By SAM SOKOL, JPOST
01/29/2013 03:20
While not ready to sign a comprehensive peace deal, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is willing to establish an interim Palestinian state without a final agreement, former deputy foreign minister Yossi Beilin said on Monday.
Speaking during a debate with outgoing settlement council head Danny Dayan, Beilin stated that he had heard from Netanyahu that he would be ready for establishing a “provisional border with the Palestinians.”
“This is something that I heard from him that he would be ready to do it,” he stated.
The debate, held at the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem, was organized by the American Jewish Committee.
“Both sides prefer a permanent agreement but are not ready for it under either’s current leadership,” Beilin continued.
Beilin, who was one of the primary architects of both the Oslo Accords and the Geneva Initiative, a framework for peace negotiated outside of official government channels, noted that “what can be done is an interim agreement which establishes a Palestinian state in provisional borders so that Netanyahu will not have to negotiate now about Jerusalem.”
“Netanyahu, far from being a warmonger, is a very cautious person and therefore not the one [to sign] a permanent agreement. This is not because he doesn’t want it but because he is not ready to pay the price.”
Beilin negated the possibility of an accord such as his Geneva Initiative being workable in the current political climate or with the “current government.”
He also asserted that instead of the prime minister being forced to deal with the issue of forcibly evacuating settlements, any settlers who would wish to remain in their homes under Palestinian sovereignty would be allowed to do so. Those not wishing to live within a Palestinian state would be resettled, Beilin said, possibly even in other areas over the green line that Israel would retain.
“Knowing Bibi,” he said, using Netanyahu’s nickname, “I believe an interim solution could be realistic.”
However, the Prime Minister’s Office denied Beilin’s statements. Speaking to The Jerusalem Post in response to Beilin’s comments, PMO officials noted that Netanyahu “believes in direct negotiations with the Palestinians with no preconditions that would lead to, as described in the Bar-Ilan speech, a two-state solution based on a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes Israel.”
Settlement council head Dayan also had an alternative peace plan on hand.
Currently, he said, Israel and the Palestinians “are devising a modus vivendi that is moderately satisfying for everyone. It’s not idyllic or what we or Palestinians want, but it’s moderately satisfying, and in this region it’s a hell of an achievement.”
There is currently no long-term solution, he said, but should Jordan experience regime change, it may be possible to push the idea of Jordan as a Palestinian state.
“There is a significant chance for two states, Israel west of the Jordan River and Palestine to the east, with joint functional control over Judea and Samaria, although not shared sovereignty,” he speculated. “That will be the beginning of serious negotiations, in which Israel [eventually] rules the Jewish population there and Palestine rules the territory in which their people live there.”
The debate was held during a dinner for the Board of Governors Institute of the AJC, which is currently in Israel as part of a regional tour.
AJC director David Harris, whose staff organized the debate, noted that members of the board were granted an audience with King Abdullah of Jordan in Amman on Sunday and had met with both President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Netanyahu on Monday.
“This evening is sort of quintessential AJC,” Harris noted. “We always have a major debate as part of our programming. We invite people who are thoughtful and reasoned but have certain perspectives on key issues. We listen to them respectfully and we process the information. Tonight’s debate was very much in that spirit.”
TO all of you who contributed such excellent analyses on this page, thank you. One issue that seems to rise out of all this is the flawed relationship between citizens and their paternalistic government – which may be the reason why so many policies against the national interest are implemented in a dictatorial way. Such as the gifting of huge swaths of land and sacred heritage sites to the enemy. Or the detention of settlers without charge. Or the blatant instances of discrimination against the majority. Citizens with clear awareness of their rights would not tolerate it. Just the mere suggestion of partitioning the country should cause such outrage that the govt would be forced to resign. Perhaps there needs to be a national discussion on this govt-citizen relationship. People need to understand that the land and institutions belong to the citizens of Israel, not to the Prime Minister or the self-selected Supreme Court. And that being elected to office does not mean being handed a blank cheque. Here is outspoken Prof Paul Eidelberg’s website. There’s a strongly-worded article on the PM and the land for peace issue. http://i-ari.org/
@ Canadian Otter:
Not fatal — but problematic, TBS.
They did what they could with the hand they’d been dealt.
FATAL would have been to wait for leadership to acquire the stones which the people were entitled to expect them to have.
We are all (in some part, at least) prisoners of our history.
