PM Netanyahu: It is not wise just to annex - IMRA - Dr. Aaron Lerner

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: PM Netanyahu cites American recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. It should be noted that American recognition came 38 YEARS after Israel wisely applied Israeli sovereignty over the Golan WITHOUT waiting for American recognition of the move.]

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA..
08 December '19..
Link: https://www.imra.org.il/story.php?id=73608

"The second opportunity is to finally determine our eastern border, to apply Israeli law on the Jordan Valley and to do so with international recognition, i.e. American recognition. It is not wise just to annex, even though this is an important step which, to my regret, is impossible for a transitional government. For a future government, of whatever kind, it is possible. This is a legal restriction. However, it is not enough.

The Anti-Defamation League's distortion of the annexation debate - by Stephen M. Flatow

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never called for the “annexation of the West Bank.” What he said was that he might propose extending Israeli law to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
22 April '19..

Some liberal American Jewish organizations are urging U.S. President Donald Trump to oppose Israeli annexation of any part of Judea and Samaria. Some conservative Jewish organizations are urging the opposite. Good. It’s time we had a full debate in the American Jewish community about this issue. Serious dialogue and a meaningful conversation are long overdue.

Unfortunately, the Anti-Defamation League has gotten the conversation off to a poor start by distorting and misrepresenting some of the key facts that need to be considered.

In an op-ed in The Forward, ADL spokesman Kenneth Jacobson began by noting that the ADL was one of the signatories on the letter denouncing “any steps by Israel to annex territory in the West Bank.”

But as the op-ed progressed, Jacobson’s language became more and more slippery. By the third paragraph, he had gone from “steps to annex territory in the West Bank” to talking about outright “annexation of the West Bank”—that is, the whole thing.

That’s a red herring because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never called for “annexation of the West Bank.” What he actually said was that he might propose extending Israeli law to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Not content with having altered Netanyahu’s words, the ADL spokesman then proceeded to argue against what Netanyahu didn’t say. Jacobson listed all sorts of frightening things that might ensue as a “result of annexing the West Bank.”

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. 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.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Now it is Judea and Samaria's turn - by Nadav Shragai

...In 1949, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, saying that even though the decision would receive only one vote of support at the United Nations -- Israel's -- this was the deciding vote. In 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin applied sovereignty to the Golan Heights. Now it is Judea and Samaria's turn.

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
07 February '17..
Link: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=18347

A powerful wind is now shaking the settlement enterprise and bringing with it new possibilities and new calculations. The new administration in Washington is still learning and "consolidating," but the settlements are surely no longer a thorn in its side: The radical Left succeeded in forcing the national "right-wing" government, though the High Court of Justice, to evacuate a 20-year-old settlement, and it is now investing its efforts in additional "Amonas."

And there is also the Judea and Samaria Regulation Law, which is not really a milestone, but a byroad. The High Court of Justice will probably close it to traffic soon.

Byroads of this kind, of craftiness and chicanery, which have been used for decades to establish the settlement project as the most correct and the most Zionist in the heart of the land of Israel, have exhausted themselves. The time has come to get back on track, to raise the bar with the United States, to try to achieve more.

In 1949, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, saying that even though the decision would receive only one vote of support at the United Nations -- Israel's -- this was the deciding vote. In 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin applied sovereignty to the Golan Heights. Now it is Judea and Samaria's turn.

Best Thing for Israel? Level With Trump - by Dr. Aaron Lerner

...But we must never forget this simple truth: the moment that that sovereign independent Palestinian state is actually formed in our bedroom, its sovereignty and independence is essentially unconditional. They can rip the arrangements and guarantees they signed to shreds and they will still be a sovereign independent Palestinian state.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
25 November 2016..
Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=71776




Ever since the Israeli electorate rejected Oslo at the ballot box over 20 years ago Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's engaged in verbal and mental gymnastics to placate foreign leaders who adamantly insist that he pledge allegiance to the "two state solution".

Its been confusing. but we might not have had a choice.

With the election of Trump there is an opportunity to get out of the rut.

I recommend we level with Trump

#1. Fundamental problem with sovereign Palestinian state – not conditional

There are all sorts of ostensibly well intentioned people with various schemes of arrangements and guarantees that they claim would make it possible to create a sovereign independent Palestinian state in our bedroom.

But we must never forget this simple truth: the moment that that sovereign independent Palestinian state is actually formed in our bedroom, its sovereignty and independence is essentially unconditional.

They can rip the arrangements and guarantees they signed to shreds and they will still be a sovereign independent Palestinian state.

#2. Fundamental problem with almost sovereign Palestinian state - extraneous developments.

There's countless scenarios that may lead to a large hyper autonomous Palestinian state that shares a border with Jordan becoming a sovereign independent state.

#3. Where we CAN go

The New Yorker, Israel's Jerusalem and the Nazi Anschluss

...But the fact that Packer lumps together these distinctly different events, each with its own historical context, is of no importance to The New Yorker. All that matters is that it sounds clever and allows the smug writers at the magazine to take another swipe at Israel.

Steven Stolsky..
CAMERA Snapshots..
02 April '14..

