Question - Does sovereignty matter? by Jerold S. Auerbach

Israel’s unyielding attachment to its ancient Jewish homeland is the affirmation, not the negation, of Zionism.

Jerold S. Auerbach..
JNS.org..
05 August '20..

At the moment, the inflammatory issue of the extension of Israeli sovereignty over settlements in biblical Judea and Samaria is on hold. With both U.S. President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu engaged in struggles over their political futures, they have little time for distractions. But this may be a good time to assess the widely touted importance of sovereignty.

The underlying issue is the right of Jews to inhabit their biblical homeland. Undeniably, it is for the government of Israel, not settlers, to determine the boundaries of the Jewish state. But there is a competing claim: Jews cannot be considered “occupiers” of their own homeland. Their historical and religious claims are underscored by international agreements stretching back to the Balfour Declaration (1917), calling for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

The boundaries of “Palestine” were defined following World War I. The League of Nations Mandate granted Jews the right of “close settlement” throughout “Palestine,” geographically defined as the land east and west of the Jordan River. But Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill gifted the land east of the river to Hashemite Sheik Abdullah, who established the Kingdom of Jordan.

After the Six-Day War in 1967, U.N. Resolution 242 provided that following “a just and lasting peace” between Israel and its Arab neighbors Israel would be required to withdraw its military forces from “territories”—not from “the territories” or “all the territories” west of the Jordan River. The right of the Jewish people to “close settlement” west of the River (including biblical Judea and Samaria) has never been rescinded. But the core question—how much of their biblical homeland will be theirs—remains unanswered.

(Continue to Full Column)

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of “Print to Fit: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel 1896-2016,” which was recently selected for Mosaic by Ruth Wisse and Martin Kramer as a “Best Book” for 2019.

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.

Independent national security policy, the Ben-Gurion legacy - by Yoram Ettinger

While David Ben-Gurion’s defiance caused occasional short-term tension, which undermined Israel’s popularity, he earned long-term respect for himself and for his country.

Yoram Ettinger..
JNS.org..
30 July '20..

The legacy of Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, contradicts conventional wisdom. It rejects the assumption that a White House “green light” is a prerequisite for the application of Israeli law to the Jordan Valley and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria.

Ben-Gurion’s May 14, 1948, Declaration of Independence was not preconditioned upon a “green light” from President Truman. Ben-Gurion demonstrated independence of national security action in defiance of the U.S. State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Furthermore, President Truman was irresolute until the day of the declaration, while the U.S. Mission to the United Nations was preoccupied with rounding up votes for a U.N. Trusteeship in Palestine (instead of an independent Jewish state).

Moreover, Ben-Gurion applied Israeli law to areas in the Galilee, coastal plain, the Negev and Jerusalem—which were acquired during Israel’s War of Independence, expanding Israel’s land by 30 percent—in defiance of a glaring “red light” from the White House and the entire foreign policy and national security establishment in Washington, D.C.

According to James McDonald, the first U.S. Ambassador to Israel: “[Ben-Gurion] warned President Truman and the US Department of State that they would be gravely mistaken if they assumed that the threat, or even the use of sanctions, would force Israel to yield on issues considered vital to its independence and security…. Much as Israel desired friendship with the US, there were limits beyond which it could not go. Israel could not yield at any point which, in its judgement, would threaten its independence or its security. The very fact that Israel was a small state made more necessary the scrupulous defense of its own interests; otherwise, it would be lost”

(Continue to Full Column)

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. 

FP's Faux Pas on Boycotts, Israel, and 'Annexation' - by Sean Durns

Foreign Policy claims to “draw on the world’s leading journalists, thinkers, and professionals” in order to “analyze the most significant international trends and events of our times, without regard to ideology or political bias.” That, however, is up for debate.

Sean Durns..
CAMERA..
24 July '20..

Foreign Policy claims that its mission is “to explain how the world works.” But when it comes to Israel, the magazine frequently allows misleading commentary. Take, for example, several recent op-eds on “annexation.”

For several weeks it seemed that—in keeping with the parameters of a peace plan that Israelis accepted and Palestinians rejected—Israel would apply legal sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank, and the Jordan Valley. Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that such a move would occur by July 1, 2020. It never did. But this hasn’t stopped numerous media outlets from inaccurately reporting on the possibility.

Indeed, publications like Foreign Policy have repeatedly referred to the application of sovereignty as “annexation.” But this is inaccurate.

As the international law scholar Eugene Kontorovich has noted: “Annexation in international law specifically means taking the territory of a foreign sovereign country.” And neither the Jordan Valley nor the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) belongs to a “foreign sovereign country.” Further, as Dore Gold, Israel’s former Ambassador to the U.N., has highlighted: one can’t “annex territory that has already been designated as yours.” The League of Nations Palestine Mandate, adopted later by the United Nations, calls for “close Jewish settlement on the land” west of the Jordan River in Article 6. The UN Charter, Chapter XII, Article 80, upholds the Mandate’s provisions. The 1920 San Remo Resolution and the 1924 Anglo-American Convention also enshrined Jewish territorial claims into international law.

Unsurprisingly, this historical and legal context has been omitted in numerous media reports, including those by Foreign Policy. Instead the magazine has run several op-eds that misinform as much as they omit.

