By: Hillel Fendel, The Jewish Press
As of this week, it’s no longer just another fringe campaign: the drive to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria – all or parts thereof – is now a bona-fide, full-blown national drive, with the support of government ministers, Knesset Members and candidates, academics, and members of the media. This became abundantly clear on
Tuesday night in Jerusalem, when more than 1000 people crowded into a 900-seat Jerusalem hall – after the original location was abruptly changed – for the Third Annual Conference on the Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (Yesha).Organized by Women in Green, and co-sponsored by the Jewish Press (JewishPress.com), the conference dealt with specific and practical methods by which to actually get the sovereignty ball moving and thus prevent the formation of a Palestinian state.
Talk of a two-state solution, while widely prevalent, is largely irrelevant. It was Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009 that gave the concept new life, and it specifically emphasized that Israel would agree only to a
demilitarized Arab state in parts of Judea and Samaria. This being an arrangement that both Fatah and Hamas have categorically turned down, an agreed-upon two-state solution can basically be dismissed.
What will take its place?
What will ensure that active and passive preparations on the ground for such an eventuality do not continue? The answer, according to an increasing portion of the Israeli public, is Israeli sovereignty — at least in part of the areas in question. At the conference, Women in Green co-chair Yehudit Katzover presented the results of a new survey, in which 73.2% of right-wing voters (some 56% of the population)–-not
including residents of Yesha or hareidim–support sovereignty. The conference speakers essentially addressed three major issues: 1) How to bring about the desired sovereignty; 2) what will be the status of the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria; and 3) whether to push for full sovereignty over all of Yesha or to work gradually.
The Slow but Sure Approach
Three Likud members – Cabinet Minister Yuli Edelstein, MK Ze’ev Elkin, who is widely expected to be named a Cabinet minister following the upcoming elections, and MK Yariv Levine – supported what Elkin called the “salami approach.” We must learn from the Palestinians, he said, “take what we can now, and discuss the rest later.”
He said that we are “hopefully” now entering a new era in terms of Judea and Samaria: “For the first 25 years after the Six Day War, the ‘status quo approach’ reigned; beautiful Jewish communities were built, but the status of the areas did not change. Since 1993, we began a period of withdrawals – Oslo, then the Disengagement, etc. –
and it is now clear to most that this has brought us less security, and increased demands from the PA… We must now begin to take proactive steps to improve our situation, and begin to apply sovereignty, or aspects thereof, on whatever areas we can at any given moment. It will not be easy, but it is necessary.”
The “This Is our Land” Approach
Others demanded full sovereignty now; coincidentally or not, they are not currently in the governing coalition. MK Aryeh Eldad said that Israeli law must be immediately imposed on all of Yesha, and Likud Knesset candidate Moshe Feiglin called upon the Israeli public to internalize the idea that “This Is our Land” – the name of the
grass-roots movement he founded 20 years ago – and that sovereignty is the only solution. Popular thinker Caroline Glick echoed her position of the last conference, saying then that sovereignty, whether complete or partial, will cost us the same in terms of international opposition, “so why pay full price for half a job?” Former MK lyakim HaEtzni added that Arab autonomy leading to statehood is catastrophic, but that autonomy under the framework of full Israeli sovereignty in Yesha is the desirable way to go.
Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, running for Knesset on the Jewish Home ticket, quoted the Y’hi khvodparagraph in the Morning Prayers, in which the verse citing God’s choice of the Land of Israel precedes His choice of the people of Israel. And regarding the Arab minority living in our midst, he said that Yehoshua Bin Nun dealt with the same issue by simply insisting that they rid themselves of idol-worship and recognize Jewish control over the land. “This must be our clear red line,” Rabbi Ben-Dahan emphasized: “the recognition that there can be no foreign rule in Eretz Yisrael.”
Caroline Glick also cited Yehoshua Bin Nun, and said that his demand to forego all idol-worship has a parallel today: “They must agree to stop all terrorism.”
Citizenship – or Expulsion?
