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. ‎

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.

Mahmoud Abbas's empty, worn-out threats - by Caroline Glick

The Palestinian president's hollow rhetoric is hardly a reason to bury the government's plan to apply Israeli law to the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and to the Jordan Valley.

Caroline Glick..
Israel Hayom..
24 May '20..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/abbass-empty-worn-out-threats/

Tuesday evening, Palestinian Authority and PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas announced that the PA is renouncing the peace deals it signed with Israel along with its agreements with the United States. According to several left-leaning Israeli television commentators and retired generals, his speech was an earthquake. It was a calamity of epic proportions. Most importantly, it was a reason to bury the government's plan to apply Israeli law to the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and to the Jordan Valley.

But the truth is not at all what they claim. This isn't an earthquake. It isn't even a hiccup. It isn't a calamity. It just a tired, recycled, empty threat.

Abbas had no problem remembering his lines Tuesday night because he's given the same speech, word for word a half dozen times, (aside from the throwaway sentence blasting President Donald Trump's peace plan and Israel's sovereignty plan). The first time Abbas gave it was in September 2015 in his address to the UN General Assembly.

As was the case Tuesday night, so every other time Abbas gave this speech, shortly after he walked offstage, Israeli leftists said the sky is falling. But then the truth started filtering in.

After the first news cycle passed, Abbas's lackeys clarified that he didn't mean it. There is no plan to make his declaration operative. He's just trying to send a message – that is, a threat – to Israel and America.

The same state of affairs prevailed following Tuesday's "I'm ditching the peace deals" speech. After the Israeli media and the leftist former generals wailed and sounded dire warnings about what will befall the country if the government doesn't abandon all of its plans, the Palestinians made clear that this week too, he didn't mean it. Abbas's advisers and lackeys said it was simply his way of "warning" Israel and America. For their part, local leaders and militia chiefs shrugged their shoulders and said they heard about the speech from the Israeli media.

Set aside for a moment the fact that Abbas's speech this week was a complete joke. And consider what would actually happen if he implemented his declaration and officially abrogated all the agreements he and his predecessor Yassir Arafat signed with Israel since 1993.

The fact is that nothing would change at all.

Since 1994, when they began governing the Palestinian areas in Judea and Samaria and Gaza by force of the agreements they signed with Israel, the Palestinians have systematically and continuously breached every single substantive commitment they made to Israel. Most notably, the Palestinians agreed to fight terror. Instead, for the past 27 years the Palestinian Authority under both Arafat and Abbas has incited, financed, and directed terrorism against Israel.

In every sphere of authority, Israel transferred the Palestinian Authority has used its powers – military and civilian – not to govern Palestinians and advance the cause of peace, but to wage a multidimensional war against the Jewish state and its citizens. From diplomacy to planning and zoning, from sewage treatment to education and religious affairs, the PA has continuously breached every article and annex in the agreements it signed with Israel in order to harm the Jewish State and its citizens.

So again, if Abbas actually carries through on his tired threat and cancels the agreements, it won't make a bit of difference to anyone. Those deals have all been long been dead in the water.

One of Abbas's lines that always terrifies Israeli leftists is his threat to cut off security cooperation between Palestinian security forces and Israeli security forces. The Israeli Left's Pavlovian response to that is to say that if that happens, rivers of blood will flow and anyone who doesn't immediately give in to all of Abbas's demands, they say, will have the blood of Israeli soldiers and civilians on their hands.

Setting aside the moral obscenity at the base their practice of blaming their political opponents for the Palestinians' aggression, the leftists' claim is substantively wrong on two counts. First, as former defense minister Moshe Yaalon has said repeatedly over the years, the Palestinians don't protect Israelis. The IDF protects Israelis. The Palestinians benefit far more from their security coordination with the IDF than the IDF benefits from its security coordination with them.

Question. Is it wrong to let Israel make decisions for itself? - by Jonathan S. Tobin

Peace cannot be imposed by the United States. If it does ever happen, it will only be when the Palestinians realize that Israel will not be handed over to them on a silver platter in pieces.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
JNS.org..
23 April '20..