(Continue to Full Post)

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.  

Judea and Samaria: The Historical and Legal Milestones that Make the Case - by Amb. Alan Baker

Israel’s claims to sovereignty regarding the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel’s rights are based on the indigenous and historical claims of the Jewish people in the area as a whole, virtually from time immemorial.

Amb. Alan Baker..
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs..
13 July '20..
Link: https://jcpa.org/sovereignty-in-the-west-bank-areas-of-judea-and-samaria-historical-and-legal-milestones-that-make-the-case/

The subject of the rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel under international law, in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria, involves a complex and extensive web of historical, legal, military, and political issues.

The Jewish People Have Historical Claims in Judea and Samaria

Israel’s claims to sovereignty regarding the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.

Israel’s rights are based on the indigenous and historical claims of the Jewish people in the area as a whole, virtually from time immemorial.

Israel’s international legal rights were acknowledged in 1917 by the Balfour Declaration’s promise to the Jews to reestablish their historical national home in Palestine. These rights are based on clear historical, archeological, and Biblical evidence.

The Balfour Declaration was subsequently recognized internationally and encapsulated into international law through a series of international instruments commencing with the 1920 San Remo Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, followed by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

The continued validity of these foundational legal rights was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Question. What do U.S. Jews really think about annexation? - by Stephen M. Flatow

The only way to know is to poll the Jewish population. But the answers may come as a surprise.

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
06 July '20..

What, exactly do American Jews think about the possibility of reuniting small parts of Judea and Samaria with the rest of Israel?

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, says he knows. Writing in Haaretz this week, he declared: “American Jews are not happy.” Note he didn’t say “some” or even “many.” Rather, “American Jews”—all of them, apparently— are “not happy” about any possible annexation.

According to Yoffie, all American Jews are “shocked,” “panicked,” “puzzled,” “confused,” and “above all, angry” at what he calls “the monumental stupidity” of extending Israeli law to even the smallest part of the areas that have been at the center of the Jewish national homeland for more than 3,000 years.

Not that he is alone in his assumptions. Former U.S. Mideast envoy Martin Indyk, who has spent much of his life trying to create a Palestinian state in Israel’s backyard, recently claimed on Twitter that there is a “Diaspora Revolt” against annexation.

And presumably as one manifestation of that “Revolt,” 36 Conservative rabbinical students recently signed a statement denouncing any such Israeli actions.

I’m not surprised that some Conservative rabbinical students lean far to the left when it comes to Israeli issues. So do many Reform and Reconstructionist rabbinical students. That’s not news; it reflects long-standing ideological trends in those movement’s educational institutions.

And it’s surely no surprise that former ambassador Indyk, a professional crusader for Palestinian statehood, conjures up imaginary “revolts” to advance his agenda.

Yoffie himself, however, is a little more complicated.

As president of the Reform movement (then known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations), Yoffie stood up in front of the delegates to its national convention, in Cleveland, on June 3, 2001, and named the real obstacle to peace.

(Continue to Full Column)

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.  

Divorced from both the Israeli track record and Middle East reality - by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

The suggestion that the application of the Israeli law to the Jordan valley and parts of Judea and Samaria would severely undermine Israeli interests, jeopardize Israel’s peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt and Israel’s overall ties with Arab countries, is divorced from the Israeli track record and Middle East reality.

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger..
The Ettinger Report/Mida Magazine
https://bit.ly/2Z4nFW1..
03 July '20..

Israel’s track record

The resurgence of the Jewish State from the ashes of WW2 to global prominence, technologically, scientifically, medically, agriculturally, economically, diplomatically and militarily – despite systematic adverse global pressure and Arab wars and terrorism – has demonstrated that there are no free lunches for independent nations, especially in the Middle East.

For example, in 1948, Prime Minister Ben Gurion, Israel’s Founding Father, did no wait for a green light from the White House, in order to declare independence. He was aware that a declaration of independence would trigger a costly Arab military invasion. The CIA estimated that it could subject the Jewish people to “a second holocaust.” However, Ben Gurion concluded that achieving a supreme goal was preconditioned upon the willingness to pay a supreme cost. Indeed, the war against the Arab invasion consumed 1% (6,000) of the Jewish population (600,000). Fending off the Arab invasion, Israel expanded its borders by 30%, and did not retreat to the suicidal 1947 lines, despite brutal global (including US) pressure. The pressure on Israel dissipated, but Israel’s buttressed borders were preserved.

In 1967, Prime Minister Eshkol preempted a planned Egypt-Syria-Jordan joint offensive, in defiance of a strong red light from the White House (“Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone”), and despite prominent Israelis who preferred the venue of negotiation and mediation, and predicted a resounding Israeli defeat on the battlefield. Eshkol was aware that Israel’s existence, in the violently intolerant and unpredictable Middle East, required a firm posture of deterrence, which could entail heavy cost. In the aftermath of the war, Eshkol reunited Jerusalem and renewed Jewish presence beyond the 1949/67 indefensible Green Line, in spite of a very heavy US and global pressure. Consequently, while the pressure on Israel has subsided, the Jewish presence in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem has surged to 700,000 people.