The issue of Yesha Arabs under Israeli sovereignty was thoroughly explored in an hour-long panel discussion concluding the conference. Glick took the most extreme approach: “All of them should be offered the right to apply to the Interior Ministry for citizenship. Based on past experience in Jerusalem and the Golan [which have both been annexed – HF], we know that most of the Arabs will not apply. And even if they would all become citizens, the Jewish population in Israel would still retain a two-third majority, buttressed by growing birth and Aliyah rates. Nothing is simple, but we need not fear taking the bold steps that are necessary; we have come to inherit our land!”
Dr. Martin Sherman, founder of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, former Tel Aviv University lecturer, and former ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir’s government – said there is no choice but to compensate the Arab residents and have them take up residence elsewhere. “Ultimately, there can be only one sovereignty between the Jordan and the Mediterranean – and we’d better make sure it’s ours, not theirs.” Dr. Sherman elaborated that Arab self-rule won’t work, because they have no loyalty to the Israeli government overseeing the autonomy, and that granting full rights would also fail because “two peoples who do not share basic nationalist cultures can simply not live together over time.” Therefore, he concluded, “the only option that remains is compensation/evacuation,” a solution first proposed by the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose name was not mentioned at the conference.
Wanted: Israeli TV
Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University, who was asked to speak on the expected Arab reaction to Israeli sovereignty, said, “They haven’t accepted the results of the War of Independence, do we expect them to accept the results of the Six Day War?” Both the Arab world and the international community, Dr. Kedar predicted, can be expected to react moderately to strongly to a declaration of Israeli sovereignty. Part of the solution, he suggested, lies in launching an Israeli satellite TV channel for the general worldwide public. “It would not cost more than $15 million a year,” he assessed.
Co-chairs Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katzover, as well as other speakers, emphasized that the recent report submitted by the Justice Edmond Levy committee, outlining the legal foundation for Jewish settlement in Yesha, must be adopted: “It must take its proper place in open governmental discourse, and action must be taken in accordance with it.” MK Eldad, in a not-subtle dig at the Jewish Home party, demanded that all future coalition partners resign from the next Netanyahu government if the Levi Report is not legislated into law within three months.
The Day Will Come! All the speakers agreed on two things: a Palestinian state would be catastrophic for the State of Israel and must be avoided at all costs, and the very fact of the conference and its success is a great step forward towards applying Jewish sovereignty over all of Israel. In the inspiring words of an unusually uplifting Latma musical skit produced especially for the Conference, “The day will come – it must come – when only truth will be spoken, and all the world will say, without apology: This is Israel’s land – Israel’s!”
This past Tuesday, here in Jerusalem, the Women in Green — joined now by some other groups — sponsored their third annual conference: Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
The turnout was incredible. Not only did it exceed numbers for the previous two conferences by a good deal, planners had to move the venue because registration was so robust. And even in that larger venue the hall was packed. This provides strong evidence for what I have been saying — that the Israeli populace is moving right, and is, indeed, weary with notions of a “two-state solution.”
What I would like to do here is provide an overview and then touch on highlights.
~~~~~~~~~~
If there was an over-arching message delivered by speakers (many, not all) it is that sovereignty is something that has to be approached in stages. It is simply not realistic to imagine that the Israeli government is going to get up one fine morning and declare all of Judea and Samaria annexed and fully part of Israel.
What is important, first of all, is the stimulation of public discourse on the issues. People just do not understand, do not have solid information.
It falls to those of use who do understand, and do wish to promote sovereignty, to create the atmosphere for dialogue. And that dialogue must be advanced rationally, via the sharing of facts, and not emotions.
~~~~~~~~~~
And then, there are measures that might be taken to move the process along. Speakers differ on exactly what those measures should be: application of civil law to all of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria; annexation of area C; etc..
~~~~~~~~~~
Yuli Edelstein (Likud), Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, suggested that without initiatives such as the current conference, the issue would not arise on the government’s agenda.
Credit: Israelfrontline
Edelstein warned that application of sovereignty would not automatically resolve international challenges couched in legal language. But sovereignty would send the world a message, none-the-less.
It is easier to face the international community when we are united by a consensus, he observed. The problem now, however, is that the government sends an ambivalent message instead of stating clearly that we have rights over our land.
