By Ted Belman
Naftali Bennett is a rising star in Israeli politics. He became the leader of the National Religious Party (NRP) and combined it with National Union (NU). He renamed the enlarged party, Jewish Home. During the present election cycle he is being polled at almost double the number of mandates (from 7 to 12) these parties now hold with a month yet to go until elections. A central plank in his platform is the annexation of Area C as defined by the Oslo Accords.
Prof Martin Sherman’s wrote an open letter to Naftali Bennett arguing for the annexation of all the territories instead. I responded with an open letter of my own:
-
Martin, your letter to Naftali is not as devastating to the cause of annexing Area C only, as you may have thought.
Admittedly, “Areas A and B, Area C is a crazy quilted patchwork of enclaves, corridors and access roads, with an outer contour well in excess of 1,000 km.” You ask, “Is this meant to designate Israel’s final sovereign frontiers? If so, how are they to be secured, and at what cost – operationally, financially and diplomatically? If not, what are these final frontiers to be and how are they to be determined?”
From my point of view the current fence protects our sovereignty to the west of the fence. Area C, though we would claim it as sovereign territory, can remain as it is under Oslo. Potential infiltration over that area will remain as it is today and dealt with as it is today save for the fact that there would an incentive for Arabs to infiltrate into Area C in order to get the benefits of Israeli citizenship. This problem can easily be managed by taking a census of all Arabs living there, thereby shutting the door, so to speak, on would be infiltrators.
That is not to say that we would automatically offer citizenship to all original residents of Area C. It would be offered only to qualified Arabs, the qualification for which would conform to those of some other western countries: e.g., sign a loyalty oath, the violation of which would have consequences, know Hebrew, and have been a peaceful resident for say, 10 years and so on.
No massive expenditures would be required on the road system.
As for the status of the remaining territories, the Oslo Agreements would apply subject to negotiations. Of course the Arabs wouldn’t negotiate changes in terms or borders and would continue their diplomatic onslaught. These issues are child’s play compared the final status issues which have consumed our energies for a quarter century.
Strangely you proffer “by annexing Area C, you permanently forego sovereignty in Areas B and C.” Why so? The potential to annex the rest is always there unless and until a new agreement is negotiated. The rationale for our military presence there remains as it is today. The Fourth Geneva Convention would apply as it does today though we reject its applicability.
It matters little whether the Palestinians abandon Oslo and sink the PA. We would deal with this area as we do with Gaza. What would be the difference? Their actions will determine how good or bad it is for them in the interim. Sure we are concerned about such matters as charcoal production and sewage disposal but these are small problems compared to the ones we are facing now.
As for the humanitarian solution (changing the UNRWA mandate and offering generous compensation for voluntary emigration) which I fully support, we can pursue it with a vigor that doesn’t exist today. I suggest it focus on the Arabs living in Area C. at the beginning. Of course the Arabs who accept the inducement will not be permitted in Area A and B. I suggest to you that such a solution would get far more traction because of the annexation then it received in the past.
The next decade or so will focus on negotiating an autonomy deal. In the meantime we will be continuing with the humanitarian plan. If the Arabs choose to make things difficult for us, they will be the ones to suffer. This would make compensated emigration all the more attractive when we decide to start offering it to the Arabs living in A and B.
The primary benefit of partial annexation compared to full annexation is that the world demand for citizenship for the Arabs would not be as potent and can easily be avoided. Not so under your plan.
You have suggested that we annex all and start immediately offering compensation for emigration. You have been silent on whether in the interim we offer citizenship. If you propose we do, then your plan would be less effective in inducing emigration. If we don’t we will be subject to considerable pressure to do so. This would also retard progress under your plan.
With all due respect.