Canadian Otter Said:
thank you, this site is very good and deals with many questions. its too bad that rich jews give money to romney and obama but not to fund such groups. adelsons 100 mil donation money woould do a lot more good for jews with these folks than with romney
@ Bernard Ross:
@ Michael Dar:
WHY ARE LEADERS SILENT? – We know that Israeli politicians are up to no good. HOWEVER, what is difficult to figure out is why nationalist leaders of all types – intellectuals, grassroots, young and old, secular and religious, independent and affiliated with political parties – they are all reticent to fight for Israel’s rights based on international law, particularly that based on the St Remo Conference and the League of Nations.~~~~~ What holds them back? They go to great lengths to argue against the Freeze or UN Resolutions, or to save particular communities from the bulldozer, but never, that I know of, to denounce LOUD AND CLEAR how the British violated the Mandate, and how the United Nations and all their signatories, including the Israeli govt, are legally bound to respect agreements made by the League of Nations. ~~~~~ There is a gap in the nationalist narrative that is very strange. They mention this in passing, but it’s never the center of their argument. Is there some kind of tacit understanding with authorities that they shall not dwell on this subject? I don’t know. ~~~~~ It’s as if someone falsely claimed ownership of your house, and instead of presenting your title to the property, you go about using a variety of non-legal arguments to retain possession. ~~~~~ This link is for a respectable organization that tried to sue the US govt in court for violation of agreements re. Israel, but eventually retreated. We don’t know why. http://www.justicenow4israel.com/ BTW they have very good resources in their archive.
@ Canadian Otter:
I always wondered why we always insist on security parameters of the conflict alone which is of course of prime importance but never also insist on our historic, moral,spiritual and indeed legal rights on all of the land some by ignorance or deceit call Palestine. Not to speak and debate about the frodulent politically motivated invention of a Fake Palestinian people (which never existed in history before). We could also insist the UN stick to their irrevocable, unchangable obligations of the League of Nations’ decision on Palestine. And of course put the legitimate right of the Jews from Arab land on the table of negociations…which would no doubt cool off the irrational demands and expectations of the Arabs.
@ Ted Belman: Ted, here is the map from Otters link. Do you think this is what GOI sees as its final position?
http://israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/map.pdf
Canadian Otter Said:
thank you Otter for this excellent Link. I post an excerpt from the article:
I have come to the belief that Sharon, whose family was embroiled in scandal, was a target for CIA extortion and that his modus operandi reflected this condition. He appears to me to have basically been an agent of the US. I even question the “coma” as now we are suddenly told that he is not in a “coma”. what I suspect is not nice but if true this would extend to others in positions of israel. I have noticed that corruption is very high in Israeli govt and it is well known that the facilitation of upward mobility is a modus operandi of those who wish to control puppets with blackmail in the future.(eg Obama)
the phoenix Said:
I think it has become a red herring to blame Obama for our mess. obama reflects diaspora and Israeli Jews who have severely damaged Israels image. His right hand is an Israeli(RE).; the naturei Karta everywhere rail against, and want to liquidate the zionists; the satmar, who maintain the highest village poverty rate in the US in Kiryat Joeel are aaginst zionsits and publicly fight zionism. The Satmar vote for Obama for their anti zionism and their welfare benefits; not from need but from anti jewish ideology. Worse is israel with the same players and the Israel leftists. the writers of the Haaretz are the most quoted by the foreign press. Diaspora Jews take their cue from israeli Jews and what they are shown is that most israelis do not want YS and the Israeli vote and public behavior is the evidence. Not one Israeli proclaims the rights of jews to settle west of the Jordan river as an inalienable unexpired right, even the Levy report renders it secondary. Let us stop blaming others and take responsibility. It is the house of Israel that must be blamed for their positions. Israelis are the first cause of the anti zionism. why should we expect better from diaspora jews or Obama?
the phoenix Said:
I do not believe that Israeli jews or Diaspora jews will go for this position. It is my nature to evolve solutions to a problem wather than whine and moan about a problem. I think that diaspora jews have less motivation than Israeli Jews and Israel Jews have basically abandoned a desire for YS. therefore, if Jews who wish YS are in the minority then change through war or voting is unlikely. the majority will neither go to war nor vote to annex YS. The only recourse for a small minority is legal and PR. I am a realist: I do not confuse my desire for Jews in YS and transfer of hostile populations with the possibilities of achieving those goals. Is it a solution to constantly moan and whine about how politicians are liars, how the world hates Jews, how jews cheat and betray other jews? Here we can only suggest courses of action but those courses must have some remote possibility of occurring in order to be more than a whine. Jews spend more energy fighting for the principle of futility than in fighting for something. Jews are great about fighting and losing a battle in their minds before actually initiating the battle.
