Ted Belman says:
The Blue & White Future just did a poll of how Israelis look at Constructive Unilateralism. 972+ wrote it up.Survey finds that majority of Jewish Israelis think the country should unilaterally determine its borders along the route of the West Bank separation barrier. One-third support either annexing the West Bank without giving Palestinians civil rights, or perpetuating the status quo
This article refers to this as apartheid. Don’t you believe it.
In my article Better to be hung for a pound than a penny, I favoured Bennett’s plan to annex Area C rather than annex to the route of the fence.
There is no need to unilaterally withdraw to the fence as Yadlin proposed. We should unilaterally annex Area C and negotiate from there. Part of this territory could be given to the Arabs later for a peace agreement. And if there is no peace agreement, so be it. Keep in mind that this is no panacea. We annexed east Jerusalem but the world doesn’t recognize the annexation and screams blue murder when we build there. The annexation will give them more to scream about.
Whether Israel withdraws unilaterally to the fence or annexes Area C, she will be attacked. If Israel is going to make a move which upsets the world better to make it a worthwhile move.
Sherman posits that we should not withdraw from any territory but should financially induce Arabs to leave. In this article he was silent on annexation so I assume he intends to maintain the status quo. Where I differ is that I believe there is more good than harm resulting from annexing Area C and leaving A and B as presently covered by Oslo, as Sherman proposes. Thus we would not be changing the status quo of A and B as the B&WF proposes but we would be changing the status quo of C. And we would be free to still offer compensation to the Arabs to leave as Sherman proposes.
Into the Fray: Does Aussie philanthropist Frank Lowy realize he is helping promote a South Lebanon-like reality on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv?
Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim. – George Santayana
I realize some might find the tone of this article overly acerbic – even abrasive.
But I make little apology for this.
I was compelled to write it by a profound sense of exasperation.
It articulates a feeling of deep despair, and reflects a sentiment of disbelief, disillusionment and disappointment at the conduct of prominent public figures, which is difficult to characterize, without recourse to epithets such as “moronic” and “myopic” – while less charitable souls might venture the use of “maniacal” or “malevolent.”
Curiouser and curiouser
It is becoming increasing difficult to avoid recognition of the fact that any prospect of a negotiated two-state-solution (TSS) is receding into oblivion.
However, as reluctant realization of the increasingly undeniable and inevitable failure of their favored, but fundamentally flawed, formula begins to dawn on even the most hitherto- enthusiastic two-staters, their responses wax evermore hysterical, harebrained and hallucinatory.
Unchastened by the misery and mayhem wrought by attempts to promote TSS-initiatives, desperate advocates of political appeasement and territorial retreat, which comprise the doctrinal underpinnings of such initiatives, are energetically promoting their latest – and loopiest – “initiative.”
True, it seems that the bitter realization has set in that there is no Palestinian negotiating partner with the desire and/or the ability to deliver a durable peace accord.
As prominent and persistent two-stater Ami Ayalon (former commander of the navy and the Shin Bet) conceded in an interview with Charlie Rose (August 8, 2012): “We have to accept [something which] if you had asked me two years ago I would not [have] accepted… there is no Palestinians partner…”
Yet, despite the acknowledged disproof of the major tenet buttressing their political thesis, obsessive two-staters have begun to conjure up a notion – one that could have come straight from the make-believe world of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. This is the concept of “Peace without partners.” No kidding You can almost hear Alice’s sigh of exasperation: “It would be so nice if something would make sense for a change.”
But wait, things get curiouser and curiouser.
Plumbing new depths of absurdity?
One of the first symptoms of this disturbing intellectual malaise appeared in the international media a year ago, in the form of a New York Times opinion piece titled – yes, you guessed it – “Peace without partners.”
Written by a trio of well-known Israelis – Ayalon, Orni Petruschka, a successful hi-tech entrepreneur) and Gilead Sher (formerly prime minister Ehud Barak’s chief of staff) – and almost immediately endorsed by Tom Friedman (itself a reason for concern), the article plumbed, new depths of absurdity.
Sound excessively harsh? Judge for yourself.
The authors (all founders of an organization known as Blue and White Future (B&WF), whose stated objectives include endeavoring to “resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of a ‘two states for two peoples’ solution”), acknowledge: “We recognize that a comprehensive peace agreement is unattainable right now… It now seems highly unlikely that the two sides will return to negotiations…”
Yet, undaunted by recalcitrant realities, the intrepid trio nevertheless urges: “Israel can and must take constructive [unilateral] steps to advance the reality of two states based on the 1967 borders… regardless of whether Palestinian leaders have agreed to accept it.”
In response, I wrote a column, titled “Stupidity on steroids” (May 24, 2012), remarking: “…the very oxymoronic nature of the title, “Peace without Partners,” testifies to the nonsensical nature of its content, which not only resurrects the failed formula of unilateral retreat but suggests a new one of “unilateral peace,” whatever that might mean…”
Land for nada
As we shall soon see, the notion of unilateralism, misleadingly designated “constructive,” comprises a radical departure from – and from Israel’s point of view, degradation of – the rationale underpinning the familiar formula of “land-for-peace.”
In the past, when they still clung to the illusion that “there was someone to talk to,” the logic driving the TSS paradigm was that in exchange for transferring territory to Palestinians, Israel would receive some sort of negotiated quid pro quo from the Palestinians in the form of a mutual peace – or at least, non-belligerency – accord.
This principle has now been entirely jettisoned.
The concept being seriously proposed and aggressively promoted is no longer one of “land-for-peace” but in effect “land-for-nothing” – naught, nada, zilch, zero…
In the light of the consequences of previous experience with unilateral initiatives, it is difficult to overstate the gravity of this initiative, were it to gather sufficient momentum to impact Israeli policy-makers.
