You never let a serious crisis go to waste…. What I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. – Rahm Emanuel
The Palestinian leadership, abetted by many Western governments, has now torn up every agreement made with Israel… By essentially unilaterally declaring the existence of an Arab Palestine, the world has abrogated that [Oslo] agreement. – Prof. Barry Rubin
The Palestinian Authority is a fictional entity. It continues to exist only because of the IDF…. We should let it fall apart…. – Prof. Efraim Inbar
The recent decision to announce approval for construction of thousands of housing units in the E1 area east of Jerusalem in response to the Palestinian unilateral bid for statehood at the UN reflected yet another grave error of judgment by the Israeli authorities.
Relegating rights to retaliation
Of course, this is not to say that Israel should refrain from building on the 11.7-sq.km. area atop the barren hills, adjacent to the eastern fringes of the capital, joining it to the town of Ma’aleh Adumim, with its 40,000 strong Jewish population.
Of course it should not. The development of Jerusalem’s east flank should be considered no more than the natural urban growth of the city — an indisputable Zionist imperative, expressed and endorsed by virtually every government over the past four decades.
Indeed, it was none other than Israel’s current president Shimon Peres, who as minister of defense in Yitzhak Rabin’s government in 1977, urged Israel to “create a continuous stretch of new settlements; to bolster Jerusalem and the surrounding hills, from the north, from the east, and from the south and from the west, by means of the establishment of townships, suburbs and villages – Ma’aleh Adumin, Ofra, Gilo, Beit El, Givon…to ensure that the capital and its flanks are secured, and underpinned by urban and rural settlements.”
Significantly, most the locations cited by Peres in the above except are considerably farther from Jerusalem than the much maligned E1 site, which is less than 6.5 km. from the city center and the historic King David Hotel, itself some 1.5 km. from the Knesset.
But lamentably, by deciding to approve construction plans hard on the heels of UN General Assembly Resolution A/67/L.28 granting the Palestinians non-member state status, the government gave the unfortunate impression that its action was more one of retaliation, rather than an exercise of a self-evident, nonnegotiable right.
The timing and context of the E1 approval conveyed the unequivocal impression that had the Palestinians refrained from the UN bid, Israel would have refrained from authorizing the construction.
It thus reduced what should have been considered an unconditional right to a conditioned tit-for-tat response. Rather than being seen as a substantively valid initiative, an indispensable Zionist initiative was perceived as being relegated to a spiteful reaction.
An unavoidable imperative
Paradoxically – or is that perversely? – even figures on the far Left have articulated the rationale for the development of E1. For example, in a recent posting on the radical — indeed as designated by some, anti- Zionist – website +972Magazine, perennial Palestinian apologist Larry Derfner made a presumably unintentional, but compelling, case for construction in the disputed area.
In a piece titled “Israeli consensus much prefers Ma’aleh Adumim to peace,” he writes: “Ma’aleh Adumim, 4.5 kilometers east of Jerusalem, built in 1975, is…deep in the heart of the national consensus. Ma’aleh Adumim is thought of, correctly, as a suburb of Jerusalem; the people aren’t popularly regarded as settlers but as average middle-class Israelis; in past elections, a decent percentage of them voted Labor, and a few even voted Meretz.”
In what one can only assume is an attempt at disparaging sarcasm, he continues, peppering his prose with profanities, presumably permissible in progressive postings:
“It’s not one of those ‘tiny, isolated settlements,’ it’s a ‘settlement bloc,’ it’s one of the ‘Jerusalem-area’ settlements, it ‘protects Jerusalem’ by being on the high ground nearby, it gives Israel ‘defensible borders’ – it’s a Jerusalem security defensible borders settlement bloc with 40,000 people, for fuck’s sake, do you want to give that up, are you crazy?”
Then, apparently endeavoring to show that Ma’aleh Adumin and peace are incompatible, Derfner drives the following point home powerfully: “And here’s the thing – to keep Ma’aleh Adumim, Israel has to build E1, those thousands of homes connecting it to Jerusalem, because otherwise the only thing connecting it to the capital will be a thin highway with nothing but Palestine on either side. Indefensible. Not viable. Ma’aleh Adumim would be isolated. So if you want to keep it – and who doesn’t, except the left-wing fringe? – you have to build E1.”