The New Yorker likes to insert into its articles digs at Israel. Another one popped up in the introduction to a piece on the Russian annexation of Crimea. George Packer writes,

Annexation has an ugly sound, owing to an unhappy past. The term describes, among other tragedies, Saddam Hussein’s attempt, in 1990, to swallow Kuwait whole, as the nineteenth province of Iraq; Indonesia’s invasion, in 1975, of East Timor; Morocco’s absorption, the same year, of Western Sahara; and Israel’s declaration, after the 1967 war, of East Jerusalem as part of a united capital. The German word for it is Anschluss. Like most coerced unions, annexations come wreathed in clouds of lofty, dishonest language—key themes are popular will, historic grievance, divine providence—but they almost always happen at the end of a gun.

The magazine has a reputation for skillful writing, but not so much for accuracy or for making sound historical analogies, especially when it comes to Israel.

With the exception of Israel, the annexations Packer lists - by Iraq, Indonesia, Morocco and Germany - share common traits; they were unprovoked acts of aggression ordered by authoritarian rulers. Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem was the result of a defensive war fought by a democratic state responding to aggression committed by Jordan. That's a big difference.

Is Israel’s Legitimacy Being Destroyed Through the Peace Process?

...Sorek suggests that asserting to the world Israel’s legal rights in the West Bank is the only viable option left. Once Israel establishes that it has the land by right, only then can it effectively confront Arab rejectionism, which negotiations and land withdrawals actually spur on. It would seem that if Israel cannot tolerate the status quo then it must either unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank or otherwise annex it. But it’s quite possible that further withdrawals might actually damage Israel’s legitimacy more than annexation would.

Tom Wilson..
Commentary Magazine..
26 March '14..

In the world of hasbara–Israel advocacy–it is commonly suggested that the best way to make Israel’s case is by emphasizing that Israel wants peace: pointing to Israel’s willingness to negotiate, its withdrawals from territory, its evacuation of settlements, its prisoner releases, the settlement freezes, the moves to help establish and strengthen the Palestinian Authority. It’s true that Israel has done all of these things, but how is Israel’s standing in the world doing? Have peace talks and the surrender of territory done anything to placate those who only ever respond to these moves by calling for still more Israeli concessions? The hard truth is that today, in many circles, Israel’s legitimacy is in a worse place than it’s ever been. Israel negotiates and concedes, yet the movement to boycott and demonize Israel has only grown increasingly strident.

Israel has been locked down in the latest round of negotiations for months now. To make these talks happen Israel was first compelled to consent to the release of 104 convicted Palestinian terrorists. In the past Israel has been forced to freeze Jewish communities in the West Bank and even projects in Jerusalem. In both cases these concessions were to no avail. President Obama and Secretary Kerry regularly threaten Israel that should this current round of allegedly last-chance negotiations fail, Israel will be cast asunder to meet its fate in a cold world of boycotts and diplomatic isolation. Concessions and goodwill from Israel are rarely cause for praise from Western allies, they have simply come to be expected.

The boycott threat that Obama and Kerry try to use to panic Israel into doing whatever they instruct is really a case in point. Israel doesn’t await a wave of calls for boycotts if these talks fail; it faces them now. If anything, while this past round of Israeli concessions and negotiations have dragged on, the call for the boycott of Israel has only become louder. Across Europe and on American campuses, the campaign for boycotts is becoming frenetic. Oxfam’s attack on Scarlett Johansson and SodaStream made the headlines but there have been many cases that didn’t. In Europe a Dutch pension fund and several Scandinavian banks have already divested from Israel, while on both sides of the Atlantic the student campaign for boycotts has become particularly ugly. As Jonathan Tobin wrote about yesterday, the BDS campaign has even come to propagate racist hate speech. During a boycott vote only last night at King’s College, London, Jewish students were first hectored and reduced to tears, then mocked and taunted by BDS students.

At the very least, the fact that all of this goes on while Israel is in negotiations to try and end its presence in the West Bank should convince us that this has nothing to do with the “occupation.” Omar Barghouti, one of the leading founders of BDS, has been unequivocal in saying that the creation of two states would not end calls for boycotts. Yet if it is true that none of this is about creating a Palestinian state but rather opposing a Jewish one, then where does this leave notions about land for peace? Indeed, it would seem that on this point the boycotters are consistent with the Palestinians’ own refusal to let go of the desire to end Israel, even if it prevents them from getting a state themselves.

The Never-Ending Futile Search for Middle East Solutions

...In the absence of that sea change in Palestinian public opinion that will make it possible for Abbas or one of his successors to recognize Israel as a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn and to give up the hope of a “right of return” on the part of the 1948 refugees, talk of a solution of any kind is a waste of time. And though Israel has been told for the past 46 years that the status-quo isn’t viable, that has proven to be equally mistaken.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
11 March '14..

In today’s Mosaic Magazine, author Hillel Halkin provides yet another entry in the growing list of proposed “solutions” to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Put forward as a response to Yoav Sorek’s Mosaic essay in which that writer essentially called upon Israel to annul the Oslo peace process and establish what might be termed a one-state proposal. Unlike most such ideas put forward by Israel’s enemies which amount to nothing more than replacing the one Jewish state with one more Arab one, Sorek’s idea — which was endorsed here by Tom Wilson — is rooted in extending Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank but within a context in which it is understood that the country will remain a Jewish state.

