T. Belman. I submit it is too late. Besides Res 242 applied to “every state in the area”. That included Jordan but not a future state of Palestine. For many reasons both historical and legal, Israel is entitled to keep all of the land west of the Jordan. This land constitutes only 10% of the conquered land and R242 never demanded that Israel withdraw from all of the land. It is well within the intent of the resolution that Israel keep 10% of the land. Besides Israel has the only legal claim to these lands.
Israel has waited long enough to redeem promises by the UN. Israel is now entitled to begin process of securing its border.
By Shoshana Bryen
(JNS) As Israel considers how and when to apply sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria—drawing its map in cooperation with the United States and leaving a chair at the table for the Palestinian Authority—American Democrats, the European community, parts of the international Jewish community and to an apparently lesser degree the Gulf Arab countries have been busy pronouncing themselves “troubled” by the whole process. The silent party has been the Palestinian Authority.
Until now.
In a text message to “the Quartet” (the “peacemaking” group consisting of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia), the P.A. declares itself “ready to resume direct bilateral negotiations where they stopped” in 2014. The Palestinians are ready, the message says, to consider “minor border changes that will have been mutually agreed, based on the borders of June 4, 1967.” It helps to know that the June 4 line is not a border. It is the 1949 Armistice Line that was rejected by the United Nations as a border for Israel in U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
This is why the Quartet has been a spectacular failure. The institutional players, plus assorted others assert that all of the territory east of the 1949 line “belongs” to the Palestinians for a state. Therefore, the presence of Israelis living on that land, and the incorporation of any of it into the State of Israel is an illegal taking—an “annexation,” the relevant definition of which is, “to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state.”
The E.U. specifically believes the Fourth Geneva Convention—created as a result of Nazi deportations of Jews and forced transfers of populations—applies to Israelis in Judea and Samaria, which it considers “Palestinian territory” or sometimes the State of Palestine, even though only nine of 28 E.U. countries recognize Palestine as a state. [It should be noted with a sigh that the 80,000-man Shi’ite mercenary army Iran brought to Syria forced millions of Sunni Syrian civilians out of their homes and into Turkey, Jordan and Europe as refugees. Their tragedy has never been referred for adjudication under the Fourth Geneva Convention.]
Israel and the United States consider Judea and Samaria to be “disputed territory.”
There have been two major attempts to settle Israel’s eastern border—in the course of the 1978 Israel-Egypt Camp David Accords and in the 1993 Oslo Accords—both guided by the United States, both grounded in U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338. In neither case were the Europeans players. The Camp David Accords posit:
To achieve a relationship of peace, in the spirit of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, future negotiations between Israel and any neighbor prepared to negotiate peace and security with it are necessary for the purpose of carrying out all the provisions and principles of Resolutions 242 and 338.
Peace requires respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
The principle was carried into the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords (witnessed by the United States and Russia):
The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the “Council”), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
The Oslo Accords did not treat the PLO as a country-in-waiting, nor did it promise an independent state at the end of “the five-year transitional period,” only a “permanent settlement,” and only under the terms of Resolution 242 and 338. Statehood, if at all, was to be predicated on future bilateral negotiations.
The difference between the Europeans, et. al., and the United States is practical, not theoretical. The Europeans believe that Israel can wait longer until, perhaps, the Palestinians decide to engage in serious negotiations. And if the underlying principle is that the territory “belongs” to the Palestinians—the aggrieved party, then Israel—looking for a border adjustment in its favor, should pay.
The United States believes that Israel has waited long enough to redeem the U.N. promise, and in the absence of Palestinian engagement, Israel is entitled to begin the process of securing its border in the east: in Judea and Samaria.
“No one has as much to lose as the Palestinians in the absence of peace,” said the P.A. text. No one has as much to gain, either. Fifty-two years late isn’t too late.
Shoshana Bryen is senior director of the Jewish Policy Center and editor of inFOCUS Quarterly
Since 1967, the lands that Israel acquired/retook in the war are being systematically taken away through a series of Israel’s unilateral withdrawals accompanied by various agreements (and with time the concessions become more painful and the marketing of them to the Jewish public more sophisticated) with the final aim of depriving Israel of any independence and sovereignty and pushing it back into the 1947 “three sausages” (the plans for which were drawn along the former malarial lines):
– the unilateral withdrawal from Sinai for peace and recognition (18 settlements dismantled, at least 3,000 Jews expelled – I can’t find the actual number);
– the unilateral disengagement from Gaza (8,500 Jews expelled);
– now comes the biggie – Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank) – at this point, we are looking at a future expulsion of 15-20 “fledgling” (thus labeled so no one is sorry to see them go) settlements (enclaves) with 50,000 residents, and an Arab state created on at least 70% of the West Bank – the 100% of which rightfully belongs to the Jewish state according to the Mandate and which was stolen by Jordan in 1948 and retaken by Israel in 1967.