Couldn’t have put it better myself, Larry.
Inescapable conclusions
Whatever his motivations, Derfner’s analysis is spot on and underscores dramatically why it was a serious misjudgment to allow the development of E1 to be seen as a response precipitated by the Palestinian UN initiative. For unless Ma’aleh Adumim is to be abandoned — something which no Israeli government over the last 40 years has ever contemplated – it can only be secured by “welding” it to Jerusalem — which in turn requires undertaking the construction planned in E1.
It therefore makes little sense to predicate such a national necessity on what the Palestinians may or may not do. After all, even if the Palestinians were to take the inconceivable step of rescinding their UN accomplishment, it would not diminish the need to build in the contentious area.
This brings up several interesting questions on the issue of territorial contiguity, which opponents of the E1 project have raised vociferously, wailing that it would cut Bethlehem off from Ramallah, thus dooming any possibility of a two-state solution (TSS).
These claims are demonstrably bogus, as even a cursory glance at the map would reveal.
One can only wonder whether TSS advocates realize how such claims undermine the basic rationale of their case. For if the viability of a Palestinian state can be irreparably jeopardized by a construction project on 11.7 uninhabited sq.km., if the whole notion of Palestinian independence stands or falls on whether such a project is implemented or not, surely then the entire TSS-concept is so ludicrously fragile that it is operationally untenable.
The question of contiguity
But of course the question of territorial contiguity is entirely contrived.
Even without going into the discussion of the options of connecting these two towns, barely 15 km. miles apart, by elaborate systems of tunnels/ over-passes that traverse E1, laying down a new road bypassing Ma’aleh Adumim from the west, rather than from the east, would hardly be an insurmountable engineering feat. True, this might make Palestinians’ journey somewhat longer, but it would still probably be shorter than the drive from downtown Los Angeles to Malibu along Sunset Boulevard.
By contrast, however, if the E1 project is not implemented, Ma’aleh Adumim and its tens of thousands of Jewish residents would have a real problem of contiguity. As Derfer points out — or perhaps, hopes — it would be an isolated enclave “with nothing but Palestine on either side. Indefensible. Not viable…”
It is more than a little bewildering to hear howls of hysteria from TSS-proponents, protesting that the possible need for a detour in the route between Bethlehem and Ramallah would critically undermine the viability of a Palestinian state, yet who see no problem in including the far-more detached, and far-more distant Gaza Strip in their envisioned entity.
One can only shake one’s head in puzzlement as to why they would raise such a bogus brouhaha over an essentially nonexistent contiguity problem, yet accept with total equanimity the virtually insoluble difficulty of the geographical disconnect between the “West Bank” and Gaza, where almost 40 percent of the population of the putative Palestine state reside.
Go figure.
Ill-considered, inappropriate, inadequate
The preceding paragraphs underscore why the government’s E1 decision, while substantively valid, was, in the context that it was taken, strategically inappropriate, politically ill-considered and operationally inadequate.
It inflicted no real retribution on the Palestinians in practical terms, yet it precipitated a maelstrom of diplomatic censure and again raised evermore tangibly the threat of economic sanctions, which may, as in the past, result in the declared Israeli measures being suspended or even totally abandoned, and in effect reward rather than punish the Palestinians.
I am not suggesting that Israel balk at the unwarranted display of international ire, but that if it is going to incur the wrath of the world, it might as well be for measures that have real and lasting — indeed permanent — strategic effects.
What would such measures entail?
The required recipe is implicit in the three introductory excerpts, which lay out:
-
1. The principle enunciated by Rahm Emanuel (Utilizing a crisis to facilitate actions which otherwise would not be undertaken);
2. The opportunity identified by Barry Rubin (The effective abrogation of the Oslo Accords by the world); and
3. The measures prescribed by Efraim Inbar (Let the Palestinian Authority fall apart).
Punitive penalties not provocative proclamations
The policy that flows from this prescription, and constitutes the fitting Israeli response to the Palestinians’ internationally endorsed “diplomatic aggression” at the UN, should comprise penalties that are permanently punitive – not mere proclamations that are little more than politically provocative.
As I hinted at last week, the first measure is to make it clear to the Palestinians — and to their international supporters — that if it is independence they demand, then independent they will have to be.