Both Sorek’s proposal and that put forward by Caroline Glick in her new book (which was given a persuasive endorsement by Seth Lipsky in the New York Sun) take it as a given that the two-state solution that has been sought in vain during the 20 years since the Oslo Accords were signed will never succeed. Halkin doesn’t disagree on that point but is less sanguine than either Sorek or Glick about Israel’s ability to incorporate the large Arab population of the West Bank into Israel. In response he offers a compromise that is neither a pure one- or two-solution. He calls it “two-state minus” in which a Jewish state would co-exist alongside a Palestinian one in the territory that is now controlled by Israel. The majority status of the two peoples in their enclaves would be protected but both Jews and Arabs living in the two states would be free to choose either nationality no matter where they lived as well as to travel and work in either sector. He likens it to the way the nation states of the European Union retain their individual sovereignty while having that power restrained by their mutual obligations.

But while it sounds nice it is no more realistic than any other “solution” out on the market. Like the advocates of the other two state concepts, Halkin’s idea rests on the assumption that the Palestinians will be satisfied with anything less than the end of Jewish sovereignty in any form over any part of the country. Until the Palestinians embrace the reality of Israel’s permanence and renounce their century-old war on Zionism, the only viable scenario is one that manages the conflict rather than solving it.

Sorek and especially Glick, who writes with her characteristic clarity about the fatal mistakes of Israel’s leaders, perform a valuable service in debunking many of the false assumptions about the conflict that are the foundation of the two-state idea. Both rightly point out that Arab rejectionism is not based on anger about Israel’s occupation of territory in June 1967 but on their belief that Zionism is illegitimate. As Sorek writes about the Israeli embrace of Oslo, “In embracing the Palestinian national movement as its partner, Israel pretended not to see that, absent its fundamental objection to the existence of the Jewish state, there was no Palestinian national movement.” The reckless pursuit of peace on these false terms led to the abandonment of Israel’s claim to its own rights in the dispute, a form of unilateral moral disarmament that has helped legitimize the arguments of anti-Zionists, which have grown louder and more vituperative despite the Jewish state’s sacrifices at Oslo and in the Gaza withdrawal. They also call into question the conventional wisdom that the growth rates of the two peoples will inevitably lead to an Arab majority West of the Jordan, based as it is on unreliable population data and projections that may not be accurate.

With a Deep Breath It's Time to Start Thinking About Annexation

Uri Elitsur..
Middle East and Terrorism..
12 June '13..

Those who support the establishment of a Palestinian state must answer the question: what is to stop the katyushas from flying out of there. Those who support keeping the status quo forever must explain how it would be possible to rule over a million and a half Palestinians who wouldn't have full rights as citizens, and not be considered an apartheid state. Those who support annexation must explain how it would be possible to grant rights of Israeli citizenship to a million and a half Palestinians without becoming a bi-national state. Surprisingly, it is the third option that is most practical.

Shelly Yachimovich put it well in her eloquent political speech: we've heard enough of the frightening scenarios. They didn't destroy us in '67; and they're not going to wipe us out now. We are strong enough to cope with crises and challenges. And then she slammed the prime minister and Likud with: you, the two-state camp, are bringing about the end of the Zionist dream. And this is where the son asks - "Excuse me Ms. Yachimovich, didn't you just now say that we should stop the horror stories?". We really must stop, on both sides. The state of Israel will not be destroyed if there are two states between the sea and the Jordan, and the Zionist idea will not die if there is one state from the sea to the Jordan. It won't be a rose garden either way, but as the head of the opposition said, we are strong enough to cope with dangers.

Thank heaven, we are indeed strong enough to cope with a Palestinian state. It will not destroy us and won't be the end of us. From time to time it will just launch grads at Tel Aviv, katyushas at Petach Tikva and here and there a few random scuds in the direction of Ben Gurion Airport. We are strong enough, and these things won't destroy us. From time to time, after 300 fatalities or after a shoulder launched missile takes down a jumbo passenger jet, we will have no choice but to send the IDF in for an incursion into the Palestinian state for some kind of Cast Lead or Polished Copper operation in order to win a few months of quiet for the residents of Gush Dan1. The world will condemn us hysterically and the campuses will boil over with anti-Israel demonstrations and Goldstones will write reports, and tourists will stop visiting, and the economy will enter a period of recession, but Shelly Yachimovich is right in principle, it won't destroy us and won't wipe us out. We are strong enough to stand up to the crises and the bloodbaths and horrible disasters.

The question is whether we have no choice but to endure these disasters, otherwise we will die, or whether we will allow ourselves to climb out of the bunker and discuss other options and their cost without hysteria or horror stories, and even to weigh the dangers and the price of each with a clear head.

IMRA - Time to kick the Palestinian can?

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
08 March '12..




Would it be prudent for Israel to launch now the kind of unilateral initiative proposed by former Yesha Council Director Naftali Bennett or is it best to leave well enough alone?

Under Bennett’s plan, Israel would annex Area C – where Jews live – granting full citizenship to the Palestinians residing in the area while at the same time Israel would make the heavy infrastructure investment required so that Palestinians residing in the remainder of the West Bank (under a “full” autonomy subject only to security-related limitations and restrictions on the return of refugees) could enjoy complete freedom of movement within and between those areas.

What’s wrong with continuing with the status quo?

That question itself hinges on a critical assumption, namely that the status quo can be reasonably expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

Will the Palestinians be able to change the situation on the ground or will they only spin their wheels in an ongoing series of international resolutions, declarations and photo ops?

