By Ted Belman
Today I wrote the following letter to a dozen Likud/Beiteinu MK’s:
- It is clear that PM Netanyahu intends to unilaterally abandon parts of J & S. and to uproot settlers living therein.
-
It is one thing to do so as part of an end of conflict agreement, it is another thing to do so with or without an interim agreement.
Even without Ehud Barak saying so at the AIPAC Conference, the evidence is overwhelming.
Four years ago he excluded Eldad’s party from the government and this time around he wanted to exclude Bennett’s party because they were against such a deal.
The silence from the MK’s of Likud/Beiteinu is deafening.
All it takes to put an end to this is for 11 MK’s from Likud/Beiteinu to bolt and join Bennett making Jewish Home the largest party.
So which will it be, unilateral withdrawal or unilaterally bolting from Likud/Beiteinu?
As for the Barak speech, here’s what Arlene Kushner wrote about it:
- Then he said that an interim agreement should be attempted to protect Israel’s security.
-
I was no longer sure this was good, depending on what he was referring to.
~~~~~~~~~~
And then…he said that if this couldn’t be achieved, it might be necessary for Israel to take unilateral steps to prevent a bi-national state: Israel may need to “consider unilateral steps that would include demarcating a line within which Israel would keep the settlement blocs and ensure a Jewish majority for generations to come.” Israel would establish a “long term security presence on the Jordan River.” (Emphasis added)
Say what??? UNILATERAL steps?? We did that once already, when we pulled out of Gaza. We saw what that brought us. What he’s suggesting here is that without an end of conflict agreement with the Palestinian Arabs, without a mutually agreed upon border, Israel should pull back from some parts of Judea and Samaria and fully turn over land to them.
A very very bad idea. I can only touch here upon all of the reasons why it’s a terrible idea.
Note first that he refers to settlement blocs, so be certain that there are many Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that would be demolished under such a plan. Many Jews who would be torn from their homes.
We would be relinquishing rights to the land — something we should not do.
~~~~~~~~~~
But beyond this, we would be diminishing Israel’s security. A border is only an internationally recognized border if parties on both sides agree. Israel “demarcating a line” would not be recognized internationally and would certainly not be recognized by the PA, which would demand we keep pulling back until we were behind the ’67 armistice line.
Once we pulled back, we would be UNILATERALLY relinquishing the practice by the IDF of doing operations to take out terrorists and training centers, and weapons caches and weapons manufacturing sites in Palestinian Arab areas. The fact, my friends, is that the IDF does these operations nightly. It’s what has kept things quiet, because the PA security forces will not do this. (I’ll come back to this in more detail in a future posting.) Without an IDF presence in these areas, security and intelligence and military officials agree, there is a great likelihood that Hamas would take over. Abbas is very weak. And so then we would have Hamas on our eastern border as well as at our southwest in Gaza.
Great idea!
Please note that Barak refers to a security presence in the Jordan Valley (to prevent smuggling of weapons and entry of foreign forces). But he says “long term,” not permanent. But how long is “long term,” and what happens after that?
With all of this I still haven’t mentioned the question of what would happen to certain high places in Samaria if there were a pullback. All Barak spoke about was retaining settlement blocs, not retaining land for security purposes and strategic depth. If Arabs had control of those high places they could even hit the airport.
One other significant point must be made here, before I move on:
Barak referred to taking this action in order to “ensure a Jewish majority for generations to come.” Well, it is a crock that if we retain all of the land to the Jordan River we will become a minority, swallowed up by an Arab majority. This is a scare tactic, used as a reason to give up land.
See here with regard to Jewish and Arab birthrates and their implication for Israel:
And here, information about misrepresentations in the PA census, which leads people to believe there are more Arabs in Judea and Samaria than there are:
http://www.theettingerreport.com/Demographic-Scare/The-Two-State-Religion.aspx
@ Shy Guy:
If that makes you happy,it plumb tickles me to death. Henry Fonda “The Cheyenne Social Club”.