In fairness to its endorsers, they do attempt to argue that these initiatives are qualitatively different from those undertaken in the past. However, it requires little analytical ability to demonstrate that, if anything, this makes the proposal even more preposterous and perilous.
It is essential to expose just how reckless and ridiculous it is, before any such regrettable outcomes materialize – especially in view of the energetic efforts being made of late to mobilize support for it.
Elements of “constructive unilateralism”
This notion of “constructive unilateralism” is being bandied about with increasing frequency in the mainstream press both in Israel and abroad. In recent months it has been the topic of discussion in both the electronic and printed media – in radio and TV interviews, in opinion columns and in letters to the editor, including in the Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy and The Washington Post to name but a few.
As will soon become clear, the cross-organizational affiliation of many of the authors/interviewees is both intriguing and significant.
The elements of this proposed “constructive unilateralism” appear repeatedly in several of the previously mentioned media items, but arguably the most concise articulation thereof is to be found in a Foreign Policy article (March 18), headlined “Unilateral Peace: It’s time for Israel to move toward a two-state solution, alone if necessary,” authored by Maj.- Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin and Gilead Sher.
Yadlin was credited as former chief of Israeli Military Intelligence and director of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, and Sher as co-chairman of B&WF, a senior research fellow at the INSS.
In the article, Yadlin and Sher set out the elements comprising “constructive unilateralism”: “We suggest a new series of unilateral steps towards disengagement that have a better chance of succeeding [than the 2005 Gaza disengagement].
“First, Israel should renounce its sovereignty claims over areas east of the security fence… Second, it should end all settlement construction east of the fence.
And third, Israel should enact a voluntary settlement evacuation and compensation law.”
Elements (cont.)
They continue: “Israel should coordinate these moves – particularly those related to security – with the United States, the international community and the PA…
The Jordan Valley and possibly other strategic locations should provisionally remain in Israeli hands to prevent the smuggling of weapons… and assure Israel’s security,” leaving the reader to puzzle over what the meaning of “coordinated unilateralism” is and what to do if others decline such “coordination.”
On this issue Sher, in an earlier op-ed, “Time has come for 2 states,” (January 29) is a little more assertive, if no less fanciful: “The IDF will remain in the territory until the security responsibility will be handed over to an element that is acceptable to us (we learned this lesson in the aftermath of the Gaza disengagement of 2005).” This position which closely parallels views set out in the previously cited Ayalon et al. New York Times piece: “…
the Israeli Army would remain in the West Bank until the conflict was officially resolved with a final-status agreement.”
So there you have it – the elements of the new TSS-paradigm driven by “constructive unilateralism”:
• A voluntary forgoing of Israeli claims to sovereignty over virtually all of Judea and Samaria while maintaining the deployment of the IDF – thus instantly transforming “disputed” territories into unequivocally “occupied” ones.
• An initiative to remove all Jewish presence east of the security barrier, either by financial inducement, economic deprivation or eventual physical abandonment.
A mega-South Lebanon
Clearly, under these conditions any hope that “the conflict [will] be officially resolved with a final-status agreement” is detached from reality. For why should the Palestinians offer any quid pro quo to negotiate the withdrawal of the IDF when Israel has a priori conceded sovereignty to them and ceased all construction of the settlements, condemning them to inevitable decay and disintegration? Indeed, what would be the justification for any further IDF deployment in the sovereign territory of others – especially as that deployment itself is likely to be cited as the major grievance precipitating the belligerency between the sides? Little imagination is required to comprehend the catastrophic consequences should such a policy fail in inducing/coercing the Jewish residents to evacuate. For by voluntarily voiding its claims to any affinity with the land, Israel will have deemed itself indelibly an “occupier” and all settlements “illegal,” since it would have no power to legalize their existence.
But even if it were to succeed, the prospects are scarcely more palatable. It is difficult to know how to characterize the political-legal structure that would prevail in an area whose only residents are non-Israelis and over which Israel makes no sovereign claims, yet maintains the deployment of its military – unless you think of pre-2000 South Lebanon. And we all know how that ended – in ignominious unilateral flight of the IDF.
Significantly, Yadlin and Sher seem to view this favorably, claiming: “The decision to withdraw… was correct… unilateral action legitimized Israel’s border in the north…”
Could this reflect their real intentions? And if not, how do they propose preventing repetition of such undignified and unreciprocated “unilateral action to legitimize Israel’s eastern border” – and the subsequent stockpiling of formidable armaments on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv.
Seamless symbiosis
Formally, this concept of “constructive unilateralism” is being promoted by the previously mentioned B&WF, which describes itself as “a non-partisan political movement…funded by private donors in Israel, the United States and elsewhere.”
However, even a cursory glance at the identities of the individuals involved, the vehicles of publication and the cross-organizational affiliations will reveal an almost seamless symbiosis between B&WF and the INSS, chaired and largely funded by Australian billionaire philanthropist Frank Lowy.
Thus although the two are organizationally separate, there is a striking overlap between the figures who endorse the “constructive unilateralism” idea and their attributed affiliation with the INSS – from the director of the institute, through prominent senior research associates to junior interns. Indeed, the concept has been touted in the INSS’s quarterly publication Strategic Assessment and a plausible case could be made for the claim that the institute provides the intellectual bona fides for B&WF’s public activism.
Does Frank Lowy realize?
It would take a volume to enumerate/expose the gamut of logical flaws, glaring non sequiturs and dangerous defects that riddle the intellectual edifice and operational rationale of “constructive unilateralism,” but the limits of space dictate that I desist.