Would a second term President Obama pull all the stops to impose his vision on the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza Strip?

IMRA - Israeli Left throws rocks at Bennett from their glass houses

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
23 February '12..


“Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house”

The Israeli Left lashed out with scathing criticism of former Yesha Council Director Naftali Bennett’s proposal to create conditions on the ground in the West Bank that would make the ongoing stalemate over the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state considerably more livable and pleasant for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Under the plan, Israel would annex Area C – where Jews live – granting full citizenship to the Palestinians residing in the area while at the same time Israel would make the heavy infrastructure investment required so that Palestinians residing in the remainder of the West Bank (under a “full” autonomy subject only to security-related limitations and restrictions on the return of refugees) could enjoy complete freedom of movement within and between those areas.

There are certainly substantive questions and concerns that can be raised about the plan, but when people associated with Oslo, the Geneva Initiative and Peace Now trash the idea on the grounds that it is out of touch with reality one can only respond: “look who’s talking”.

These folks can repeat their mantra about a sovereign Palestinian state somehow being the key to achieving peace and assuring Israel’s future security but the repetition doesn’t make that assertion anything more than the ideologically blinded fantasy that it is.

The overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews don’t buy their mantra.

Wolfe - Settlements Are the Issue

Robert Wolfe
New English Review
(August 2011)
H/T Rick Richman

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/93385/sec_id/93385

You often hear defenders of the Netanyahu government say, in opposition to demands for a settlement freeze, “Settlements are not the issue. The issue is the Palestinian refusal to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.” The unspoken subtext behind this argument is that if only the Palestinians would accept the existence of Israel, the issue of the settlements could easily be resolved, with Israel retaining some and abandoning others. And it is certainly true that the Palestinians have never accepted the existence of Israel and have always found one pretext or another to avoid a peaceful resolution of the conflict, but even if the Palestinians would formally accept the Jewish state, it is far from clear that a compromise on the question of settlements is either possible or desirable.

In the first place, although some Palestinian negotiators have given the impression that they would accept Israeli retention of the large settlement blocs in return for the surrender of some Israeli territory elsewhere, the official Palestinian and Arab position has remained that Israel must withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, which are invariably referred to as the “1967 borders.” When the Palestinians ask individual countries to declare their support for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, the boundaries of that state are always described as the “1967 borders.” All this creates the impression that one of the main reasons why the Palestinians are not interested in a negotiated settlement is precisely because they are not willing to accept the existence of any Israeli settlements, whether big or small, beyond the 1949 armistice lines. This impression is further reinforced by the repeated statements by Abbas and other Palestinian leaders that they do not intend to accept the presence of even one single Jew within the territory of their new Palestinian state.

In the second place, even if the Palestinians were willing to accept some Israeli settlements while insisting that others be dismantled, Israeli agreement to this demand would not in fact represent a compromise but rather a capitulation to Palestinian antisemitism. In return for voluntarily evicting tens of thousands of Jews from their homes, with all the attendant strife and dislocation which such a step would engender within Israeli society, Israel would receive nothing in return save a meaningless promise of future peaceful intentions. A genuine compromise on the issue of the settlements would see some placed under Israeli sovereignty and some under Palestinian sovereignty, but no one thinks in these terms because everyone knows that the Palestinians would immediately move to attack any Jewish settlements placed under their authority. While the supporters of the Palestinians rave and rant against Israel as an “apartheid state,” the Palestinians themselves loudly proclaim their refusal to permit any Jews to live under their rule. And this stance is not unique to the Palestinians but is true of the entire Arab world, where hardly any Jews now remain from what were once large communities dating back literally thousands of years.

IMRA - Annexation – No Free Lunch

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
21 July '11

Given the choice between the existential threat that a sovereign Palestinian state constitutes and the challenges the Jewish state will no doubt face should it annex Judea and Samaria, annexation is most definitely the preferable option.

Annexation is anything but a theoretical option.

The Palestinian leadership itself (including PA PM Fayyad) is on record accepting Israeli annexation as a substitute for a Palestinian state. Interestingly, he mentions the annexation option without even requiring Israel to throw in the right of return of refugees into the package.

Annexation is hardly a free lunch for Israel.

Because the only way that Israel can pull it off is if the Arabs now residing in Judea and Samaria are offered the opportunity to take Israeli citizenship and vote in Israel’s elections – as was the case for the residents of the Golan and eastern Jerusalem.

Sure, all kinds of ideas have been thrown around by some annexation proponents for ways to either prevent these Arabs from getting citizenship or voting schemes to limit their say via gerrymandering.

But all these schemes have the same basic problem: the only way the international community will accept this move is if there is a simple and transparent arrangement for the annexed Arabs to become Israeli citizens.

Anything short of that would guarantee Israel a nightmare of international condemnation, pressure and sanctions.

The morning after?

The only thing preventing an Arab from Nablus from moving to Haifa would be real estate prices.

UNWRA would close down operations in Judea and Samaria since the “refugees” would no longer be “refugees”.

Israel would face a tremendous budget challenge as it struggles to put together a plan to bring municipal and other services as well as infrastructure in Judea and Samaria up to national levels.

On the flip side, the flood of worker from Judea and Samaria would help make it possible to slash back on foreign workers in the country.