By the way, Steven Plaut has this to say about Bennett:
-
The rising star of the Israeli anti-Oslo “Right” is Naftali Bennett and his Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party. He has galvanized not only the rump leftovers from the old National Religious Party, but he is almost a superstar among secularist college students and other secularist Zionists in Israel. He draws listeners to his talks by the hundreds. A talk he gave this past week at the Technion, which was NOT about politics, produced a crowd that overflowed the hall. He speaks well, is a bit of a legend in his time (the young Bennett is a very rich high-tech entrepreneur and he made his money on his own and honestly, with no political favors). He is a dynamo, and **THE** guy worth watching in the coming election.
Bennett .. is also religious and militantly anti-Oslo.
@ terence:
I suppose Belman and Sherman wield more weight than the combined influence and power of the U.S., the EU,Russia and the U.N.
It is sad or funny that Belman and Sherman think that they have the power to even think of annexing on behalf of Israel, the West Bank , partially or wholly.
@ Canadian Otter:
Bennett: PM, Do You Support a Palestinian State or Not?
Sixty-Two Combat Soldiers in Pro-Bennett Petition
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/51792/comment-page-1#comment-246415
“We are dumbfounded by the Likud’s organized offensive against Bayit Yehudi chairman.”
As long as one is outside, he/she can & may say or promise anything. Once inside, he/she needs to deal with reality and the art of the realistically possible and take maximum advantage of the enemy missteps, errors and mistakes. IL has a miniscule piece of land, yet the West and the Muslims still want to initiate a new dispersion of the Jews. This can’t happen under any circumstances.
@ Canadian Otter:
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/51733/comment-page-1#comment-245029
Annexing Area C, While leaving and A and B for later, may create a number of legal and practical anomalies, all or some of which will come back to plague Israel later. BB now continues to speak of a TSS while everyone knows it is not the answer, but yet broadcasts this fallacy to the world. It is high time to present a plan, well thought out and well conceived, and then go for it. I’m not sure that C now and A and B later is the path to take.
What does DEFENSIBLE BORDERS really mean?
Another Gaza rocket has hit Israel. The government is not sure whether it will file a complaint or not. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163471
How do years of Gazan rocket attacks without immediate military response apply to the promised ‘defensible borders’ that Israel would supposedly have after Disengaging from any area of Judea and Samaria?
If Israel’s response – or lack thereof – to relentless attacks by Gazans against the Jewish population is evidence to go by, how can any of your politicians even utter the word DISENGAGEMENT?
My reply to SHMUEL has been censored for moderation.
@ Shmuel HaLevi:
That has always been my impression too. The PM has built an image of hawkishness and nationalism, bur facts show govt policies of appeasement and tolerance towards Arabs, oppression of Jewish rights, and submissiveness to the rest of the world.
I can’t comment on past wars of rebellion. What I can say, however, is that there has been a major change in the dynamics of uprisings, foreign intervention, and psychological manipulation of the masses. High weapons- and surveillance technology, social and news media, intimidation, vote fraud, and even the economy are some of the variables that can make it very hard to predict a takeover of political power and influence. ~~~~~ I would have never guessed that tough tyrants such as Mubarak, Ghadaffi, and even Assad, would have been so helpless in holding on to power against a poorly armed population with friends in high places.~~~~~ But the way for Jews to empower themselves is not through doomed-to-fail armed rebellion. The IDF has been neutered and placed at the service of the Left. ~~~ There needs to be a complete change of mindset. The key model can’t be heroic examples from the past, but the clever, devious, Machiavelian methods from the Left. Always relentless, imaginative, barely this side of the law, and with clear objectives. Their vision and methods have enabled a small minority to take over the country’s institutions and thereby rule over the majority. ~~~ The first step is ORGANIZATION. That’s a difficult goal, with nationalists’ tendency to endlessly discuss issues and scatter their votes all over the political landscape.
@ vivarto:
Exactly.
Judea and Samaria, part of the Holy Land (from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean) willed by G-d to the Jews.
@ Canadian Otter:
Those “itelligent” fellows never bushwacked anyone who is aware of true historic prospective. The local “leadership” is utterly transparent. They all intend to retreat having used Israelis for decades.