In principle, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s answer to a question about Israel’s new coalition government seems unexceptionable. The agreement signed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz allows for a vote in the upcoming months about extending Israeli sovereignty to parts of the West Bank, including settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley. As far as Pompeo is concerned, whether or not they do so is up to the Israelis.

According to Reuters, Pompeo said, “As for the annexation of the West Bank, the Israelis will ultimately make those decisions. That’s an Israeli decision. And we will work closely with them to share with them our views of this in [a] private setting.”

That wouldn’t have been the reaction from President Barack Obama’s State Department, nor is it fair to say from the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush or even Ronald Reagan. They would have all fervently and publicly opposed any Israeli talk of annexation, let alone plans to implement the idea.

The difference between the administration of President Donald Trump, which put forward a plan for the Middle East earlier this year that envisioned Israeli holding onto approximately 30 percent of the West Bank in the context of a scheme that would have also allowed the creation of an independent, though demilitarized Palestinian state, is not just about the contours of a solution to the conflict.

What really sets Trump and Pompeo apart from their predecessors is that the current American government doesn’t think that it is entitled to dictate policy to the Israelis. And it is this unwillingness to give orders to the Jewish state that really shocks critics of Israel and the foreign-policy establishment.

Obama wasn’t reticent about expressing his feelings about the relationship between the two countries. Though at times he paid lip service to the strong affection felt by the overwhelming majority of Americans for Israel, he never bothered to conceal his disdain for any notion that the Israelis should be treated as equals. He was explicit about believing that he had the right to “save Israel from itself” since the policies adopted by its democratically elected government were not in accord with his own unrealistic vision of how to achieve peace. He believed he had the right to override the will of the Israeli people as expressed at the ballot box, and many of his American Jewish adherents agreed with him about that.

(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.  

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.

Who Would've Thought? NY Times, B'Tselem misinform on "Palestinians' in Jordan Valley - by Gilead Ini

...Whatever the exact percentage of off-limits land in the Jordan Valley, it seems clear that the figure is significantly less than 85 percent. And it should be equally clear to the New York Times that it is extremely misleading to cast restrictions that apply to both Palestinians and Israels as affecting Palestinians, specifically.

Gilead Ini..
CAMERA..
08 October '19..

The New York Times misinformed readers in two recent stories about Palestinians in the Jordan Valley — and although the newspaper promises to correct mistakes big and small, it has yet to correct its errors.

Access to Jordan Valley Land


In the first story, a Sept. 10 piece by Ben Hubbard, the paper erred about Palestinian access to the Jordan Valley, a stretch of land parallel to the Jordan River that runs along the West Bank’s eastern border. Citing the Israeli advocacy group B’Tselem, Hubbard told readers Palestinians are “barred from entering or using about 85 percent” of the Jordan Valley where it passes through the West Bank.

The claim that Palestinians are only able to enter 15 percent of the territory, though, is false.
Depending on where exactly one draws the boundaries of the Jordan Valley — there’s no single, official delineation of the territory — between seven and thirteen percent of the region is designated as Area A or Area B — the names given to West Bank territory in which civilian matters are administered by the Palestinian Authority, in line with peace agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinians.

Israeli communities and their lands, which sit within Area C, the third and largest portion of the West Bank, take up another roughly eight to fifteen percent of the Jordan Valley. The New York Times itself has frequently documented that Palestinians can enter these settlements. Indeed, on the very day Ben Hubbard’s piece was published, a separate Times story noted that that nearly all the male population of Fasayil, a Palestinian village in the Jordan Valley, are employed in the neighboring settlement of Tomer. Even if these agricultural workers needed to obtain security clearances from Israeli authorities, their daily presence in Tomer — along with the tens of thousands of Palestinians who enter settlements across the West Bank every day for work or health care — shows that Palestinians are not “barred from entering” settlement lands.

Between Area A, Area B, and the settlements, then, roughly 15 to 28 percent of Jordan Valley land is accessible to, and accessed by, Palestinians.