Again, annexation is not a free lunch.

But given the choice between living with annexation and the existential threat of a sovereign Palestinian state I choose life.

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.
.

Glick - Israel's only two options

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
18 July '11

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/07/israels-only-two-options.php



Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is in Europe this week seeking to convince the Spanish and Norwegian governments to support the Palestinian bid to sidestep negotiations with Israel and have the UN General Assembly recognize Palestinian sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in addition to Gaza.

The Palestinians know that without US support, their initiative will fail to gain Security Council support and therefore have no legal weight. But they believe that if they push hard enough, Israel's control over these areas will eventually unravel and they will gain control over them without ever accepting Israel's right to exist.

Fatah's UN gambit, along with its unity deal with Hamas, makes clear that the time has come for Israel to finally face the facts: There are only two realistic options for dealing with Judea and Samaria.

Either the Palestinians will take control of Judea and Samaria, or Israel will annex them.

If the Palestinians take control, they will establish a terror state in the areas, which - like their terror state in Gaza - will use its territory as a starting point for continued war against Israel.

It isn't only Israel's experience with post-withdrawal Gaza and South Lebanon that make it clear that a post-withdrawal Palestinian-controlled Judea and Samaria will become a terror state. The Palestinians themselves make no bones about this.

In a Palestinian public opinion survey released last week by The Israel Project, 65 percent of Palestinians said they believe that they should conduct negotiations with Israel. But before we get excited, we need to read the fine print.

According to the survey, those two-thirds of Palestinians believe that talks should not lead to the establishment of the State of Palestine next to Israel and at peace with the Jewish state. They believe the establishment of "Palestine" next to Israel should serve as a means for continuing their war against Israel. The goal of that war is to destroy what's left of Israel after the "peace" treaty and gobble it into "Palestine."

That is, 66% of Palestinians believe "peace" talks with Israel should be conducted in bad faith.

Moreover, three-quarters deny Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and 80% support Islamic jihad against Jews as called for in the Hamas charter; 73% support the annihilation of the Jewish people as called for in the Hamas charter on the basis of Islamic scripture.

As bad as Israel's experience with post-withdrawal Gaza and South Lebanon has been, Israel's prospects with a post-withdrawal Judea and Samaria will be far worse. It isn't simply that withdrawal will invite aggression from Judea and Samaria. It will invite foreign Arab armies to invade the rump Jewish state.

Unlike the post-withdrawal situation with Gaza and South Lebanon, without Judea and Samaria, Israel would not have the territorial depth and topographical advantage to defend itself from invasion from the east.

(Video) Glick - Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea and Samaria

Uploaded by securefreedom
Jul 13, 2011

Caroline Glick spoke at an event entitled, "Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea and Samaria" on June 20, 2011 in Israel. The event was produced and sponsored by Yoel Meltzer and Ted Belman of Israel Pundit. This footage provided by Paris David Blumenthal.



See also Yoel Meltzer's The Preferred Option: Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria

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.
.

The Preferred Option: Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria

Yoel Meltzer
American Thinker
29 May '11

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/the_preferred_option_israeli_s.html

Nearly every time I suggest to someone that Israel needs to declare complete sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, I am bombarded with doubts and accusations - "Are you crazy, it can't be done!" "What will the world say?", "America will not allow us", "We'll be boycotted and perhaps attacked", "We'll lose the Jewish majority in Israel", etc, etc.

Although it's true that it's a complicated issue, my initial response to the valid concerns is to temporarily change the subject. Thus, rather than addressing each point I bring up the feasibility of the current two-state solution since as they say, "the best defense is a good offense". The conversation usually goes something like this:

"After nearly twenty years of trying to reach an accord with the Arabs via all the various forms of more or less the same Oslo approach, a period that witnessed numerous Israeli "good-will gestures" as well as endless Palestinian terrorist attacks, do you honestly believe that further Israeli concessions and another Israeli retreat will actually lead to peace?" The answer is nearly always "no".

My next question is "If removing soldiers from Lebanon brought missiles to Haifa and dismantling Jewish communities in Gaza brought missiles to Beersheva, do you believe the Palestinians will act any differently if they are given a state of their own in Judea and Samaria?" Once again, the answer is nearly always "no".

My final question is "Do you believe that an Arab state in Judea and Samaria will pose a threat to the very existence of the remaining State of Israel?" Not surprisingly the answer is nearly always "yes".

At this point I usually stop the conversation to provide my "opponent" with a few moments to reflect on what was just said and to slowly digest the meaning of our brief discussion. Nearly always, these few sentences help to make it abundantly clear to my former detractor that a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria might very well lead to the eventual destruction of the State of Israel.

With this issue clarified I return to the original subject of declaring Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. I place everything on the table and openly admit to my former scoffer and now attentive listener that it is in fact a very complicated subject with many problems and issues that need to be worked out. I don't pretend for a second that it will be simple.

However, when it is clarified that we're talking about a choice between possible destruction and national suicide on the one hand or having to deal with intricate issues and difficult problems on the other hand, not surprisingly the latter suddenly becomes the preferred option.

After twenty years of Israel paying a heavy price for its failed attempts at reconciliation with the Arabs despite all its good intentions, the writing is on the wall: Israel simply cannot afford to continue going down the same path of retreat and withdrawal since eventually there will be nowhere left to run.

