Repudiate the “peace process” and annex Judea and Samaria
by Ted Belman
This week has witnessed two fundamental policies go up in flames.
The idea of starving Hamas into submission or failing that, bringing about its demise, was jointly shared by Israel and the US. It is no more. Both Israel and the US have thrown in the towel and reversed course. The US went so far as to allow the EU to take over the funding of the “poor Palestinians”.
Secondly the Kadima strategy of convergence or consolidation is all but relegated to the dust bin. The EU is on record of opposing it and the US has not encouraged it. Neither wants Israel to make unilateral moves. And there is no prospect that they will finance it in the absence of agreement. The only thing left is to bury it.
For my part I took the position very early on that I wanted Hamas to win the election. I saw that as a good thing. For the same reasons I want them to remain in power. They make Israel look good and take the pressure off Israel to negotiate. Negotiation, that the EU and the Arab League and Abbas want, is negotiation based on the Saudi Peace Plan. No thanks.
As for maintaining the flow of charity or protexia, depending on how you characterize it, it is very much in Israel’s interest. Israel, as an occupying power, has the legal obligation to provide for the needs of those occupied. This is set out in the Geneva Convention which the High Court in Israel has held applies to Israel. That being the case, the more financial responsibility the West undertakes, the less financial obligation there is on Israel.
So now what?
For the moment the US appears to have backed off trying to advance the “peace process”. It has no emissary on the spot attempting to get movement. Instead, this week it formally took a back seat to the EU on the funding mechanism. Even this is limited to “humanitarian aid”. Wolfenson and the grandiose plans for Gaza are no more.
Although this has the appearance of a holding pattern, I have no doubt that the Quartet will now start pushing for another international conference to facilitate direct negotiations between Israel and the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the “Palestinian “ people. Such a conference enables the Quartet to force Israel not only to negotiate but to make more concessions. Israel should avoid it like the plague. The pressure is building up for a settlement based on the Saudi Peace Plan. The US will probably come out in support of such a conference. Peretz and Peres are chomping at the bit.
It should be noted that the call for direct negotiations is in direct conflict with the Roadmap which stipulates that first,
– Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.
SECURITY
– Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
– Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.
No doubt that the Quartet will try to finesse these clear requirements and go to direct negotiations regardless. Non compliance by the Arabs has never been a bar to pressuring Israel. In fact the more intransigence on the part of the Arabs, the more pressure on Israel. Nevertheless, Israel should insist on the strict interpretation of the Roadmap.
Remember, the “Peace Process” in what ever form, has one purpose, namely to create a framework for the international community to apply pressure on Israel.
There are many in Israel, led by Labor, Meretz and the Arab parties who accept the inevitability of negotiations based on the Saudi Peace Plan or the Geneva Accords. I believe that Kadima is likely to fold on this also as they are tired of “winning” or fighting. Kadimah is already in discussions with Abbas.
The Saudi “Peace Plan” has three key ingredients
1. a return to the ’67 borders (Green Line) with mutually agreed exchanges of land of equal value. (No doubt that Israel will be able to keep some of the settlements blocks but will have to pay a huge price in land west of the Green Line, for it.)
2. Sharing of Jerusalem in a manner far more detrimental to Israel then Kadima’s intentions
3. Some recognition of the “right of return”.
I personally am against this Plan as I don’t accept its inevitability and I am not tired of fighting or winning. I also think that it doesn’t give full recognition to Res 242, which should stand alone as the guiding principle. Unfortunately the Roadmap references every Resolution passed previously to the ’67 war and every agreement signed afterwards. It also references the Saiudi Plan. Furthermore, the Jews were promised all of Judea and Samaria.
Another very good reason for Israel to resist the Saudi Plan, or for that matter Kadima’s Convergence Plan, is that Israel will lose control of the West Bank and will not be able to prevent another million Arabs from moving in. Israel will have a failed, chaotic and violent state in their underbelly which will give it no end of trouble.
If Israel is to avoid this fate, the Right in Israel must make the case that the Saudi Plan and the Geneva Accords are unacceptable and get the majority of Israelis behind them. At a minimum Israel should demand defensible borders as defined by JCPA. The Roadmap contradicts such borders and Kadima’s Convergence does too.