However, one can only wonder whether the devoted Zionist billionaire Lowy is aware that the institute that he funds is vigorously promoting a policy which, rather than preclude an apartheid-like reality, would create a South Lebanon-like one on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv.
True, it is a policy proposal with an impressive array of supporters, including the former heads of the Shin Bet and Military Intelligence. But with all the esteem I (genuinely) have for their achievements, past seniority is no guarantee of current infallibility.
That said, the proposal does contain elements that Israel should adopt.
As I have urged in numerous columns, Israel should embark on unilateral initiatives – not those geared to relinquishing territory but to retain it. It should embark on a large-scale and vigorous program of evacuation- compensation – not for Israeli Jews, but for Palestinian Arabs.
Perhaps the generous billionaire might consider alternative causes to support. After all, if there is no moral defect in funding the voluntary evacuation of Jews from their homes in Judea-Samaria to facilitate the establishment of what, in all likelihood, would become a failed mini-micro-state and a base for radical Islamist terror, what possible moral objection could there be to funding the voluntary evacuation of Arabs from their homes to prevent the establishment of such a base for Islamic terror?
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
yamit82 Said:
All these “acts of terrorism,” have been carried out in the Eastern USA where it seems hyteria abounds. A entire town in Texas blew with over 3 times the deaths and handled with the usual “cowboy-up attitude”.
When you talked about “fear factor” be careful WHICH Americans your talking about.Sugar.
yamit82 Said:
One is unlikely to demand that which they are unaware of.
retired Said:
It’s alot less complicated,Darlin. It’s reproduction “without partners” that gets complicated.
yamit82 Said:
Looks like BB doesn’t have that “disconnect” and is right on track and in sync with the public. Didn’t you recently post that keeping Israel secure was what he wants to be remembered for?
yamit82 Said:
sounds like this ends up with the status quo, or a pal autonomy or state with Israel maintaining security locations in Jordan valley and ending with the major security blocs only. The confed with jordan looks more real down the road if your assessment is correct.
yamit82 Said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578424650479285218.html?KEYWORDS=north+korea
Bernard Ross Said:
Probably not as it’s irelevant. We have moved light years beyond anyone here really believing they can change the discourse or common public perceptions spoon fed to them since even before 1967. There have been so many agreements pullbacks wars terrror and politician after politician all more or less advocating the same political gibberish that the dumb-downed Israel don’t even know how to ask the right questions and demanding legal legitimate rights is not even on anyone radar. Even most who seem nationalist would under certain conditions agree to more pullbacks and enter into more suicidal agreements.
Fortunately Israelis, a least a growing number feel in their gut that the Peace process will not bring real peace but ultimately more terror and more dead Jews here and they know in their guts that we have to hang tough but not because of any historical legal rights not advocated for or demanded. For now self preservation is the overriding motivator for most. Even if it were widely known and understood it would have little to no effect on how the average Israeli relates to the territories and the Peace process.
That there is a disconnect between the public’s feelings and the politicians leading Israel goes to the heart of our systemic dysfunctional system. I trust the gut feelings of most Israelis more than I do any academic legal arguments about rights. Every Israeli know we exist and are here and intend to stay. For most today the territories guarantee a certain degree of security to themselves and that for them is more important and actionable than any consensus re: legal rights.
The left and many in the Israeli political center would give up territory even if they believed and accepted our legal rights to the territories.
Michael Devolin Said:
the govt of Israel doesnt even have the balls to call the euros liars,libelers and double standard anti semites. They do not have the balss to call them swindlers and terrorist financiers. They do not even have the balls to tell the emperor he has no clothes. How can those with out the balls to talk be expected to have the balls to act. At the very least call them what they are and stop pretending. The only thing I liked about liberman was that he had the balls to open his mouth instead of being a whiny Jew who begs his master for crumbs from the table. Israel is the enabler of the pathological behavior of the europeans by continuing to play the game of incredibly obvious double standards and the role of the victim Jew. Nobody likes a loser and agreeing to that role is a sure way to defeat.
They only act when they must to avoid being killed
yamit82 Said:
Actually, I neither said that nor believe that. I said that “world opinion” wrt Israel is influenced by Israeli leftist media and Israeli govt behavior. How is that you ask? as follows:
I agree that most people do not read and have no opinion but collective opinions are formed by those who do read and those who influence the media. Most western media disproportionally rely on Israeli leftist media for facts inside Israel and the Israeli point of view. Haaretz is quoted in western media more than in Israel. Haaretz is the bell weather.
Regarding Israeli govt behavior: the short answer is that the govt operates in a manner which authenticates the pal narrative that the land is theirs, that jewish transfer is ok and that foreign govts can libel jewish settlement as illegal with impunity and without objection.
yamit82 Said:
this may or may not be true but those people follow what they are told by those who are literate and believe whatever media they read. In that case their literacy is of no value. But what about the Israeli populations literacy: are they aware that the jews are legally entitled to settle YS under international law, are they aware from their own govt that the term “illegal settlements” are a lie,are they aware they are being swindled now and that they were swindled in the past, are they aware that the world reneged on legally binding agreements to the Jewish people, are they aware that their own govts have swindled the jewish people out of YS no less than the occupying Jordanian govt did, etc etc? In these areas Israelis seem clueless to me. they dont even seem aware that the same community which shouts about Illegal settlement are the ones who guaranteed Jewish settlement west of the jordan.
Have you heard any GOI or politician state that the euro position is ludicrous, that they are spreading lies, that they reneged on their agreements, that they are applying double standards re apartheid and transfer, that they have no problem with jewish transfer and apartheid for jews? I have been waiting but I hear nothing.