So what of the remainder of Jordan Valley land — Area C territory that isn’t attached to settlements?

(Continue to Full Post)

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. 

.

Jordan, the Jordan Valley and Defensible Borders

...In a region as volatile as the Middle East is today, the idea that Israel should abandon defensible borders in exchange for “peace” with a state that could collapse as suddenly as Syria and Iraq both have is folly. And anyone who thinks U.S.-trained or international forces can replace defensible borders should take a long, hard look at the Iraqi army’s collapse.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
27 June '14..

If Israeli-Palestinian peace talks weren't already dead, the Iraqi army’s collapse in the face of the radical Sunni group ISIS might well have killed them. After all, one of the key disagreements that emerged during the nine months of talks was over Israel’s military presence in the Jordan Valley, which Israel insisted on retaining and the Palestinians adamantly opposed.

The Obama administration’s proposed solution was to let Israeli troops remain for a few years and then replace them with U.S.-trained Palestinian forces, perhaps bolstered by international troops. But as Israeli officials bluntly told officials in Washington earlier this week, if U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers weren’t willing to fight ISIS to protect their own country, why should anyone think U.S.-trained Palestinian soldiers in the Jordan Valley would be willing to fight fellow Arabs to protect Israel? And with a well-armed, well-funded jihadist army having taken over large swathes of Syria and Iraq and now even threatening Jordan (ISIS seized the main Iraq-Jordan border crossing just this week), how can anyone confidently assert such fighting won’t be necessary?

U.S. officials responded by setting up a straw man: They passionately defended General John Allen, the man responsible for both security training in Iraq and drafting U.S. security proposals for Israeli-Palestinian talks, as if Israel’s main concern were Allen’s competence. But Allen’s competence is irrelevant. The real issue is that no matter how competent the trainer is, no amount of training can produce a functional army if soldiers lack the will to fight. U.S.-trained Iraqi Sunnis aren’t willing to fight ISIS to protect their Shi’ite-dominated government. U.S.-trained Palestinian Authority forces weren’t willing to fight Hamas to retain control of Gaza in 2007. And international troops have repeatedly proven unwilling to fight to protect anyone else’s country.

This isn’t exactly news. Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, when Egypt demanded that UN peacekeepers leave Sinai so Egyptian troops could mass on Israel’s border unimpeded, the UN tamely complied. UN peacekeepers stationed in south Lebanon since 1978 have never lifted a finger to stop Hezbollah’s cross-border attacks. Nor is this problem unique to Israel. As the Washington Post reported in January, the UN has sent record numbers of peacekeepers to Africa in recent years, and African regional groups have contributed additional thousands, yet these troops “have failed to prevent fresh spasms of violence.” Indeed, they are frequently ordered explicitly not to fight unless they themselves are attacked–rendering them useless at protecting the people they’re ostensibly there to protect.

Secure and Invest in the Jordan Valley

With the Kerry process dead-ended, Israel should move to reinforce its presence in areas well within national consensus – such as the Jordan Valley and the E-1 corridor.

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
16 May '14..

In his final speech to the Knesset in October 1995, just two weeks before he was assassinated, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin presented to the Knesset his vision for a Palestinian “entity” that would be “less than a state.” Rabin made it clear that Israel would “not return to the June 4, 1967 lines” and he pledged that Israel would retain control over the Jordan Valley “in the broadest meaning of that term.” He also explicitly stated that Israel would not freeze building over the Green Line.

By contrast, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu today advocates the establishment of a Palestinian state; has largely frozen settlement building; and insists only upon “maintaining Israeli military forces along the Jordan River.” Netanyahu’s cautious formulation – Israeli forces along the Jordan River – means something other than full sovereignty, and clearly less than what Rabin intended.

Tellingly, Netanyahu has failed to promote the development of Jordan Valley settlements. I have learned that Netanyahu has even quietly hinted to prominent businessmen that they might not really want to invest in the development of Dead Sea north shore hotels.