Of course anyone from “within” the combina are varaints from the same mold.
Netanyahu WILL NOT build anything permanent anywhere including Jerusalem. He will destroy Jewish localities and abandon others. He never intended to attend to Iran over the many years he has been a PM.
They had in place in the Kiriah, Tel Aviv, Ministry of Defense, a special group of officers charged with planning consecutive “disengagements” from before the Sharonazo.
The created Manuals to train operatves to that end. This was was officially published in the newspapaers during the original disengagement set up.
If the majority of the people want to stop being used by the said elements, the only option is direct.
The Wars of Independence from Spain in South America planned by the Logia Lautaro provide a reference point.
San Martin understood that he must cut down the Spanish Imperials to start with if he intended to seek true Independence
In the Battle of San Lorenzo he did exactly that with a small number of Granadiers, 125 or so he took on Spanish marauding troops ferried by river going ships.
Up to that time both the Government in BA and Spain used the Spanish Imperials as the military. The Criollos and the Spanish were “brothers”…
San Martin turned the tables on that day and soundly defeated the Spanish forces sent to destroy settlements and plunder farmers.
The Imperials never came out of that even small defeat.
True Independence was achieved after that.
Natftali is in favor of annexing area C (the Bennet plan) because it doesnt make him look like an extremist. I’m sure he is personnaly for annexing everything and offering financial compensations to the arabs who would leave (the Sherman plan). I’m also sure it is possible to implement the Bennet plan first, and then move on to the Sherman plan because the palis would refuse to negociate.
The main objection of Sherman to the Bennet plan is that is would create an 1000km long “border” between Israel and the palis. This can easily be resolved by abandonning a very small portion of the area C so as to make the remaining areas A+B as much contigious as possible.
Bennett will do from the outside what Feiglin is doing from the inside: steal votes from smaller but more genuine right wing parties.
Bennett: IDF must follow orders and expel Jews when called upon to do so
Hmmm… where did we hear that before?
This movement’s fake-right-wing veneer is already peeling off. It has no valid moral or ideological core.
Annexation should be of all of Judea and Samaria, or nothing.
If we annex only part, then this means that we surrender the remainder to the Arabs.
We must not surrender any part of Judea or Samaria.
The apparent animosity between Netanyahu and Bennett appears to be more political than ideological. Netanyahu fears losing votes, not Bennett’s agenda, which may not be that different from Netanyahu’s (land surrender).
Bennett’s advocacy for annexing area C will eventually be wittled down to annexing only the major settlements.
There is a pro-Disengagement current being promoted by media and politicians right now, as if preparing Israelis psychologically for something top govt officials have already agreed on. Jerusalem Post has the result of a poll saying that 45% of Israelis support Disengagement. Polls can be manipulated. It is the fact that they carried out that poll that matters.
Avigdor Lieberman and Ehud Barak expressed support for Disengagement from all but the major settlements. Former IDF chief Ashkenazy also said it was a good idea. They know that most people do not agree with Disengagement, but they are testing to see how much opposition there is to the idea, how strong is their fighting spirit. And Bennett serves the elite to disguise the idea of Disengagement as a “right wing” proposal, since it’s “only a partial Disengagement”.
@ yamit82:
Exactly
@ Canadian Otter:
Good idea. Take the money or face a bulldozer.
@ yamit82:
– I agree that the possibility of A and B Arabs infiltrating C would be quite high
– But that would be the least of all worries. After Disengagement from A and B, those Arabs would be even more violent and dangerous than Gaza Arabs are right now – and much closer.
– Annexing A, B and C and then paying them off to leave is not a bad idea. Israel already pays them to stay – with all the cost in Jewish lives, policing them, incarcerating them, social expenses for those with citizenship, and the cost in bad PR for Jews every time they feel offended or unhappy about something.
