international clauses regarding the embedded rights of Jewish settlement and also on the conflict of Interest resulting in a breach of duty owed to the Jewish people. This conflict is that successive govts have seen limiting jewish settlement to be part of their “demographic” visions. IN there visions their neglect of duty has caused them to reduce jewish rights and the area of state sovereignty.
Salomon Benzimra Said:
The purpose of realizing a jewish majority by encouraging settlement should have continued as that part of the mandate is as yet unfulfilled in the areas between the green line and the Jordan River. Remember it is the entire area west of the Jordan river which is to be encouraged in Jewish settlement. I highlight the separation of Israeli territorial sovereignty from the JEWISH right to settle the land because Israel seems to view Jewish settlement, incorrectly as being inimical to its state interests thus creating a conflict of interest with its duties. I separate these in principle to point out that there is not a real conflict, only perceived by successive govts, between Israels duty to encourage settlement and its negotiations to acquire sovereignty. In the west bank Israel has a similar status to the British govt in that it is not sovereign and yet should still operate to fulfill the mandate to settle Jews WEST OF THE JORDAN RIVER. It can unilaterally fulfill that mandate and be in full compliance with international law regarding the mandate. It is the successor to the mandate in the west bank and it is sovereign east of the green line. It can legally fulfill its duties. My understanding of law is that if two performances, under the law and in agreements, can be executed without legal conflict then there is no reason why they should not be executed. I would be interested in hearing the reasons why Israel cannot perform its duties as a sovereign nation east of the green line and its duties as the inheritor of the mandate trust on the west bank(that trust being to encourage jewish settlement until, as you say, a majority in reached). The reason the govt abandons its duty is it does not know what to do with the arabs in the west bank, however, that is not a valid legal reason for not encouraging jewish settlement to west of the jordan river. If the Israeli govt reverses its position and fulfills its mandatory obligations it can increase the population rapidly through an affirmative action program for settlement. In this way it will restore justice affirming the jewish right of settlement and improve its position in sovereignty negotiations which can proceed at their own pace. The separation will remove “jewish” settlement from the sovereignty/occupation issues of state. Levy has helped regarding the occupation issue but the settlement issue will continue to be in dispute as long as it is viewed as a sovereignty issue rather than a duty to fulfill the mandate trust. Therefore my focus on jewish settlement rights rather than GC and Israeli sovereignty rights. Theoretically, Israel could settle the Jews to a majority and still not be sovereign on the west bank.
@ Vinnie:
I’m a girl-Otter. Just for the record. 🙂
I’ll get to your other points in a bit. I just got home.
@ Vinnie:
Actually we don’t need weapons from anyone. We only need a few more satellites and 2-3 more subs along with a few hundred Jericho ICBM Rockets. and an updated new military doctrine.
@ Vinnie:
Sure it does. 😉
@ yamit82:
Well, no, he’s not “more correct”; rather, he agrees with you.
That doesn’t mean he’s “more correct”.
@ yamit82:
Looked at historically, since 1948, you would be right that Republicans have been more hostile to Israel than Democrats. But in another context, you had said to me, “past is not prologue”, and that certainly applies here.
Obama is the most hostile since Eisenhower, a Republican. But however bad Eisenhower was, in those days, Israel could at least largely count on being able to obtain modern arms from France and to a lesser extent, Britain, as well as their support on the UNSC, if needed. So, support of the U.S. was not so important.
Obama is actually worse than Eisenhower; I don’t think even Ike would have encouraged the emergence of MB-affiliated regimes throughout the Middle East, for instance.
Except for missile defense systems that involve technology the U.S. wants, and that also are designed to keep Israel in a defensive posture, “hunkered down”, under Obama, it has been well nigh impossible for Israel to obtain arms platforms from the U.S. No new tactical fighters, no helicopter gunships, nothing. And there is no Britain or France out there – a la the relationship that existed in the 50s with these states – to make up for the shortfall from the U.S. You talk about Russia…you really think they’d step up to the plate? What price do you think THEY’D ask of Israel?