One final note of caution. The Roadmap predetermines so many things like contiguity and viability. These issues are no longer negotiable. Every new process limits what is left to negotiate. The Roadmap also rules out any unilateral moves. This is the way the Quartet maintains a stranglehold on Israel.
Repudiate the Roadmap and Oslo
The Israel should avail itself of the opportunity to withdraw from the Roadmap and from Oslo. The PA having disowned the agreements and the recognoition of Israel which was a precondition, there is now no obligation on Israel to adhere to them. Furthermore the Arabs are in fundamental breach due to their refusal to abandon terror and incitement. The world will argue otherwise but disingenously. Thus Israel will no longer be obligated to create a viable contiguous state.
Israel must decide on an outcome and commit to it. Uprooting 60,000 Israelis is not an option, if for no other reason than that Israel can’t afford it. Thus it would appear that annexation of Judea and Samaria is one answer or sitting tight without a peace process is the other.
In Divide and Conquer (Feb 20/06), I recommended that Israel annex the West Bank except for Area “A” where most of the Palestinians live. The fence should surround Area “A” only and the Arabs therein should be given full autonomy. Also, ready access can be enabled to allow them to go to Jordan or Gaza, subject to good behavior. I argued,
The beauty of this Plan is that it doesn’t depend on a peace process or the agreement of the PA. There is no land to be conquered. Its like a security measure. Just build the fence in a different place and annex the land. Of course legislation would have to be passed to remove the jurisdiction of the HC of Israel. Kadima has stated their intention to to unilaterally set the borders of Israel. This Plan does just that but selects borders more advantageous to Israel. In both cases only Israel would recognize those borders. It would take years if ever before the world recognized such borders. Israel has lived over fifty years without recognized borders. Many countries have border disputes. Life goes on.
Not only will Israel have its hands full disarming the Arabs and expelling the terrorists among them, it will also have to contend with outrage from Old Europe and the Islamic world. This outrage will escalate to sanctions and UNSC resolutions including Chapter VII ones, assuming the US doesn’t veto them. Not a prospect that Israel presently has the stomach for. Remember that the EU is Israel’s largest trading partner by far.
The only way I can see Israel moving decisively in this direction, is to do it as a by-product of the attack on Iran by the US, at which time, Israel will be forced to act against Hezbollah and Hamas in any event.
In the meantime, Israel should repudiate the Roadmap and the Oslo Accords. Israel has not benefited from them one iota.
Good luck, Israel.
Ted, I am not so certain as you that Israel moving to the right and rejecting the Saudi peace plan or variation thereof and seeking to annex Judea and Sameria could only come about as a by-product of a U.S. attack on Iran.
First, the U.S. seems to be retreating as opposed to advancing towards an Iranian confrontation as China and Russia are putting obstacles in the path of the U.N. taking any action.
As regards the seeming building resolve by the EU to support strong measures being taken against Iranian intrasigence and deceit, that too has been wavering in the past month and so to the will of the U.N. to finally impose meaningful sanctions.
A U.S. confrontation with Iran is looking more and more like a possiblity only if the U.S. and tangible U.S.interests, as can be easily understood by Americans, becomes directly threatened by Iran.
If America were to decide to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity with a pre-emptive strike, I very much doubt that it would do so without first securing the blessing of the Arab nations in the region, so as to ensure such attack will not unduly impact of America’s relations and interests in the Middle East, including to ensure the oil based economy will not be put at risk.
That blessing will have to be bought by America in a number of ways and at least some of those ways will have to do with ensuring Israel is kept on a tight leash.
I expect therefor that one of the bargains America would be forced to make if it sought to attack Iran, is that the by-product of an Israeli strike against Hezboallah and Hamas that you speak of or unilateral action by Israel to annex the West Bank or even lesser unilateral action that would have the effect of changing the status quo, does not happen.
That said, things in the Middle East are precariously balanced and the least little thing seems to usually upset that balance as the parties swing their arms wildly until balance if found again until the next time which is sure to soon follow.
In terms of ultimately seeking to annex all of Judea and Samaria, I gather you would support that initiative in combination with the billions being thrown in welfare to the Palestinian government be paid to Palestinians directly to encourage them to leave and also to pay monies to those nations that agree to accept them.
Annexation of the West Bank in such scenario necessariliy means it cannot be done unilaterally, but must be done with the concurrence of the Palestinians if they can be induced to leave the area for other lands.