In June 1981, Prime Minister Begin ordered the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, notwithstanding the menacing red light from the White House and the opposition by the Mossad, the IDF Intelligence and additional Israeli defense authorities. The naysayers were certain that an Israeli attack had a very slim chance of success. They feared that this would trigger a global Islamic assault on Israel; it would produce a European boycott of Israel; would create an irreparable rift with the USA; and would doom Israel, economically and diplomatically. Begin decided that sparing Israel a traumatic nuclear assault justified even a traumatic cost. However, the pessimistic assessments crashed against the rocks of reality, while the Iraqi nuclear threat (to the region and the globe) was uprooted.

In December 1981, Begin applied Israeli law to the Golan Heights, disregarding the brutal US opposition, which included the suspension of a major US-Israel strategic accord and the supply of advanced military systems. While the heavy US sanctions were replaced by an unprecedented US-Israel strategic cooperation, the Golan Heights have become an integral part of the Jewish State.

The aforementioned Israeli Prime Ministers defied international pressure, and therefore were burdened with a short-term loss of global popularity. However, they earned long-term respect for their willingness to defy the odds at severe cost.

They realized that succumbing to pressure yields additional, and heavier, pressure.

Correcting 8 Myths and Misnomers about Sovereignty Assertion - by David M. Weinberg

Critics say attaining sovereignty will undermine the peace process and ruin Israel’s reputation abroad, but these myths do not hold up to scrutiny.

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
03 July '20..
Link: https://davidmweinberg.com/2020/07/03/myths-about-sovereignty-assertion/

According to critics, application of Israeli law to security and settlement zones in Judea and Samaria will ruin everything. It will undermine the “peace process” (as if there was one), and wreck Israel’s international reputation (as if everybody loved Israel nowadays).

These myths do not stand up to scrutiny.

Myth 1: “Annexation” would be a violation of international law.

Fact: “International law” is a malleable concept, and neither the Government of Israel nor the Supreme Court of Israel ever have accepted the view that Jewish settlement over the Green Line is a violation of international law. Nor can Israel’s assertion of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria be considered “annexation” because the land never “belonged” to the Palestinians. The “Pompeo Declaration” and the “Trump Plan” explicitly accept the historical right of the Jewish People to settle in their Biblical homeland (and consequently the US government already has recognized Israeli sovereignty over united Jerusalem and the Golan Heights).

Myth 2: Israel risks ultimate global isolation by asserting sovereignty over any part of the West Bank.

Fact: The threat that the “diplomatic sky will fall” if Israel annexes is akin to the panic once caused by the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. But the menace of BDS was deliberately overstated and wildly overestimated; an artificial threat magnified a thousand times by media repetition. Now too, the specter of Israel’s ostracism is exaggerated, and in any case, Israel could manage most degrees of negative blowback.

Myth 3: Sovereignty assertion will jeopardize the progress that Israel has made in ties with the Arab and Moslem world.

Fact: In the immediate term, it may slow these developing relations. But in the longer term, which is what counts, the forces that are driving Israel and Gulf states together will prevail. These are the threats from Iran and radical Islam, alongside a desire to advance into the 21st century (and benefit from Israeli technological advances) without being endlessly tied down by the self-immolating Palestinian national movement.

Myth 4: Reckless Israeli action will lead to a Palestinian uprising and regional conflagration, and this will distract Israel (and America) from more pressing threats.

Fact: Most experts do not see a “third intifada” (Palestinian wave of terror) developing, nor do they see the Moslem world rallying to the Palestinian Authority’s side beyond the usual, ritual murmurings of support. The exceptions to this rule are Turkey and Iran, which continue to stoke Palestinian-Israeli conflict with money and weapons. Israel will not be distracted from its laser-fine focus on confronting these bad actors.

If sovereignty is applied ‎to the Jordan Valley, it can serve as an anchor for change - by Nadav Shragai

Little has changed since the first valley communities were founded in 1967, despite the broad ‎consensus among the Israeli public that the valley is ours. ‎

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
03 July '20..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/its-time-to-settle-into-the-jordan-valley/

Whether Israel applies sovereignty to the Jordan Valley or not, the reality of Israel's population there ‎must be rectified, and urgently. The residents of the Jordan Valley, who have turned an arid, hot land ‎into a modern agricultural powerhouse, planted with tens of thousands of acres of date groves, table ‎grapes, vegetables, fruit, and herbs that are exported as far abroad as Europe, will testify to that. But ‎the enormous area of the Jordan Valley Regional Council – 860,000 dunams (332 square miles) – is still ‎sparsely populated by only 6,000 people spread over the 21 communities established since 1967.