Israel cannot now build complete warplanes on her own. She even has to import engines from Germany for her Merkava tanks. Subs might be built in cooperation with South Korea – as you’ve pointed out earlier – but this can’t be done overnight. It is not like turning on a light switch. I could come up with many other examples where Israel is not self-sufficient.
But, you want to give the finger to the world. Lotsa luck with that. The energy situation could give Israel a lot more leverage, but that is still years away. It is not right now, or even a few months from now.
As to Dems versus GOP, three of the four most pro-Israel presidents were Dems, in my book (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson…vs. Nixon on the GOP side). But that was then, and the situation has changed.
The Obama-led Democratic party is more or less a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Saudi lobby. The bad guys have tentacles in the GOP, but it is not nearly as bad now for them as it is for the Dems, especially where Israel is concerned.
Did you know, for example, that in the past year, the RNC adopted a resolution endorsing Israeli sovereignty over the whole of J&S? (Didn’t you post that on this site, Ted?). That got NO media attention here, but that was of great significance. An RNC plank is not exactly the rule of law, but this never happened before, and it gives a future GOP president such as Romney political leeway to be supportive of Israel that would be unprecedented.
Jonathan Usher Said:
The re-constitution of the state of Israel was “ridiculously impossible”, as were the results of succeeding wars.
Jonathan Usher Said:
Yes I am: It is not insane to me that the Jews should insist on ALL their legal rights, are Jews a people who should not recive their legal rights? The arabs insist on all of Israel and we know they cannot remove the Jews, yet they persist and they make headway. Why should Jews accept more Judenrein areas on the Jewish holy land? Jordan was created an maintained JEW FREE, Gaza is JEW FREE, current areas of the west bank under arab control are JEW FREE. If the world can accept JEW FREE areas then what is to prevent muslim free areas? Certainly Israel has the military power to render at least the west bank to be as exclusively Jewish as the JEW FREE arab areas,including Jordan, are eclusively Muslim.Jonathan Usher Said:
I am not aware of the exact legal relationship between world Jewry and Israel, is it an agency or is it something else. Certainly there can be no doubt that the state of Israel has limited Jewish settlement to a far reduced area than was given in legally binding agreements. Certainly the state of Israel has acted to the detriment of Jewish settlement rights. The arabs have no problem claiming what they believe to be theirs whether it seems feasible or not. Feasibility is not even the issue, it is the claiming of rights that is the prime issue. What about non Israeli Jews have they lost their right to settle west of the Jordan river because Israel does not see it as being in the interest of the state of Israel? It is the ignoring of the Jewish rights of settlement, mandated in the still legally binding UN charter and its antecedents, that is the direct cause of all the notions that Jews should NOT be on the west bank, and yet international law guaranteed this right. The greatest contributor to the current ideas of Jews stealing arab lands is the govt of Israel by its abandonment of Jewish rights. It has shown the world that it will not defend Jewish rights and therefore it is assumed that those rights are non existent.
@ Bernard Ross:
I am not sure I understand the points you make, but I will try to answer anyway:
1. The State of Israel may not have upheld all the provisions of the Mandate. Similarly, the U.S. Government may not have fulfilled all the rights you believe you are entitled to. So, what do you do? Would you create “a 3rd party”, i.e. a parallel U.S. government for that matter? No! You would vote for other Congressmen and Senators at the next elections. Same thing with Israel: become an Israeli citizen and vote for a different Knesset. Unless, of course, you want to further dilute the Jewish polity by creating a parallel national organization other than the present State of Israel.
2. The whole purpose of Zionism was, from the start, to create a home for the Jewish people in Palestine “secured by law.” The law implies a legal entity – now, the State of Israel. Zionism was not intended to be the “Wild West” with any Jew, from any part of the world, settling anywhere he wished in the moving sands of the Middle East! The rights embedded in the Mandate and later in the UN Charter pertain to the Jewish people, collectively, not individually, hence the need for a recognized legal entity which represents this collectivity.
3. The very essence of the San Remo Resolution was to aim for Jewish sovereignty once a Jewish majority was attained. That sovereignty was kept in abeyance during the Mandate period. Everyone understood then that, failing to reach sovereignty over a specified territory, the provisions of the Mandate could not be legally fulfilled. The purpose of Article 6 of the Mandate was to encourage settlement so that a Jewish majority could be realized. So, I can’t understand how you could separate territorial sovereignty from the right to settle the land.