There is a huge distance to traverse from here to there and as you well know the path between is filled with obstacles that at times seem to make the road impassable.
Ideologically at this time, neither the Palestinians nor the Arab world would find annexation of the West Bank to Israel with an exodus of Palestinians worth the time it takes to even utter those words.
Your plan for annexation of the West Bank is not the Olmert plan though it does have unilateralism in common.
The political right’s view that the status quo be maintained, but nothing be given up without equal or better obtained in return from the Palestinians.
In order for the dream of expanding Israel with annexing the West Bank is to become a real possibility, there will have to be a major paradigm shift in the thinking of all parties directly involved and in the international community.
Whether this idea of Israeli expansionism can be moved forward is doubtful, but not impossible.
Will it be the vision of the left, the right, a centrist or a hybrid political force that can take the lead to peace through the annexation of the West Bank and the agreed to exodus of Palestinians/Arabs from those lands?
This is one new and bold idea that needs an equally bold and wise leader who commands respect both within and outside of Israel and people will follow where he leads.
I do not see such kind of leader in Israel, let alone anywhere else at the moment.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— May 12, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
Ted, Ted, Ted; you are trying to salvage a losing scenario for Israel. The jig is up: Israel is being compromised out of existence by her Western “allies”. It is clear that none of these nations — much less the US — could come right out and argue for a settlement that would de facto signal the end of a Jewish state in the Middle East. But this outcome is precisely that which is being engineered by the EU in collaboration with the US State Department, under close consultation with James Baker and right over the head of our Novice-in-Chief George Bush. Please try to ignore the diplo-static and look at the facts:
ITEM:
George Bush is the first and only US president to explicitly call for a Palestinian state and then seek to manifest this in an internationally-endorsed adaptation of the Saudi eradication plan airbrushed over as the “road map”.
ITEM:
George Bush endorsed democratic elections in the Palestinian territories and insisted — over Israeli objections — that Hamas be allowed to run candidates. The result has been the rise to power of a genocidal, neo-Nazi, terrorist regime that will stop at nothing until all Jews in the Middle East have been exterminated or railroaded off the land.
ITEM:
George Bush has ostensibly “caved-in” to international pressure to restore billions of dollars in funding to the barbarians who elected said neo-Nazi terrorist regime. Concurrently, Bush submitted to the US Congress, a formal objection to its well-intentioned bill designed to prevent US taxpayer monies from going to Hamas by citing “national security” concerns and asserting that Congress was infringing on his “Presidential Authority” to manage foreign relations.
You know, the eradication of a nation — formed in the shadow of the Holocaust, resolved by majority vote in the United Nations, and armed with nuclear weapons — via political evisceration is not an easy task. It takes time, finesse, and lots of subterfuge. But if you follow the facts — and not the diversionary tactics — you will see that this is precisely the process unfolding.
Comment by Charles Martel
— May 12, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Unfortunately I have to concur with Charles’ bleak scenario.
Comment by Laura
— May 12, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
By the way, I have since come to reassess my initially favorable response to Bush’s rhetorical defense of Israel against Iran’s threat to wipe her off the map. I am now of the opinion that this commitment was intended not so much to warn Iran off its belligerence as to delay or prevent Israel from taking pre-emptive action against Iran, thereby igniting a global conflagration. Indeed, history will show that since the late 1960s, US foreign policy in the region has been entirely about keeping the oil flowing by preventing Israel from using its nuclear weapons.
Comment by Charles Martel
— May 13, 2006 @ 4:02 am
Both Ted and Charles state their views well, but….
Whereas Ted dreams the impossible dream that Israel must annex Judea and Samaria, Charles constructs from a few basic facts and fair, but not necessarily correct surmises, a conspiracy theory that dreams a nightmare.
Neither the dream nor the nightmare can be sustained as things stand now.
ANNEXING JUDEA AND SAMARIA
To bring such a scenario into the realm of possibility, things will have to change.
As of now, most Westerners see through the concern, support and crocodile tears shed for the Palestinians by their Arab brethren, which comes not from love of Palestinians, but rather that the Palestinians serve the Arab world’s interests.
The Arab dream for the eradication of Israel did not die with the Yom Kippur War. The Arabs thereafter gradually came to realize that their tactics to achieve their dream for the eradication of Israel would have to change. That change came by way of a proxy war carried out by the Palestinians and was extended into an ideologically driven propaganda battlefield.