There is a big difference between the ever-so-lofty declarations made throughout the years about this ‎strip of land's importance to Israel's national security and the minimal settlement there. Even a ‎declaration of sovereignty, important as it would be, will have a hard time overcoming that ‎discrepancy. When it comes to the Jordan Valley, Israel has emphasized open spaces and territory, but ‎neglected mass settlement. ‎

While regional councils in Judea and Samaria, some of which are 20 to 30 times smaller than the Jordan ‎Valley, boast populations of over 50,000, the Jordan Valley is at a standstill. The dream of Raanan Weitz ‎and Yigal Allon, who envisioned the area as home to 50 communities and a population of over 50,000, ‎has never come to fruition. Various Labor governments were satisfied with anchoring some 100,000 ‎dunams (39 square miles) for farming, whereas the Likud failed to make the local council Ma'ale ‎Efrayim into the capital of the valley. Instead of developing into a city of tens of thousands, only 1,400 ‎people currently call Ma'ale Efrayim home. No cities like Maaleh Adumim or Ariel, or even nearby Beit ‎Shean – where 20,000 people live in a similar climate – have arisen in the valley. ‎

All this has resulted in doubt and hesitation. Where there is no mass settlement, the future is ‎uncertain. In contrast, it's clear to everyone the settlement blocs in the greater Jerusalem area – Gush ‎Etzion, western Samaria, and Ariel – will sooner or later be under Israeli sovereignty and officially ‎become part of the State of Israel. ‎

The Illusion of Peace and Palestinian Intransigence: Enough is Enough - by Ardie Geldman

Why would the leader of the Palestinian people declare all agreements with the State of Israel null and void and, even more incredibly, forfeit the opportunity after half a century to establish a viable Palestinian state bolstered by $50 billion and significant amounts of additional support from nations around the world?

Ardie Geldman..
American Thinker..
30 June '20..
Link:https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/06/palestinian_intransigence_and_the_illusion_of_peace_enough_is_enough_.html

On Jan. 28, 2020, the long-awaited Trump Administration’s “Deal of the Century,” officially titled “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People,” was made public. The proposal aspires to reach the goal within its title after unfreezing and advancing negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The aim is to end a conflict as old as the State of Israel, and in some ways older. The plan entails Israel replacing the present military law with its system of civil law in the still non-sovereign territory that Israel captured from the Jordanians and has administered since June 1967. The change would directly affect the lives of the estimated nearly 400,000 Israeli citizens who reside in this area.

The plan allows Israel to execute this change only after July 1st and on no more than what constitutes 30 percent of the West Bank, or biblical Judea and Samaria. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently acknowledged in a meeting with the elected heads of a number of Jewish towns from these areas that the initial application of Israeli civil law would apply to only about 3% of the territory that constitutes 132 Jewish communities recognized by the state. The remaining 27%, essentially the Jordan valley, would undergo the transition pending further negotiations with the Trump administration.

The plan also envisions a sovereign State of Palestine on the remaining 70 percent of this land, plus a small area of the western Negev Desert that is currently within the borders of Israel. But the Palestinians stand to gain not only land. The economic section of the plan that was rolled out at a multi-national workshop held in Manama, Bahrain, June 25-26, 2019, sets as an objective the establishment of a $50 billion international investment fund for 179 infrastructure and business projects within the nascent Palestinian state. However, a sovereign Palestine with a national capital just beyond the border of East Jerusalem would receive recognition by the United States and Israel only if after four years from its acceptance of the plan the Palestinian Authority succeeds in meeting a number of criteria.

These criteria prohibit the Palestinian Authority from engaging or supporting, even indirectly, any belligerent behavior towards the State of Israel and its citizens, be it military, legal, economic or through the use of propaganda or incitement. This state in the making would have to (1) officially recognize Israel as a Jewish state, (2) cease all territorial claims against Israel, (3) disarm the terrorist organizations Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the former of which governs Gaza, and who are both operative in territory under the control of the Palestinian Authority, (4) accept demilitarized status, i.e., it would not maintain any armed force other than a security apparatus necessary to uphold internal safety and order, and (5) cease the infamous Pay-to-Slay program of financial support provided to the families of deceased Palestinian terrorists and those serving time in Israeli prisons.

The great hokum of Israeli annexation - by Alex Traiman

The Jewish state is not about to march across any border or claim even an inch of new territory. To the contrary, its footprint in Judea and Samaria will remain exactly the same.

Alex Traiman..
JNS.org..
23 June '20..

For the last several weeks, habitual critics of Israeli policies, dubious self-described Israel supporters and even some longtime friends have come out against Israeli plans to “annex” parts of the West Bank.

Here are their arguments: The Palestinian Authority will collapse; Israel will effectively kill the two-state solution and eventually become a minority within its own binational state; the peace treaty with Jordan will be rescinded; normalization with Arab Gulf states will halt; European nations will apply sanctions on Israel; Democrats will distance themselves even further; and the Trump administration will be angered.

Sounds pretty bad. As David Horovitz of The Times of Israel summarized, such a move “not only damages the way we are perceived around the world, it remakes the way we present and see ourselves.”

The statement is reminiscent of the infamous argument of inferiority made by 10 of the 12 Jewish spies who gave a negative report to Moses and the Jewish people, just as the young nation was getting set to enter the Promised Land for the first time: “ … We were like grasshoppers in our eyes, and so we were in their eyes.” That report, which commentators consider a fundamental Jewish error, led to the Israelites having to wander the desert for 40 years. And the date of the spies’ report — the ninth day of Jewish calendar month of Av, Tisha B’Av—has been a day of Jewish mourning for centuries.

In rehashing the same unfounded biblical fears, what is clear is that modern critics are hyper-concerned with the optics of an Israeli administrative move, despite the simple fact that Israel’s action would not change any facts on the ground.

