Weekly Commentary: Is annexation the solution?

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
10 March '11

If the creation of sovereign Palestinian state presents an existential danger to the State of Israel and the status quo is indeed unsustainable then is annexation the best of a collection of bad alternatives?

Autonomy is hands down the best “solution”, but given that even many otherwise sophisticated leaders from the national camp (including “settler” leadership) seem to be convinced that any arrangement must provide the Palestinians with the right to elect a parliament of a sovereign state, it would appear that unless the prime minister himself explicitly embraces the autonomy solution and embarks on a massive campaign promoting autonomy that a different approach is required.

What about annexation?

The sovereign state of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea
(without Gaza).

All Palestinians legally permanently living now in the West Bank would immediately have permanent Israeli resident status. If they want to be Israeli citizens with all the rights (e.g. participate in Knesset elections both as voters and candidates) and obligations of citizenship, all they have to do is fill out the paperwork.

If they want to, and have the money, they can indeed return to Jaffa, Haifa, etc..

[By the same token, Jewish construction in the West Bank would take off in a building boom.]

The municipalities in the West Bank would continue to function, Some of the Palestinians involved in security activities might remain as city cops with the appropriate equipment while the remainder would be disarmed.

What would the response be to the move?

The Palestinians in the West Bank could cooperate, arguing that they were “taking their struggle to the bedroom” – with the demise of the Jewish State to be ultimately achieved via the ballot box rather than the battlefield.

The Palestinians overseas would be furious since annexation ends the possibility of exercising the “right of return” as long as there is a Jewish majority in the Knesset.

The Arab world would react however it serves their domestic interests.

Much of the rest of the world might simply be puzzled by the move since extension of the right to full citizenship muddies the “rights” issue. If they genuinely believe that, as they have been claiming all along, the “demographic bomb” will destroy Israel, they can take the position that if we are suicidal that it is our problem.

Would the Palestinians, indeed, win the “bedroom struggle”?

Recent studies of population trends indicate that we can expect a stable Jewish majority – and that’s before taking into account the probable negative impact of the huge jump in the Palestinian standard of living after annexation on fertility rates.

What would happen in the Knesset?

If the West Bankers take citizenship en masse the Arab vote would most definitely impact policy making. There could be 20 Arab MKs, making it that much easier for the Israeli left to try and get a majority to support leaving the Golan.

Is there a risk?

Absolutely.

But to borrow from the jargon of the Oslophiles, it is a “calculated risk”.

And if the choice is between the risk associated with the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state that brings in millions of Palestinians into the West Bank under “right of return” as it exploits all the trappings of sovereignty to prepare for the destruction of the Jewish State and the risk of annexation the choice is annexation.

Again. Autonomy would be better. But if the options on the menu are a sovereign Palestinian state or annexing and giving the Palestinians in the West Bank the right to be Israeli citizens then the clear choice is annexation.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.