He sees several scenarios being pushed: The far left is ideological and sees the need to relinquish land to the Arabs for ethical reasons. The pragmatic left concedes that we have rights to the land, but says that in the current international climate we have no choice but to concede it.
An optimistic scenario to the right of these positions says that we must approach the situation in stages, and this is what he supports. To the right of this are groups not content with stages and pushing for immediate sovereignty as an expression of our rights.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yari Levin (Likud), Chair of the Knesset House Committee, warned that we must not confuse historical merit in terms of our claim to the land, which is solid, with a legislative process, that is going to take time.
Credit: Indynews
What we can do, says Levin, is apply Israeli law to all those Jews living in Judea and Samaria, put in place laws that permit Jewish development in Judea and Samaria, and pass other constructive legislation that will apply to all of Judea and Samaria.
(As to laws that permit Jewish development in Judea and Samaria, there is a great deal to say — I have already touched upon this in several contexts but expect to be revisiting it in greater detail with regard to the Levy Report. The bias against Jewish development is currently horrendous.)
Levin is adamant in his opinion that there should be no singling out of major settlement blocs. Any legislation put in place must apply to all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
Following this, there should be an attempt to apply full Israeli law to all of Judea and Samaria. But now we must advance plans by building another school and another house.
~~~~~~~~~~
Moshe Feiglin heads the Jewish Leadership faction in Likud and is currently on Likud’s list.
Credit: gavrielsanders
Feiglin made an extremely important point, and one we cannot afford to lose sight of: We have to pay attention to places where we are supposed to already have sovereignty, but are losing it. This is true in communities such as Lod, where there are neighborhoods that Arabs have taken over.
And it is particularly true on Har Habayit — the Temple Mount. The attorney general has said that Israeli law applies on the Mount, and the High Court has said Jews have a right to pray there. But the police have determined that Jewish praying on the Mount will foment Arab violence and thus have forbidden it.
Earlier on the day of the conference, Feiglin went up on the Mount, as he regularly does, bowed down and began to pray, and was promptly arrested by the policeman who had been following him.
Every time I write about this sort of incident, I find myself ashamed to the core. This is not how a Jewish government should be managing matters on the site that is the holiest to the Jewish people simply in order to appease or avoid confrontation with Arabs. And, indeed, perhaps we need to raise our voices and promote activism on this issue before we talk about annexing Judea and Samaria.
It’s all of a piece, of course. A government that does not have the courage to protect sovereignty on the Mount is not going to promote legislation for sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.
~~~~~~~~~~
Adv. Alan Baker, an international lawyer, former Israeli ambassador to Canada, and a member of the Edmund Levy Committee, which issued the Levy Report, spoke about that report.
Credit: lawubc
What he had to say was exceedingly important. His presentation touches upon so much however, that I want to return to examine it in greater detail on another day.
The mandate of the three-person Levy Committee was to examine the status of Judea and Samaria and to recommend ways to deal with the land.
This was with regard to considering the highly ambiguous situation that pertains there, not with an eye to legalizing illegal construction. An important point must be made, however: Former prime minister Sharon had mandated Talia Sasson with examining the situation in Judea and Samaria, as well. Her report was never formally adopted by an Israeli government. But she made a list of outposts that had been constructed without full authorization — they were “unauthorized” — and changed the term to “illegal” (which is not the same thing). The concept of “illegal outposts” was then adopted by the international community.
For a long time, there was a freeze on construction that prevented the issuance of permits. There was no possibility of continuing construction with full authorization (with all proper signatures). Construction done in this manner was termed “illegal.”
The over-riding question is whether Israel has rights in Judea and Samaria on the ground. Is Israeli presence there “illegal”?
The committee examined the idea that public lands — not privately owned — in Judea and Samaria were automatically Arab and rejected this approach. Ottoman, Jordanian, Israeli and international law were considered in depth.
We do not have “occupation” in the sense implied by international law because we did not move onto the land of a legal sovereign. Our situation is sui generis, which means one of a kind — without precedent or basis in international law.