– Expelling them in times of relative peace is unrealistic, considering that there is not even an attempt to expel African infiltrators. And the international backlash would lead to UN intervention.
So far Mr. Bennett has outmanuvered the red marker expert.
He was flushed out into the open Netanyahu’s real plans.
Further, Mr. Bennett has offered with business like logic a sound plan to retake Jewish territories in Judea and Samaria.
Ted has detected the value of Mr. Bennett’s drive and added his very valuable support.
The likud has every reason to be hysteric.
One may notice that Mr. Lieberman has astutely stayed course and kept out of the brawl.
I got the feeling that if Netanyahu keeps of loosing steam, Lieberman may well bolt the “union” leaving the likud bare bonned.
@ NormanF:
BB gave interviews on all TV channels after silence of over 2 years to the Israeli public. As PM every-time he gives an interview as PM it’s a campaign promo worth millions. His message is strengthening BB sends a message to Israel’s existential enemies like Iran and strengthens Israel. A weakened BB is a weakened Israel.
Strategy is the fear that Most if not all voters on the right already believe the Likud will win with a Plurality and thus be able to form the next government thus allowing many to vote for other right wing parties and still not harm or threaten the Likud victory.
So he hints that the Jewish Home Party will not be asked into his government to discourage Likud voters from supporting them. Now he and his surrogates are blasting Bennett for incitement to disobey orders in the IDF. The IDF is the last institutional Holy Cow we still have left. Bennett is now on the defensive with a month to go before the elections and the Likud has yet to fight and they have a lot of unused campaign funds to spend.
It ain’t over till its over.
Likud’s Moshe Feiglin blasts Bayit Yehudi
This is why I have never supported Feiglin. He is divisive and egotistical and probably jealous as well. I hope all his supporters do not vote for the Likud. Feiglin fails to mention that except for himself and one other all Likud members on the current election list were in the Last Knesset and did nothing to stop BB from carrying out Building freeze including Jerusalem, destruction of Jewish homes and the brutal persecution of Jewish settlers. Feiglin refuses to support or back any other potential leader in the Likud who might have challenged BB till now other than himself. Feiglin has had 14 years to make his plan work and I think he got more votes in the last Likud primaries from a deal he made with Katz , the union leader in Israel aircraft which was you vote for me I vote for you. Katz bused to the polls thousands of voters many not even Likud voters to give Katz and his list which included Feiglin a solid spot on the Likud’s election list.
If there is any deceptions here it comes from Feiglin and not the other way around. If Bennett pulls it off he would have accomplished in a year what Feiglin couldn’t do in 14 years and he did it with the same message essentially but with a leader Bennett who is politically smarter and certainly more charismatic.
My vote will go to Ben Ari and Eldad and I hope Marzel gets in as well. There needs to be a fighting opposition and those unafraid to speak the truth in the Knesset.
@ Canadian Otter:
You are 100% correct.
Pitfalls long indefensible border between A+B and C. 50,000 Arabs, would grow in time to 100,000 and begin in short order to multiply. They would be a Trojan horse 5th column within. I don’t care if it’s 10,000 or 50,000 Arabs, you never allow an enemy to reside within your sovereign borders.
Paying them off would set a precedent for all future population transfers.
Further to #4: PA has claimed and acted upon those claims for land to 67 borders. Israel should make the same claim to Area C as the same unilateral act as PA. However, Israel has a greater claim on basis of self determination of population of c. It means both sides will have attempted to seize control over their respective areas of physical control. PA has less control, and sovereignty, of A&B than Israel over C. Annexing C does not waive claim on a&b which Israel can still maintain claim. There is no reason to take less than all area C, rather than cede it, it is better to keep it and let it play in international court.