To say that the Arabs have long memories is an understatement. They are still exercised with deep anger and resentment of the West by their memories of the crusades. Add to that those edicts within Islam that call for hatred of Jews and Christians and holy Jihad for Muslims to conquer the whole world and make it subservient to Islam, from which springs the dream to first retake former Islamic land, being Israel.
Neither Jordan nor the rest of the surrounding Arab nations have forgotten that the militant factions of the Palestinians given a home and aid by the Jordanians, in the early 1970’s turned on King Hussein and were forced out of Jordan in a bloody war that killed many thousands of Palestinians and other Jordanians including non militant Palestinians that comprise the majority of Jordan’s population.
It seems that wherever the militant Palestinians go, they cause trouble and that fact is not lost on the Arab world that prefers that trouble be singularly focused on Israel.
To that end, the Arabs have kept the fires of Jew hatred burning within Palestinian society within Gaza and the West Bank. Recently however, having radicalized most of Palestinian society there against Israel, the situation has become one where that Palestinian radicalism has opened the door to Al Qaeda type radicals to enter Gaza and the West Bank. The pot of Islamic radicalism there has begun to boil over and spill into Jordan and Egypt, and they do not like being burnt one bit.
Things will have to get worse before they get better. In that regard, if the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank descend further into chaotic Islamic radicalism and a base from which they and their Islamic radical invitees can operate so that not only Israel, but surrounding Arab nations are threatened, the Arab nations might begin to see that as distasteful as it is for Israel to remain, they are much safer by having a peaceful strong Israel in their midst and as a neighbor than an independent Palestinian state.
Alternatively, if an independent legally recognized Palestinian state ultimately does emerge or the Palestinian state in waiting makes war on Israel and Israel crushingly defeats the Palestinians and again goes into occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, all concerned parties will be much the wiser and negotiations would begin anew with a paradigm for peace that no longer included a condition absolute, that there must be an independent Palestinian state at the end of the day.
THE GRAND CONSPIRACY TO ELIMINATE ISRAEL
Alliances are not formed merely out of friendship and common interests. They are typically paid for with cash or concessions on positions.
While President Bush was the first American President to declare the goal of an independent Palestinian state existing in peace alongside Israel, he did so hand in hand with Tony Blair. There is every reason to believe that the alliance with Britain in the first called war on terror was bought in part by the U.S. agreeing to that declaration and policy, the initiative for which almost certainly came from Britain.
Arab power, influence and cash to buy just about whatever it wants derives from Arab oil. For so long as the West remains dependent on a world oil based economy, the Arabs will maintain power and influence and increase their wealth.
There is no secret cabal of world leaders that conspires to destroy Israel.
The Arabs however have managed to ensure that some of the coin to purchase their co-operation in maintaining a stable oil economy must be paid for with pieces of Israel that the non-Muslim world forces Israel to ante up.
Self interest is paramount for any nation and that better explains why, many nations in the EU, in spite of still harboring some care for Israel’s survival have lined up against Israel.
America is more influenced by religious principles than the EU. To that extent, the U.S. is more motivated to have its policies at least appear to have a basis rooted in morality, though there is a desire for that morality to be more than just for appearances sake.
Some influential Americans, such as James Baker and others involved in the American administration seem to care less about the welfare of Israel and similarly they see Israel’s value to America in terms of its strategic interests in the region, being less as well.
More influential Americans in the Bush administration do care. The Bush administration however is like the EU guided in the main by what it sees as being America’s best interests. In trying to balance caring for the welfare of Israel on a moral basis and for Israel’s value to American strategic interests and with serving America’s larger self interests, the U.S. sometimes stands in or close to the EU lineup to force Israel to compromise further.
Many believe those inch by inch concessions puts Israel in a very precarious position that measurably increases the risk that Israel ultimately will suffer the death of a thousand cuts.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— May 13, 2006 @ 8:47 am
Read Divide and Conquer
Comment by Ted Belman
— May 13, 2006 @ 8:52 am
I think that if certain people and parties had a bird, it would say “Annex Judea and Samaria.” Personally, since patriotism in this milieu seems to be judged by readiness to Annex realestate, I would rather annex Bahrain which has energy reserves, or France, which has a better climate and a more Westernized population. True, it would probably trigger the destruction of Israel, but so would annexation of the West Bank. As you rightly point out, the original convergence plan (whatever it is) is probably dead. The US will not recognize that line as an Israeli border and neither will anyone else. Attempting to annex the West Bank will bring the wrath of the US and EU down on us. It won’t bring any advantages since nobody would recognize it. It would only antagonize world opinion.