I am repeating a principle here because I believe that this principle can be of aid in the battle of jewish minds: Jews are allowing the red herring of sovereignty issues to obscure the legal jewish unexpired right of settlement west of the jordan river. By separating the 2 and focusing on the jewish right, rather than the state right of israe,l the red herrings might be able to be dissipated.
Ted Belman Said:
this is why I keep plugging legal rights of Jewry apart from Israels sovereign rights. Legal issues enable a minority to bring suit and in so doing they can expose the issues, educate the public and bring public attention on the issues. I cannot fathom why israelis are not interested in YS but those who are will not be able to obtain headwaywithout doing more than whining. Peace Now and other leftist organizations obtain headway through legal means whereas the incompetent right wing prefers to sit and whine about the futility of taking legal and hasbara action. Jews should be competent in affairs of the mind and legal affairs. If the few Israeli Jews who want YS organize in a more competent fashion like the left they might win these battles. at this point Israels problems are political and legal as it can impose the physical solutions even including transfer. If Israeli Jews do not want YS then diaspora Jews can separartely embark on legal battles as individuals and organizations in class action suits. these organizations can sue any entity or individual who obstructs Jewish settlement including Israel and the UN. Israeli sovereignty and jewish settlement are 2 separate issues whereby settlement can Jewish settlement can legally proceed with out Israeli sovereignty claims made. At this point I am beginning to see that the main problem is Israelis and that they cannot be motivated without being informed and pissed off as to how they are being swindled even by their own govt out of their internationally guaranteed legal rights. diaspora Jews will follow the israelis if the Israelis demanded and implemented these rights.
the focus on Jewish settlement rights as opposed to the israeli claims or non claims of sovereignty allows the GC issues to become irrelevant as the GC issues relate to states. Are there no jewish organizations who would settle the west bank, foreign or Israeli, under the guaranteed rights? Apparently there are only jewish traitor organizations who oppose settlement rights such as the naturei karta and the leftists.
The words I want to hear flow from the mouth of any jew of influence religios, secular,left, right, israeli, diaspora are:
I never hear these words spoken by any jew of influence and therefor have little hope regarding any of them. there are many avenues of struggle but first there must be the desire to engage.
@ Bernard Ross:
dear mr ross,
i have no doubts that in the court room you must have been quite formidable.
your reply to mr weisdorf, who was saying essentially what i have said to you in the past (legal vs 2’x4′ approach)has put a small dent into MY beliefs.
YES, i can see the value of such an approach (which will be the equivalent of restraining the patient, and giving him an iv medication IN SPITE of his kicking and screaming…since it is for his own good). ok. i have no problem with ANY approach, provided that the end result is a totally restored land of israel (for the sake of argument and simplicity, i will leave it at that,and will not complicate the issue with what i think should be done with the arab population… 🙂 )
HOWEVER,
the weak point in your argument is the assumption that diaspora jews would actually go for such a proposition.
this pusillanimous crowd, i’ll remind you have voted for husein (AGAIN!!!)
so, how much confidence do you have in THIS crowd to ‘wake up’ and say :”hey, the goyim at whose feet we are groveling, have actually swindled my brethren and myself by implication…so now i, ‘the fearless jew in exile’ DEMAND from the g.o.i. to actually annex all the land… as per san remo, l.o.n. etc etc”
hmmm… slim to none?
Irving Weisdorf Said:
Israel has the power yet it is losing ground to the Pals who do not. The power is giving Israel no gain because it does not exercise its power. Israeli jews do not wish to exercise their power rule YS which is merely to make a simple LEGAL declaration of annexation. If it does not want to extend Israeli sovereignty over YS it can LEGALLY “encourage close Jewish settlement wet of the Jordan river by making a simple LEGAL declaration that it will henceforth fulfill and enforce its LEGAL obligations under UN charter art 80. If it does not want to settle Israelis for fear of GC 4 it can settle foreign Jews. If Israel wants to do nothing for world Jewry rights then a Jewish organization or individual can sue Israel, the UN, EU,etc. on behalf of the Global jewry in a class action suit to stop the obstruction of Jewish settlement and to fulfill the LEGAL obligation to “encourage” Jewish settlement. EG Instead of Adelson giving romney 100 million he could fund this battle. Whether these battles win or lose they should be fought if one wishes a miracle. Eichmann could have been disposed of without a lengthy public trial but the trial was to educate the world and especially world jewry. The problem is not physical power it is the will and motivation of Jews, those in Israel and those in the diaspora. If those in Israel do not want to fight the legal and PR battle then those in the diaspora can. the Jews need to know how they have, and are, being swindled out of their rights and patrimony and then perhaps they will fight.