I used to think that the world was bullying Israel and although this is true I now believe that the problem begins with Israelis. There is little going on in the worlds stance toward Israel that is not already going on in Israel. The greatest libels of Israel begin in Israel, the greatest facilitator of the lies is Israeli media, orgs and GOI by its inaction even in words.
“…terror fatigue or an overwhelming unrealistic desire to live in peace.”
I agree with you here, Mr. Ross. No people has been so plagued with Islamic terrorism so much as the Israeli Jews (except perhaps the Indian Hindus and Christians), and no people have worked so hard for peace as has the Jewish people of Israel. And yet the State of Israel is required, as is no other nation, to give up its land to an enemy who wants nothing to do with peace and instead is obsessed with hatred of the Jew and their extermination from the Muslim Middle East. These animals need to be removed from the land of Israel without the approval of the peace-loving Jewish people (and I am not being sarcastic here), because it’s the peace-loving Jewish people who are being removed into the land of Israel in body-bags. you cannot teach a people to war when they are not ready for war or when they are tired of war. The problem for the Israelis, if I may be so bold, Yamit, is that they are so tired of this terrorism that they will subjugate their honour and their pride as Jews simply to be free of the daily threat of violence from a people who know nothing else but violence. They don’t mind kicking Jewish families out of their homes, homes that were built on Jewish land to begin with, but the gov. of Israel has no balls to kick out Muslim families who supply the terrorist component of Islam, who came into possession of the land by way of religious conquest. Let the Jew conquer this people, kick them out and be done with their terrorism. You cannot talk sense to a shotgun, as they say up here. And you cannot make peace with a people, the majority of whom vote for the establishment of a terrorist state and a Judenfrei population. A penny on a track never held up a train, and the train in this case is the necessity of the survival of the Jewish people on a land they have already in their possession. And what’s the Yiddish proverb? “Necessity breaks iron.”
vivarto Said:
I agree but too many is Israel believe otherwise and have neither the desire or will to state that fact, never mind to implement it. I do not know whether it is a lack of knowledge, terror fatigue or an overwhelming unrealistic desire to live in peace. I do not disagree with you but it seems to me that the problem begins with Israelis as the last poll indicates: 65% of Israelis would not even support annexing full area C.
yamit82 Said:
We both desire this but the neccessary missing element is for the Israeli people to desire the same goal with enough intensity to create the will to execute it. Other than a war, what will create this desire and will?
It has been my view that if the population were educated to the conclusion that they continue to be swindled of what is rightfully theirs, and continue to be treated to double standards regarding transfer and the JEW FREE arab controlled areas, perhaps they will become angry enough to stop playing the game pf double standards and do what is good for the jews rather than be a perennial patsy.
This would require that Israel Jews become properly educated as to what really happened and what is really going on: a new narrative rather than the canard that the GOI’s and leftist orgs have been feeding the young.
yamit82 Said:
If you annex the entire west bank you will have another million arabs walking around freely inside the fence. furthermore, by extending Israeli law you also give them the protection of the supreme court. Anyway, it is a moot point because, according to the latest poll published here, 65% of Israelis would not even support annexing C never mind the whole YS. As for transferring the population: Israel wont even deport the PLO or fatah to gaza. If there is a final agreement at this time the best that will happen will be to keep the major settlements, Jerusalem and E1 and even those we can be sure the west wont extort.
What is required for any of the solutions which you and I desire is the will of the Israeli people/ “Will” must be preceded by desire, which is absent. Perhaps the best to hope for is the status quo until things change., Under the status quo there is a route to Jewish settlement while waiting for a new Israeli generation or a war.
“The Arab population have been radicalized and brainwashed with their own national narrative.”
SO true. Well said.
vivarto Said:
Sorry for not being clear. Of course you are right, we don’t want to negotiate surrendering our land to our enemies. That’s not in our interest. It is not even fair. Arabs have already 700 more land than Israel, they ceratainly don’t need more.
My point is that unless we clearly state that “THIS IS OUR LAND”, and unless we stop talking about “West-Bank”, and for as long as we continue to whine that “we don’t have a credible partner for peace,” and for as long as we continue to justify our “occupation” by “security concerns,” and for as long as we will talk about making “painful compromises for ‘peace'”, our friends will be “helping” us to achieve these fake and unachievable goals. Meanwhile our strategic position will continue to weaken.
The solution is to assert that Israel is more Jewish than Russia is Russian and France is French, and certainly more than any country outside of the Arab Peninsula is “Arab.”
vivarto Said:
Are you sure this is a desirable outcome? Do we want them to bring the arabs to the table? Perhaps it’s better they don’t come to the table. Perhaps divine intervention keeps them from the table.,
@ Bernard Ross:
You are right that many are antisemitic and that cannot be easily remedies.
But there are also many who would like to support us. With our current language they cannot do that. If we ourselves call Judea “West-Bank”, then we are acknowledging that it is not our, and that therefore we are the occupiers.
Then the natural thing for our supporters is to help us to get Arabs to the negotiation table and persuade them to be reasonable. (Absurd task.)
@ vivarto:
Bullets and napalm enough the rest will run for the hills. Even if you left 10% intact in 50 years or less they would breed themselves back into a threatening position demographically. Out of that 10% lets say 10% of that 10% inflict upon us a wave of sporadic terror. What then have we gained? Nothing will work except the transfer of the complete Arab population from the Med to the Jordan and from Eilat to Rosh Pina.
The Arab population have been radicalized and brainwashed with their own national narrative. They will not leave in sufficient numbers by payments to make a significant difference.
Religious Jews ideologically will not fight other Jews so the secular majority knowing this will get their way re: territories. Religious Jews will fight Arabs but secular Jews would rather attempt to come to some arrangement with them in place. This simply is the paradox we have here.