The committee rejected completely application of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
We are the indigenous people in this region. After examining the legal history, the committee concluded that the Jewish people has well established rights that cannot be negated or denied. We are talking here about San Remo, the Balfour Declaration and more. These declarations are treaty statements.
Instead of apologizing, we should state our rights. People simply don’t know.
The land is not Palestinian — there is no document that gives the Arabs the right to the land. What we are dealing with is “disputed” land, not “occupied Palestinian territory.”
The committee hopes the next government will relate seriously to the Levy Report.
More to follow, including on the Levy recommendations.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ze’ev Elkin (Likud), Chair of the Coalition and Chair of the Knesset Eretz Yisrael Committee, alluded to two historical periods here in Israel since 1967.
Credit: Wikipedia
From 1967 until 1992 or 1993, the trend was preserving the status quo in Judea and Samaria. Communities were built there, and there was an assumption that matters would unfold on their own as facts were established on the ground.
From 1992 [with the advent of Oslo] until the present, there has been a back-stepping. We are in a state of confusion now and he hopes this second period is coming to an end. He believes (there is not consensus on this yet) that what Abbas did at the UN has brought the Oslo period to a finish.
Israel postponed the discourse on sovereignty and now we need a new approach. We must apply sovereignty to the maximum possible at any given moment. Slowly we can change the public discourse.
~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Moti Kedar, Middle East expert and lecturer at Bar Ilan University, was asked to speak on the Arab reaction to sovereignty.
Credit: sassywire
But, asked Kedar, did Arabs ever agree to sovereignty over Tel Aviv or Haifa? Have Egypt and Jordan — both of which have peace treaties with Israel — ever recognized Israel as the state of the Jewish people?
Kedar said that we urgently require an international television station that broadcasts in English and Arabic and that simply tells the truth. People have access to CNN and a host of other stations biased against Israel, while Israel is simply missing from that broadcast discussion.
He further observed that the courts should have nothing to do with determination of borders. This is a political issue, for the Knesset. The courts should be involved strictly with legal issues, which he believes calls for a change in Basic Law.
Kedar, an expert on Muslim/Arab culture, said that only those who are victors can secure their place in the Middle East. Those who seek peace are seen as vanquished and get kicked.
~~~~~~~~~~
Caroline Glick, columnist, senior editor at the Jerusalem Post and senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs for the Center for Security Policy, was one of four persons on a panel that discussed the issue of the status of Arabs after the application of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
Credit: sassywire
People are afraid of the demographic issue, she said — the fear that if we incorporate Judea and Samaria into Israel fully we will be demographically overwhelmed. Birthrates are shifting, however, and the public needs to be educated on this. She sees a population 2/3 Jewish and 1/3 Arab.
The precedents that exist on this issue were with Jerusalem and the Golan, and there were no problems encountered in either of these areas. Every Arab would be given the opportunity to request citizenship, provided he or she met the criteria established by the Ministry of the Interior — with regard to renouncing terrorism and accepting Israel as a Jewish state.
Glick says we are now entering a period that is historically revolutionary. To proceed the issue must happen in the context of a larger change in the Israeli public, and changes in the Israeli legal system will be required. People are tired of the way things currently operate, specifically with regard to the High Court (B’gatz).
She noted the fact that Habayit Hayehudi is expected to be part of the next coalition (from her mouth to Heaven!) and it is advocating annexation of Area C. This represents a huge change.
~~~~~~~~~~
Other participants on the panel included MK Arieh Eldad, Adv. Elyakim Haetzni, and Dr. Martin Sherman.
You can see the entire conference dubbed in English here (skip the first five minutes, as that is a film of last years conference):
In a few days Women in Green will be providing links to each speaker separately, in English and Hebrew.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner , functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted.
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.
Studies, former Tel Aviv University lecturer, and former ministerial
adviser to Yitzhak Shamir’s government – said there is no choice but
to compensate the Arab residents and have them take up residence
elsewhere. “Ultimately, there can be only one sovereignty between the
Jordan and the Mediterranean – and we’d better make sure it’s ours,
not theirs.” Dr. Sherman elaborated that Arab self-rule won’t work,
because they have no loyalty to the Israeli government overseeing the
autonomy, and that granting full rights would also fail because “two
peoples who do not share basic nationalist cultures can simply not
live together over time.” Therefore, he concluded, “the only option
that remains is compensation/evacuation,” a solution first proposed by
the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose name was not mentioned at the
conference.