To Dweller: On the contrary, I am not overlooking the importance of the law and you are correct that it appears to be important to Jews. If so, then Ted is now spot on when he says:
“Imagine, if you will, a PM that daily makes the case for our rights and embraces the Levy report and gives credence to retaining a significant part of J & S, … the normal curve will realign its peak to the PM’s position.”
But that’s not being done! Had it been done, AND MARKETED, perhaps the landscape could look different, world opinion would shift somewhat our way, and American Jews wouldn’t prostrate themselves at the foot of their hateful, deceptive, and probably Muslim President. Moreover, as said above, if you aren’t willing to fight for what is yours, world opinion quickly concludes that it couldn’t possibly be yours, because “normal” among the rest of the world is to fight for what you believe is yours. Successive Israeli governments have not even fought for what was promised under Oslo. It would be a great start for Bibi to say that until the “Palestinians” change their charter and cease preaching hate in their schools,etc., Israel will not come to the table, since it is pointless.
dweller Said:
You have used the above argument a myriad of times with little or no deviation but in none of the instances where you have used such a categorical hypothesis/contention have you shown it to be true even likely by attempting to give any support to prove the hypothesis is true; which you apparently can’t.
I say your statement and you are full of &*&, and reject out of hand the validity of your belief, therefore it is your opinion alone and intellectual honesty should require you to put such a contention in a framework of your opinion only, nothing more.
The Only Law a Jew need consider and uphold is the Law which assigns THE ENTIRE LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE, ALONE. There are no other legitimate claimants. It is the holy land, the land of G-d, given by Him to His holy people for the purpose creating a holy society, therein. Because of this, none but the Jew can have a role in the destiny and political affairs of the state. The non-Jew can live within the Jewish state only as a “resident stranger” who enjoys his personal, social, cultural, and economic rights but with no citizenship, no political representation, no membership in government service, and no say in the destiny of the country. Those who are not prepared to accept this, cannot remain. Arabs are not to be included as resident strangers and must therefore all be repatriated.
This is Jewish Law any other is not binding or relevant. Ben-Gurion the secular, socialist atheist understood Jewish Law and principles better than you dweller when he stated for posterity:
David Ben-Gurion, First Prime Minister of Israel, speech to the 21st Zionist Congress, Basel 1937
While it is true that the the normal curve for Israeli desires is in line withLapid’s platform, namely and undivided Jerusalem and retention of settlement blocs, this is so only because it has been the government position since Oslo, Bibi’s words and actions toe this line. Imagine if you will a PM that daily makes the case for our rights and embraces the Levy report and gives credence to retaining a significant part of J & S, I venture to say that the normal curve will realign its peak to the PM’s position.
THE NOT-SO-SECRET MAP FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM JUDEA AND SAMARIA ~~~~~ This article was posted last September, but the information is several years old. I had seen it before on A7. Could it be that the plan was a secret to Israeli voters? I don’t think so. And yet, they still gave their votes to Likud and its other half, Yisrael Beiteinu, whose Avigdor Lieberman expressed support for Disengagement 2.
The renewed Barak-Bibi-Arik retreat map – http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-renewed-barak-bibi-arik-retreat-map/
The APPARENTLY erratic and inefficient policies by Israeli authorities are all part of a long-term plan detrimental to the country. Authorities are not helpless, not under too much US pressure, and not unaware or confused about the consequences of their actions and inactions (such as their passive stance re. illegal Arab construction). They know where they are headed, and it’s all being done in a deliberately ‘erratic’ manner so as to confuse Jews while they carry out their plan.
@ Irving Weisdorf:
Quite so; no question about it.
However:
Among all the world’s peoples, the Jews are so constituted that they won’t fight — diplomatically, intellectually, OR physically — even for what is theirs, if they don’t have the internal assurance of legal rectitude (whether implicit OR flatly articulated) in the matter over which they fight.
And in the end, the issue of Israel’s retention of her patrimony comes down to precisely that: the willingness to fight for it.
So, while it’s undeniably true that the world DOESN’T give a rip about the law
— it’s equally true that the Jews, for better or for worse, DO.
THAT, and nothing else, is why the law matters.
And why it’s every bit as delusional to overlook the importance of law in this matter as it is delusional to think the world “works on legal principles.”
@ Irving Weisdorf:
excellent commentary and totally spot on, mr weisdorf
Bernard, you are obviously a pretty bright guy, maybe a lawyer. But it counts for little, because the world does not work on legal principles. If you still think so, you are delusional. As Mao said so famously, power comes from the barrel of a gun. The world works legally when it suits those who hold power, and it deviates from what is legal, when those who have power wish it to. Your arguments are like the hair-splitting I experienced when studying Gemarah. NOBODY CARES except you and a handful of Jews. The world has been inundated with lies and deceit of Arab propaganda, while the smart Jews stopped telling their story after Oslo.