Comment to Ross blocked by spammer!!
Bernard Ross Said:
I think you have an inflated perception that most people in any country is influenced by the press especially in the West and most particularly in America. The average American couldn’t tell you exactly where Rhode Island or North Dakota is no less find them on a map. Most are totally ignorant of international affairs and slightly less so about American affairs, there is close to zero interest. A high % are doped up on psychotropic drugs and if you look at what life events they are knowledgeable of, it relates to the national distraction machine and pop culture. They have an information retention level of about 5 min.. Sound and video bytes are the current coin of information dissemination and both lend themselves to editing and manipulation. Anyone under 40 are functional illiterates. They have lost the ability to read and what they do read they don’t comprehend.
I watched the reaction of Americans to the bombing and the aftermath and mentally compared it with ours here in Israel. I really fear for Americans, they don’t have a clue.
Americans are being primed for “1984” The fear factor is being nourished, a new Bogeyman is being created. Terrorism without an address and a face. Even in Israel they couldn’t get away with completely shutting down a major cityA shutdown even into three states for one or two fugitives? The people went along willingly without the need for a declaration of martial Law. lack of complaint and obedience to authority should scare the hell out of Americans more than two little wannabe terrorists. There are now 20-30 million illegals in America and nobody knows how many or who they are. How many committed terrorists are required to reek total chaos in America?
vivarto Said:
whatever we call it they will call it occupation becuase they will never want to utter the word Judea never mind see it come into reality. you are too kind in your assessment of the MO of the european existential enemy.
note: I an using your advise re properly naming the euros 🙂
@ Bernard Ross:
Agree 100%.
I was not saying that we must follow world opinion. I was only saying that world opinion is important as it may affect Israel’s economy and emigration.
As for your examples of changing the language I also agree. And at the same time changing the labels is also extremely important. If we don’t label ourselves, then our enemies will label us.
The use of a particular label affects the thinking of the user. Hence the world is growing anti-Israeli partially because of the labels like “Occupied West-Bank”, rather than “disputed West-Bank,” and certainly different from “ancient Jewish homeland of Judea.”
If the label “Judea” were used, then it would be very hard to blame Israel for “occupation.” Just like nobody could dream of blaming Arabs for occupying Arabia.
vivarto Said:
It is my view that world opinion is influenced by Israeli leftist media and Israeli govt behavior. a nation that does not make the case for internationally guaranteed right of jews to settle appears to not belive that right itself. Furthermore, I believe that world opinion must not be the determining factor or there would be no Israel today. world opinion will remain negative.
vivarto Said:
Althoughj I agree with your statement I do not agree with your examples. they are names and labels, where as the language to be changed invoves more meaningful subjects such as : guaranteed legaljewish settlement rights, arab transfer of jews sets precedent for jewish transfer of arabs, JEW FREE arab controlled areas of former mandate territry sets precedent for muslim free jewish homeland;repudiation of proportianal response doctrine; immediate deportation of convicted arab felons, unacceptability of double standards, etc. etc. More important than language is action. Names and labels become important when there is an absence of action which demonstrates the message or doctrine.
vivarto Said:
their position is such not because of miscommunication but because of a 2000 year habit. they wlil continue to search for every avenue to swindle the Jews.
vivarto Said:
need to stop relying on the goyim for solutions. the problem is Israel and Jews. When Israelis think that YS is important and they must have it then the world will fall into line. A govt or people who cannot even mention the worlds reneging on their agreement with the jewish people, regarding Jewish settlement rights west of the Jordan river, is a people who do not deserve the land. when declaring jewish settlement illegal their face must be slapped and their lies called to account.
vivarto Said:
I am not talking about what it really is, but about a straategy that avoids enfranchising arabs while settling Jews and not giving away land.
I dont like to confuse what I really think should be done(full transfer and full annexation as described in my earlier post) with what I really think can be achieved at this time under the circumstances where 65% of Israelis do not support annexing area c or more and wont even discuss transfer.
@ Bernard Ross:
There are costs and benefits to every approach. There is also a question of the right timing.
Winning the Israeli opinion is of course necessary.
But almost equally important is affecting the change in the world opinion.
Israel, as a modern economy depends on trade with other countries. An embargo would net be beneficial to Israel. It may result in rapid fall in living standard and emigration of large number of Jews out of Israel.
Change in Israel’s public opinion must be paralleled with a very different diplomatic language:
Never again must Israeli official talk about “West-Bank”, but only about Arab occupied Judea and Samaria.
Never should they talk about establishing a “Palestinian” state within Israel, but maintain that Jordan is the Palestinian state established on 78% of the original Palestinian Mandate which was supposed to be the National Home of Jewish People.
Never should they refer to Arabs residing in Israel as “Palestinians,” rather Jews should be called “Palestinians,” just like Canadians and the people in the US are the “North Americans.”
Simultaneously Israel must stop all pretense and at every occasion expose the genocidal designs of the current and all previous leaders of the so called “Palestinians.”
More broadly Israel must at every occasion expose almost unanimous genocidal hatred among Arabs and Muslims. At every occasion publicly (in UN an other international forums)point out the double standards applied to Israel. Point out that population transfers as standard method for solving conflicts.
After practicing this for a certain time, the world will have no illusion about where Israel stands, and more importantly they will become more impartial. They will say “dispute,” rather than “occupation.”
Tks to the West the JNH has been shrinking and keeps shrinking. When is this going to stop?
@ Bernard Ross:
Yes, with one addition.
Since this is Jewish land, part of the Jewish National home, we are not dealing with “occupation,” but with liberation.
vivarto Said:
actually it is not a practical matter, it is a matter of “will”
The most practical solution is trucks and busses across the borders, depositing the hostiles and then withdrawing.