Even if the Arab state is not created immediately, there will be a settlement freeze while the Arabs will be building with impunity, etc.
For Israel a withdrawal or disengagement from Judea and Samaria is now just as impossible as another Vietnam War would be for the United States:
https://www.jta.org/2011/07/04/israel/six-years-on-lessons-of-gaza-withdrawal-resonate-for-west-bank
So, to help the situation, some marketing genius came up with the label of “finally applying sovereignty” to parts of Judea and Samaria which every true supporter of Israel can be proud of.
Of course, it is a poisoned trap for Israel – once most of the West Bank is taken away, Israel ends up in indefensible borders as per the US Department of Defense report.
AFTER THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED, THE REST WILL BE EASY.
PLEASE REALIZE, that all the perks (embassy, recognition, etc.) that Trump administration gave to Israel can easily be reversed, also, the US is now planning to withdraw the US led force from Sinai (I wonder why?)
@ Ted Belman:
If this report is correct then there maybe no sovereignty application.
Israel will NOT want to make any concessions to the PA and Gantz probably will not agree to sovereignty. Seems like Trump wants to run the internal Israeli affairs.
If I was Bibi I would just go ahead and apply sovereignty period even if the USA does not agree ahead of time. In fact I would include most of Area C and only keep the Arab villages inside of it as occupied by the military as of now. Israel in truth has no interest in the Trump peace plan and only the sovereignty part. Trump and his team need to recognize that PA is never going to agree to negotiate from their plan, Israeli concessions or not. Why should Israel give them anything.
full article at: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/283424
For the readers of Hebrew, an article (Arutz7 mentioned it in English but didn’t translate it) on why Sharon decided on the unilateral withdrawal from Gush Katif knowing that this settlement has strategic importance:
https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/443059
My comment above is meant as a reply to Yamit 82 and not to Ted Belman. I don’t know why it came out as a reply to the wrong person.
@ Ted Belman:
The Arab Peace Initiative doesn’t only state that Israel must restrict itself to the 1949 Armistice Lines (the ones they want to pass as 1967 Borders) but also demands that Israel accept that the “palestinian refugees” (all 5 millions of them) “return” to the Land of Israel.
The truth is that J & S was stolen from the Jewish owners by the Brits and given to foreigners (Arabs) who are the REAL occupiers!
Bibi knows they will back him.
Bibi has to make the public move either in Cabinet or Knesset.
@ Ted Belman:
The coalition agreement says the USA must back sovereignty or it is no go.
@ yamit82:
Abbas never said he wanted to negotiate on the trump Plan. he wamnts to negoptiate on the Arab Peace Initiative. i.e. 67 lines with swaps. So his statement is BS.
@ Bear Klein:
Actually, Trump is waiting for Bibi to extend sovereignty.. Its up to Bibi to make the first move.
Israel still waiting for Trump on “annexation”. Bibi still wants to go ahead with annexation. No one cares about Abbas.
@ yamit82:
What it seems you’ve just told me, is that Mahmud Abbas determines what Israel does. It tends to give one a dim view of Bibi. The latter one, is he the Palestinian Commisioner?
@ Michael S:
Abas now says he is open to negotiations…. BB fell into line. NO ANNEXATION!!!
I thought the annexation was supposed to happen over a week ago, as was the final BREXIT in the UK. Have the heat and humidity gotten to everyone?
Shabbat Shalom!
@ Adam Dalgliesh@yahoo.com:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/283341
When will this coronavirus insanity end?
@ seymour:
Thank you. What a great answer! I just hope that the Israelis will understand that THEY are the ones who have handed all this power to the Supreme Court, and that it is THEY who can take it away.
the PEOPLE or the SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE who seem to think they are gods?
@ Bear Klein:
I also don’t think that the SC would overturn annexation.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Do not agree with you in the least that the Israeli Supreme Court would overturn sovereignty application by either the Cabinet or the Knesset.
Also the police ministry is not controlled by the left.
In response to your query let me refer you to two epigrams, one from the US Supreme Court and another from the mouth of one Mr. Stalin of the former USSR. As regards the first, Justice Robert Jackson of the SCOTUS opined in 1949 that “the US constitution is not a suicide pact.” We will come back to that.
As for Mr. Stalin, when discussing with Churchill the future of eastern Europe, he was cautioned to take into account the views of the Vatican to which the miserable little bastard replied, “How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?”