Note also that Diaspora Jews have had 64 years to get their asses to the holy land. Who in their right mind is going to expect world public opinion to say that Jews still have some sort of right of settlement! What are you smoking?
We have had miserable leadership! Miserable, incompetent, deceitful, venal, there is no end to the words that should be used to describe them. We as a nation have been arrogant beyond belief. We have been stupid. We have elected Prime Ministers who once elected do exactly the opposite of what was promised, and NO ONE calls them to account. Where are the street demonstratons. Even in Egypt and Iran, there are citizens who understand democracy better than Israelis. Unless a miracle happens, we have lost the war of public opinion, and lost the Land. Diaspora Jews cannot successfully advocate what Israelis and Israeli leadership fail to advocate. One can’t be more British than the British. All the missed opportunities! Mind-boggling! The future does not look good!
Bernard Ross Said:
I would like to know by what legal principle the UN is able to ignore its own Charter article 80. The fact that britain abdicated its mandate after swindling the Jewish people out of their patrimony should not be a cause for the cancellation of jewish rights of settlement. It appears that the termination of the mandate trust caused the UNGA to vote partition and subdivision but I fail to see how even this is cause to cancel Jewish settlement rights. Israel alone is not the Jews. Whoever is in control of the west bank, including and especially the UN, is legally bound to encourage the close settlement of Jews. Any nation or individual acting unilaterally to secure those rights is justified. jews have the right to expect fulfillment of these agreements or to repudiate all agreements.
Canadian Otter Said:
this is interesting. Had Israel acted as the caretaker of the area conquered it would have had the same obligation to settle jews west of the Jordan river just as did UK and Jordan. In fact it would have been restoring the area to justice by reversing the damage to law and Jews by the Jordanian occupation. It could have even gone to war unprovoked for the purpose of reversing Jordan’s illegal administration. Israel, and the myopic leaders representing her, chose instead to completely ignore the moral and legal responsibility of the state of Israel as the sole legal representative of the Jewish people. Instead the leaders viewed their own fledgling nations interests to be incompatible with that of the Jewish people and chose to abrogate their trust. a mitigating factor is that Jewry and Israel was still suffering from duress of the holocaust and 2000 years of habitual pavlovic appeasement of their european masters. as such they were governed by fear rather than law or morality. Now would be the opportune time to repudiate all former paradigms which gre out of Jewish fear and appeasement and restore justice to jews unilaterally. the outstanding issues are the ethnic cleansing of jews from arab lands after the Geneva conventions, the demand for international signatories to honor their legal commitments regarding jewish settlement. the unacceptability of any JEW FREE area of the former palestine mandate territory. Israel may continue to be caretaker and still honor its legal and moral obligations to the Jews by settling and protecting Jews in YS even if Israel does not wish to extend its rule over YS. It can settle foreign Jews there if it does not want to appear to violate the GC by settling Israelis. Even the UN is legally bound to encourage Jewish settlement, but no one demands this.
@ Bernard Ross:
HERE IT IS! That cabinet session in the aftermath of the 1967 War. Read and weep. – Israel’s Peace Plan of June 19, 1967 – https://www.israpundit.org/archives/46889
~~~~~
Strange how this very important question has not been asked AT ALL. From the perspective of a hundred years from now, or a thousand – Jews will be looking back, appalled at what transpired only a few decades after the reconstitution of the state of Israel. During a person’s lifetime Israel was reborn, achieved its pinnacle of glory, and began to shrink and descend into a perception of illegitimacy.
@ Yidvocate:
@ Bernard Ross:
The fact of the matter is that from 1967 on the Israeli govt behaved as the CARETAKER, not the representative of the legitimate owner of the territories, the Jewish nation. (These days it acts more like the representative of the PA and Israeli Arabs.) ~~~~~ It put the IDF in charge, like a conqueror. I have the transcript of a cabinet session in the aftermath of the 1967 war, which I will try to find, where the dialogue seems out of a Hollywood comedy. “What do we do with this? Do we keep it? How much will the world allow us to keep? Do we want to keep it?” – Not their exact words but that was the essence of the meeting. ~~~~~ That’s the problem. Acting as the caretaker for so many years, and eventually treating settlers as worse than criminals while allowing unlimited Arab construction, all that communicates images of Jewish illegality, impermanence, and usurpation of Arab land. Those policies and decisions were the seed of the present Israeli condition of illegality, where its very legal presence in the Middle East is being questioned.