Why is this practical? I thought you would never ask.
-It can be done unilaterally as no agreements need to be made with the adjacent entities in hostiities with Israel(syria, lebanon, gaza)
-It is logistically achievable as Israel has practical experience with transferring large numbers of Jews.
-It is militarily achievable as Israel has demonstrated in the 3 cases its ability to breach and sieze areas at will.
-It is sustainable because there are already interantional infrastructures in the 3 entities which cater to the same refugees. The funding they now send to Israel would of necessity move to their new location.
-It can be claimed to be legally and morally justified by precedents set of India/Pakistan transfers; transfer of jews from arab nations as a result of the same continuing conflict without compensation, condemnation or reversal of facts;the existing JEW FREE areas of all of arab controlled former mandate territory{gaza, PA west bank, Jordan); Quid pro quo must be implemented to avoid unacceptable double standards.
Only one problem:
vivarto Said:
there is the fly in the ointment!
The focus should be on settling Jews. this has a basis in internaitonal law that apears to be unassailable as all arguments relate to legality of israeli occupation or soveriegnty.
Israel can simply say that the banning of jewish settlement west of the jordan river is unacceptable and illegal according to international law.,It is a legal right which must be protected by the occupation and then in accordance with those international agreements proceed to “encourage close Jewsih settlement” west of the Jordan river..
This should become the main “legal” justification for the occupation until the original agreed mandate is fulfilled.
By maintaining the occupation to protect jews, as opposed to annexation and enfranchisement, they can settle until jews are a majority of the west bank.
If the international law which guarantees Jewish settlement rights is ignored by all then there is no reason imperative to discuss or observe any treaties or agreements., Then the discussion of international law becomes a moot point.
@ Michael Devolin:
It is really a practical matter.
Whatever works. In other words whatever get the occupiers and squatters out of Jewish land should be used.
“Israel begins a quiet practice of buying land and providing financial help with relocating Palestinians from Area C to a foreign country.”
Israel should give financial aid to those who have sworn to exterminate the Jews of the Middle East?? Let their Arab brothers pay for their relocation. Did Hamas or the UN pay for the removal of Jews from Gaza? So now you suggest that Israel fork out the money to “relocate” the murdering hordes who are planning terrorist attacks against the Jews of Israel as I write these words. You and those like you are the reason the Arab Muslims have prolonged this foolish debate for decades. No Arabs, no terrorism.
“This is why I suggest South America.”
You’re an idiot. And you’re going to “preach” to the Jews how to govern Israel? You’re so stupid, it’s unbelievable.
I have looked at Sherman’s numbers he wanted them all to leave with compensation. He believes with enough compensation most will leave voluntarily, with the few remaining easily absorbable.
I do not see Sherman proposing maintaining OSLO.
I came up with very similar numbers to Sherman independently of him.
The difference is: He thinks Muslims countries will absorb them I do not. I think the whole Muslim world is obstructionist. This is why I suggest South America.
“Furthermore Sherman’s plan gives us one option for the Arabs namely offer them compensation to leave.”
Why? It wouldn’t matter if you gave them all your fingers, they’d still wake up every morning dreaming about killing Jews. And who compensates the Jews who were forced out of Arab countries in 1948? Enough of offering these animals anything! They are the sad sediment of an Islamic invasion that took place long ago: they are the “occupiers” on Jewish property. Do you hear them offering to remove their mosque from the Temple Mount? They should get nothing. Israel won their property back. Now it is time for these whining conquered murderers to leave. Period. Stop trying to placate these homicidal maniacs! It is foolish. The Jews owe these malefic pukes nothing.
I am a simple man!
The real and simple question is: what is in the interest of IL considering that whatever IL does, nobody will like it. Even if IL was to disappear she will be blamed for it! It is a no win situation, therefore she should go for all of IT.
@ Bear Klein:
Excellent analysis, Bear! I love your step-by-step practical moves: Build, build build! Annex Area C. Oslo is cancelled, the PA collapses as Israel quits supplying money. Israel begins a quiet practice of buying land and providing financial help with relocating Palestinians from Area C to a foreign country. Many other good suggestions. It’s nice to see workable solutions spelled out so clearly.
Bear Klein Said:
Star with proclaiming to the world all of Palestine between the river and the sea is Jewish patrimony. We never have, not now, and never will give it up. As long as there are countries on this Earth, Palestine is OURS.
They can pressure us as much as you like, we won’t change. For 2000 years of exile we have not changed our mind. Now we are home. Perhaps they could practice their pressuring techniques by first persuading Arabs to give up Mecca, and Russians to give up Moscow. After they succeed with them, they can come back and talk to us. It will be harder as our claim is older.
Once the world understands that Jews are never going to give up their claim to their homeland, they will stop pressuring us. However before this can happen, Jews need to learn from their enemies how to educate their children. Watch some of the Pal-Arab movies, read their books, learn how they teach their young ones that “Palestine is theirs” and that they will regains it. This is what Jews ought to be doing.
Start with practical moves on the ground.
1. Build Build Build!! In Area C. Expand Ma’lah Adumim into the open areas (E1) complete this building plan. The PA will go nuts.
2. Israel demand in public and via the USA that the Palestinians return without pre conditions to the negotiating table.
3. The PA will refuse.
4. Israel announces that they do believe the Palestinians want a two state solution.
5. Israel annexes Area C.
6. Israel starts a quite plan helping with money and relocation assistance the Palestinians in Area C to move to a foreign country buying their land if they own any. They must renounce any rights of them or their family returning for the money.