Ted Belman Said:
thanks for the info ted. If Bennett is for annexing C then his alliance with Lapid seems contradictory vis a vis YS. I suppose the anti Haredi position is more compatible with Lapid but does that then subordinate YS to his Haredi stance? Or, is it that his YS position, and influence, is not affected by his Lapid alliance?
Right now, my biggest question has to do with the unpopulated areas of area C: where did the idea arise that the arabs have a greater claim to the unpopulated areas than the Jews in the Israeli psyche? It appears to me to lack common sense. If no one lives there and the last valid recognized state sovereignty over the area was turkey then there is NO valid claim of any state to sovereignty except Israel in its capacity as “agent of the Jewish people” and as possessor. In terms of individual or groups of people: the only group with prior and present recognized legal rights in those unpopulated areas are the Jewish people (derived from Balfour, san remo, LON mandate, Un charter art 80). Why would an arab in ramallah have more rights to the unpopulated areas in YS than an arab in Syria? We know the legal basis for the rights of current Jewish non residents to live in the unpopulated areas of YS but what is the basis for arab non residents to live in those unpopulated areas. I focus on these areas because all of the usual arguments of detractors do not apply: there is no state under occupation; there is no population under occupation,there is no superior prior residency right. Is there any argument other than the popular PC notion that the arabs who don’t live there should get what Jordan illegally captured so that they can have a viable state? I understand why arabs would demand and negotiate for what they would like to own but why would any Israeli accept such a patent fraudulent notion? Does the treaty with Jordan, where Jordan relinquished its sovereignty, bind the state of Israel to ceding territory to a pal state? I am very confused by the Israeli position on the unpopulated areas of C especially in relation to jewish settlement rights but even without those rights. I would also be very interested in the legal arguments related to these unpopulated areas specifically. I am aware of the arguments surrounding the whole of YS re Jewish settlement rights but it seems that the unpopulated areas have an even stronger legal basis regarding arguments of disputed territories.
Bernard Ross Said:
Bennett stands for anneing Area C. He is clear about it. Lapid’s platform was that he supports retaining the settlement blocs and an undivided Jerusalem and building therein. But he is against building beyond. Bibi is in the same place except that his MK’s are closer to Bennett. Likud used to be against the two-state solution until Bibi made the Bar Ilan speech.
@ catarin:
Actually I rarely read her comments. They are not informative so far as I can tell. As for being worthy of censure, she doesn’t come close to some of the offensive remarks that are posted on Israpundit that I have to deal with. I just have a much higher threshold on such things as you do..
opensoc Said:
We should call you “Stinky Sock”.
yamit82 Said:
Therefore you vote for a party but do not know if you or they seek the same goals. Likud is not new do they have specific goals re YS? Am I correct in assuming that the only parties which seek all of area C or more are to the right of BB, Bennett and Lapid? How many seats do parties who seek C or more control?
@ opensoc:
Or malicious mosquito, inane gnat,lacivious locust,irasquible insect,lazy lady bug,spurious spider,obnoxious fly dosn’t rhyme.
@ Honey Bee:
Honey bee , you have been misnamed : you ought to be called ” Obnoxious fly”….
@ the phoenix:
What list? Non compredez-vous? you never answered, have you ever seen a Bigfoot up there in your mountains
Ted, Honey Bee must be related to you or you owe someone a huge favor by allowing her to smart-ass on your site.
How do you know what I consider offensive? I knew weeks ago when you were in the hospital and I received about 100 copies of posts she made that she and I were not compatible. I suppose I can ignore this site.
@ yamit82:
Believe it or not,I myself and me have prpared a intire Smorgasboard Including cardamon bread rice pudding and knockbollers.
@ the phoenix:
When youur strange,people come out of rain, no one remebers your name, when your strange!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bernard Ross Said:
You have to consider that both parties today especially Lapid’s party are largely ad-hock formed around single charismatic individuals but made up of a smorgasbord of other personalities and as many ideas and ideologies. Stated positions or platforms are for the most part limited and general enough not to repel but to include as broad a constituency reasonably inclusive.
You will have to research statements by the leaders as far back as possible and work forward to get a clue what they stand for.