Changing status, applying Israeli law

Many of today’s critics specifically call Israel’s upcoming move an “annexation” because the politically charged term falsely implies that Israel will be marching across a line and taking over property it has no rights to and does not currently control. Yet what Israel is about to do is alter its own governing structure and formally apply Israeli law to the 400,000 Jewish citizens who already live in the strategic lands the Jewish state has controlled for decades.

(Continue to Full Column)

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. 

Envisioning how Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria would work on a practical level - by Samuel H. Solomon

Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, and cooperation with hamulot, is the best, most viable and least risky approach. It is certainly worth considering.

Samuel H. Solomon..
JNS.org..
22 June '20..

As I speak with well-intentioned and informed supporters of Israel, I often hear of their difficulty in envisioning how Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria would work on a practical level. Behind this comment is really the question of what will become of the Arabs living there. It has become a core issue of debate, as the Israeli government grapples with even limited application of Israeli law to the area, as part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan.

The concern is completely understandable. In spite of Israel’s historic, legal and security rights to Judea and Samaria as the heartland of the Jewish people and state, fears of a demographic onslaught, international judgement and Western discomfort—and even denial of the reality of Middle Eastern culture, corruption and violence—create heightened worry about any movement towards Israeli sovereignty, including within the areas of current Israeli settlement where few Arabs reside today.

However, the lack of sovereignty creates numerous debilitating consequences for Jewish Israelis living in Judea and Samaria in towns and villages built by successive Israeli governments as part of official policy. They are, in many respects, second-class citizens in comparison to their counterparts inside the “Green Line,” the border determined in the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors after the 1948 War of Independence.

This is clearly untenable.

How, then, will sovereignty work, and why is it superior—regardless of international preference and pressure on Israel—to a so-called “two-state solution”?

To answer the question, one first must assess the risks and returns for each approach in the broader context of the Middle East. Doing so is better than relying on “belief”—as it is usually articulated—in a two-state solution. Indeed, no course of action should be based on blind faith, particularly when pertaining to decisions that involve severe strategic consequences in the event of failure.

(Continue to Full Column)

Samuel H. Solomon is the Chairman of Hetz.org and may be reached at sam@arizal.biz. A more detailed analysis may be found at: https://tinyurl.com/yaedddkd and https://tinyurl.com/ycphwc9l

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. 

Are You Confused about Sovereignty? Here’s a FAQ for You - by R. Uri Pilichowski

The irony is that for the first time a feasible plan for the establishment of Palestinian state exists and it’s Palestinian advocates that are laughing it off. Palestinian advocates admitting that Palestinians can’t manage a functioning state speaks volumes about the true nature of current Palestinian culture.

R. Uri Pilichowski..
TOI Blog..
15 June '20..

I’ve spent the last three weeks living Israel’s plan to extend sovereignty to the Jewish areas of Judea and Samaria (what the world calls “Annexing the West Bank”) and have given media interviews, participated in debates, and spoken to some of the key people involved on all sides. I’m not the world’s expert on this issue, but I’d say I’ve reached expert level. Although I’m a strong advocate for Israel extending sovereignty as soon as they can, in this FAQ I’m going to wear my educator’s hat (it’s how I make my living and the call I answer to) and commit to present each side fairly and stick to the facts. I’ll only inject my opinion when I think the facts present themselves incorrectly. Important to note, I am only addressing Israel’s plans for this summer, I am not addressing the entire Trump plan.

1) What is Israel planning to do on July 1st?

The plan – as it is currently understood – is for Israel to extend sovereignty or annex 30% of Judea and Samaria (The West Bank). This area covers mostly areas where Jews live or the areas geographically closest to their towns (settlements). This part of the plan is supposed to be just one stage of multiple stages of the “Trump Peace Plan.” It is uncertain if Israel will initiate the plan on July 1st. There are rumors that Israel might only extend sovereignty to smaller, more limited territories of Judea and Samaria, or extend sovereignty in stages. As these are rumors, it isn’t worth examining each media report. For the rest of the document I will simply use the term, “Israel’s planned actions.”

2) How did Israel’s plan come about?

While there’s a lot of history that led to this point, in April and then again in September 2019 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his intention to extend Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley. In January 2020 President Trump released his Peace Plan which said that America would support Israel extending its sovereignty to 30% of Judea and Samaria as long as it agreed to meet certain conditions. Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to the conditions immediately and after forming a government in April 2020, announced that he planned on implementing the plan on July 1st, 2020.

(Continue to Full Post)

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.  

‘Annexation’ and moral double standards at the Financial Times - by Adam Levick

...the editorial’s failure to hold Palestinians and their leaders responsible for behavior an decisions that are inimical to peace and co-existence, whilst focusing almost entirely on Israel, represents a pattern of bias and moral double standards that continues to compromise their coverage of the region.

Adam Levick..
CAMERA UK..
14 June '20..

An official Financial Times editorial (FT View: World should not be silent on Israeli annexation, June 11) begins thusly:

Nine years ago, Ehud Barak, then Israel’s defence minister, warned that the Jewish state faced a “diplomatic tsunami” if it did not come up with an initiative to move the Arab-Israeli peace process forward.

It’s telling that editors decided to start the peace clock nine years ago, in 2011, as it allowed them to omit Mahmoud Abbbas’s rejection three years earlier of Ehud Olmert’s peace offer – a plan which would have given them a state in nearly all the West Bank, all of Gaza and a capital in east Jerusalem.