Wanted: Israeli TV
Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University, who was asked to speak on
the expected Arab reaction to Israeli sovereignty, said, “They haven’t
accepted the results of the War of Independence, do we expect them to
accept the results of the Six Day War?” Both the Arab world and the
international community, Dr. Kedar predicted, can be expected to react
moderately to strongly to a declaration of Israeli sovereignty. Part
of the solution, he suggested, lies in launching an Israeli satellite
TV channel for the general worldwide public. “It would not cost more
than $15 million a year,” he assessed.
Co-chairs Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katzover, as well as other speakers,
emphasized that the recent report submitted by the Justice Edmond Levy
committee, outlining the legal foundation for Jewish settlement in
Yesha, must be adopted: “It must take its proper place in open
governmental discourse, and action must be taken in accordance with
it.” MK Eldad, in a not-subtle dig at the Jewish Home party, demanded
that all future coalition partners resign from the next Netanyahu
government if the Levi Report is not legislated into law within three
months.
The Day Will Come! All the speakers agreed on two things: a
Palestinian state would be catastrophic for the State of Israel and
must be avoided at all costs, and the very fact of the conference and
its success is a great step forward towards applying Jewish
sovereignty over all of Israel. In the inspiring words of an unusually
uplifting Latma musical skit produced especially for the Conference,
“The day will come – it must come – when only truth will be spoken,
and all the world will say, without apology: This is Israel’s land –
Israel’s!”
“Conference on Sovereignty”
This past Tuesday, here in Jerusalem, the Women in Green — joined now by some other groups — sponsored their third annual conference: Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
The turnout was incredible. Not only did it exceed numbers for the previous two conferences by a good deal, planners had to move the venue because registration was so robust. And even in that larger venue the hall was packed. This provides strong evidence for what I have been saying — that the Israeli populace is moving right, and is, indeed, weary with notions of a “two-state solution.”
What I would like to do here is provide an overview and then touch on highlights.
~~~~~~~~~~
If there was an over-arching message delivered by speakers (many, not all) it is that sovereignty is something that has to be approached in stages. It is simply not realistic to imagine that the Israeli government is going to get up one fine morning and declare all of Judea and Samaria annexed and fully part of Israel.
What is important, first of all, is the stimulation of public discourse on the issues. People just do not understand, do not have solid information.
It falls to those of use who do understand, and do wish to promote sovereignty, to create the atmosphere for dialogue. And that dialogue must be advanced rationally, via the sharing of facts, and not emotions.
~~~~~~~~~~
And then, there are measures that might be taken to move the process along. Speakers differ on exactly what those measures should be: application of civil law to all of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria; annexation of area C; etc..
~~~~~~~~~~
Yuli Edelstein (Likud), Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, suggested that without initiatives such as the current conference, the issue would not arise on the government’s agenda.
Credit: Israelfrontline
Edelstein warned that application of sovereignty would not automatically resolve international challenges couched in legal language. But sovereignty would send the world a message, none-the-less.
It is easier to face the international community when we are united by a consensus, he observed. The problem now, however, is that the government sends an ambivalent message instead of stating clearly that we have rights over our land.
He sees several scenarios being pushed: The far left is ideological and sees the need to relinquish land to the Arabs for ethical reasons. The pragmatic left concedes that we have rights to the land, but says that in the current international climate we have no choice but to concede it.
An optimistic scenario to the right of these positions says that we must approach the situation in stages, and this is what he supports. To the right of this are groups not content with stages and pushing for immediate sovereignty as an expression of our rights.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yari Levin (Likud), Chair of the Knesset House Committee, warned that we must not confuse historical merit in terms of our claim to the land, which is solid, with a legislative process, that is going to take time.