That’s what I mean when I say that regardless of the original intent of the law during the League of Nations allowing “Jewish settlement”, lack of proper sovereignty and govt behavior after 1967 altered world perception and turned admiration for Israel in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war into world approbrium. I don’t believe this is irreversible but it may take more than Israelis are ready to do to correct it. In this I concur with Bernard and other commentators. It’s just plain sad.
Canadian Otter Said:
Canadian Otter Said:
The AJC is contemptible.
Yidvocate Said:
Israeli jews dont want YS. does that means that global jewry’s rights are canceled?
It is jewish settlement rights which were to be encouraged prior to the birth of israel. the homeland was to be held in trust until jewish settlement reached a level of majority for self determination. If Israeli jews do not want YS they should still encourage settlement for other jews for the rest of the homeland while they are the occupying force. A trustee does not really have the right to dispose of the trust assets and interests contrary to the beneficiary interest. Its all well and good to talk about sovereignty and settlement being synonymous but Israeli jews dont want it.
@ Canadian Otter:
Settlement without sovereignty is not what the historic international accords contemplated even if not explicitly expressed. By “Homeland of the Jewish People” sovereignty was conclusively implied as only “property and civil rights” of the local (Arab) inhabitants was to be safeguarded. There simply is no other plausible interpretation. It’s the river to the sea and nothing less!
the phoenix Said:
I think we already know the answer: if the party to the right of likud seeks disengagement, and the head of the settler council seeks a form of autonomy for arabs in YS as his best solution, then the largest majority probably does not even seek area C but likely would be satisfied with E1 and perhaps Jerusalem. therefore I would not expect more from BB except perhaps, at best, a postponement of borders and soveriegnty over land to the future. After all, he would be representing the majority of Israel.
reply 21 to Otter in moderation
Canadian Otter Said:
From the practical and common sense pont of view the sovereign state of Israel, which exists only from the green line west according to their own claims, has abandoned claims to soverieignty east of the green line. However, Israels abandonment of claims of sovereignty in the west bank does not relieve it of its legal obligations in its 3 possible roles:
1-its role as an occupying force does not relieve it of the legal obligation to encourage Jewish(not necessarily Israeli) settlement as a signatory to UN charter.
2-its role as successor to UK as mandate trustee
3- as successor to Jewish Agency as representative of world Jewry.
Israelis appear to see their interests as not being compatible with the rights of world Jewry and appear to have done the same as the UK which is to violate its trust by abandoning the only material interest of global jewry, west of the Jordan river, for its own interests.
Should the acknowledged international rights of world jewry be cancelled because their pretended representative fraudulently sold them out for their own interests as did the UK? Israel seeks leave the west bank jews there unprotected after defrauding world Jewry of its rights by not encouraging settlement and representing jewish rights. a true representative of world jewry would campaign for jewish rights in YS and even a separate jewish state, as in the past could be established there. If the Jews of Israel do not want YS they should not be pretending to represent world jewry and they should not be obstructing that which they are legally obligated to encourage.
My understanding is that the legal settlement right was in trust until jewish settlement was a majority so as to avoid depriving arab rights. Israel needs to make no commitment to a future but merely is required to encourage and protect. The settlers, if encouraged to settle, can form their own govt in time if Israel fulfills its duty.
Canadian Otter Said:
dayan is also advocating a form of disengagement so it appears that those who want even an annexation of area c are a great minority. Invoking the jewish legal right of settlement would mean that Israel, as the occupying administrator, would have to encourage settlement AND PROTECT THE SETLERS. as the state wishes to leave they probably do not wish to spend the money protecting jews. If the state of Israel, who has pretentiously and ignominiously assumed the cloak of representing world jewry, seeks to avoid “encouraging” jewish settlement as a legal obligation then it is little better than the occupation of Jordan. In fact one would have to wonder whether Jews have a right to exist on any part of Israel. this is what the world is wondering and the behavior of Israel reinforces that position. The fact that Jews are in Israel is not to be confused with their legal right to be there. After all colonial populations throughout the world continue to be removed(eg zimbabwe, south africa)forcefully and by murder with no opposition. If Jews do not have a legal right to settle in the west bank then what legal right do Jews base their settlement in Tel Aviv on? This is already developing as it is a long time since we have heard Israel right to exist discussed in the western nations. the Israeli public should realize that their abandonment of the west bank may lead to their loss of sovereignty over west of the green line too. There is no biblical argument to occupy tel aviv and not YS and Israel has abandoned the legal argument protecting Jewish settlement rights in YS, so what argument will be valid then? the same arguments used for Israeli illegitimacy in west bank are growing for Israeli illegitimacy throughout. The same guarantees of Israeli legitimacy, to withstand sanctions and force, in Tel Aviv are the same guarantees in YS. I think it is a big mistake that GOI does not demand Jewish settlement rights and the fulfillment of the international community’s obligations thereof. Restoring Justice for Jewish ethnic cleansing, under the auspices of the Geneva conventions, was also not demanded and therefore Justice was not offered and has been forgotten. this is the natural fate for unclaimed obligations.