@ Vinnie:
You can’t control or predict future timing will be more conducive tactically than what exists today. Republican presidents have been more anti Israel than Democratic ones with the exceptions of Carter and now Obama although except for atmospherics I see little difference between Bush Papa or son than of Obama.
That said Israel should never be tied to any foreign Power and if Obama were really to dump Israel it would be a blessing and not a curse.
For the Jews of Israel to do what is necessary for the Jews of Israel; they must believe they are alone and without any expectations of help from anyone outside of themselves and maybe some other Jews.
Our decision making and national priorities are linked to the above concepts.
@ Vinnie:
You must be reading the wrong tea leafs. Based on all empirical data Otter seems to more correct than you.
Saying that you are not privy to what is not publicly known is an old cop-out of those who refuse to admit they are wrong.
Surely this is too legalistic and ridiculously impossible. Are you suggesting that Jews should insist on all their legal rights in a Judenrein area? Are you joking? Making a distinction here between Israel and Jews is making a distinction where none exists. Jews are Jews whether they are Orthodox, Conservative or Reform, and Israel
represents us all in the Middle East, whether we like it or not. For purposes of ownership of Judea and Samaria there is no difference between the terms “Jews” and “Israel”
@ Bernard Ross:
@ Canadian Otter:
Canadian Otter:
You make a lot of assertions here, for which I’d like to see some documentation.
I don’t see where you can predict that there won’t be a PA provocation. Maybe while Fatah is in power in J&S under Abbas, but that is hardly guaranteed. Hamas could take over, at which point there aren’t any “understandings”, tacit or otherwise, that will last another microsecond, assuming that they even exist in the first place. I’m not even convinced of that. If such “cooperation” existed between Abbas-led Fatah and the government of Israel, why is there no agreement, or even significant negotiations? I mean, why not really “cooperate”?
To whatever extent Bibi is facilitating anything for the PA – and yes, I am aware of his attitude towards some of the pioneers in J&S (I don’t like calling them “settlers”) – I see that as reacting to U.S. pressure. And I don’t agree with that. I say I “broadly” approve of Bibi’s approach, but there are specifics I most surely do not approve of. And that is one of them.
Predictions are very hard to make, especially about the future! But I predict this: If Bibi really does annex Area C, he’ll get his Intifada for sure. Abbas will have no choice politically but to do this, since he has put so much on the line for the whole of J&S. If he doesn’t, Hamas types will put a bullet in the back of his head and do it themselves. If there is going to be an Intifada, and if annexing Area C gets that, and if Israel is going to be painted as the “aggressor” for even annexing C – and they will be – might as well go for the whole thing.
None of us are sitting in on Bibi’s cabinet meetings, so all of this is conjecture, of course. But what looks to you like preparation to merely annex C and “disengage” from the rest looks to me like pushing the PA into a corner from which they have to come out swinging…which gives Bibi the justification to go for the rest.
@ yamit82:
Where did I say anything about giving up land?
Look, Yamit, this is war, right? And in war, one must use one’s resources efficiently. Wasting them unnecessarily is foolish, even wrong.
Metaphorically speaking, I’m not going to charge into the teeth of the enemy’s defenses, and take X casualties while doing so, if I have the choice of waiting until I’ve got my artillery and air support lined up so I can clobber the enemy in his positions BEFORE I go charging in, so that I can only suffer Y casualties, which are only half that of X. I achieve the same objective, but at much less cost.
I’m talking about timing here, Yamit. I’m not talking about giving up anything.
Salomon Benzimra Said:
What is the legal meaning of “morphed” in this legal situation: did the state of Israel legally replace the zionist organization,did the Jewish people cease to exist, does the state of Israel suceed LEGALLY as agent, what is the succeeding legal relationship? Even if Israel, the state, is the agent of the Jewish people legally it has breached its trust as agent as there is a conflict of interest in that the state has aims in contradiction to the settlement mandate. In this situation is there not a case for a 3rd party seeking to represent Jewish interests to coerce the state of Israel to fulfill its agency or to exit its agency (due to conflict of interest)?