Credit: Indynews
What we can do, says Levin, is apply Israeli law to all those Jews living in Judea and Samaria, put in place laws that permit Jewish development in Judea and Samaria, and pass other constructive legislation that will apply to all of Judea and Samaria.
(As to laws that permit Jewish development in Judea and Samaria, there is a great deal to say — I have already touched upon this in several contexts but expect to be revisiting it in greater detail with regard to the Levy Report. The bias against Jewish development is currently horrendous.)
Levin is adamant in his opinion that there should be no singling out of major settlement blocs. Any legislation put in place must apply to all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
Following this, there should be an attempt to apply full Israeli law to all of Judea and Samaria. But now we must advance plans by building another school and another house.
~~~~~~~~~~
Moshe Feiglin heads the Jewish Leadership faction in Likud and is currently on Likud’s list.
Credit: gavrielsanders
Feiglin made an extremely important point, and one we cannot afford to lose sight of: We have to pay attention to places where we are supposed to already have sovereignty, but are losing it. This is true in communities such as Lod, where there are neighborhoods that Arabs have taken over.
And it is particularly true on Har Habayit — the Temple Mount. The attorney general has said that Israeli law applies on the Mount, and the High Court has said Jews have a right to pray there. But the police have determined that Jewish praying on the Mount will foment Arab violence and thus have forbidden it.
Earlier on the day of the conference, Feiglin went up on the Mount, as he regularly does, bowed down and began to pray, and was promptly arrested by the policeman who had been following him.
Every time I write about this sort of incident, I find myself ashamed to the core. This is not how a Jewish government should be managing matters on the site that is the holiest to the Jewish people simply in order to appease or avoid confrontation with Arabs. And, indeed, perhaps we need to raise our voices and promote activism on this issue before we talk about annexing Judea and Samaria.
It’s all of a piece, of course. A government that does not have the courage to protect sovereignty on the Mount is not going to promote legislation for sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.
~~~~~~~~~~
Adv. Alan Baker, an international lawyer, former Israeli ambassador to Canada, and a member of the Edmund Levy Committee, which issued the Levy Report, spoke about that report.
Credit: lawubc
What he had to say was exceedingly important. His presentation touches upon so much however, that I want to return to examine it in greater detail on another day.
The mandate of the three-person Levy Committee was to examine the status of Judea and Samaria and to recommend ways to deal with the land.
This was with regard to considering the highly ambiguous situation that pertains there, not with an eye to legalizing illegal construction. An important point must be made, however: Former prime minister Sharon had mandated Talia Sasson with examining the situation in Judea and Samaria, as well. Her report was never formally adopted by an Israeli government. But she made a list of outposts that had been constructed without full authorization — they were “unauthorized” — and changed the term to “illegal” (which is not the same thing). The concept of “illegal outposts” was then adopted by the international community.
For a long time, there was a freeze on construction that prevented the issuance of permits. There was no possibility of continuing construction with full authorization (with all proper signatures). Construction done in this manner was termed “illegal.”
The over-riding question is whether Israel has rights in Judea and Samaria on the ground. Is Israeli presence there “illegal”?
The committee examined the idea that public lands — not privately owned — in Judea and Samaria were automatically Arab and rejected this approach. Ottoman, Jordanian, Israeli and international law were considered in depth.
We do not have “occupation” in the sense implied by international law because we did not move onto the land of a legal sovereign. Our situation is sui generis, which means one of a kind — without precedent or basis in international law.
The committee rejected completely application of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
We are the indigenous people in this region. After examining the legal history, the committee concluded that the Jewish people has well established rights that cannot be negated or denied. We are talking here about San Remo, the Balfour Declaration and more. These declarations are treaty statements.
Instead of apologizing, we should state our rights. People simply don’t know.
The land is not Palestinian — there is no document that gives the Arabs the right to the land. What we are dealing with is “disputed” land, not “occupied Palestinian territory.”
The committee hopes the next government will relate seriously to the Levy Report.
More to follow, including on the Levy recommendations.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ze’ev Elkin (Likud), Chair of the Coalition and Chair of the Knesset Eretz Yisrael Committee, alluded to two historical periods here in Israel since 1967.
