This is a Report, RESTORING A SECURITY-FIRST PEACE POLICY, published by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
It was authored in Nov 2011, by Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s current Min of Defence.
I take great issue with this idea.
Whenever Netanyahu assures us that he won’t jeopardize Israel’s security I am bitterly disappointed. Its not that I don’t want to be secure, I do, but for me, that is a given.
What I want to hear from our leaders is that Judea and Samaria belong to the Jews for many reasons, including, Israel has the best if not the only legal title to it, it is ours historically, Hashem gave it to us, we won it in a defensive war and international law recognizes it as ours. Yet all we hear from Netanyahu and previous Prime Ministers is that they won’t jeopardize our security.
What I want to hear from them is our rightful claim to the land. Occasionaly they call the lands “disputed”. Not good enough. They should repeat as a mantra that the lands belong to us.
So long as they are silent on our rights, they give legitimacy to the occupation myth.
I am glad to read that Min Bennett took issue with Obama’s reference to the lands being occupied by saying that “there is no occupation within one’s own land.”
If u cannot defend your rights, they are meaningless. If you cannot defend a patent, it becomes in today’s time, meaningless. In the first case you need power (army) and in the second case you need money (a lot of it). Very simple. When push comes to shove, IL will show-up. It is a matter of life & death.
from the end of the Yaalon report
even if the state of Israel does not want to claim the land, as the current administrator of the territories they have a legal obligation to facilitate the close settlement of Jews west of the JOrdan River”. The state of Israel has no right to obstruct the settlement of jews based on claims of security. There are large unpopulated areas in area C which could be closely settled by Jews and protected. I believe that the state has confused its own perceived interests with the legal rights of global jewry. No one including the UN or any occupying force has a legal right to obstruct jewish settlement in YS. Jordan did it illegally and by force, Israel is also doing it illegally by a conflict of interest. The only obstruction to jewish settlement in YS is the state of Israel because it applies the bogus security issue to obstruct settlement. The UN and others could not make this claim; only an entity in occupation can make such a claim. The EU and UN rely on the complicity of the state of Israel to bypass the rights of global jewry and disappear their only remaining asset in YS. The state has become a tool of those who could not legally accomplish the task themselves; they could only accomplish the task through outright swindling and lying. Therefore, the state of Israel, the bogus self-proclaimed representative of the Jewish people has swindled the only legal interest that the Jewish people have on the west bank. The agent and/or trustee has squandered the trust assets.
It is incumbent on the GOI to proclaim the legal right of Jewish settlement in YS, to demand on behalf of the jewish people that the relevant nations and entities observe their agreements with the jewish people, to enforce these rights unilaterally as a result of the breach of agreements of the relevant parties. If Israel does not want it, it must still affirm that Israel’s disinterest does not reduce the rights of the Jewish people to settle YS. If the GOI cannot do the actions at the least it must declare the jewish right of settlement for all to hear; anything less is a shameful and scandalous swindling of the Jewish people by the state of Israel.
Where the issue is obfuscated, and creating a red herring, is the difference between the rights of global Jewry and the rights of the state of Israel. All of the arguments against the “legal title” are based in the denial of the state’s sovereignty rights based on the Geneva conventions. However, I have never seen one argument which speaks to the legal rights of jews to settle west of the Jordan River. It is my view that a much more effective approach would be to separate the state of Israel claims(which appear nonexistent) from the settlement rights of Jews. There appears to be no legal basis, and every legal imperative, regarding the “encouragement to close settlement of the Jewish people west of the Jordan River”. In fact it is my view that one of the best legal arguments for continuing the occupation, without extending sovereignty or enfranchisement of the arabs, is that any pal state would contravene and prevent the settlement of jews west of the jordan river. This is proven by the fact that every inch of former palestine mandate territory is JEW FREE. Therefore, the establishment of a pal state would be in direct conflict with international law and the “encouragement to settle Jews”. I think the same should be pursued regarding european and american involvement in the military zones of the occupied territory is that they are operating illegally and all their agencies should be banned and the monies confiscated which operate to sabotage Jewish settlement by facilitating pal building and obstruction. the state of Israel can enforce and encourage jewish settlement without claiming or extending sovereignty, thus neutering GC arguments. In fact, the Israeli state is the only entity which can guarantee the fulfillment of the law by protecting and encouraging Jewish settlement. It is the notion of restricting jews which must be attacked. One way to circumvent the GC arguments is by Israel giving free land grants to diaspora jews to settle directly in YS without first immigrating to Israel. this can be done with the reasoning of complying with international law. In this way they can assume the role of the mandate trustee in order to guarantee jewish legal rights. what legal argument can possibly be made in such a scenario where Israel makes no claim but merely facilitated jewish settlement as they are legally obligated to do. The main thing is to get jews into YS and it is seems to be “international” legal perceptions obstructing that fact.