Salomon Benzimra Said:
Why would Jewish rights to settle west of the JOrdan River be cancelled or rescinded as a result of the creation of the state of Israel if the Jewish people are not synonomous with the state of Israel? It makes no sense that the “Jewish” rights are diminished as a result of the state being born. The state can represent, as agent, the Jewish people and still facilitate the encouragement of Jews to settle west of the jordan river and even outside of its sovereign state boundaries. In fact, even though it has not annexed the west bank it can still comply with the UN Charter and facilitate Jewish settlement(not neccessarily Israeli settlement) without affecting negotiations of sovereignty or the states final boundaries(theoretically settlers can reside in a state governed by the arabs with their rights still protected by the UN Charter). If all member UN states are still bound to encourage Jewish settlement it is even conceivable that a succeeding arab sovereign state is also bound to accept Jewish settlement. Even if Israel were an occupying power there is nothing to prevent Jewish(not Israeli)settlement. Are you saying that with the creation of the state of Israel that all settlement rights of world Jewry west of Jordan river ended, or that the allowable area for their settlement became automatically reduced and that the UN Charter, LofN, and san remo were no longer applicable; If so then what would be the legal basis for this conclusion, or is this just an assumption? I dont see why the Jewish right cannot exist separately from Israeli national sovereignty rights.
@ Laura:
I believe that under the Balfour Declaration we are obligated to give them rights, but not political rights.
On the other hand since Jordan was illegally excluded from the Jewish rights given by Balfour, it seems logical that the Palestinians should seek their rights in the part of the territory in the Balfour declaration that was later reserved for the Palestinians – ie Jordan.
@ Vinnie:
1) The government set up the Levy committee to bolster its plan to annex Area C, while disengaging from the rest.
~~~~~~~~~~
2) It’s been FORTY FIVE YEARS since the 1967 War.
That to me is long enough to figure out what to do with the territories.
In all those years the discussion led to the abandonment of both Sinai and Gaza.
Followed by the attempts by this and past governments to give up the rest, including Jerusalem.
Thank God for the Arabs’ attitude. Without it Israel would be a shrunken state, with an Arab land corridor between Ramallah and Gaza. That was and is still the plan. Minus a bit of land here and there. They call them “swaps”.
~~~~~~~~
3) There won’t be a major PA provocation.
There is a tacit understanding between the Israeli government and the PA. The Israeli government is going out of its way to facilitate the creation of Arab FACTS ON THE GROUND. They both know where it is all leading to: Disengagement.
The talks about talks are all a side show to distract Jews about the real maneuvers to swindle them out of their land.
~~~~~~~~~
4) There won’t be a more propitious time.
We’re headed for very hard times. By WE I mean the west. Mostly the United States and Europe. And Canada too. Our finances are all interdependent and banksters rule.
We’re dancing on the Titanic’s deck, so to speak.
Historically, hard times invariably lead to a ratcheting up of anti-Jewish sentiment.
The time to annex is now.
Most likely it won’t happen in the next six months. But regardless of whoever wins the US presidency, it must be done as soon as possible.
~~~~~~~~
5) The problem is not the world’s situation as much as Israel’s own government, which is set on partitioning the land.
Before Israel tries to deal with the rest of the world, it must deal with the powerful leftist minority that is now calling the shots.
But Jews need to organize. They can’t just rely on their timid MKs to take the initiative.
The land belongs to the Jews. Not to the administrators in the Knesset.
@ Vinnie:
Your attitude reminds me of the 10 Spies:
Parshat Shelach Lecha:
The Spies and their Confidence Problem
@ Canadian Otter:
Don’t get me wrong, my Canadian friend.
You set up a false dichotomy.
The choice is not, “annex right now, OR give the Palis a state in J&S”.
I am absolutely, totally against the latter, period.
Put another way, I’ve always favored a “two state solution”:
State #1: Israel
State #2: Jordan
My point is that annexing right now will come at a huge cost, a great part of which can be avoided by more careful “preparation of the battlefield”, so to speak.