@ Honey Bee:
….
http://youtu.be/d2FT4FprxDg
@ the phoenix:
Don;t ubderstand you ,but thats because I’am a nit-wit {did I spell nit-wit correctly]
@ Honey Bee:
Ah maybe it’s the right time to make a move…..
I sense that ‘the list’ just got shorter….. 😉
🙂 🙂 🙂
@ Ted Belman:
Ahhhhhhhhhh Ted, I love you too.
@ catarin:
Honey Bee isn’t so offensive, inane maybe. Ignore her.
@ catarin:
Sing all the verses of “The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You”,and say uncle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ted, I’m asking that you step in here and save me from this nitwit. I’m tired of this inane harassment. I’ll ignore her, and she ignore me.
@ catarin:
With high powered guns and ammo, not broken bottles! Yawl
Stand firm, Israel.
@ Robert_K:
You really don’t believe “they” don’t mean what “they “say? Please enlighten me.
yamit82 Said:
How can one vote on this issue if the 3 main parties dont state their specific goals? sounds like a crapshoot to me. If the only parties representing those platforms have few or no seats then speaking of polls is meaningless.
yamit82 Said:
whatever the polls say it does not appear to be significantly translating into party political platforms of a magnitude great enough to actually make something happen. KNow one has answered my questions on specific party platforms regarding YS from the 3 parties we keep discussing: Bennett, Lapid, BB.
@ Bernard Ross:
There were polls giving similar results in the past few years without the ‘if’. (If) that’s what’s bothering you.
@ Robert_K:
Red herring my ass 35% of first grader children in Israel are Arab. Do the math.
yamit82 Said:
the key word was IF: From the article:
yamit82 Said:
They probably want what they originally wanted: the arab states to come in and drive the jews into the sea so they could have it all. Frankly, I dont care what they want as none of them care what Jews want. Legally speaking, there is enough precedent by the arab nation cleansing of Jews and the fact that EVERY part of the former Palestine mandate territory)(Jordan,gaza, PA under arab control is JEW FREE and as you say muslim countries discriminate against Jews. It is just for the Jews do demand Justice and to unilaterally seize it when it is not forthcoming. will this happen? No.
Quid pro quo demands arab transfer, the unacceptability of double standards demand transfer, the establishment of Jew free Jordan demands transfer. Once it is declared that double standards are unacceptable, that agreements must be kept with the Jews and that justice must be restored to the Jews then transfer and annexation are the only possible logical conclusion. Double standards are the only obstruction to the logic. Israeli desire and will is the only real obstruction. Will it happen? No.
Transfer can be logistically completed with the “legal” basis given in reply to detractors during and after the fact The mere presence of the arabs on the other side of the border will automatically prompt the solution to take place outside of Israel Will it happen? No.
All of the facts and polls dont amount to a hill of beans if there is no party to represent the platform and no significant Israeli population to demand its implementation. Right now Israelis don’t even know what the 3 major parties even propose in their platforms for YS. Not much to hang your hat on, is it?
@ yamit82: I agree with everything you say, and even more, but reality appears to contradict our desires:
Which political party, with seats in the knesset, has a platform to do any or all of the following?:
1-Annex all of area C and/or all the west bank
2-transfer the arabs from all areas west of the Jordan river
What is Bennett and Lapids platform regarding YS and does it differ from Likud in specifics(vague talk is cheap)?
76% of Israelis favor ‘transfer’
Rabbi Meir Kahane HY”D (may God avenge his blood) has been vindicated. Sort of.
A survey finds that 76% of Israelis favor ‘transferring’ ‘Israeli Arabs’ to a ‘Palestinian state reichlet if one is ever established. Kahane favored ‘transferring’ Arabs out of Israel to Arab countries, but never envisioned a ‘Palestinian’ reichlet. The poll was commissioned by the Knesset Channel.
The poll, conducted over the internet, included 668 adult Israelis representing the entire political spectrum, cites a 3.7% margin of error.