7. Area A&B the IDF stays.
8. The PA collaspes as Israel quits providing money as OSLO is cancelled.
9. Israel can negotiate with local shiechs for them to be the mayor of autonmous PAL cities cities such Jericho. They must keep the peace in their area with IDF help.
10. Peaceful cities in A & B can be a business/economic zone with trading rights and possible employment priviledges in Israel as before Oslo.
further to my last comment:
the status quo allows legal jewish settlement, no granting of israeli citizenship to arabs,and a stalling of giving up sovereignty even in a or b. The issue of the legality of jewish settlement in international law as being separate from Israeli sovereignty rights, or claims, actually provides a reason for maintaining the occupation, and status quo, to protect those rights.
The same rights which enabled the British mandate provide the legal basis for the justification of an Israeli occupation of the west bank: the protection of the internationally guaranteed right of Jewish settlement west of the Jordan river.
The only problem is getting the Jews to accept the concept of jewish settlement in YS.
Martin sherman Said:
I agree with this comment. The problem is that there are currently not enough jews who want C or all of YS.
This means that the most realistic achievement would be a stalling of evacuation and the giving up of Israeli territorial sovereignty of YS coupled with measures which facilitate jewish settlement and arab emigration. The status quo might be the best model for long term annexation of YS. it is likely that only hostilities and or war will allow Israel to annex YS.
Jewish settlement is the only way to annex and retain C or YS. A way must be found to coerce the GOI into allowing Jewish settlement of YS. the only realistic way I see is by re-instituting the legal provisions of balfour, san remo, LON, UN charter, etc and declaring that Jewish settlement is an international legally guaranteed right and that until the jewish rights are fulfilled there can be no question of withdrawal: who else could guarantee those legal rights? Jewish settlement can be legally facilitated separately from Israeli sovereignty rights. There is every legal reason for Jewish settlement even as a disputed or occupied territory.
What entity guarantees global jewry’s rights and interests in YS after Israeli withdrawal? The rights dont expire. It is an internationally binding legal imperative. Even if Israel does not annex it should encourage jewish settlement in accordance with international law west of the jordan river.
Ted Belman Said:
The important point is the clear position that all land between Jordan and the Sea is Jewish and will not be surrendered. With that openly stated, all following steps are only tactical.
Once this becomes clear that this is where Israel stands, no US president will be pressuring Israel to surrender land to some TSS.
So the important work is to solidify Israeli opinion.
Arabs are land thieves and squatters of the Middle East, but they are much firmer than Jews. Overwhelming majority of Pal-Arabs believes that all of Palestine belongs to them, and that eventually it will be returned just as the case was with the Crusader kingdom.
@ yamit82:
Bingo
we just need to hold to this All of Land of Israel is Jewish
Then all steps we take will be guided by this.
For one thing, we would not engage in the phony TSS and “Peace Process.”
@ Ted Belman:
The only difference in the two plans is that Bennett’s plan offers autonomy as a half way house. Both plans end Oslo because Israel would be making a unilateral move which changes the status of the territories. Sherman’s plan will result in demands for immediate citizenship mainly and to a much lesser extent on demanding we go back to Oslo and work toward the TSS. Bennett’s plan will diffuse the opposition because it offers another alternative.
Once we see how compensated emigration is working out or how the autonomy discussions are working out, we may well decide to eventually annex all of it. That option is not ruled out.
Sherman is right about the absence of political will. But it will take considerable will to annex C or all of it, so I believe that the political will be there once it is there to do the annexation.
The Arabs have the right to prove ownership of certain tracts of land whether in Israel or Area C before annexation. As I understand it, the burden of proof will be the same.
By offering them more land as part of the autonomy talks, the land would come from Area C surrounding area A. There is nothing to say that we couldn’t offer them some of the land we have annexed. Such lands would leave us with the bulk of C annexed and would only be transferred as part of an end of conflict autonomy agreement.
The reason I prefer such an autonomy agreement is because we would be solving the problem of citizenship without the need to depend on most Arabs leaving and it would save money.
As for building a new fence, we may not have to.If we didn’t build it the Arabs would have no greater right to enter C as annexed then they now have, not annexed. Nothing would change in that regard. So I don’t see the problem you envisage. We may have a problem of Area A Arabs moving to area B. In this regard I do not know what can be build in areas B in that regard or whether we can prevent building there.
As for whether the Palestinians would accept autonomy, it is doubtful but as there position weakens, they may prefer it to emigration or the status quo. In any event we continue with you compensated emigration plan. One doesn’t preclude the other. And as I say, we can always annex A and later. So the only discussion is should we do it now or later.
I am not suggesting that we annex Qalkilya or Tulkarim before we empty them of most Arabs. We could offer a greater inducement to these Arabs to get them to leave.
I am not excluding the result you want to achieve. I am merely keeping the option of autonomy open for the time being.
I believe that any deal with the Arabs would be suicidal!
1)The EU is the main enemy,they are the political & material muscle behind the Arabs.Without European expertise these murderous thugs would be attacking Israel with swords & bows & arrows.Currently the European,Jew hating,establishment is being flushed down the economic toilet.When the European welfare states can no longer deliver welfare to their masses there will be a political eruption.There will be a civil war waged on the failed EU establishment & their Moslem allies.What will happen to the Moslems,at the hands of the native Europeans,will make the events in Syria look like a walk in the park!Europe,financially debilitated,will no longer be a force in the Middle-East.There will also be a mass exodus of Jews from Europe,many to Israel.Europe,as we know it,is finished,!
One can understand that B&WF, led by the same figures who pushed the now disastrous Gaza Disengagement thinking its a great idea repeating it in Judea and Samaria.