I submit that it is better to wait until Obama is out of office, and/or when the PA in J&S does something to provoke Israel, which at some point is bound to happen, as long as Israel doesn’t capitulate, which I also do not expect (where provocations are concerned, these need not be of an immediately bloody nature; if Hamas takes over the PA in J&S, so far as I’m concerned, that is provocation enough, and that is a very plausible scenario). I think Bibi is broadly correct in his approach, to appear to be the “reasonable party” while in fact not giving up anything, and always throwing the ball in the PA’s court. He says “negotiations without preconditions”…but if and when such talks would begin, he won’t retreat on the recognition issue, he won’t give on the ROR issue – both of which are positions he can easily defend in the court of world opinion – and he knows these are PA “red lines”…which means there won’t be an agreement with them, and it is all their fault.
Meanwhile, as the “stalemate” continues, while the onus for the lack of an agreement is placed on the PA, Israel keeps her boots on the ground in J&S, and keeps building, building, building. This appears to be the plan. Bibi didn’t convene that committee on the legality of building in J&S just for s**** and giggles, you know.
Put simply, why “pay retail” today, when I can wait a year and get the same thing for half price?
Yes, I agree with Glick that the penalty will be the same for partial versus full annexation, so might as well “pull the bandaid off all at once”, as David Chase says above. All I’m saying is the “correlation of political forces” is very unfavorable to Israel now, and there is the prospect of them being in significantly better favor in the foreseeable future. Keep the PA at bay for now, keep de facto control of J&S, then when conditions are more favorable, move to de jure control.
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard is right about the Jewish people (and not the then inexistent State of Israel) who were granted the internationally agreed rights to settle the land in the early 1920s. Twenty years earlier, the Jews formed the Zionist Organization to collectively represent them – an organization which, in turn morphed into the State of Israel to embody these rights.
Therefore, we cannot dissociate the Jewish people from the State of Israel in terms of the settlement of the land since that settlement must take place within the confines of the territory upon which the State of Israel exercises sovereignty. The two aspects (Israel and Jewish people) are closely intertwined.
<a href="#comment-177092" title="
The Levy report brings it to the forefront, also against anybody still objecting in Israel. Howard Grief also spoke at the conference and took the legal argument to a deeper level when he pointed out that there really was no sovereignty "vacuum" like one of the other speakers said. This is important. He pointed out that San Remo made it ours besides the fact that the Levy report refuted the Fourth Geneva Convention argument thrown out by the international community. It’s not just that it’s not illegal (Levy) but that it belongs to us (Grief). I think the first is a little bit more of a passive claim than what Grief puts forward. Grief’s point eliminate the responses that are coming out (ie. America) that say, as even Reagan had said that even if they’re not illegal they are ill advisable. If sovereignly is ours, like Grief proves, there’s now no such thing as ill advisable- since it becomes meaningless. Together, our rights are irrefutable. Subtle, but I think important and encouraging
~~~~~~~~~
@ BlandOatmeal:
One of the problems that was pointed out by Daniel Herskowitz about your statement is that by only annexing some (Area C) you are tacitly splitting off the rest making it seem less important or somehow even less legally annexable Like Caroline Glick said: we might as well do it all at once since the price to pay would be the same either way. You don’t want to implicitly separate the rest by annexing piecemeal. It won’t be pleasant either way so we might as well get it all. If the world is going to object, and they will, we might as well go through it once. .It would also, despite all the new legal clarifications, possibly be even more difficult,to then lay claim even with sound legality on the rest and even, I think, to getting another concensus after the aftershock of first annexing Area C separately. Better to pull the bandaid off all at once.
NO GROUP OF ISRAELI ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE RIGHT TO GIVE JEWISH LAND AWAY.
This should be on the first line of the first paragraph of the first page of ISRAEL 101 for anyone who cares about Israel and the fate of the Jews.
@ Vinnie:
What’s the alternative?
When facing almost insurmountable challenges, Israel’s early pioneers posed that question: What’s the alternative to fighting? What’s the alternative to standing up for the land and fighting every fight, no matter how outnumbered they were, no matter how pitiful their arsenal, and how the world powers were all against them?
The alternative for the early pioneers was to fall victims to genocide.