Yoel Meltzer is a freelance writer living in Jerusalem. His personal blog is yoelmeltzer.com

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.
.

Israel needs a plan, but it’s not what some think

Rabbi Eric Yoffie

Fresnozionism.org
29 May '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/05/israel-needs-a-plan-but-its-not-what-some-think/




Rabbi Eric Yoffie (the outgoing president of the Union for Reform Judaism) writes about a discussion he’s had with his Israeli friend ‘Shmuel’:

Shmuel, echoing Netanyahu, told me again that the Palestinians are responsible for the absence of peace. I responded, as I have before, that he is absolutely right. The leaders of Israel, at different times, have offered terms that any sane Palestinian leader should have enthusiastically embraced. This happened in 2000 and again in 2008. But the Palestinians have never had the courage to do what needs to be done. And, with Hamas in their coalition, it is hard to believe that this will change.


I then asked Shmuel, as I have a thousand times before: What happens now? Yes, I tell him, you are right. The Palestinians are at fault, but so what? A UN resolution will pass at the General Assembly in September, recognizing a Palestinian state. Israel’s international position is deteriorating. Economic sanctions might follow. And worse yet, elements of Palestinian leadership are already proposing a one-state solution—a single Jewish/Arab state in Palestine, with equal rights for all. If the proposal is accepted, Jews will become a minority in the new state; if it is rejected, Israel will be portrayed to the world as an apartheid state.


So, I ask, what is the plan? Even if we are completely right and the Palestinians are completely wrong, what do we do now to head off these very real dangers?

I disagree with some of Yoffie’s formulations — it isn’t “courage” the Palestinians have lacked, it’s desire — but I agree that Israel needs a plan. So what kind of plan will it be? Yoffie doesn’t say precisely:

These conversations always end the same way. Shmuel and I both love Israel and believe that the Palestinian rejection of the Jewish state is the heart of the problem. But he stubbornly refuses to see that current realities in the real world require Israel to make some tough choices, and even though he is not a very religious man, he prefers to leave things in the hands of God. As for me, I believe that the outlook at the moment is rather grim, that continuing on the current course will lead to disaster, and that what Israel needs right now is a plan.

Yoffie is on the left side of the ideological spectrum, so I can guess that the “tough choices” that would comprise his plan would involve further Israeli concessions to the Palestinians in order to preempt the diplomatic attack planned for September.

This is the position we invariably hear from the moderate Left — the situation is unsustainable, Israel has to ‘take risks’ — in other words, make concessions damaging to its security — to change it, otherwise bad things will happen.

Israel does have to make tough choices, but they are not in the direction that Rabbi Yoffie seems to think. Here are some undeniable facts:

- The Fatah/Hamas Palestinian Authority will not make peace on receipt of even all the post-1967 territories. The most ‘moderate’ elements in the coalition have made it clear that they will not recognize pre-1967 Israel as a Jewish state, they will press for ‘right of return’ and for ‘de-Zionization’ to ensure ‘national rights’ for the Arab population within Israel. So concessions will weaken Israel from a strategic standpoint without ending the conflict.


- Neither the Palestinians nor the European Union and anti-Israel elements in the Obama Administration will be happy with anything less than a near-complete reversal of the 1967 war. So no practical concessions will satisfy even their immediate demands.


- No Israeli concessions will have any effect on the plans of Iranian proxy Hizballah to attack Israel in the near term with its massive missile force (built up since 2006 under the nose of the same UN that is demanding Israeli withdrawal).


- No concessions will cause Hamas, soon to be supported by Egypt, to give up its plan to attack southern Israel with rockets and cross-border terrorism.


- No concessions will cause Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons.

The Arabs have a guaranteed majority in the UN General Assembly, so they will pass whatever resolutions they want to in September. Since the only concession that could satisfy them would be a massive airlift of Israel’s Jewish population to Poland, the idea of heading off the diplomatic assault by preemptively surrendering is a bad one.

So what is the plan? What are the “tough choices?”

My thought is that they should be changes in the direction of increasing security, not decreasing it. The Deputy Speaker of Israel’s Knesset, Danny Danon, suggests that the “tough choices” should include annexing parts of the post-1967 territories.

Certainly that would anger the Palestinians, the Obama Administration, and the EU. But they are already doing all they can to weaken Israel.

Keep in mind the virtual certainty of war with at least Hizballah and possibly Hamas as well within the next year. Strategic depth will be critical. The last thing Israel needs is an additional front a few miles from Tel Aviv.

Rabbi Yoffie is a Zionist, but he appears to be locked into the the ancient mode of Diaspora thinking: the Jews can get the antisemites to stop trying to kill them if they, the Jews, will just give them what they want. But what they want is no more Jews, so it really isn’t possible to solve the problem this way.

By the way, even the liberal Rabbi Yoffie is apparently too pro-Israel for the leadership of the Reform movement. They propose to replace him with someone from the other side.

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.
.

Danon: Making the Land of Israel Whole

Danny Danon
NYT Op-Ed Contributor
18 May '11





Jerusalem


OVER the past few months, analysts in Israel and abroad have warned that Israel will face what Defense Minister Ehud Barak has termed a “diplomatic tsunami.” In September, the Palestinian Authority plans to bring the recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundary to the United Nations General Assembly for a vote. The Palestinians’ request will almost certainly be approved.