Netanyahu’s government also has turned a blind eye to the seizure by Mohammed Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub of five thousand dunams (500 hectares) of land near Jericho for lucrative date tree plantations, nurtured with water stolen both from Mekorot pipes and from Jericho’s residential drinking water lines.

All this tells me, worryingly, that Netanyahu is not truly committed to keeping the Jordan Valley under Israeli control. This is deeply regrettable, since the Israeli residents of that area are true pioneers, and only full Israeli control of the entire Jordan Valley region can provide Israel with sufficient security for the long-term.

On recent tours of the Jordan Valley Regional Council and the Megilot Dead Sea Regional Council, organized by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, I learned of the sacrifice and incredible agricultural productivity of the 6,000 residents and 27 settlements in these areas – most of which were established by the Labor Party. Regional council heads David Elhayani and Motzi (Mordechai) Dehaman are heroic figures that have steered their communities through decades of disadvantage, political neglect, and security adversity.

I also learned that the Jordan Valley is indispensable to Israel’s national security, despite some recent punditry which argues that Israel no longer needs the Jordan Valley as a shield against aggression from the east.

It’s true that the conventional military threat to Israel from the east has currently diminished – with the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, the weakening of war-torn Syria, and the impressive stability of Jordan despite the turmoil in the Arab world. Yet this is a very short-term perspective, motivated by the desire to convince the Israeli public that the Jordan Valley is militarily dispensable. This perspective ignores the immense potential for escalated political upheaval in the region, including possible Jihadist destabilization of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan, who was head of the IDF Central Command, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff, and National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, has cogently and clearly laid out the argument for defensible borders that necessarily include the Jordan Valley.

Who Would've Thought? An Obama and Kerry Lobby in Israel

...Leading Israeli defense officials regularly and publicly make their views on the key security matters of the day widely known within the Israeli public discourse. In a country where the military plays such a visible role in the day-to-day survival of the state and the safety of its citizens, the views of these men matter and carry extraordinary clout. U.S. officials undoubtedly realize that if they can play a decisive role in shaping what these individuals believe, then they stand a considerable chance of influencing where much of wider Israeli society stands on these issues, thus undercutting the negotiating position of Israel’s elected government.

Tom Wilson..
Commentary Magazine..
24 January '14..

In the course of the past month, a persistent campaign appears to have been taking place, away from public attention, to change the thinking of Israel’s defense establishment. The State Department’s special envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Martin Indyk, and his officials have been meeting with a number of Israeli security personnel and IDF generals to discuss their thinking on future Israeli territorial compromise. Indyk, who was also part of Middle East peace negotiations under President Clinton, has reportedly been seeking to convince Israel’s defense officials of the wisdom of plans that would seek to bring about a full Israeli withdrawal from such key strategic areas as the Jordan Valley. To be sure, these lobbying efforts are not being focused on Israeli parliamentarians, but they aim to impact the position of a constituency no less politically decisive.

There is a great irony in all this. As Seth Mandel highlighted yesterday, amidst the ongoing battle of wills over Iran sanctions, the Obama administration currently appears to be operating under the impression that the Israeli government is telling the American Jewish community what to think and that, in turn, American Jews are determining what congressmen believe and how Congress ultimately votes. As has already been pointed out, it is bizarre and disturbing that the administration would buy into this version of events over the far more simple explanation that members of Congress, perfectly able to think for themselves, might have just concluded that the Obama administration’s policy of holding off on Iran sanctions is fundamentally flawed. Either way, what officials appear to so object to is the notion that a foreign government would seek to influence U.S. policy via another constituency. The point being that if the government of one state wishes to have a say on the policies of another, then the proper and above-board way to approach this is through open and direct diplomatic channels.