So one may fairly ask how many divisions does the Supreme Court of Israel have? And further does the Court consider the unwritten constitution of Israel to be a suicide pact? The answers to both questions are clear. The Court does apparently believe that the unwritten Israeli constitution is indeed a suicide pact. However, the Court has zero divisions. So what’s to stop the government from ignoring the decisions and orders of the Court? The fact is, not just in Israel but in Canada and the US, courts for decades now have been off on a frolic of their own making. Indeed the ink was hardly dry on Justice Jackson’s words when the SCOTUS started to strut its stuff. In the words of a leading liberal justice, Douglas, maybe the guy who started it all, constitutional rights may be guaranteed by “penumbras formed by emanations” from the particular enumerated rights. This is law?
So the answer unfortunately is Israel, US, Canada, are governed ultimately by men and women in robes and they rely to a large extent on penumbras formed by emanations. The democratic public, however, has no idea what a confidence game is being played and the media would go nuts if any of the governments in question ignored a decision of the highest court in the land. This is likely a bigger problem in Israel than in Canada or the US because by now the courts in the latter two countries have trained the respective legislatures to pass the laws the judges want so conflicts are less probable than in Israel. One of these days the words of Stalin will be understood by Israelis.
@ Reader: Reader, the police ministry is also controlled by the Left. Yes, they would arrest politicians who defy the court.
“Gov’t rolls out aid plan for ‘economic corona’ as localized lockdowns begin
Lod Mayor Yair Revivo wants the government to explain the criteria it uses to decide what areas are placed on lockdown. Residents of Haredi areas of Beit Shemesh: Closure will turn these neighborhoods into “breeding grounds” for coronavirus.
By Reuters , Shlomi Diaz , Ariel Kahana and ILH Staff Published on 07-10-2020 08:18 Last modified: 07-10-2020 08:18
Gov’t rolls out aid plan for ‘economic corona’ as localized lockdowns begin
Police tape across a street in Bnei Bark, which was quarantined in April. | File photo: Gideon Markowicz
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a new welfare package on Thursday for citizens who have lost livelihoods due to the coronavirus crisis, saying the measures would provide an economic safety net for the coming year.
A surge in contagion prompted the government to re-impose closures on businesses this week, dashing hopes of a recovery from a record 21% unemployment and stoking anger at the slow payout of $29 billion in aid previously pledged by the state.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter ”
From Israel Hayom. Please read the whole article there. 21 per cent unemployment is no joke. I don’t know if that includes the huge number of small businessmen who have been forced to close down their shops. Kids return to school for a few days, then are locked out of school just when they think they are back for a full term. Insanity.
I mean, if the Israel’s Supreme Court’s decisions actually put the very existence of the Jewish state into doubt and danger, then what?
Follow these decisions to the bitter end?
And then the only thing left to the (former) citizens would be the satisfaction of knowing that, at least, they always obeyed the Supreme Court and their conscience is clear?
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
I hate to ask but: what will happen if the Knesset disobeys the Supreme Court (as if the Knesset is capable of coming to a consensus on anything. SIGH…)?
How is the Court’s decision going to be enforced?
Will the police come and arrest all the MKs who stand above the police, BTW?
What can the Supreme Court actually do in order to force its will on the Knesset?
When the US Supreme Court kept declaring FDR’s New Deal policies unconstitutional, he finally threatened to retire a few of them because of their advanced ages, and they fell in line nicely.
No one in Israel seems to have faced the fact that there is no point in passing legislation extending Israeli law over any part of Judea and Samaria unless and until the present Supreme Court justices are replaced by Israeli patriots, not the present justices, who see their job to be protecting Arab interests. Any extension of Israeli law to Judea-Samaria will be quickly vetoed by the Supreme Court. Only a few weeks ago, the “Supremes” vetoed a law passed by the Knesset giving Israeli “settlers” the right to keep their homes in Judea-Samaria that are claimed (almost always with no documentary evidence, or with only illegal documents issued by the former Jordanian occupiers.) The supremes will undoubtedly do the same with ‘sovereignty” or “annexation” legislation–throw it in the trash can.
Debating “sovereignty” and how far to extend it is therefore pointless without court reform. The Israeli “right” has got to face up urgently to the need to prioritize legislation to accomplish this.
An immediate end to the lockdowns is an even more urgent priority.
@ Reader:
I agree.
All Israel did in 1967 is retake the territory which was granted to the Jewish National Home under the Mandate and which until 1967 had been illegaly occupied by Jordan for 19 years. The Geneva Convention does not apply here.
It is really sad that Israel considers Judea and Samaria to be “disputed territory” because it belongs to Israel, and Israel is the only country in the world that has a deed.
Let the European countries (at least) give back their lands to whomever they stole them from before the talk about the Geneva Convention.