Ami Ayalon, Orni Petrushka and Gilad Sher have concluded if they can’t get the Arabs to make peace with Israel, Israel should give what they want they want anyway. What they are not honest with Israel in telling them is that any Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria will lead not to peace but to the entrenchment of Hamas on the mountain range of Judea and Samaria overlooking both Israel’s heavily populated coastal plain and Jerusalem. That in effect a prescription for Israeli national suicide.
If their efforts gain ground, it will put Israel’s survival as the Jewish State in serious question. That is why it must be headed off at the pass. And their being endorsed by none other than the New York Times Tom Friedman is quite telling indeed. We have gone full circle in the last 20 years from Israelis advocating mutual peace with the Arabs to Israelis advocating Israel abandon the heart of the Jewish homeland to the Arabs because of world opinion.
This is not as Martin Sherman correctly observes even land for peace. This is more or less land for nothing, land given away out of a sense of a national weariness with endless conflict and giving up on the Jewish nation’s right to exist in its national homeland. The Arabs understand all too well far more than many Israeli Jews do, understand exactly where the abandonment of the Zionism dream will lead Israel. The one thing is not going to happen is the Arabs accepting Israel because it has decided to purchase peace and quiet from them at any price.
And the price Ayalon, Petrushka and Sher want Israel to pay is too high and would create a future without any clear benefits for the Jewish State. Some Blue and White Future.
Martin Sherman replies:
It seems to me that these individuals who advocate “Peace with no partners” should change their desires to “sex with no partners”.
Ideologically I am opposed to any action that denies Israel claims and rights to all territory up to the Jordan demarcation. Seems to me unilateral annexation of just area C articulates our denial of rights and claims to any territory not annexed. I’m not prepared to accept that.
You and Bennett essentially offer them an incentive to stay put and even move to areas that Israel annexed. Given a choice, the Arabs around Jerusalem shows you that before a fence was completed tens of thousands moved at great expense to the areas inside the fence on the Israeli side thus increasing the Arab demographic and financial liability to the Israeli tax payer not to mention the increased anti Israel security potential. within Israel and especially within Jerusalem. What good the fence when we have them already within the fence able to travel all over Israel freely?
The same scenario is likely to occur with all areas Israel annexes short of full annexation.
Any annexation plan that leaves the Arab demographic in place will only be creating a long never ending series of internal conflicts and invite disproportionate world anti-Israel reactions. It will create a potential state of anarchy. remember there is over a hundred thousand highly trained and Armed Palis Arabs and hundreds of thousands of armed terrorists militia members. Then there is Hamas who will not remaim silent or unaffected should Israel annex.
The Arab military capability will not remain static but grow to be an even greater existential threat than they are today. Not decrease it.
It would require a lot of additional manpower to guard the line without a barrier and moving the current fence with additions will increase the cost by many billions of Dollars. Those Arabs and groups who resist the annexation no matter if just area C or complete will step up their resistance. That resistance could set back the Israeli economy for years if not decades.
Boston and America just got a taste of what allegedly only 2 people can do and here in Israel the Arabs are light-years more advanced in techniques, weapons, ability even motivation.
Total annexation and offering them citizenship will allow Israel to be able to strictly apply Israeli Law equally to all the Arabs. Additional laws strictly enforced will make their collective lives not very appealing. If there is a serious policy: even if not publicly articulated but enacted. it will reduce considerably the Arab population of Israel today and any future territories annexed.
Ideally you first depopulate then annex but since that’s not in the cards working backwards is better than all the other suggestions. Israel should target the most educated, professionals and most skilled as the primary groups to be forced, coerced,cajoled and induced to leave. The next would be the youngest in childbearing age groups and the last the elderly beyond child bearing age.
Without a clear and continuous policy of Arab depopulation it won’t work. I have suggested in the past a Jewish Agency for Arab emigration
( non governmental body). An NGO!!! They will assist in getting a visa, jobs in other countries and purchase at near market prices any property legally owned by the Arabs.
Martin Sherman responded to my preface:
I beg to differ in part. By Annexing area C we are making it Israeli territory and Israeli law would apply. We would then feel freer to build there and the legal issues would be cleaned up. Yes opposition would intensify. I suggest we would then offer more land to make the Arab lands more cohesive. Many B areas would then become A areas. We should unilaterally build another fence around what we are offering to prevent infiltration. Some B areas outside the land we offer them should be slated to become part of C over time e.;g. Qalqilya and Tulkarem. Bennett wants to offer citizenship to Arabs in C. We should consider doing so with the Arabs in the B areas slated to become part of C (Israel). They would have to meet stringent requirements and the process would take ten years. In the meantime we should offer these Arabs money to leave.
Furthermore Sherman’s plan gives us one option for the Arabs namely offer them compensation to leave. My plan gives us another option in addition to his, negotiate autonomy for them should they be willing. Such negotiations would likely not occur but would offer diplomatic space while we focus on getting them to leave. If we annexed all the land as Martin proposes, there would be less incentive for them to leave as they would ultimately get citizenship. Also when push comes to shove they may prefer autonomy to citizenship in Israel.
How did we Jews get so blind?!
It hurts!
Archaeologists just acknowledged finding 3000 years old remains of a Jewish temple from the time of King David, in Arab Judea. The Arab savages are going to destroy our heritage.
No other nation on this planet would accept such humiliation. No-one would let defeated savages destroy their national heritage.
Arabs should be economically enticed to emigrate. Yes, stop all UN help to them. Boycott their goods, don’t buy their produce. Don’t pay for their electricity for God’s sake!
Those who abandon Islam and obey the law, can be welcome guests in Israel, but not followers of the genocidal antisemitic cult!
Israel should Israel should Israel should Israel should Israel should