Indeed, characteristically, in their 658 word editorial there were only eight words (part of a longer, unrelated sentence) critical of PA leaders, asserting vaguely that Palestinians are “poorly served by their leaders”.

The Financial Times editorial further argued that on “Benjamin Netanyahu’s 11-year watch”, he has “successfully buried mainstream Israeli debate about the concept of land for peace“, a grossly misleading – and confusing – claim. It’s confusing because it’s less than clear how, in their view, Israel’s prime minister “buried” debate about “land for peace”, a strategy, they argue, “that has all but destroyed Palestinian hopes of a two-state solution”.

But, even just taking the words at face value, editors clearly don’t understand Israeli society.

Though the importance of the two-states debate amongst most of Israelis has indeed ebbed significantly over the years, it has little to do with the government’s decisions – and in fact, the Israeli media remains as free and confrontational as ever.

(Continue to Full Post)

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. 

The Unseen Opportunity: Reconciliation and National Consensus - by Nadav Shragai

National consensus is as important as sovereignty itself. If we can get past the 53-year-long dispute that has torn us apart, we can redirect our energies to the serious domestic issues that require our attention.

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
12 June '20..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/06/12/the-unseen-opportunity/

Like two boxers who keep pummeling each other after the bell, the Right and Left are keeping up the debate over sovereignty because of their existing ritual rivalry without seeing that something fundamental has changed. The true, critical, and narrow window of opportunity that history is opening for us is not just the rare American backing for Israeli sovereignty in 30% of Judea and Samaria, but the one that allows us, for the first time, to reach a consensus amongst ourselves on an issue that has torn us apart for 53 years.

The tragedy is that the sides debating the future of the "territories" are so invested in what they have been doing for the last 50 years – fighting their political rivals until they bleed – that they can't see the real issue.

"The god of surprises," as poet Tirza Atar once called him, has thrown us all, from the Right to the Zionist Left, a rare chance to end the bitter dispute that has burdened our lives for the past 50 or so years. This is a dispute between the "Land of Israel" people and the "peace camp" people, between those who saw the result of the 1967 Six-Day War as a return to the land of our forefathers and those who always saw the territories as a bargaining chip to be used in future peace talks, between those prepared to take enormous risks for something that pretended to be peace and those who always predicted the security and defense fiasco that would follow the Oslo Accords.

Now we have a chance not only for sovereignty, but also a chance for reconciliation and agreement amongst ourselves. Reconciliation is at least as important as the declaration of sovereignty itself. All the good and bad energy, all the talents and time that both sides have invested in the dispute in recent years can now be channeled elsewhere. This needs to happen both so that the poisons can fade away and so that the energy can be directed toward the serious domestic issues we are facing – social, religious, and ethnic rifts, or rebuilding the health care and school systems.

Not ‘annexation’ or ‘occupied territory’: Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria - by Yechiel M. Leiter

Critics of Israel’s anticipated sovereignty move claim that it contravenes international law and will spark violence, destabilize the region and cost Israel European and Democratic support. A calmer and more accurate assessment indicates otherwise.

Yechiel M. Leiter..
JNS.org..
11 June '20..

Public castigations of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by American Jewish leaders of the “anyone-but-Bibi” crowd are nothing new, but it appears that the promise of imminent “annexation” has thrown them into an unprecedented frenzy. There has been a cascade of articles issuing dire warnings about the consequences should Israel’s elected government follow through on Netanyahu’s campaign promise to apply Israeli law in parts of Judea and Samaria.

Criticisms of the anticipated decision come in different forms, and when taken in the aggregate, paint a very bleak picture: the move contravenes international law; the Palestinians will erupt in violence; it will destabilize Jordan and the entire region; Israel will lose the support of Europe; the Democrats will abandon Israel; Netanyahu doesn’t have the mandate to act unilaterally.


A calmer, and most importantly more accurate assessment of the facts is in order.

Extension of Israeli law in Israel’s heartland: Not ‘annexation’ or ‘occupied territory’

For language to be meaningful, terminology must be precise. According to international law, “occupied territory” is a term that refers to an area that was sovereign in one state and occupied by another state; applying state sovereignty in order to make the occupation permanent would be “annexation.” This is decidedly not the case with regard to Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria and hence these terms are irrelevant.

The Jewish people are the only people in fact who have a recognized legal right over Judea and Samaria. This legal affirmation was enshrined in the mandate drafted and approved by 51 principle members of the League of Nations guaranteeing the “right of Jewish people to reconstitute their national home” in the Land of Israel (1922), thereby recognizing a preexisting historical right. This was ratified by the United Nations upon its establishment and that section of the U.N. Charter has never been altered by any state. Judea and Samaria have never been under the sovereignty of any other country than the State of Israel. Jordan’s invasion of the territory in 1948 and its subsequent attempt to annex them in 1950 was opposed internationally with the exception of Britain, Iraq and Pakistan.

The internationally recognized doctrine of boundaries in the post-colonial era (Uti Possidetis Juris) states that the boundaries of a new state are identical to those of the administrative entity that preceded it. Because the administrative entity that preceded the State of Israel was the British Mandate, in whose hands the League of Nations placed the responsibility of fulfilling the mission of Jewish statehood, the recognized boundaries of the State of Israel are those inherited from the British Mandate.