Accordingly, Israel must convey in unequivocal terms that forthwith it will cease to provide every service and merchandise that it provides them today. In other words, no water, no electricity, no fuel, no postal services, no communications, no port facilities, no tax collection or remittances will be supplied by Israel.
If sovereignty is their goal, then sovereign they will have to be.
After all, what possible claim could be invoked to coerce one sovereign entity to provide for another purportedly sovereign entity – and an overtly adversarial one at that? When Israel declared its independence in 1948, no Arab country rushed to help it develop and evolve.
Quite the opposite. The Arab world imposed embargoes and boycotts on it — and on anyone with the temerity to conduct commerce with it.
Mitigating the humanitarian impact
This message need not be delivered in a provocative, confrontational public statement but through confidential diplomatic channels to all concerned parties.
Although discretely conveyed, there should be no doubt as to Israel’s resolve to implement its stated intent — or as to the repercussions thereof: The Palestinians will have to find alternative sources for their utility requirements and day-to-day needs.
Without Israeli support — both military and monetary — it is an open question as to whether the Palestinian Authority will implode within a matter of weeks or months.
The mendacious mantle of Palestinian nationhood must once and for all be ripped asunder. It must be underscored that the burden of maintaining this fictional fabrication will fall to those nations that endorsed it – should they care to shoulder such an onerous and expensive responsibility.
It may be surprising how rapidly international appetite for Palestinian statehood wanes if its sponsors realize that they will have to bear the financial consequences of its sustenance.
Such measures are undoubtedly likely to precipitate great socioeconomic hardships for the Palestinians, which Israel should endeavor to mitigate.
It should do so — as I have prescribed in detail in numerous columns – by offering Palestinians wishing to extricate themselves from the unenviable predicament wrought upon them by their incompetent, corrupt leadership – and by their myopic and malevolent supporters abroad — generous relocation grants that will enable them to seek happier lives in some alternative country of their choice.
Far-fetched or feasible?
Of course, there will be those who are skeptical as to the feasibility of such prescriptions. And indeed, numerous operational aspects of its implementation —which regrettably cannot be detailed in a single column — need to be fleshed out.
But the skeptical and the fainthearted should remember that with sufficient resources, Israel managed to develop and deploy unprecedented defense systems such as the Iron Dome to withstand physical attacks.
There is no reason to believe that, with a commensurate investment of ingenuity and resources, an “Iron Dome” to withstand political attacks could not be devised and deployed.
After all, in the grim days of the 1950s when the country was hanging on by a thread, engulfed by waves of immigration, with its fledgling economy teetering on collapse and surrounded by a sea of Arab aggression, who would have believed that Zionism would outlast Communism; that the nascent nano-state Israel would outlive the mega-Soviet empire; that a struggling agrarian economy would within a few decades become one of the world’s leaders in industry and technology.
As once someone said: If you will it, it is no dream.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. Send Large Small Print Share
@ dweller:
My father’s favorite commedien. My Dad was always treatening to friccase me.
@ Honey Bee:
William Claude Dukenfield[s] wouldn’t have thought so.
In any case, it’s just an expression, HB.
— I was congratulating you on your recognizing the source of the remark.
Could’ve just as easily said, ‘Give the girl a kewpie doll,’ etc.
@ Bernard Ross:
Their own legitimacy.
Oslo was the only instrument standing between GOI & annexation.
PA breached Oslo.
From the standpoint of law, GOI is therefore free to abrogate Oslo, declare it null & void.
With Oslo dead, the logical thing to do in law is to annex.
@ dweller
Cigars are disgusting wrapped or unwrapped.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dweller Said:
Perhaps I misunderstood the comment I was referring to:
dweller Said:
I understood that “being Seen” as being spiteful was a PR issue and that depending on what message was desired to be sent, it is feasible that a spiteful reaction was intentional in order to highlight how the PA and international behavior might be negatively perceived by GOI.dweller Said:
I am not sure how you intend the relevance of this statement. Whose legitimacy, the PA who just violated their agreement? they appeared to have been conferred with more legitimacy after violating their agreement or as a result of the violation. I am also not sure to what law you are referring. In this case it appears to be the Oslo accords which do not have the weight of a treaty in law. If it is the accords it would be unreasonable to expect persistent adherence to that which is violated by the other party. If you are referring to international law then I believe that Jews are encouraged in Law to settle west of the Jordan river. A spiteful reaction is not a legal issue Please elaborate the relevance of this statement.