Credit: Wikipedia
From 1967 until 1992 or 1993, the trend was preserving the status quo in Judea and Samaria. Communities were built there, and there was an assumption that matters would unfold on their own as facts were established on the ground.
From 1992 [with the advent of Oslo] until the present, there has been a back-stepping. We are in a state of confusion now and he hopes this second period is coming to an end. He believes (there is not consensus on this yet) that what Abbas did at the UN has brought the Oslo period to a finish.
Israel postponed the discourse on sovereignty and now we need a new approach. We must apply sovereignty to the maximum possible at any given moment. Slowly we can change the public discourse.
~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Moti Kedar, Middle East expert and lecturer at Bar Ilan University, was asked to speak on the Arab reaction to sovereignty.
Credit: sassywire
But, asked Kedar, did Arabs ever agree to sovereignty over Tel Aviv or Haifa? Have Egypt and Jordan — both of which have peace treaties with Israel — ever recognized Israel as the state of the Jewish people?
Kedar said that we urgently require an international television station that broadcasts in English and Arabic and that simply tells the truth. People have access to CNN and a host of other stations biased against Israel, while Israel is simply missing from that broadcast discussion.
He further observed that the courts should have nothing to do with determination of borders. This is a political issue, for the Knesset. The courts should be involved strictly with legal issues, which he believes calls for a change in Basic Law.
Kedar, an expert on Muslim/Arab culture, said that only those who are victors can secure their place in the Middle East. Those who seek peace are seen as vanquished and get kicked.
~~~~~~~~~~
Caroline Glick, columnist, senior editor at the Jerusalem Post and senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs for the Center for Security Policy, was one of four persons on a panel that discussed the issue of the status of Arabs after the application of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
Credit: sassywire
People are afraid of the demographic issue, she said — the fear that if we incorporate Judea and Samaria into Israel fully we will be demographically overwhelmed. Birthrates are shifting, however, and the public needs to be educated on this. She sees a population 2/3 Jewish and 1/3 Arab.
The precedents that exist on this issue were with Jerusalem and the Golan, and there were no problems encountered in either of these areas. Every Arab would be given the opportunity to request citizenship, provided he or she met the criteria established by the Ministry of the Interior — with regard to renouncing terrorism and accepting Israel as a Jewish state.
Glick says we are now entering a period that is historically revolutionary. To proceed the issue must happen in the context of a larger change in the Israeli public, and changes in the Israeli legal system will be required. People are tired of the way things currently operate, specifically with regard to the High Court (B’gatz).
She noted the fact that Habayit Hayehudi is expected to be part of the next coalition (from her mouth to Heaven!) and it is advocating annexation of Area C. This represents a huge change.
~~~~~~~~~~
Other participants on the panel included MK Arieh Eldad, Adv. Elyakim Haetzni, and Dr. Martin Sherman.
You can see the entire conference dubbed in English here (skip the first five minutes, as that is a film of last years conference):
In a few days Women in Green will be providing links to each speaker separately, in English and Hebrew.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner , functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted.
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.
The extremists from the left will do whatever they can to undermine this movement.
We need not forget that the West will not make things easy for the IL Jews.
Then what to do with the majority of American Jews who are not Zionists!
@ Andrew Morris:
Andrew, I told her a number of times “Caroline, your a great American and a great Israeli”.
You may not always agree with her but her heart and soul is with Israel and her people.
@ rongrand:
I too am a great fan of Caroline Glick but does she really command enough influence to make a difference. Not likely, most universities and the intellectual elites are very liberal, left wing.The Israeli public is politically very fragmented.
@ NormanF:
NormanF Said:
Citing Biblical precedent, Netanyahu cautions against ‘rushed’ peace agreement
Warning Hamas could overthrow Palestinian Authority, PM rebuffs Peres’s call for making peace with Abbas 😀
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UgDSu4ZPRjc/UOaUDq5UDnI/AAAAAAABJXw/uREa5frrphg/s400/NETANYAHU%2B-%2BBLEEDING%2BHEARTS.jpg
@ NormanF:
The leaders of the Israeli government need to write this down a 1000 time until they get it right or else resign from office.