Convergence in some form is not dead. What the form will be, nobody knows because it keeps changing. It is evident that nobody knows what the convergence/consolidatation plan is and it keeps changing.
The reason that it will happen anyhow, is that Israel is looking for a way to extricate itself from the territories. In the absence of a peace partner, convergence (actually - “moving inward” in Hebrew) is the only way. I am not saying it is good, I am saying that is what is politically feasible on both sides.
If you are not tired of fighting and winning, that is good news, because you can perhaps come here and do reserve duty. You can replace some of us who are tired, not of winning, but of getting reviled in the international press, shooting women and kids, and having to explain the behavior of settlers who attack school children.
The Saudi peace plan, by the way, requires Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights as well.
Comment by Ami
— May 13, 2006 @ 8:53 am
Bill
I do believe that you and I have had this dialogue before. My posts above refer only to America’s need (and by implication, the EU’s need) to keep the oil flowing as a rationale for the West’s alignment against Israel. It is not necessary to envisage a “grand conspiracy” or “secret cabal”, as the reality is palpable — so long as one is not blinded by wishful thinking. The fact remains: Israel’s national security is being compromised by Western nations in an effort to appease the Arabs and manifest a Palestinian state with no requirement that that state be demilitarized or committed to peace. The inevitable result of this process is an eviscerated Israel with no strategic depth and well-armed, genocidal neighbours on her doorstep. Do you honestly believe that George Bush or anyone in the State Department or the EU are obtuse to the implications of this outcome?
Comment by Charles Martel
— May 13, 2006 @ 9:49 am
Charles,
I agree with your comments regarding a rationale to keep oil flowing. That is a major consideration within my general reference to America’s and the EU’s self interest.
I agree with the rest of your comments as well in terms of what flows from America’s and the EU’s pursuit of self-interest.
I do not however attribute that to obtuseness in the Bush administration and the EU being blind to this outcome.
Rather, I believe that there is a genuine and morally principled desire in America and one less so, but still somewhat evident in the EU, for Israel’s survival and continued existence. I think however that both America and the EU have some vague arrogant confidence and faith that such underlying desire will not allow them to sacrifice Israel.
Both America and the EU it seems, by rationalizations wrapped up in vague notions of morality, right and wrong and democratic egalitarian respect for all nations including the right of self determination for Palestinians, seeks to convince themselves that their pressuring Israel to yield up more and more concessions, does not undermine Israel’s chances for survival or their desire for Israel’s continued existence.
It is not obtuseness, but rather willful blindness to save themselves from guilt once again over the Jews and Israel that goes hand in hand with America and the EU pressuring Israel to quietly give itself up piece by piece. That quiet comes with America and the EU always making a point of declaring their desire that they really do want Israel to survive and thereby keep Israeli hopes alive.
That hope is getting very thin as America and the EU refuse to see that in the process they are forcing on Israel, their desire for Israel’s survival is being whittled away piece by piece, just as Israel’s chances for survival are.
To put an ominous and macabre spin on this dim view, while America and the EU do not have the evil deliberate intent of the Nazis for the fate of the Jews, their efforts to pressure Israel and at the same time ease the minds of Israelis, is like the time of the Holocaust when Jews were being marched to the gas chambers to the strains of music to soothe their nerves and calm their fears.
Perhaps Jews and Israel can achieve salvation by finding a way to open the eyes, hearts and minds of America and the EU to know the full extent of the guilt and shame they hold for allowing things to progress as far as they have. With that and a gentle push if need be, America and the EU could find it within themselves to want to expiate their guilt and shame by reversing direction to push not for a balance of interests, goals and strengths as between Israel and the Palestinians, but between Israel on the one hand and all the Arab nations and Muslim and anti-Israel rest of the world.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— May 13, 2006 @ 11:44 am
I believe if Israel is to survive that they must have a large enough state to do so.
Squeezing Israel into such a confined area will make it indefensible, especially if the geometrical shape of the state is such as is proposed by some.