@ Honey Bee:
Score one well-wrapped cigar for you.
@ Bernard Ross:
It’s evident that they take their cue from GOI’s acquiescence.
— All habits (good and bad) die hard.
@ Bernard Ross:
Well, no, I don’t much care personally about the appearances of things.
And I am QUITE mindful of the fact that govts depend for their legitimacy on (among other things) their persistent adherence to law.
@ Bernard Ross:
Passive- aggresive behavior on the part of the EU, trust me I’am a female, now go eat some ice-cream [chocolate].
@ dweller: I am amazed at the chutzpah of the internationals, especially the EU who demand of Israel business as usual after stabbing her inthe back by supporting the Pal state at the UN. How they can possibly demand that Israel observes agreements breached by the other side is mind boggling. The only thing more mind boggling is that Israel does not publicly repudiate such double standards which are typically indicative of anti semitism. Apparently Lieberman is the only one who will roil the pot but his messages are imprecise.
dweller Said:
True, it might just be an election ploy.
dweller Said:
I do not disagree but I think it depends on whether this is all a dog and pony show or not. If a dog and pony show then all the events are for public consumption (and are well explained). If not then it becomes a question of how one views the diplomatic/legal/PR process: whether one wishes to follow some sort of quasi legal process or a PR/diplomatic process. If one wishes to follow a “legal process” perhaps clarity of message and linkage is not as important as flexibility resulting from vagueness. What you are suggesting is geared towards PR(how things are seen) therefore dependent upon what message one wishes to send: E.G. that the message should be spiteful to slap those who betrayed Israel and then hypocritically demanded Israels observance of an agreement which they destroyed or we are trying to be the good jews who follow agreements in spite of the intransigent Pals. The good jew approach has tended to result in the “give a hand and they want an arm” reaction. Actualy I see nothing positive coming from the good jew approach at this time. The internationals will not side with Israel even if the Jews are spotless. I think the tougher approach signalling an unacceptability of double standards would be better (if this is not a dog and pony show leading to a pre determined arrangement).
@ yamit82:
Did any one really believe Oslo would work?
@ yamit82:
I seriously doubt that? Try Blue Bell ice cream from Texas,Mexican chocolate is so good.
@ dweller:
W.C. Fields reincarnated
@ Bernard Ross:
Well, true, but so far as I’m aware, he hasn’t actually announced anything about settlement as such.
He’s only announced construction of buildings.
In any case, it’s by doing this without Abrogation & Annexation that he sets himself up to being SEEN as resorting to what Sherman here calls a “spiteful reaction” to the PA’s General Assembly gambit.
dweller Said:
I felt similarlu at first and then I realized that the pals gave no notice of Oslos abrogation but just proceeded unlaterally ignoring any reference to it. BB is doing the same thing. He has however not abrogated Oslo and he does not have to declare it abrogated to make the settlement legal. Jewish settlement is legal with or without Oslo and with or without annexation. He is treating them all the same as Israel has been treated: proceeding unilaterally and leaving it up to the others to figure it out without declaring anything or tying his hands. It is not an unusual legal tactic to be vague and to commit to only that which is necessary or to perform that which must be performed in order not to waive rights.
@ Bill Narvey:
I never said or admitted that there is no other current politician or Israeli leader wainting in the wings who could do better.
You phrased it if my memory serves me correct “an Israeli politician who is electable”. Since the right wing parties and religious parties constitute the overwhelming majority in Israel any politician selected to lead the Likud would automatically receive all of the support of the right wing parties and the religious parties. Gaining enough support to form a coalition government. Whether that politician would be better than BB? Who knows, but it’s hard for me to envision him or her being worse than BB.
@ yamit82:
Nah.
They just aren’t listening.
@ dweller:
Guess it’s because they didn’t have those little voices in their heads directing them to do the right thing. Their intuition must be on a different wave length as yours or on the Fritz.