You can take that to the bank. That’s their main objective. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
Creative solutions like the one I proposed are possible to address Arab aspirations – but only under full Israeli sovereignty.
The Arabs are not interested in either peace nor co-existence and they want to destroy Israel. The 2state solution and other variants assume the Arabs are rational political actors and can be relied onto behave rationally. Events such as the post-Gaza Disengagement and the mass slaughter in Syria show it won’t work.
Israel cannot put its fate into the hands of an Arab regime that can literally change overnight. Continuing on the failed Oslo path will provide the country with neither security nor peace. Israeli sovereignty is the only answer for ensuring Israel’s future as a viable and strong Jewish State.
@ Jonathan Usher:
Isn’t that the bottom line anyway?
I said many times over, “continue to build communities” forget what other governments suggest. The hell with world opinion. It all belongs to Israel and her people need to take charge.
BTW, I am also a fan of Caroline Glick (Yamit, Uncle Nahum will tell you)
As usual, I’m with Caroline Glick. In for a penny, in for a pound. It is Israeli land and Israel should
claim sovereignty over it. The immoral U.N. will huff and puff, but they won’t blow the house of Israel down.
Now we have international law back 1967. Next step i result of indipendence war 1948. Israel shoud have been a
seperat land i 1923, but the British simply used money that did not belong to them. Its easy to go to use money
that simply not belong to you. The Saudies were happy of corse.
the phoenix Said:
Israel must have sovereignty over the entire Land Of Israel. An Arab state will never end the conflict. And Israel needs to leave the UN – which is the most vicious Jew-hating body in the history of mankind. Israel’s survival depends on it being able to assert and defend its own interests. Israel cannot accept the world’s views and the significance of Jewish sovereignty means Jews no longer have to seek the approval of others for how they run their own affairs.
yamit82 Said:
Turn Judea and Samaria into a Puerto Rico style commonwealth. You don’t have to assimilate a foreign culture with a different language. The Americans haven’t done it. Why should Israel do any different? An Arab state would be a disaster for Israel. Let’s not go there.
This is a bit of a knee jerk reaction to what drjb has just posted.
This is an outrage that words cannot describe!
That religious Jews would have no problem giving the land away (to the highest bidder….) is beyond me…
The gashashim had a great skit way back about two such rabbis and portrayed them very accurately for the hypocrite schnorers that they really are.
@ yamit82:
Hi Yamit
Just read in the Jerusalem Post that Shas, under Deri, would be willing to relinquish parts of Yehuda and Shomron in exchange for an interim agreement with the Palestinians. Shas therefore, is as likely to join a coalition of the Left as it is a coalition of the Right. Shas and UTJ are the real enemies, not Bibi. They are the enablers of the Left, willing to be bought for peanuts and crumbs! Torah with no Derech Eretz! Willing to give away parts of Eretz Israel. Denying Jews the possibility to enter Har Habayt with rabbinical decrees. Making a sham of the process of conversion and of marriage, the regulation of Kashrut, the lack of participation in the workforce or the military, etc, etc. You can fill the blanks better than me.
These two parties, Shas and UTJ, should be banned. They have done tremendous damage to Israel and Judaism. And even though Bibi is no saint, they are the real enemies.
@ yamit82:
Excellent clip!
I believe the essence of the entire issue is @ 12:36
“If we rescind our claim to even one small portion of the land of Israel, we rescind our claim to ALL THE LAND OF ISRAEL”
It is unconscionable for any shmegheghe to talk about ‘two states living side by side’ Yada Yada Yada….
It must be totally erased from the vocabulary and not to ever acknowledge this invented travesty by the name they have chosen.
I hope to live to see the day when an Israeli Jew, is delivering a goodbye speech @ the criminal body known as the UN and tells the whole world to basically, go f**k itself.
Judea and Samaria – Presenting the True Side of the Story
This article was so good, it was written twice!
Naftali Bennett’s stability initiative – Doing what’s good for Israel
Jewish-Arab Demography Defies Conventional “Wisdom”