Security Considerations and National Unity Require Jordan Valley Sovereignty

By Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman and Prof. Efraim Inbar, JISS

Executive Summary

The American peace plan provides a historic opportunity to break the futile paradigm based on the 1967 lines and ensure Israeli national security for the long term. It can extricate Israel (and the Palestinians) from false hopes engendered by the current peace paradigm – the “conventional wisdom” about an Israeli-Palestinian deal involving the expectation of Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders (with slight modifications), the uprooting of settlements, and a partition of Jerusalem. Again, this old paradigm is a recipe for continued deadlock.

In terms of security – protecting Israel, stabilizing Jordan, and preventing a terrorist takeover of a future Palestinian entity, and given the supreme importance of national cohesion, it is imperative to focus on the Jordan Valley and the Jerusalem envelope (which dominates the road to the Jordan Valley). There is a broad national consensus regarding the need to retain these regions. Moreover, this paradigm is consistent with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s strategic legacy (as expressed in his last major diplomatic address to the Knesset in 1995).

In fact, the new American plan wisely bases itself on Israel’s security interests and national consensus, in line with Yitzhak Rabin’s strategic thinking. The administration’s written plan, “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People,” opens on page three with a prominent quote from the last address given to the Knesset by Rabin, as follows:

The borders of the State of Israel, on attaining the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines that existed before the Six-Day War. We will not return to the June 4, 1967 borders. The main changes are as follows:

a. First and foremost, united Jerusalem – which will include both Maaleh Adumim and Givat Zeev – as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

b. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

c. Modifications including the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the ‘Green Line’ prior to the Six-Day War.

Rabin’s speech referenced the Jordan Valley as Israel’s “security border.” The customary use of this term denotes the inclusion of land captured by Israel in 1967 to provide a good defensive posture, which will not require Israel to launch a preemptive strike when imminent war is feared; as opposed to the 1967 borders, which are not defensible.

The reference to the Jordan Valley should be deemed to be the equivalent of referring to greater Jerusalem, to Gush Etzion and to the other settlement blocks. A thorough examination of the text, as well as familiarity with Rabin’s frame of mind, make it clear that he insisted on a “security border” located within Israel’s sovereign territory.

The application of sovereignty is necessary because Israel cannot rely on “security arrangements” where its forces would be deployed beyond its borders (like, along the Jordan River), nor on foreign forces. A military “presence” (whether Israeli or foreign) cannot be effectively maintained over time, without sovereignty.

Under the previous administration, Israeli-American discussions were held on this basis; first with General Jim Jones and later with General John Allen. (Drawing on that experience, former US ambassador Dan Shapiro and General Allen today argue that there is indeed no security justification for applying Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley). Nevertheless, it must be noted that the Palestinians never participated in these discussions on security arrangements, and they even vehemently refused to consider Israel’s positions on the matter. In any case, the security arrangements discussed, including positioning a foreign military presence in the Jordan Valley, never matured to become operative plans approved by Israeli leadership.

In Area C of Judea and Samaria, which under the Oslo II Accord falls under Israeli military and civil control, the Palestinian Authority is today violating agreements with Israel and constantly eroding Israeli control by building roads and settlements. If this is the way it conducts itself in Area C, it is all the more certain that it would not be able to withstand the temptation to harass an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley that falls under its complete control. Moreover, both the Palestinian national movement and external terrorist entities (such as Iran and its satellites, as well as various Sunni Islamist entities such as the Islamic State) would strive to undermine any arrangement allowing an IDF presence in the Jordan Valley.

As for foreign peacekeepers, Israel’s experience suggests that such forces cannot be relied upon as an effective component of security arrangements. UNIFIL has yet to find even a single Hezbollah rocket in southern Lebanon! UNDOF in the Golan Heights dissipated at the outset of the Syrian civil war after being attacked but a few times. Even the US now wishes to withdraw its military presence in the Sinai (meant to oversee the demilitarization arrangements), against Israel’s wishes. “Solutions” based on current technology and offered to Israel as part of security arrangements may not keep up with the changes in military technology.

The option of maintaining the status quo until a comprehensive diplomatic arrangement is achieved would mean losing the opportunity presented by the Trump administration’s peace plan. And then Israel would face pressures, down the road, for territorial concessions based on the “conventional wisdom” of withdrawal to the 1967 borders. The security reality which would be created if Israel succumbed to such pressures eventually would imperil Israel’s citizens, as well as the stability of Jordan and the future of the Palestinians.

Thus, only Israeli military presence in the field, under Israeli sovereignty, guarantees optimal defense of Israel’s eastern border if political upheavals were to occur to Israel’s east. Furthermore, it is only through such sovereign presence that the demilitarization of a Palestinian state can be guaranteed. Demilitarization is, of course, a prerequisite in the American plan for establishment of such a state. Therefore, only Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley can facilitate realization of a Palestinian state option.

Read the full article here.

<
>