It is true that the US wishes to keep the oil flowing and avoid a huge conflict. That is one reason there are so many stalemate policies put forth. Buying time is the Mid-East policy. Buying time in hopes that something will change which will impact the situation in a positive way. We waited for Arafat to die but did things really change?
What appears to me will happen is that Israel will be pressured into making unwise decisions and put themselves in jeopardy (like that hasn’t happened already, some prophet I am). Israel will give up more and more until there will be no more they really can give up.
Once all is given, it will not be enough for the Arabs and there will no longer be any reason to openly press for anything other than the elimination of Israel (because that is what this is really all about anyway).
The US and EU will make statements but not really do anything hoping a conflict will not break out (If this occurs after 2008 there may be ‘Doves’ in the White House) but a conflict will occur.
Israel will have to resort to use of military power again and will be forced to take back and occupy the land that was handed over and maybe more.
The Israeli people are at this point totally feed up with the international approach and are finally ready to take a hard line because they all almost died, again.
Israel establishes reasonable borders and starts dictating all the terms of its existence.
After that things will really get interesting.
Comment by RandyTexas
— May 13, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
I just addied the following to my article,
Comment by Ted Belman
— May 13, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
Ami knows that the Saudi Plan is not a panecea. Israel could be going from the frying pan to the fire. Afterall as he well knows the conflict has not been over borders for close to one hundred years. It has been over the existence of Israel.
Comment by Ted Belman
— May 13, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
There has recently been an international conference of Muslim scholars in Doha Qatar which recommended that Muslim Palestine be from river to sea. I don’t think it much matters what the U.S. or Europe thinks as when the crunch comes, they will not help Israel. The most important factor is that we know what Iran and the Arab world thinks and plans. I therefore agree with Ted. Israel should take over Judah and Samaria, strongly suggest that the Palestinians emigrate, and then prepare for the war that is coming anyway.
As an added note, Canada has only two percent Jews and 4% Muslim - so altogether about 6 or 7% non-Christian or 93% Christian. It is therefore reasonable to expect and insist that Israel be 93% Jewish.
Comment by Jonathan
— May 13, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
Fred Leder writes,
All of this fervor with giving stuff “back” to the Arabs is a kind of Jewish pathology left over from the millennia of diaspora. We were forced to be schnorrers because we had no power, so we got good at dividing the pie. Now we have power, based in part of the knowledge of how vulnerable we were in Europe. We have to drop the need to settle all issues by compromise, even those that patently can’t be compromised. We then need to defend what is ours, to the exclusion of all who would challenge that ownership.
If that means transfer of Arabs and annexation of Judea and Samaria then I’m for it. We cannot continue to make concessions to those who openly demand our blood, and expect them to accept our offers and grant us peace. It won’t happen and anyone with any sense knows that.
Comment by Ted Belman
— May 13, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
Charles, it’s good you weren’t advising Churchill in 1940.
All it needs is for a leader to decide that this is what will be done. [What Ted says, that is]Then see it through, through hell and high water. The Israelis of ‘48 would do that.
Comment by ligneus
— May 13, 2006 @ 10:37 pm
Ami
In my article I point out that even with a deal based on the Saudi Plan Israel would keep some of the settlements so that too is a convergence in a way.
You say the name of the game for Israel is to find a way to extricate itself from the territories. That may be at the moment. As you know, the military may have to stay there and maintain the occupation. Therefore convergence would refer only to the settlers. If Israel is still responsible to remain there and supress violence, we will not have accomplished much at a cost of $25 Billion USD.
Until such time as Israel debates the issue of security vis a vis further withdrawal, it is hard to respect the policy. Why is security in the aftermath of convergence not a major issue. Furthermore until such time as Israel manages the ramafications of the Gaza pullout, security wise and settler relocation wise, no further convergence should take place.
So what is the point. What is the point of extricating ourselves from the territories only to get more violence. How does that make us stronger or more secure?
Comment by Ted Belman
— May 14, 2006 @ 12:28 am
If we want to be bold, let’s not be half-way bold. All the what-if analyses miss a major point: the definition of Israel’s objectives. This should be at the forefront – as it is for all other nations.
The non-negotiable objective of Israel should be to keep Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria. Let’s talk “title to the land” first, before we tackle the issue of the “Arab population”. Without Judea/Samaria, Israel would be hard pressed to justify its very claims to nationhood in the remaining part of the land where few historical connections exist.