The data reflects Jewish Israelis’ distrust of Arabs national priorities. 50% said Arabs identify first and foremost with the Palestinian cause and see their Israeli loyalty as secondary. 40% said Arabs identify solely with Palestinians, and only a single percent thought Arabs identify wholly with their Israeli identity.
Notwithstanding their belief that Arabs’ right to retain their property was not obvious, 52% thought Israeli Arabs were not discriminated against by the state. 43% said they were discriminated against and one percent remained undecided.
Approximately 20% of Israel’s population is Arab and my guess is that nearly all of them don’t want to be transferred to a ‘Palestinian’ reichlet. For example, see this. In fact, Arab MK’s are upset that the poll was taken in the first place.
Hadash Chairman MK Muhammad Barakei was furious that the Knesset Channel initiated such a poll.
“The Knesset Channel should express Israeli democracy and cannot act as a private company advancing insane and racist ideology,” he said.
Barakei said that “even if 90 MKs would decide the channel has no right to express such ideas, it would still have such a right. Some things are not decided by a majority and minority [referendum or vote], and the right to exist or to express oneself freely are among those privileges. The channel failed colossally by merely raising such a question, and it is appropriate that those in control of the channel would reprimand it, without limiting its freedom of expression.
Barakei and other Arab MKs joined Jaffa’s Arabs in events commemorating Land Day over the weekend, where demonstrators hoisted Palestinian flags and described Israel as a “racist and fascist” state.
If they really believe we’re a racist, fascist state, why would they want to be part of the State of Israel?
@ Bernard Ross:
@ yamit82:
The Torah’s requirement for Jews to love strangers in the midst of Israel refers to proselytes, people who live in the Land of Israel according to the laws of the Torah, not to superficially loyal potential enemies of Israel. The oppression of aliens the Torah prohibited is that of the Hebrews in Egypt: they Jews should arbitrarily enslave them. They do not have the same rights as Jews, and building shrines to idols is explicitly prohibited.
Jews in Arab countries lived in isolation, in part because of Muslim reservations about religious aliens. In the twentieth century, most Arab governments and populations were hostile to the Jews under their jurisdiction. Israel should return the favor to Israeli Arabs, showing them passive hostility and refusing to employ them at Israeli-owned factories.
The Arabs restricted Jews’ religious and property rights for 1,300 years where they could. Jews had no basic rights in the Arab world: they could not testify against Muslims in court nor work in the bureaucracy theoretically (though that provision was not always upheld), and many Islamic jurists refused to recognize the murder of a Jew as a capital offense—unlike the murder of a Muslim. As recently as the 1990s, the rights of the small remnant of a 2,500-year old Jewish community in Syria were severely restricted, and few Jews survived in other Muslim countries.
Saudi Arabia, the flagship of fundamentalism, prohibits non-Islamic worship on its territory; Israel is entitled to do the same regarding Islamic worship in the Land of Israel, especially since Torah explicitly dictates Jews such a policy toward other religions. A peaceful neighbor is secondary to preserving Israel’s Jewish identity. A national religious identity is neither a new nor a uniquely Israeli concept. Saudi Arabia is exclusively Muslim, and such nations were common until populations became too intermingled to maintain ethnic exclusivity. Political correctness moved white Americans to assimilate blacks only a few decades ago, and many white citizens are still not color-blind. Unlike other people, the Jewish raison d’être is to be different. After two millennia of waiting and working to re-establish the Jewish state, to see it overrun by Muslims is bizarre. Israel incomprehensibly subsidizes Israeli Arabs, gives them free infrastructure, education, insurance, and family benefits.
Bernard Ross Said:
According to the Haaretz Survey: Most Israeli Jews wouldn’t give Palestinians vote if West Bank was annexed: | 14:32 23.10.12 http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/survey-most-israeli-jews-wouldn-t-give-palestinians-vote-if-west-bank-was-annexed.premium-1.471644
Survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews.
Missing context for above poll results:
following Palestinian poll results should at least serve to provide a bit of context to contrast the recent polling on Israelis.