While most voices in the Israeli and international news media are calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to grant major concessions to the Palestinians to forestall such a move, he should in fact do the opposite: he should annex the Jewish communities of the West Bank, or as Israelis prefer to refer to our historic heartland, Judea and Samaria.

In 1995, as part of the Oslo accords, Israel and the Palestinians agreed that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.” If the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and prime minister, Salam Fayyad, decide to disregard this section of the accords by seeking United Nations recognition of statehood, it would mean that Israel, too, is no longer bound by its contents and is freed to take unilateral action.

The first immediate implication would be that all of the diplomatic and security assistance that Israel provides to the Palestinians would be halted, and the transfer of tax revenues — upward of $1 billion per year — would end permanently. This alone could threaten the very existence of the Palestinian Authority.

Second, a United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood would give Israel an opportunity to rectify the mistake we made in 1967 by failing to annex all of the West Bank (as we did the eastern half of Jerusalem). We could then extend full Israeli jurisdiction to the Jewish communities and uninhabited lands of the West Bank. This would put an end to a legal limbo that has existed for 44 years.

In addition to its obvious ideological and symbolic significance, legalizing our hold on the West Bank would also increase the security of all Israelis by depriving terrorists of a base and creating a buffer against threats from the east. Moreover, we would be well within our rights to assert, as we did in Gaza after our disengagement in 2005, that we are no longer responsible for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, who would continue to live in their own — unannexed — towns.

These Palestinians would not have the option to become Israeli citizens, therefore averting the threat to the Jewish and democratic status of Israel by a growing Palestinian population.

While naysayers will no doubt warn us of the dire consequences and international condemnation that are sure to follow such a move by Israel, this would not be the first time that Israel has made such controversial decisions.

In 1949, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion moved the Knesset to Jerusalem and declared it the capital of the State of Israel despite the 1947 United Nations partition plan, which had designated the city an international zone. Immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol annexed East Jerusalem and declared that the city would remain a united and undivided entity. And in 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin extended Israeli sovereignty to the Golan Heights.

In each of these cases, Israel’s actions were met with harsh international criticism and threats of sanctions; all of these decisions, however, are cornerstones of today’s reality.

Our leaders made these decisions based on the realization that their actions would further Zionist values and strengthen the State of Israel. The diplomatic storms soon blew over as the international community moved on to other issues. It would be wise of Mr. Netanyahu to follow in their footsteps.

If the Palestinians decide that they want to end the Oslo agreement and begin experimenting with unilateral actions, then an unexpected opening will present itself for Israel. Our leaders must seize this opportunity and right a historic wrong by annexing parts of our homeland.

Danny Danon, a member of the Likud Party, is a deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset.


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.
.

IMRA: Israel cannot afford leaky solutions to coming tsunami

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Independent Media news Analysis
Weekly Commentary
31 March '11


Here is the narrative:

Come September the United Nations is going to decide on the unconditional establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the entire West Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.

Most nations will instantly recognize the new state and “nonviolent” Palestinian mobs (AL: in Palestinian eyes, throwing petrol bombs and heaving rocks and rebar is just as “nonviolent” as Martin Luther King marching arms linked in Selma Alabama) make their way to push out the Israeli presence from sovereign Palestine.

The ensuing Palestinian casualties will be used to justify not only international sanctions against the Jewish state but also the injection of foreign forces to protect the Palestinians and supervise the expulsion of the remaining Jews from sovereign Palestine.

Given that the narrative is being used by Israelis from the Left who are trying to stampede us into embracing their policy recommendations it is far from clear just how realistic this apocalyptic scenario is.

But even if we take the narrative at face value, the policy recommendations being offered by those embracing the narrative don’t jibe with their predictions.

If the Palestinians are going to get a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the entire West Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip with no strings attached in a few months if they sit back and do nothing then there is absolutely no offer that Israel can make today that will prevent the Palestinians from rejecting it so that they can find themselves at the UN come September, blaming Israel for be failing to negotiate in good faith and in turn being rewarded with an unconditional sovereign Palestinian state (with the blessings of a very impatient President Obama who religiously believes that a sovereign Palestinian state would miraculously insure peace while his support would earn America brownie points with the Moslem world).

By the same token, if the Israeli response to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the entire West Bank (including eastern Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip would be for Israel to unilaterally annex the settlements the reaction of the world would be to simply ignore the move with the original scenario continuing to play out.

Are we really heading towards an apocalypse in September?

Developments in the region today are so unpredictable that it is certainly possible that the Palestinian program derails before our September appointment with destiny.

But it would still be a mistake not to be prepared.

Annexing settlements is neither a serious threat nor an effective response to a sovereign Palestinian state.

In sharp contrast, annexing the entire West Bank and granting citizenship and voting rights in a unilateral “one state solution” that leaves the “refugees” (in quotation marks because unlike other “refugees” who actually resided themselves in some “homeland” a Palestinian “refugee” can be someone who never himself resided in the area but who has an ancestor who resided for some period of time in the area) outside of the state would send everyone back to their drawing boards.

That makes a unilateral Israeli “one state solution” both a serious threat that may deter the actors from proceeding to the September tsunami and a workable plan to implement in the event that it is determined that the September apocalypse is indeed proceeding.