Fine. But how then to explain the Obama administration’s own efforts to determine events in Israel, by bypassing the Israeli government and seeking to influence a third party? As the Daily Beast has reported, the reservist generals involved in those meetings that have taken place so far have not given any reason to believe that Indyk and his team are being particularly forceful or aggressive in how they have approached this strategy. Yet, by pursuing a sustained campaign of pushing State Department views on territorial compromise in the Jordan Valley to Israel’s security establishment, Indyk and his officials are not only seeking to determine the views of those who advise the Israeli government on these matters, but they are also lobbying a group in Israel who have a tremendous amount of leverage over Israeli public opinion.

Another brilliant idea! Pushing for an Israeli withdrawal that would destabilize Jordan

...If the West truly cares about stability, pushing for an Israeli withdrawal that would destabilize Jordan, one of the region’s last remaining islands of stability, seems highly counterproductive. Indeed, given how often Israeli pullouts have had negative results, the West might do better to abandon this paradigm altogether and start searching for a new one. Supporting a permanent Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley would be a good place to start.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
02 January '13..

In the run-up to John Kerry’s arrival in Jerusalem today for yet another round of Israeli-Palestinian talks, media attention naturally focused less on real obstacles to peace than on an Israeli bill to annex the Jordan Valley that supporters and opponents agree hasn’t a prayer of becoming law. Yet despite this coverage, the most interesting fact about the bill has been largely overlooked: One of the biggest behind-the-scenes fans of Israel retaining control of this strategic location is none other than the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Last month, the Israeli daily Maariv reported that Jordan has been urging Kerry to support Israel’s demand for a permanent IDF presence in the valley under any deal with the Palestinians. Three months earlier, the Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abu Toameh quoted a senior Jordanian official’s response when asked in a closed briefing how Amman viewed the possibility of Palestinians replacing Israel along the Jordan border:

“May God forbid!” the official retorted. “We have repeatedly made it clear to the Israeli side that we will not agree to the presence of a third party at our border.”

The Jordanian official claimed this has been Jordan’s position ever since 1967. But it was undoubtedly reinforced by watching the deleterious effects on Egypt’s security of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Flying John Kerry's frequent failure program

...With a track record like that, his Sky Miles account is coming to resemble a Frequent Failure Program, one with no perks or rewards, but plenty of turbulence. As Syria continues to implode, US relations with Russia grow sour, an Afghan security pact remains unsigned, and nuclear North Korea descends still further into irrationality, it seems about time that Mr. Kerry turn his attention elsewhere and stopped trying to twist Israel's arm or compel it to capitulate.

Michael Freund..
Pundicity/JPost..
16 December '13..

Torrential rains and heavy snow were not the only forms of precipitation to strike the Jewish state last week, leaving the country gripped with fear and trepidation. Adding insult to injury, US Secretary of State John Kerry decided to pay yet another visit to the region, this time to hurl a wad of New England spit upon one of Israel's most basic and essential security needs.

According to various press reports, Kerry put forward a proposal under which Israel would forgo sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and instead maintain a security presence in the area for 10 to 15 years, one that would ostensibly be bolstered by various technological gizmos designed to enhance border defense.

Of all the dumb and dangerous designs to emerge from the depths of the US State Department, Kerry's latest scheme is one of the more dreadful duds in recent memory.

To begin with, take a quick glance at a map and you will see that the Jordan Valley effectively serves as Israel's buffer to the east, a line of defense against any potential threat emanating from over the horizon.

Anything less than full Israeli sovereignty and complete military control over the area would expose the rest of the country and place it at the mercy of potentially hostile forces or terrorist groups.

The absence of a robust IDF presence in the Jordan Valley would virtually guarantee an unending wave of arms-smuggling and infiltration into Israel's heartland, transforming Tel Aviv and the coastal plain into a tempting and easy target.

Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend how Kerry was able to present his plan to Israel regarding border security with a straight face, given the fact that the US itself has been unable to safeguard its own southern border with Mexico.

Give Up Jordan Valley, Count on Us

...And so, on Friday, John Kerry again flies off, leaving Israel to cope with regional reality. A reality in which Israel had been muddling through with the Palestinian issue more or less successfully—that is, until Kerry’s recent initiative revived tensions and instability; a reality in which Iran is laughing and gloating its way to a future without sanctions and with all its nuclear capabilities intact.