@ Bernard Ross:
No settlement without sovereignty. Perhaps some interpretation of the law encourages Jewish settlement regardless of its sovereignity status. But I don’t buy it. Not from the legal point of view, but from a practical and common sense point of view. And others not versed in the law don’t buy it either. It’s either your country or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, if the territory is regarded (right or wrong) as being in dispute, then you should not expand the settlements. Particularly now that the State of Palestine has been recognized by the UN.
That was the fatal error of Sinai, Gaza and Judea/Samaria settlers, to build communities without legal and sovereign title to the land being recognized by their very own country.
@ Bernard Ross:
An excellent and logical suggestion.
The way things are going… I am afraid to have such a question asked as you can not deny knowing what the answer is, once heard…
Canadian Otter Said:
The GOI response is deeply disturbing. Israel has a legal obligation to world Jewry and to the international agreements(an remo, LON mandate trust, UN charter article 80)to “encourage the close settlement of Jews west of the Jordan river”. Even if the state of Israel does not wish to extend its sovereignty over the west bank, as the current administrator of the area between sovereign state of Israel(green line) and the Jordan river, it is still obligated legally to encourage the settlement. the question is : why does the state of Israel not take advantage of this obvious, simple, clear legal principle. something is wrong, something smells fishy when Israel AVOIDS the issue of Jewish right of settlement. What is it trying to avoid, what would such a declaration cause which would be a problem to the state of Israel? Is it merely a matter that it does not want to spend the money to protect Jews there, as this is what it must do as administrator if Jews are encouraged to settle there? encouraging Jewish settlement is merely a legal obligation of occupation by any govt and does not entail a commitment to future sovereignty, governing arabs or protecting jews. What is GOI really avoiding?
@ Bernard Ross:
Some of it can be deduced from the elections results. The NEW RIGHT WING (Bennett) advocates Disengagement. I think that you are right in your assessment that there is no real support for annexation. It may all begin to desintegrate from here on.
I also subscribe to Phoenix’s belief that only a miracle can save Israel.
Canadian Otter Said:
Although I desire full annexation and even transfer of hostile populations, it occurs to me that a large majority of Israelis will not seek more than what Dayan is elucidating and most likely will be satisfied with even less because no one can be expected to be more catholic than the pope. What I desire cannot be confused with what is most likely to take place. It appears to me that the large majority of Israelis want less than the annexation of Area C as even E1 is a subject of discussion. The real question is what do the large majority of Israelis want; what solution will a large majority of Israelis embrace? Perhaps this is what should be determined as this is likely to be the road that will be traveled.
Max Said:
actually they have been negotiating.
Look to the US/Egypt/Qatar/ MB/Hamas and Israeli deal just done for gaza.
Relate it to the Qatar request to Israel to invest tons of cash in developing gaza and relate that to the discussions surrounding gaza offshore gas,
and relate that to breezes of Meshaal seeking PLO presidency and recognizing 2 state solution.
relate also to the revolving door ofQatar, GCC and Jordan officials to PA after “statehood” with Israels permission and ongoing discussions regarding PA confederation with Jordan.
Relate that to 1980’s statements regarding confederation with Jordan after statehood.
Relate that to the qatar/ saudi relationship and the qatar/saudi control of the salafi/qaeda mercenaries which have been in play in the recent “arab springs”.
from wikipedia:
There you have it from the president of the settlement council, who can be more pro settlement than the settlers?.