@ Bill Narvey:
Hadn’t noticed you were gone. 😀
This is what I meant when I said you supported BB at Bar Ilan. You defended him by making excuses for him thus absolving him of his perfidy and culpability in that perfidy and here you are doing it again.
I have outlined why I oppose BB to you and others many times and all you need is to search the archives. It’s as simple as two or three clicks of your mouse. I haven’t changed my opinion of him since, and if anything it’s even more negative. I seldom have to defend my opinion of him these days as most pundits more or less agree with my opinion and some have even a more negative view of him than mine.
@ Bill Narvey:
What was wrong with the timing of the building announcement is that it didn’t come right after
A. Notice of Abrogation of Oslo; and
B. Annexation of the provinces of J & S —
— which two announcements should THEMSELVES have followed promptly “on the heels of the UNGAR voting to grant Palestinians quasi state observer status to the UN.”
@ Honey Bee:
I prefer Vanilla ice creame
@ l mansfield:
He does, if they’re well-cooked.
@ terrence:
Israel’s Jewish Exodus
Some truths mostly fiction.
Israels only concern should be security..security, security. WO scurity,
its existence hangs on a ghred. Every war fought had at its goal, (Arabs) its destruction and 2nd genocide. For some reason, they still dont believe it (read Michael Oren’s Six Days of War.). Even its nuke deveopment was candestine..and contgroversial. Can we imagine if now Israel was w/o nukes? Just look at/syria for its future. 50,000 dead Syrianhs, killed by other Arabs. And what about the Jews? This conflict is really simple to fathom..Judenrein Palestine.plain and simple.
From the get go after 67, Israel has made repeated mistakes. When they got the “3 nos” from the Arab League..considering the dangerous war just fought (and won) she should have stressed SECURITY along the borders, including
certainlsy UN242. No discussion, no compromises..not withdrawal. What was the rush I ask? Bibi says one thing, Avi another, Livni another..get my point. I agree, bad timing for the 3000 units. Waitng 60 days using security, would have been far preferable. But does Israel ever listen to reason? They still have the desert mentalty.tents and camels.
@ Laura:
why not go the whole 9 yards and say Emanuel likes little boys.
@ yamit82:
Yamit,you are suggesting that BB take a passive-aggresive approach to the problem? I like that. BB can cry,sit in his room pout and eat Icecream [chocolate].
rahm emanuel is a degenerate lowlife.
Please release my comment #12 from moderation.
terrence Said:
My wager is that those leaving are not zionists and that zionists will increase as a proportion of the Israeli jewish population over time from immigration & birthrates. In this scenario the will to keep YS will increase and therefore Israel may get more by not coming to an agreement. those that leave may have to return in the future, judging from trends in global anti semitism and in the US & Europe. Assimilation did not prove to help much last time. Its too bad that Gideon Levy has not yet decided to leave).
Yamit, I figured you’d pop up to welcome me back.
I don’t recall praising Netanyahu’s Bar Ilan speech. I may have said he was forced into it by Obama, but praise it? I highly doubt that.
Abbas would not be anywhere, let alone in power if it wasn’t for all the Western support he has, falsely premised on the West needing to see him as being in some way a moderate Palestinian Muslim. If he can be credited with anything, it is taking the support given him and demanding more, knowing that the West and the UN will support him and demand more concessions from Israel.
The TSS as it is now conceptualized by the West and the peaceniks including many TSS Jews and Israeli NGOs conceive of it is written in stone for them, because to a Western mind it all makes perfect sense. It would if the Muslim world and the Palestinians saw it that way. They don’t and that fact blinds the arrogant TSS’ers who are enthralled with their view based on Western logic, reason and values.
Israel must become more pro-active in asserting not only her narrative and discrediting the Palestinian narrative, but also she must unapologetically, forcefully and uncompromisingly assert her rights at law, needs and best interests. Where the Palestinians breach the spirit or the letter of an agreement or take actions contrary to Israel’s interests, Israel must take steps to counter and if that means withdrawing services now provided to the Palestinians, so be it.
That essentially is what Sherman is advocating as if Israel can just do it, if she makes up her mind to do that. What Sherman is advocating is far easier said than done. Sherman does not seem to recognize that difficulty.