The alternative to not annexing ALL of Judea and Samaria is the establishment of a Terror Islamic State on what is now Jewish land.
If Gaza is bad enough, think what it would be like to live next to an independent Islamic state armed to the teeth and protected by Iran – a state that would not rest until they got all of Palestine, all the way to the sea.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The threats you describe above are quite bad. Actually the situation could get much worse from the international point of view. But I won’t give more ideas to Israel’s enemies.
However, no sanctions would ever be as bad as the complete loss of not only Judea and Samaria but of the rest of Israel.
The much vaunted Israeli nukes, or even the IDF, are useless when fighting a bunch of “civilians” meters away from your border.
Israel has not won any wars for a long time. What does that tell you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And terror works. Terror can drive people away from the settlements. The rest of Israel would not be any safer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When the Ottomans held the land it was sparsely populated. Taking it back was hard but not impossible.
If Jews lose the land this time, it may very well be forever. Muslims will make sure that there will so many of them in former Israel that no Jew will ever set foot on it ever again.
~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s the character flaws of those in authority that have brought the greatest harm to the country. No need to elaborate.
Jews can deal with terror, with war, with sanctions, with just about everything life throws at them.
What they have a hard time dealing with is “character flaws” within their own leadership.
They take too long to notice. They forgive too easily. And once they are really fed up with them, they keep on talking and arguing but never agreeing on what to do about it.
Until it’s too late.
~~~~~~~~~
Set up an EFFECTIVE organization and fight against partition and for full sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria!
In all this discussion, I see no mention of the biggest stinkbomb in the room.
Are you all in denial here, or what?
There is this little problem called the Palestinian security forces, otherwise known as “Dayton’s Army”, so named due to the fact of an American general who trained them, after they were equipped by the U.S. and Israel (shades of General Glubb from the ’48 war).
If Israel annexes J&S, do you think the PA is simply going to throw up their hands and say, ‘Oh, fiddlesticks. They’ve annexed. We might as well fold up our tents and move to Amman or London, or maybe Paris’??!!
No, they are not going to do that. They will launch their biggest Intifada ever. And, because Israel annexed, she will be perceived as the “aggressor” by the so-called “International Community” (i.e., the petrodollar whore UN).
The IDF will win the firefight. I have no doubt of that. But CNN, etc., will be there. They will make Israel look as bad as possible. If you think world reaction to the Gaza flotilla incident in 2010 was bad, that was nothing compared to what you’ll face in this instance.
You can expect the UNSC to suddenly bring up to a vote the PA’s statehood bid, and vote in the affirmative, with Obama’s support. Never mind the fact of an election year; he hates Israel so much, he’d do this.
You can expect a complete arms embargo. And, with that in mind, smelling blood, others may join the fray (e.g., Hezbollah, Egypt, maybe even Syria). They will also lose, but lacking outside support, having been painted as having “precipitated” the “crisis”, Israel will still be treated as a pariah.
You can expect EU sanctions…where 20% of Israel’s exports go.
You may even wind up with a Chapter 7 UNSCR passed against you, mandating economic sanctions going well beyond the EU.
I wouldn’t expect any Libya-style intervention on the PA’s behalf; no one wants to face the full force of the IDF, and everybody knows Israel ain’t Libya. However, the economic penalties will be severe, and will last at least as long as Obama’s remaining time in office (which I believe is only about six more months from right now, but you never know…).
The economic pain will be very severe in the near term.
And responsible people here and at that conference are saying there is “no problem” with annexation???!!!
Are you nuts???!!!
Maybe you should do it anyway. Maybe it will be worth the price. But under better political conditions, you can do it at a lot lower price in the not-too-distant future, perhaps?
At some point, there is going to have to be a showdown with the PA. On that, I think all of us here pretty much agree. But that time is not now.
When it is time, it will have to be for keeps. No letting anybody escape to Tunisia or wherever. All PA leaders, civilian and military, must be killed. All of their government offices, institutions, HQs, office buildings, etc., must be razed to the ground. As a political entity, the PA/PLO must be utterly and completely decapitated. When the dust settles, there can be no PA left. Period. That guy who sits in their “observer’s chair” or whatever at the UN, he should have nowhere to go home to. Except Jordan. In fact, those Palestinian Arabs in J&S who flee the fighting, that is where the IDF must direct them: Jordan, their true homeland.