P. David Hornik..
FrontPageMag.org..
06 December '13..

Secretary of State John Kerry paid yet another visit to Israel on Thursday. Reports described him as hoping to “salvage” the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Many people, particularly in Israel, had already predicted that, with the Palestinians—just as in 1937, 1948, 2000-01, and 2008—incapable of coming to terms with the Jewish state’s existence, there would be nothing to salvage in the first place.

Kerry’s timing was flawed in a more specific sense as well, with Iran, in recent weeks, having “totally eclipsed” the Palestinian issue in Jerusalem. Kerry was described as reassuring Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu that, despite the interim deal with the mullahs, the sanctions on Iran would not significantly erode.

On that score, there are about as many optimists among Israeli officialdom as there are Fatah members who celebrate Israeli Independence Day.

It was not enough, though, that Israel—like the Sunni states in the region—was stunned and appalled first by President Obama’s highly public flip-flop on Syria and then by the fatally flawed deal with Iran(retired Admiral James A. Lyons has given one of the best analyses of what’s wrong with it). In this atmosphere, Kerry also made it his business on Thursday to outline security arrangements for Israel—after the rise of the putative Palestinian state—in the Jordan Valley itself.

Israel’s Army Radio reported that officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development are already stationed in the Jordan Valley to learn about security arrangements. Kerry, in his press conference with Netanyahu, said U.S. Gen. John Allen had already been offering Netanyahu his “thoughts” on the issue.

Israel and the disintegration of Sykes-Picot

The breakdown of the old Sykes-Picot political order is testing Israel’s border with Syria along the Golan Heights.

JPost Editorial..
09 June '13..

The political order artificially constructed in the Middle East by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement is disintegrating. As the Syrian civil war rages, the borders drawn nearly a century ago are becoming blurred.

Syria is gradually splintering into three different entities: one region along the coast is loyal to the Alawite regime of President Bashar Assad; another yet-to- be-determined swath of territory might fall under the control of Sunni opposition forces; and a Kurdish enclave with ties to northern Iran and Kurdish groups in Turkey is also emerging. Perhaps this is the inevitable demise of a state populated by a Sunni majority that is ruled by an Alawite minority.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s territorial integrity is also in danger of being compromised. Iraqi Kurdistan will soon have its own oil pipeline up and running. This is seen as an important step toward an independent Kurdistan.

Shi’ite areas in southern Iraq close to the border with Kuwait are increasingly pressing for autonomy, with support from Iran. And Sunni tribes in Iraq have joined forces against the Assad regime, creating a third distinct sectarian group in Iraq.

The changing balance of power might have ramifications for Jordan, where Beduin tribes rule over a Palestinian majority.

The breakdown of the old Sykes-Picot political order is also testing Israel’s border with Syria along the Golan Heights. Israel must remain vigilant to prevent the sort of anarchy that reigns along the 600-kilometer border which separates Iraq and Syria.

And that is precisely what Israel has been doing.

History of international troops in our region - Between the farcical and the tragic

...a history highlighted by the panicked withdrawal of U.N. troops from the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza in 1967, by Hezbollah terrorists entrenching themselves in southern Lebanon in contradiction to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, and by the incessant kidnapping of U.N. troops currently stationed on the Golan Heights.

Zalman Shoval..
Israel Hayom..
09 June '13..

The stated task assigned to Gen. John Allen, U.S. President Barack Obama's special envoy on security matters in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, who visited Israel last month, was to formulate an American "security net" for Israel in any future permanent-status agreement with the Palestinians. In other words: to convince Israel to make concessions on the issue of the 1967 borders.

These American attempts, while not contrary to Israel's diplomatic and security interests in and of themselves, are something of a prelude for a future American peace plan that would include the presence of an international military force in the West Bank and Jordan Valley. It should be remembered that Gen. James Jones, who was tasked with a similar mission by former President George W. Bush, suggested an outline based on stationing American and NATO troops, as well as other international soldiers (such as the U.N.) along the borders of the future Palestinian state.