Yamit you have always been down on Netanyahu. Likely that started with his recanting his position in 1996 to not go out of Hebron and then doing so. Again, I doubt he changed his mind, just on a whim. The U.S., the EU and likely geopolitical forces were so aligned that left Netanyahu with no choice. The same likely can be fairly said of any other Netanyahu reversals of position.
Yamit, if you care to respond and explain with examples of why you think so poorly of Netanyahu, feel free. I’d like to see the case you make against him at one time, rather than trying to recall each of the instances you have taken him to task over the years.
Of course Netanyahu his flaws, just like most do.
If you however, did take the time to make your comprehensive case against Netanyahu, people like me would have a better chance of understanding your arguments, rather than a multitude of your accusations. You might even have a better chance to persuade people to your point of view.
That said, you have in past acknowledged each time I asked, that whatever misgivings you have with Netanyahu, there is no other current politican or Israeli leader waiting in the wings who could do better.
Anyway Yamit, it’s your move to answer or not answer my challenge to you.
yamit82 Said:
Are you saying he should recognize the Pal state? This might have legal ramifications in terms of militarization(sovereign states are allowed to be militarized). What about security and the Jordan valley? Can you be more specific on the borders(E1, Areas,A,B,C?)?
yamit82 Said:
Is this just for punishment or is there also a suggestion as to getting something in the event of the collapsing. (If Israel maintains a security cordon as in Gaza(blockade, etc)the internationals will blame Israel as they are now.
yamit82 Said:
This is how it looks to me too. If the Pals form a confederation with Jordan the security situation would be similar to gaza today (where Egypt is playing a greater role as time goes on), Jordan would be assuming a greater role and Israel will probably agree. Also, if they confederate there is less likely to be pressure for any link to Gaza and West bank demands for more land for a “viable” state would be less convincing. In a scenario of a pal state Israel might be better off arriving at a de facto situation rather than one by agreement. Agreement can mean the pals can legally militarize even if there there is an agreement not to militarize. I just dont see the basis for Israel negotiating away all of Area C. My understanding is that this land does not contain many Pals. My own view is that they should not make agreements, proceed de facto and annex or hold on to C and perhaps withdraw from A & B like Gaza maintaining security positions to control arms imports.
@ yamit82:
@ Bill Narvey:
Correct me if I’m wrong but you praised BB’s “Bar Ilan Speech” where he agreed in principle to Pali State. As I said at the time and before that, once you agree in principle and state so publicly, all the rest is just the negotiations and maneuvering over the price. You Ted and many others said well it was a safe gesture as the Palis would never agree to BB’s conditions. Well BB has not held his positions and the world took his public gesture and pronouncement at face value and trying to stop the inevitable is a waste of time. There will be a Pali State and the question will come down to borders and whether Israel has the national balls to to stick it to the Palis in-order to insure that that Pali state will disintegrate ASAP
I agree
Abbas has outmaneuvered BB. BB announced approval of already approved plans to link E1 with Jerusalem and if he doesn’t cancel and or freeze the project as he has done in the past it can take up to 5 years ( An eternity here) Before the first bulldozer begins work and another 5-6 years before that project is completed if it in fact gets off the ground.
Well that’s what it was a decision to punish the Palis and BB did not hide the fact but let it be known in every forum. There is no reason to believe that BB would have considered such an announcement if it was not meant as punishment to the Palis and all those friendly Europeans and Americans understood quite well what BB was doing.
After the International backlash BB advised the that if the Palis negotiate he can refreeze the project. Word from Abbas that negotiations are to begin in Feb 2013 after the Israeli elections and a new government formed. Obama will have a new team in place even more inimical to Israel than the previous one and He wants more than any other President before him to be the creator god-father of a Pali State.
BB should concede a Palis State whose borders are exactly where they are today, then do everything in his power to see it collapse.
Israel is sliding rapidly into recession and that will also reduce the maneuver room for BB vis a vis, Europe and America not to mention the internal dissension that will result.