(Continue to Full Column)

Yechiel M. Leiter, Ph.D., is a scholar at the Kohelet Policy Forum and heads the international department of the Shiloh Forum. He has served in a number of government positions, and as an adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon. His book, “John Locke’s Political Theory and the Hebrew Bible” was recently published by Cambridge University Press.

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.  

Words matter: Annexation vs. sovereignty - by Richard Kemp and Arsen Ostrovsky

It is factually incorrect to assert that Israel intends to “annex” territory to which it has legitimate claim and that never has been part of a “state of Palestine.”

Richard Kemp/Arsen Ostrovsky..
JNS.org..
08 June '20..

Words matter. They drive narratives. They influence policy. And they shape people’s perceptions.

The current debate over whether Israel’s proposed actions in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)—in accordance with U.S President Donald Trump’s “peace to prosperity” plan—amount to “annexation” or the “application of sovereignty” is a prime example.


Much of the international community, NGO world and foreign press, even some in the Jewish community, have been referring to this aspect of the plan as “annexation.”

This is partly a function of naiveté and a lack of understanding about what the term “annexation” actually connotes. But there are those who know the distinction—and its implications—very well, and are using it to create a dangerous perception: that Israel has no entitlement to Judea and Samaria, and therefore would be committing some illegal act under international law.

In essence, annexation means one state imposing legal authority over the territory of another state acquired by force or aggression, normally during war.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines “annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State of part thereof” as “constituting the grave Crime of Aggression.”

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus are prime examples of such cases.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 242—which, since 1967, when Israel regained control of Judea and Samaria in the Six-Day War, has been a bedrock of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians—makes explicitly clear the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.”

The U.N. Charter also prohibits the annexation of another state’s territory by force.

Those who use the above rulings to argue against Israel’s plan to “annex” parts of Judea and Samaria omit three crucial points, however.

(Continue to Full Column)

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. 

Question. Why the uproar over sovereignty? - by Moshe Dann

A symbol of integrity, extending Israeli sovereignty is not motivated by nationalism or conquest, but expresses the connection between the Jewish people and its ancient homeland, a resounding statement of Zionism’s meaning and purpose.

Moshe Dann..
JPost.Opinion..
06 June '20..
Link: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/why-the-uproar-over-sovereignty-630551

Predictably, on cue, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement that he intends to extend Israeli law and sovereignty to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) has elicited a tsunami of opposition, fears of dire consequences, threats of sanctions by the EU and threats by Jordanian and PLO leaders to abrogate treaties and agreements.

Why, however, is this so controversial and upsetting?In Jerusalem, Hebron and other areas, there have been Jewish communities since the First and Second Temple periods. After the destruction by the Romans, they rebuilt.

In Hebron, a Jewish community was reestablished in the Byzantine period, and then reconstituted in the 16th century. It was destroyed in August 1929, when 67 Jewish residents were murdered.

Jewish communities such as Gush Etzion, built in Judea and Samaria during the 1920s and 1930s, were destroyed during the 1947-1949 war and were rebuilt and expanded since the 1967 Six Day War. About half a million Jews live in 121 “settlements” in Judea and Samaria.

PLO leaders and the international community recognized Israel’s claims to these areas (in Area C) in the Oslo agreements in return for creating a Palestinian National Authority under the PLO.

Why, then, do plans to extend Israeli law and sovereignty provoke such extreme responses? It seems to be nothing more than confirming what already exists and has been agreed upon.

For starters, it shatters the delusion that Jews will be forced out of their homes and communities as was done, for example, in Yamit (Sinai), the Gaza Strip and several communities in northern Samaria, and in Amona. It refutes PLO/PA demands for a state along the 1949 armistice lines. But it is even more devastating.

It denies arguments that “settlements are illegal,” that “Jews have stolen Palestinian land” and that Jews are “occupying Palestinian territory.” In short, it destroys the false narratives and propaganda that fuel hatred of Israel and Jews. If Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is acceptable, promoting a PLO state and its agenda is not.

Accepting Israeli sovereignty, therefore, is not only an admission of defeat for Israel’s enemies; it is the recognition that Israel’s claims are legitimate. It is the admission that anti-Israel campaigns are based on lies and are motivated by bigotry.

Right now Israel is facing a momentous decision to do something that is practically nothing. - by Victor Rosenthal

You annex foreign land, not your own country. – Menachem Begin

Victor Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
04 June '20..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2020/06/timidity-is-no-virtue/

Right now Israel is facing a momentous decision to do something that is practically nothing.

That is to extend Israeli civilian law to some parts of Judea and Samaria, specifically the Jordan Valley and other areas where Jewish communities are located.

Why do I say it is practically nothing? Because the official position of our government, although it often does a rotten job of explaining it, is that those areas are already part of Israel. Nothing is being “annexed” as the EU insists (here is why). And while the areas are currently governed by a military government, little will change in most practical legal matters.