One way to make partial annexation not waive A & B: My understanding is that area c has a much larger population of jews and that Israel can annex area c on the basis of self determination for the majority of that area and fulfilling mandate for Israeli soveignty on reaching a majority. Palestine would not be dismembered because there was never a state of Palestine with borders. Regarding areas A & B it can claim it to remain in dispute because san remo, LON mandate, UN charter article 80 still apply which guarantees jewish settlement. Therefore Israel claims that it must retain control until mandate is fulfilled because PA has a record of maintaining jew free areas and obstructing rather than encouraging settlement. Inherent in this is that the relevant treaties guaranteeing jewish settlement are superior to all UN declarations and resolutions(inc 181/242) and take precedent in determining the status of designated mandate territories. Palestine has no right to become a full sovereign state because it does not guarantee Jewish settlement which Jew have a continuing right to claim in the absence of the state of Israel foregoing those global rights as agent of the Jewish people. That way A & B are held in abeyance for future dealing with no Israeli agreement on their disposition.
It should be pointed out that sectoral politics has kept Religious Zionist parties in the political wilderness for decades. Moshe Feiglin has already transformed the direction of the Likud. Not one of its top candidates is pro-Oslo.
The Likud’s attacks on Naftali Bennett show its running scared and his popularity can only increase. It would not surprise me at all if both the Likud and Habayit Yehudi finished next month with an equal number of seats. Netanyahu would then face a formidable blocking partner to his Right, forcing him to ditch his Oslo Era talk of a “two state solution.”
No Israeli Jew, apart from the Far Left, believes peace with the Arabs will ever be attainable. Its a revolution in Israeli politics as dramatic as the shift that brought the Likud to power at the end of the 1970s and neither the Israeli establishment nor foreign powers understand just how thoroughly the Israeli Jewish public is rejecting Oslo.
If that assessment is accurate, next month’s elections will signal both the end of an era in Israel and in the Middle East.
This is good chess. Do it where is will work first and then apply it to the rest of the territories. I was originally going to go for Herskowitz for party leader of Bayit Yehudit before he dropped out because I liked the idea of laying claim to all the territory at once and not separating out some as “less” ours than the rest but as this phased plan points out effectively how the minimalization of the citizenship issue allows the humanitarian plan to take hold much better and, therefore, enter into the consciousness of the political discourse in a more palpable and, probably, a more effective way. Once it’s established as such through implementation in Area C it makes sense that it would then be much easier to introduce in the remaining areas. Since Herskowitz didn’t run and my first inclination was to vote for Bennett anyway and after reading what Martin Sherman said and this response I feel confident that this is the best way to go especially since it would minimize the blow we would have to take to get started. Arafat had his phased plan and we can have ours! Thank you Ted.
BOYS AND GIRLS, let me tell you a story. In a city far, far away, on Canada’s west coast, they decided to build a big bridge, a beautiful state-of-the-art bridge. They contracted the best architects, the best engineers, the best crews. And so the bridge was built and inaugurated with great fanfare. Citizens were proud of it and looked forward to many years of enjoyment of their gorgeous bridge. But one day it snowed and temperatures went below zero. Soon the new bridge started dropping ice bombs on cars. Bombs big enough to shatter windshields, to seriously damage car roofs, and to threaten the lives of motorists. http://www.theprovince.com/news/fraser-valley/Port+Mann+Bridge+sought+after+bombs+shatter+windshields/7722666/story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+canwest%2FF228+(The+Province+-+News) ~~~~~ We rely too much on experts, scientists, engineers, AND POLITICIANS – while the average citizen can tell a mile away when something isn’t right. ~~~ The US government has thriller and science fiction writers on the payroll as consultants because their own staff lack the imagination to see the big picture and to anticipate catastrophe. Any good sci-fi or disaster thriller writer might have – upon seeing the architectural maquette – told the British Columbia government that the bridge would accummulate ice in particular areas that would result in ice bombing of motorists. But nobody asked them.
Proponents of partial annexation do not anticipate the many pitfalls of their plan. They just envision the bright side of things and prefer to ignore other possibilities. ~~~~~ Annex all the land. Postpone decision on citizenship until dust has settled. Distrust your politicians.