However, at the very least, there better be someone on the UNSC who’s got Israel’s back, so that you don’t have to go through all the sanctions and associated crap; you can count on the EU sanctions no matter what.
Eyes wide open, people, eyes wide open.
The only recourse for Israel is to annex the whole of land west of of the Jordan River and populate it as rapidly as possible. Possession of land, as Israelis have learned over the years, is difficult to reclaim
once occupied. After annexation, the government of Israel could deny all UN contributions which, in turn, would cause the Palis to look for new home lands.
@ Salomon Benzimra: Absent from much of the debate is that it was the Jews, not Israel, which was granted the right to settle west of the Jordan River. It appears to me that issues of Israeli sovereignty are separate issues from the Jewish right of settlement as that right accrues to non Israeli jews also. Israeli sovereignty issues and Jewish settlement should have no legal bearing or adverse consequence limiting the right of Jewish settlement in ANY area west of the Jordan river. The mixing of the separate issues has caused confusion leading to the GC issues. This also means that “Jewish” settlement cannot be an obstacle to “peace” or to negotiations of sovereignty because any nation in control is obligated to encourage “jewish” settlement under the charter. It also means that in order for Israel to bring restorative justice to the jewish people, resulting from Israeli and Jordanian obstruction of Jewish settlement, it should observe the mandate to “encourage” Jewish settlement. In order to reverse the damage of the breaches it should adopt an affirmative action program to encourage the settlement. I suggest a US style homestead act which grants free land to world jewry based on staking claims. This land should be on the state lands, which comprise the vast majority of the west bank, so as not to breach arab civil rights. This should result in a similar land rush race for the free land. Massive Jewish settlement would change the picture. Jews, apart from Israel, have a duty to demand their legal rights, and Israel has a duty to facilitate those rights. Israel and Jew should be separated to facilitate Jewish settlement. Great damage has been done by Israeli govt obstruction of Jewish settlement rights and this supposedly “wily” stance has backfired as it is the cause of all the clamor against Jewish settlement.
The Hebron Conference and the Edmond Levy Committee Report both stress the legal rights of Israel over Judea and Samaria. That’s a welcome development, even if it has been officially hidden for the past 45 years.
During those 45 years, a diametrically opposed narrative – unsupported by factual evidence but far more widely spread – has been concocted, refined, validated and couched in UN General Assembly Resolutions.
Therefore, if we want to push forward the unassailable rights of Israel in Judea and Samaria, we MUST devote a considerable parallel effort to attack the existing edifice of Palestinian-fabricated lies until it crumbles.
To do that, we must first “remember 3236”
@ Laura:
Leftist fear mongering is what may cause Israelis to lose Yesha and eventually everything. Israel can’t survive with a terror state next door supported by the likes of Iran and Russia. Most PA Arabs and a good percentage of Israeli Arabs would like to emigrate, if they could afford it. Jews could help them financially to accomplish their dreams. – I’d write more but I’m being moderated again. Maybe a short talkback will slip through. 🙂
@ Ted Belman:
A real organization with people like you and Caroline Glick and Martin Sherman and Yoram Ettinger and many others would INSPIRE AND MOTIVATE Israelis and give them the confidence they need to push ahead.
Right now all that Jews see is more talk. They don’t see you coalescing into a well-organized and united group.
Without an organization you have no clout.
Without an organization your most influential leaders are vulnerable to coercion and intimidation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The agenda needs to be very simple. The fewer issues, the fewer items for contention:
1) Full sovereignty for all of Judea and Samaria. Anything less than 100% is DISENGAGEMENT.
2) No to automatic citizenship for all Arabs.
Not a rejection either, but conditions and limitations are to be specified later on.
And people must be made aware that there are legal and effective alternatives to citizenship.
Applications for citizenship made individually would sort those who are willing to become peaceful citizens from those who would not. A pledge of allegiance to the Jewish state should be a crucial requirement for citizenship for anyone wishing to become Israeli.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There should be absolutely no talk of population transfer.