Here is how I see it playing out:
no formal final deal; area A &B is allowed to function as an autonomous zone/state under the auspices of Jordan, possibly a confederation as already discussed. PA borders, plus national soveriegnty over the land, will be for later negotiations. Area c will remain under israeli control until final details worked out. Meshaal will become president of PA after abbas and after accepting the 2 state solution. Israel recognizes,or does not disqualify, the PA state subject to final agreement on borders, security and soverignty(therefore no final solutin equals no sovereignty). this “recognition” will allow the confederation whereby the pals believe they have a state while Israel does not formally recognize it. Israel will remain in Jordan valley and area C for an indefinite period. The Pals will have their “state”, the GOI will cease to rule the arabs of A&B. It will basically remain as is but with make-up put on. This appears to be what most israelis want. Abdullah will use the relationship, confederation, his pal wife and son, to build credentials with his home based Pals for ongoing reforms which include increased MB power in Jordan but also increased secular power for the Pals as a balance. Israel might be able to skirt the issue of sovereignty over the west bank land through an autonomy/confederation arrangement which does not involve giving land sovereignty to west bank arabs. the nature of sovereignty status issues will be the clue to the expected final solution. Something similar to Jordans authority over the mount might prevail, in which case it can be seen that land sovereignty is left open. This may leave a future open to the pal ascension in Jordan under a constitutional monarchy which institutionalizes and protects the long term future of the hashemite monarchy. With the right investment Jordan can be come an economic and social magnet for west bank Pals and reduce the arab population of the west bank possibly leading to an eventual, but unlikely, annexation. the most likely best solution achievable would be an autonomous zone, with west bank arabs having Jordanian citizenship restored, under Jordanian supervision but Israeli sovereignty
@ Canadian Otter:
Otter, read shmuel halevi’s post in the building freeze post…
I wish it were not so and he is wrong…
…
Prozac time?
@ the phoenix:
Well said, Phoenix.
I still can’t get over that! – Aryeh Eldad and Michael Ben Ari were the ones that worked the hardest for the land of Israel, while the Likud MK sheep voted unanimously against annexation – TWICE – in the last four years and did nothing about gross violations of Jewish rights in Israel. That’s gratitude for you!
@ Canadian Otter:
dear otter,
once more your comments are resonating the awful incredible truth that israel is facing being saddled with a traitourous leadership confidently marching to the cliff of ‘two state solution’ followed by …the crowd that has elected them.
there are fleeting moments where the toyota commercial flashes through my mind… “YOU! asked for it, you got it…”
but it can not be that!
it must NOT be that…
to KNOW the ending (since this is an old movie that has been shown numerous times) and STILL to move ahead, DELUSIONALLY thinking (hoping?) that THIS TIME it will be different…is the epitome of madness. SHEER MADNESS.
and to have two TRUE nationalists lose the election…and allow this abomination (what a disgrace to his late father and brother, in whose honour i have named my son…)to continue with this CRAZY IDEA…
so from outside of israel, obviously there is not much that could be done to stop this march to perdition, and from within….’they have ears and they won’t listen, they have eyes and they won’t see’…
fwiw, i think it is now BEYOND the capacity of mere mortals to correct the course…
yamit, we need a miracle!
PARTITION has already been agreed upon. Everything else is about the details of surrender. Such as the unrealistic demand for a ‘demilitarized Palestine’.
Latest: UN DEMANDS WITHDRAWAL of all Israeli citizens from Judea and Samaria. – http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164771
And the govt response is, Ahh… we know the land is not ours, but don’t be so harsh, the settlements are not an impediment to talks. Couldn’t they just stay where they are while we negotiate? Please?
Not a firm statement about Israel’s right to the land. Nothing like that. Only an annoying, stubborn and childish attitude, like a kid pleading to stay up just five more minutes past bed time.
If there is any kind of unilateral withdrawal, or an official recognition of Palestine with pending borders, expect the “resistance”, as Hillary calls Hamas, to launch a terror campaign against the ‘occupiers’.
Right now the only option is full annexation with full Israeli control over the land. Anything else leads to terror, war, and the eventual dismantling of Israel.
Shy Guy Said:
Something new or not? Irrelevant. You place in my opinion unfounded credit and faith in the Likud list especially Feiglin. Not me. None of them will oppose BB or deflect his intentions. They didn’t in the past 4 years and no reason they will do so in the next. They made their positions clear when they all supported BB for PM and head of the Likud party. They knew his positions or should have, yet they compromised and lied to themselves and the voters. BB will ignore any opposition from within and there won’t be much if any.
Peace can only come after the terrorist groups have been exterminated because all negotiations are really with the terrorists and they are not negotiating.
what’s the difference between a provisional and a final arab state in Eretz Yisrael. This fine nuance will be ignored by the international community and they will turn it within months into a final solution just without formal approvement, but everybody will act as it already were final.
BB is a full idiot, may G-d preserve us from him and his wife. G-d make something that his term won’t last more than some months or make something that will make null and void all his evil plans.
yamit82 Said:
Yep. They’ve been saying it all along. But most important, all of their party members agree. Not so with the Likud.
Did you think you were pointing out to me something under the sun that’s new?
@ Shy Guy:
So Shelly and Tzippi are worse?
“Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.” Si vis bellum para pacem:
Si vis pacem para pactum:
Si vis pacem fac bellum:
Everything is wrong. Everything.