51% support the August 2010 Hamas attack on settlers near Hebron that resulted in the death of four settlers? (PCPSR, October 2010)
54% support armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel? (Harry Truman Research Institute/PCPSR, March 1-7, 2009
64% support launching rockets from the Gaza Strip against Israeli towns and cities such as Sderot and Ashkelon? (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, March 13-15, 2008)
84% support the bombing attack that took place in a religious school in West Jerusalem in 2008. (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, March 13-15, 2008)
60% of Palestinians eventually hope that one state ? Palestine ? will replace the Jewish state. Only 23 percent of Palestinians said they believed in Israel’s right to exist as the national homeland of the Jews. (Based on a poll in 2010)
Only 4% of Palestinians have a favorable view of Jews. (Pew Global, 2011)
47.5% of Palestinians still support terrorist attacks inside pre-1967 Israel. (2012 PSR Survey)
73% of Palestinians “believe” the Islamic Hadith that preaches it is Islamic destiny to kill Jews. (2011 poll)
NormanF Said:
We are in the small minority and the deal is probably already done whoever gets in.
My Thoughts on the matter:
The Israeli disengagement from Sinai resulted in over 20 years of stagflation, near zero growth and massive deficits and debts we are still stuck with today paying a very high interest rate on those same debts incurred during this time. Those years except for the massive immigration from the USSR and FSR’s, Israel today would be an economic basket case. The American loan guarantees became important for Israel not because we can’t on our own get international financing but because those loan guarantees enable Israel to borrow money near what America pays saving Israel several hundred million dollars a year.
The Sinai evacuation precipitated mass emigration from Israel and a significant brain drain. Above the costs of withdrawal I mentioned, Israel who was nearly energy independent became 100% dependent for natural gas and oil. We paid over a billion dollars a year more for gas and oil which we had already established financed from our own sources given free to Egypt upon withdrawal. The agricultural settlements in the North Sinai in a few years became major exporters bringing to Israel critical foreign currency and helping to balance our negative trade balance.
The IDF did not reduce by a single shekel or dollar Israels overall military expenditures and in fact since 1982 the budget for the IDF has increased in almost every year since 1982. The triangular agreements between America, Egypt and Israel established aid packages to both Egypt and Israel and while for a short time it allowed Israel to reorganize and rearm after the 73′ Yom Kippur War it did even more for Egypt who has today a standing army twice the mobilized IDF size and 35% more fighter aircraft than Israel and Americas best Abrams Tanks which they manufacture under licence.
America as guarantor of the Camp David agreements never called to order Egyptian antisemitism nor rein in Egyptian efforts to harm Israel in all international forums. Egypt was more effective and perverse than even the Saudis and Iranians In all International and semiofficial organizations attempting to harm Israel in all fields of endeavor . The Egypt has been the main conduit for arms smuggling into Gaza with Egyptian acquiescence. America never sanctioned Egypt for any anti-Israel activities. They have not it’s fair to say, kept any commitment made at Camp David. It’s no secret that all of their military doctrine and training is geared to future war with Israel and all that with American aid, money and training.
It’s generally agreed that the Land for Peace concept stems from Sinai evacuation that led to Oslo agreements and Gaza/Gush Katif evacuations.
Everything I say about our evacuation from Sinai applies to the Evacuation of Settlement sand settlers from Gaza: the IDF gained nothing, no reduced costs, no reduction in manpower but the converse is true and we got Hamas (with American pressure) and thousands of Kassams on our towns and cities along with near wall to wall recognition of Hamas resulting in more pressure on Israel to give more.
One might think that the people of Israel and her leaders might learn from past mistakes, One might think so but….?
the phoenix Said:
It appears to me that the overwhelming majority of Israelis do not want to govern or absorb the arabs and do not want to transfer the arabs. Is the Bennett lapid coalition for anything more,did they call for annexation even of area C? In this case then the only issues are borders and security. I think they prefer a security situation similar to Gaza rather than being inside the pal area. This is what obtains now. If they retain security positions until a future date they will have the same situation as now. They are working with Hamas and Egypt and I expect them to do the same with the pal entity and Jordan. We are in the small minority.