I agree 100%
Regarding the timing and linking of E1: Although it is true that Jewish settlement is completely legal(along with annexation) the timeing may have some reasonable explanation. A treaty replaces past treaties. Oslo was not a treaty but rather an agreement to conclude in a treaty. The defacto behavior of Israel can be explained that Israel by agreeing to Oslo, was willing to contemplate sacrifices and limits to its(and the jewish people)rights in exchange for a treaty resulting from Oslo. This can explain the unwillingness to settle in areas that might be conceded in a treaty, although not required. BB might have been bound by past GOI understandings. However, the material breach of Oslo relieves the Israeli govt of even understandings and the announcement of E1 conveys that Israel is no longer required to observe Oslo without actually declaring an end to Oslo in its entirety. It is probably viewed by the GOI as a “have your cake and eat it” approach whereby one can pick and choose, like the PA, which clause to abrogate and then put the shoe on the other foot. A legal tactic whereby one acts to demonstrate that a right is not waived while maintaining in ambiguity the clauses one wishes to continue at the moment. the GOI can still abandon all of Oslo but in its own timing if it so desires. Right now the combination of Levy and E1 are signaling an assertion of settlement rights. However, there is still ambiguity regarding whether those rights will still remain limited by current and past understanding regarding Oslo(e.g. saying that settlement in E1 does not preclude a state is ambiguous). Legally the GOI can go anywhere with this. Perhaps the timing makes sense in terms of Oslo breach resumes settlement and proceeding intelligently, in steps but time will tell.
The real issue is Arabs have no intention of living in peace with Jews and Christians in the Holy Land. While the world howls, Jews live in fear of losing the land, which they began to build 3000 years ago, and their lives to Arabs who already have two holy lands in Arabia and many who still live by the ancient Islamic code, if you want it, take it.
Why is the world surprised the Jews fight for their land? They are a cornerstone of Western Civilization who have given their efforts to the betterment of humankind. Present day Muslim society has nothing to offer to the world except invasion and the toppling of freedom and democracy. I don’t want Muslims ruling my Holy Land.
did I miss soemthing or is this the sum total of what Martin Sherman advocates as a reaction to their declaring their state in abrogation of Oslo:
So where is the seizing of the grand opportunity?
I thought he was going to say settle all YS in massive land rush or annex YS(or even area C) or transfer the west bankers(oreven just PLO and fatah for breaching Oslo). What does Israel get with his “solution”?
Sherman is wrong to criticize the GOI for the timing of its announcement, on the heels of the UNGAR voting to grant Palestinians quasi state observer status to the UN, to construct 3,000 housing units in E1 to connect Jerusalem to Ma’aleh Adumin.
Given the signficiant adverse reaction that announcement has met, had the GOI made that announcement prior to the UNSC dealing with the Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood resolution last year, the result might well have been that the U.S. would not have cast a veto as it did.
Had the GOI made this announcement prior to the push by Abbas and supporters to have the UNGA pass the resolution it did, to grant Palestinians quasi state recognition as having observer status, whatever hope the GOI had that it might have found a way to get the UN to close the door again on the Palestinians, would have been lost.
Sherman, haranguing the GOI for the time of its announcement, joins the TSS, comprised of a large sector of the U.S. Progressive Reform Movment led by URJ’s leader, Rabbi Rick Jacobs that is haranguing Netanyahu not just for the timing of his announcement, but the announcment per se.
It does the GOI and Israel’s best interest no good.
What is done, is done.
Sherman has a very cogent argument with respect to the firm and clear positions Israel ought to take, irrespective of the pressures she is under in order to advance her own narrative and best interests.
He would have done a greater service to the GOI and Israel had he applauded the GOI for its announcment and made the case that all the efforts by the current and past GOI’s that have worked only to enable the Palestinians to inch their way forward in advancing their positions, should serve as an object lesson that Israel now take the kind of firm, clear and unwavering positions he is advocating.
@ vivarto:
Moshe Feiglin
Good article.
So why is the GOI not acting accordingly?
Is there any way that the GOI can be awakened to their responsibility?
Although I agree with this I am starting to wonder if there is a dog and pony show going on. Israel gets E1; Pals get a bogus (non) state; the euros get to look shocked and pissed for the arab street; but do nothing. In 1988 Jordan and Pals discussed a confederation after the Pals get a state. Now they are actively discussing confederation. Does this mean that the Pals can confederate because they now have a state(in the streets eyes)? If they confederate they would likely permanently split with Hamas(who appears to be going under the Egyptian SOI). In that case talk of borders to create a “viable” pal state become irrelevant.
Quite right. It should have been tens of thousands of new housing units.