Once this objective is set (and it can be amply justified), a new diplomatic track can be envisaged and the abandonment of the Oslo/Roadmap (as Ted suggests) is the first step. At the same time, this objective implies that the notion of “occupying power” must be discarded. Again, this issue has been expounded at length before.
So, the crux of the matter is this: is Israel, its people and its elected government prepared to formulate such an objective? If not, we can only keep on typing on our keyboards.
Comment by salomon
— May 14, 2006 @ 12:37 am
Mike Wise writes
i just returned from almost a month in Israel working on demography and a one state plan. Attached please find a fresh outline of the One State Plan. As events are unfolding and as our demographic information improves, it seems to be attracting more interest here and in Israel. your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. i will be in washington this week and will be happy to meet with anyone to present or discuss the Plan.
ted belman’s latest email says in part:
however ted\also says:
as you may know, i believe that partial annexation or “convergence” solves very little. it will leave israel in approximately the same place as currently.
similar problems arise from Honigman’s well presented formulation which says in part,
Comment by Ted Belman
— May 14, 2006 @ 5:45 am
Ted I’m sure from the rest of your article by saying “Israel, as an occupying power”, has the legal obligation to provide for the needs of those occupied”; this was said with tongue in cheek. Israel are not an “occupying power”, they are the rightful inhabitants of Israel no matter what the Geneva Convention or the High Court in Israel says. Reading the book of Nehemiah this week I came across two interesting verses, written 2,500 years ago. The first one made me think of the liberals in the US “When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about this, they were very much disturbed that someone had come to promote the welfare of the Israelites”. Nehemiah 2:10 The second one I’d like to sprout to Ahmadinejad who in his letter to President Bush so hypocritically demands that Bush takes cognisance of the “Good Book” In this verse Nehemiah “answered them by saying, ‘The God of heaven will give us success. We his servants will start rebuilding, BUT AS FOR YOU, YOU HAVE NO SHARE IN JERUSALEM OR ANY CLAIM OR HISTORIC RIGHT TO IT’. Nehemiah 2:2
This applies to the whole of the Israel; the Arab nations who so belligerently want to deny Israel their heritage need to recognise this. Unfortunately this is not going to happen. Read the article in the New York Times published on May 13, I quote
“By issuing a fatwa, or binding legal ruling, Thursday, the scholars, who hold sway over a wide swath of the Muslim world, appear to have raised the stakes over the Palestinian Authority’s financial crisis.
“THIS MEETING HAS REVERTED THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE TO ITS RIGHTFUL DEPTH AS AN ARAB AND ISLAMIC ISSUE,” said Izat Reshq, a member of the Hamas politburo. “We in Hamas always said this is not just an internal Palestinian issue, it is an Arab and Muslim one.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/12/news/hamas.php
All the comments on your article are really worth reading. I know that God will ultimately fulfil His plans and purposes for Israel. I stand by the Israeli people and pray that they will unite as a nation, set aside their prejudices and differences and call upon the One and Only living Eternal God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The US and the EU may be back-pedalling but God does not and He can restore all of Judea and Samaria to them subject to His requirements (See Deuteronomy 6, 28, 29 & 30). I do not believe in replacement theology, Israel is still God’s chosen land and people. (See Romans 9, 10, 11 &12), but unless they as a nation recognise their Judaic heritage and turn to God they will continue to be a by-word to the nations. Only God Almighty can guarantee their success.
Ronald Hume ronhume@xtra.co.nz
Comment by ronhume
— May 15, 2006 @ 3:02 am
[…] Only then can Israel deal with the Arabs in and out of the territories. Israel must decide if it can maintain the status quo and resist all “peace” initiatives or whether it is best served by a peace initiative of its own. The one I favour is to expand Jerusalem to include all settlements around it both Arab and Jewish and to annex the land. As a second stage it could annex all lands in area “C” per Oslo. To justify the annexation it could hold a plebiscite among the inhabitants to accept or reject the annexation as a matter of self determination. These ideas have been expanded on by myself in Israel must repudiate the ‘peace process’ and annex Judea and Samaria, Demographics and their Consequences and Focus on Jerusalem. […]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Israelis and Jews
— August 27, 2006 @ 1:05 pm