Ted Belman Said:
You are right, we cannot confuse what we want with what is likely to happen. It appears to me that there are too few Israelis who are willing to annex even area C never mind the whole of YS. I have no idea what bennett-lapid will do as i have seen no plans elucidating their specific position. Only those to the right of Bennett appear to seek annexation and absorb the arabs and it doesn’t look like they have any seats or significant influence. If this is the reality and no one wants to govern the arabs, or wants them in Israel, then it becomes a matter of borders and security. An interim agreement may allow a stall on giving away more by cementing possession and casting the scenario as territorial dispute between 2 states rather than an occupation. I think they have decided that dealing with the west bank as they deal with gaza is better than being intertwined with the arabs. I think they have decided that an interim agreement or a unilateral withdrawal will give them more territory in the future or that the situation will change.
I think the Barak “plan” has been a trial balloon: unilateral withdrawal and an interim agreement.
Under this circumstance the best to be realistically hoped for is that Israel unilaterally withdraws from A & B, retains control of Area C, jordan valley, E1, major blocs, subject to future border agreements and negotiations(their hope being to keep Jerusalem, E1 and the major blocs); I believe it has been decided that the overwhelming majority of Israelis will not transfer the arabs, that the arabs will remain in at least A &B, that they do not wish to govern or be responsible for the arabs. The pal state may be recognized immediately or recognized subject to a final agreement. They may believe that an immediate recognition and withdrawal will cast the scenario into a territorial dispute between 2 states as opposed to occupation. Also, the state recognition may be the bone given to the pals to accept an interim agreement. I think the perception is that the arabs will remain and this approach may stall final borders to later with the advantage of being in possession over a longer time giving them the opportunity to adjust.
Re security I believe they will retain until later agreement possibly ending in a Jordan pal confed with jordan becoming responsible for pal state as egypt is becoming indirectly responsible for gaza. They are hoping to avoid the pal refugee demand, to avoid a physical link between the location, hold on to security, stall final borders. By doing this they will also have the option to sever the pal state with border checkpoints, as with gaza, or allow access if workable. They may feel better able to deal with terror in the same way they now deal with gaza: from the outside and leaving the nutters to eat each other on the inside. The end to the last gaza operation and the current situation there indicates a similar agreement for the pals state. I dont think they care whether hamas takes over as they feel that this can happen under any circumstances. I believe the deal is done. I think they believe that if it doesn’t work they can go back in and that is the same situation they are in now.
Frankly, I do not see any specific plan advanced by Bennett or Lapid which is any better than this. In fact I have seen no specific plan at all from them as to exactly what they would do. I have only seen vague references in the lapid bennett deal:
This sounds no better to me. The plans of those further right, who want to annex appear to be a very small minority and therefore I believe they will be ignored and the deal is already done.
It`s even more insidious than that. The security nightmare that will result will inevitably lead many Jews to emigrate from Israel as well as dry up aliyah altogether. It will be the death-knell of the Jewish project for sovereignty in their own land.
@ NormanF:
@ Ted Belman:
So what does it all mean?
Is all for naught?
The population does not elect those who care, and those elected, just do not care?
There MUST be a way!!!!!
By the way, this red-herring, the demographic threat was mentioned by Former Secretary of State James Baker III in his so-called “Street Map to the Road Map as a way for Israeli politicians to sell the idea of withdrawal to a skeptical Israeli public.This paper was posted at his web site for “The James Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. It seems that the Israeli politicos take their marching orders from James Baker. Ironically, a withdrawal to “ensure a Jewish majority for generations to come” is sort of reassuring like “resettlement in the East” must have been for the Jews of Europe.@ Ted Belman:
@ NormanF:I agree. But I just wanted to point out what is happening and that they are going along.
Ted, a palace revolt within the Likud won’t happen.
Likud MKs know that if they revolt, most of them will be gone in the next election.
What motivates them is political survival – not the preservation of the Land Of Israel.
I do not think they will be receptive to your appeal. I would love to be proven wrong.
But history is against the odds of it taking place.