Related articles: Follow up on the annexation solution Dr. Aaron Lerner, also Hebron First by David Wilder

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.
.

Hebron First

David Wilder
www.hebron.com
30 March '11

As the weather changes, as winter moves into spring and summer, as the meteorological temperature rises, so too, the geopolitical climate is ascending at a rapid pace.

It wasn’t too many weeks ago that rumors of Bibi’s intended US speech, declaring intentions to immediately recognize a ‘palestinian state’ within temporary borders, abounded. Commentators expected such an announcement, perhaps in the Premier’s address before Congress in May.

Then disaster struck. The Fogel butchery in Itamar seemed to throw a wrench into the mechanics of Bibi’s seemingly well-oiled machinery. Photographs of a baby stabbed in the heart and a father with his throat cut are not conducive to peace plans.

Then, again, Arab terror struck in the heart of Jerusalem, adjacent to the Central Bus station. Again, murder, targeted at the body and soul of every Jew in Israel, only because they are Jews, in Israel. It makes no difference that the one fatality was a non-Jew from England. Terror is terror is terror. Suddenly Bibi’s new ‘piece’ initiative seemed to get stuck.

Our Arab neighbors, not wanting to get pulled deep into Netanyahu’s suggested quicksand, totally rejecting any form of ‘temporary statehood,’ began pushing for a unilateral declaration of ‘palestinian statehood.’ Building upon anti-Israel sentiment in South America, several countries announced their recognition of a ‘palestinian state’ in pre-1967 Judea and Samaria, part of which is presently partially controlled by the ‘palestinian authority.’ The winds of the new ‘state’ are quickly transforming into a political tornado, picking up speed and international support. The time and place seem to be September at the United Nations, when the UN will be asked to recognize ‘palestine’ as a full-fledged member of the world community.

It must be clear without mincing any words. Nothing has changed within the Arab thought process. Abu Mazen has not repented. He still denies the Holocaust. He has not apologized for his role, planning terror attacks against Jews for decades, including his financing of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. He continues to honor terrorists. This month his advisor Sabri Saidam, exclaimed that palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel. Under his auspices, a town square in El-Birah was named in honor of terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who participated in the 1978 Coast Road massacre. The ‘palestinian authority, continuing to incite against Israel and Jews, is nothing less than a PTA – a ‘palestinian terror organization.’

This has not prevented UN secretary general Ban from castigating Israel, labeling Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria as ‘occupation,’ and ‘morally, politically, unsustainable.’

As Ban speaks, Arabs are killing Arabs in Libya and Syria, while other Arab tyrants are cranking up their killing machines in order to deflect any attempts to dethrone them. Yet, it is the ‘Israeli occupation’ that occupies the United Nations leadership.

Israeli politicians and other public figures have started reacting to the September Accords. This morning Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau, a well-known, veteran right-wing leader, suggested that Israel annex parts of Judea and Samaria in reaction to declaration of a ‘palestinian state.’ Landau isn’t the first to make such a declaration. However, Landau’s solution is partial and lacking, in that he proclaimed that the ‘large settlement blocks within the national consensus’ should be made part of sovereign Israel.

And so I ask, what about Hebron?

Actually, there is no doubt in my mind that all of Judea and Samaria are part of Israel, and as such, should be officially annexed. However, if the state of Israel, for whatever reason, prefers to establish an annexation process, declaring statehood in Judea and Samaria little by little, what better a place to begin than Hebron?!

Recently Education minister Saar announced that all Israeli schoolchildren should and would visit Hebron and Ma’arat HaMachpela. In a survey conducted amongst high school teachers, over seventy eight percent supported this decision. As reported on Kol Yisrael radio on March 21, the head of the teacher’s union, Ron Erez, commented that “this result proves that educators are not only teaching with an aim of achievement, rather they are also looking at the roots of our state, our education, and deepening those roots, bond them to Eretz Yisrael.”

David began his rule in Hebron, and remained here for over seven years, thereby immersing himself, not as an individual, but as King of Israel, in the sanctity of our Patriarchs and Matriarchs, prior to moving up to Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel. Following in the footsteps of David, it would seem natural that still today, Hebron is the place to start.

Jewish Hebron is, in the eyes of the world, a seeming question mark. How can Israel dare allow Jews to live in the first Jewish city in Israel? Hebron is, in their opinion, the epitome of Israeli intransigence and foreign occupation.

The time has come to put an end to any such question marks. Hebron, the roots of our people, is, always was, and always will be, a Jewish, Israeli city. The fact that Arabs too live here, so what! That cannot and does not erase the core significance of Hebron, throughout the generations, to the Jewish people.

For seven hundred years Jews were forcibly prevented from accessing building atop the caves of Machpela, the 2nd holiest site in the world. Yet Jews did not forget their roots, yearning for the day when they could return to visit, worship and identify at this sacred monument.

As such, nothing could be more fitting than a declaration of “Hebron First.” On the day that the UN declares acceptance of a ‘palestinian state’ the Knesset should vote to extend full Israeli sovereignty on the city of Hebron, again declaring the Jewish people’s allegiance to our age-old heritage. This historic event will open the eyes of the world-at-large, proving to them that we, the Jewish people in the State of Israel, will never, ever, abandon our ancient homeland.

And they will know: Hebron First is only the beginning.

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.
.