Of course it is a big deal for the Palestinians, for the Europeans, and indeed for anyone who wishes that the Jews did not have a sovereign state. This is because it symbolizes the end of the pretense that was so dear to them, that the “West Bank” (as they prefer to call it) is not part of Israel and ultimately will need to pass into Arab hands. It means that any “two-state solution” that could happen in the future will happen according to a map more like the map found in the Trump Plan – one that is consistent with UNSC 242 that called for “secure and recognized boundaries” – rather than the very insecure boundaries that would result from basing them on the 1949 armistice lines, as previous US administrations wished to do.

It is also a big deal for us, for the same reason. It is a recognition that justice is on our side. It is a repudiation of the idea that we are holding onto something that belongs to someone else. It is an affirmation that Eretz Yisrael is the land of the Jewish people.

Let me dismiss the objection that the Palestinians will react violently. What else is new? The Palestinians will always be as violent as they think they can get away with. If they see that we’re prepared, they will content themselves with verbal complaints.

And King Abdullah of Jordan won’t abrogate his treaty with us. He can’t afford to, and in addition he probably would prefer not to have a border with any future Palestinian entity.

Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley is key to Israel's security - by Amir Avivi

Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley should be applied — and swiftly. The stars are finally aligned for Israel to not only affix its eastern border, but to cement a secure future for itself.

Amir Avivi..
The Hill..
30 May '20..
Link: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/499983-sovereignty-over-the-jordan-valley-is-key-to-israels-security

When assessing Israel’s core national security interests, applying Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley fits squarely within the list of Israeli needs. Our nation, with its ancient past, must take an equally long view of its future, particularly given the many security challenges that likely await us. Israel must act to solidify its key needs in the fields of security, economy and development, and must not hesitate when doing so.

In just 50 years from now, our population is projected to exceed 20 million people. In order to thrive, and not just survive, we must have a minimally defensible eastern border, located in the Jordan Valley, and it must retain control of the eastern mountain ridge.

Yitzhak Rabin, architect of the Oslo Accords, in the eponymous “Rabin parameters,” included full Israeli security control over Jewish cities in Judea and Samaria/the West Bank, and full freedom of maneuver for Israelis along the main roads of the area, within those parameters. He did so based on the need to protect the large Israeli communities of Judea and Samaria known today as the “Settlement blocs.”

But Israel's civilian presence in Judea and Samaria extends far beyond those blocs, and retaining control over those additional areas in perpetuity is a puzzle we finally have an opportunity to solve.

The Trump peace plan, with its endorsement of Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, accurately reflects the Rabin parameters. It also calls for a two-state solution and a demilitarized Palestinian state, with Israeli security control over the entire area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea, along with a permanent presence in the Jordan Valley.

Scaremongering and bullying about sovereignty - by David M. Weinberg

The sky will not fall in if Israeli law is applied to settlements and security zones. This is not to say that Israel should apply sovereignty now to parts of Judea and Samaria, or that Israel won’t be penalized somewhat by the international community for doing so. Only that Israel should make its decision based on core security and national interests, and not be bullied by inflated intimidations.

Cartoon: Roni Gordon, Israel Hayom

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
28 May '20..
Link: https://davidmweinberg.com/2020/05/28/scaremongering-about-sovereignty/

Remember the dark days of 2014, when Israel’s foreign relations supposedly were “crashing”; when the international diplomatic noose purportedly was tightening around Israel’s neck?

That was because of the looming Western boycott of Israel. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was everywhere and overwhelming, we were told. Every day, almost every hour, Israel’s then-chief peace negotiator, Tzipi Livni, wailed about Israel’s impending isolation.

According to Livni, Israel was about to be hit with unprecedented diplomatic, economic, and academic chill, with severe repercussions for business and prosperity. Unless, of course, Israel snapped quickly to Livni’s tune of withdrawal from the West Bank and conceded a state to the Palestinians.

Then-finance minister Yair Lapid chimed in too with a shabbily concocted report that confirmed Livni’s premonitions. The pocketbook of every Israeli was going to be hit hard, Lapid warned, by Western boycott, divestment and sanctions activity, unless Israel scurried to then-US Secretary of State John Kerry’s camp and hurried to cut a deal with the Palestinians.

In fact, the “threat” of a global boycott against Israel was so obsessively talked about those days that you might have thought it a greater threat than the growth of Iranian forces on Israel’s borders.

It turned out that this was manifest nonsense. The menace of BDS was deliberately overstated and wildly overestimated. It was largely an artificial threat manufactured by the Israeli Left and magnified a thousand times over by media repetition.

No wonder that Kerry and other Western leaders took to sternly cautioning Israel about the consequences of a breakdown in Palestinian negotiations. Kerry was merely echoing what he heard from Livni and Lapid, who deliberately prophesied unsubstantiated doom and gloom in an attempt to scare the Israeli public into retreat and withdrawal.

Unfortunately, this has been the modus operandi of the Israeli Left for some years now: Create a bogeyman with which to frighten the Israeli public into adopting a fatalistic narrative.

Time and time again, this trick has been tried. In 2013, former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert warned of a “diplomatic tsunami” that would befall Israel if the Palestinians went ahead and got their “statehood” approved by the United Nations General Assembly. In panic, they urged Israel to make radical diplomatic concessions to prevent the disaster.

Well, the Palestinians got their vote and their upgraded status, yet the sky did not fall in on Israel.