There will be individuals who will deliberately try to taint the movement with such talk in order to scuttle everything before it’s launched.
The world is watching. Be careful, but be firm because you have a righteous goal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nationalist leaders will need to hurry up because the government is set on DISENGAGEMENT.
The government favors the creation of the Islamic State of Palestine, but it knows that there will never be a “peace agreement” with them. Their only alternative to carry out partition is Disengagement, under the guise of “partial annexation”. They think they can get away with all that because the Jewish population is divided and weak. Only a popular and effective political organization can change that.
The only problem I have with this plan is making the Arabs citizens. I would rather Israel financially compensate them to leave.
Canadian Otter Said:
When we have enough support for the action. The talk builds support.
If the depraved, corrupt, racist and murderous international community’s opinion is to be the guiding force for the thousands of years old Jewish civilization, then we are all in trouble.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Western countries claim – in their best moments – to be law abiding.
Let’s take them at their word and show them that aside from historical evidence – international law supports Israel’s ownership of the land.
That’s all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A partial agreement (Golan) is what brought all these tragedies and uncertainty to the Jews of Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Annexation of Jerusalem is still in question.
Journalist David Bedein went through the archives and found that Jerusalem was given civil administration but was not actually annexed. Officials at that time obfuscated the language so as to make Jews assume the whole city had been annexed, when it was not.
These days Jerusalem is for most purposes a divided city, with the PA managing eastern Jerusalem, and Israeli police refusing to assist Jews in that part of the city.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A partial annexation of Judea and Samaria is the first step not towards full sovereignty over the land but towards DISENGAGEMENT PART 2.
And we all know how Disengagement Part 1 turned out to be.
Partial annexation is actually the situation on the ground: Jerusalem and Golan have already been annexed, with the rest in limbo. Israel doesn’t need to take maximalist positions: The Arabs have been doing that for over 60 years, and it has gotten them nowhere. The international community will not recognize annexation of one sqare inch of J & S (Note that they still do not recognize Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem), and the Arabs will not even recognize annexation of Tel Aviv. That is essentially of no importance. What REALLY matters, is that Jews come to agreement about their rights and their land, even if it’s partial agreement. The more they collectively affirm their rights, and the more united they are, the stronger they will become — providing they maintain a proper respect for their God.
More talk? When will all this talk translate into action?
We’ve been reading about conferences for years but there does not seem to be a coordinated plan of action. The same experts and supporters meet, they express the same thoughts, and then they go home.
~~~~~~~~~
They didn’t need the Levy report to bolster their position. The legal documentation supporting Israel’s ownership of Yesha has been there for decades.
Office for Israeli Constitutional Law – http://www.justicenow4israel.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What’s needed is political ORGANIZATION.
They need to form an advocacy organization headed by people with top credentials to strongly demand full sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria.
It is key that the demand should not be for only part of Judea and Samaria. Partial annexation is a ruse for DISENGAGEMENT, which is this government’s ultimate goal. BEWARE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They also need to raise funds to educate the population.
The Left has been spreading fear and misinformation about the actual number of Arabs in Yesha, and saying they would threaten the Jewish nature of the country.
That same Left has absolutely no concern about the increasing number of Arab and African infiltrators in Israel. They even agitate in their favor!
They have also misinformed Jews about the expectation for automatic citizenship for those Arabs.
There is no need to offer them automatic citizenship. None at all.
To calm down the unavoidable attacks by “human rights” organizations, Israel may offer Arabs citizenship on an individual and conditional basis – and after a period of five years or so.
They would have to have a clean police record, and apply individually.
And they would have to swear allegiance to the Jewish state, while promising to abide by all its laws.
Since that would deeply offend their sensitivities, the government or a private organization could at the same time raise funds to assist them resettling abroad. Polls indicate that most young PA and even Israeli Arabs would prefer to emigrate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The main thing is to establish sovereignty over the land now. The Middle East and the West are in flux. Who knows what the situation will be in a year or two. Other issues can be managed or solved later.
PS – Israel is not bound by Oslo. The PA never fulfilled their part of the agreement.
I don’t see any great problem in piecemeal annexation (“Area C” only), if that’s what a consensus can be built around.