Then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert indeed conceded -- including during his talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas -- Israel's military presence in the Jordan Valley. Current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, rejected such proposals outright, insisting that the security threat such a plan would pose to Israel was too great.

In Israel's view, since signing the Camp David Accords with Egypt in 1978, the most basic condition for any peace agreement with the Palestinians has been the operational freedom of its security forces in the West Bank. While the American security ideas touch primarily on preventing violent acts inside and from the Palestinian territories, for Israel the matter is much more complex and far-reaching, namely that without an Israeli military presence on the ground the Palestinian entity could ally itself, actively or passively, with other countries or terrorist organizations seeking to attack Israel.

The Sinai - Lessons for the West Bank

Evelyn Gordon..
JINSA Fellow..
20 September '12..

After radical Islamists killed 16 soldiers at an Egyptian army outpost in Sinai this August, Egypt's military pointed an accusing finger straight at Hamas-run Gaza, whence it said some of the terrorists came. Suiting action to words, Cairo swiftly shut the Egypt-Gaza border crossing, massed troops near Gaza, destroyed some of the cross-border smuggling tunnels and demanded that Hamas extradite three suspects.

This response highlighted a fact that had previously attracted little notice: While Israel has long complained of arms and terrorists entering Gaza from Sinai, the traffic actually goes in both directions. In fact, as a recent study showed, Gaza has played a major role in radicalizing Sinai.

But that fact has an uncomfortable corollary: To some extent, Sinai's radicalization was an unintended consequence of Israel's 2005 disengagement from Gaza. For it was Israel's pullback that opened the gates through which arms, extremists and radical ideology then poured. And this raises serious questions about the potential consequences for Jordan should Israel accede to international pressure to quit the Jordan Valley.

In a study published by the Washington Institute in January, veteran Israeli journalist Ehud Yaari traced the spread of radical Islam among Sinai Bedouin since the 1980s. Initially, this spread was slow, he wrote, but it exploded after the disengagement:

As Bedouin political activist Ashraf al-Anani put it, "a fireball started rolling into the peninsula." Illegal trade and arms smuggling volumes rose to new records, and ever-larger sectors of the northern Sinai population became linked to Gaza and fell under the political and ideological influence of Hamas and its ilk ... In short, despite then prime minister Ariel Sharon's quiet hope that Cairo would assume unofficial responsibility for Gaza affairs, the Israeli withdrawal instead allowed Hamas to export its influence into Egyptian territory.

Address by PM Netanyahu at the JNF Conference [Important policy remarks]

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
29 March '11




- Marshall Plan for Egypt and Jordan
- Sanctions against Iran
- International community make clear to Egypt that must honor commitments to
Israel
- Peace with security and recognition

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: it must be recognized that there is absolutely no way to insure that a long-term military presence along the Jordan River can be assured in the absence of a civilian presence there.

In the absence of a civilian presence there are many ways to "nickel and dime" down the military presence over time.

Add to that that in a hostile international environment exploited by our enemies it would be possible to neutralize the force with a deluge of Arab civilians supported by live camera feeds.

But: Keep Israeli civilians along the Jordan River and the narrative changes.Instead of a photogenic march of Arabs engaged in "civil disobedience" facing Israeli soldiers we have a sea of Arabs threatening the lives of equally photogenic Israeli civilians with Israeli security forces having no choice but to do everything necessary to defend the lives of the Israeli civilians.

Cynical?

Perhaps.

But this is not the time to be naïve.]

Address by PM Netanyahu at the JNF Conference
PMO 28/03/2011
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechkkl280311.htm

I want to welcome all of you. My friend Efi Shtentzler, Chairman of the World Keren Hakayemet, JNF, Ms. Yael Shaltieli, the CEO, the board of directors, the JNF presidents worldwide, and distinguished ambassadors who are with us today.

We had a forest fire a few months ago in the Carmel and I knew I could rely on JNF to shoulder its part of the burden, and I'm glad that you raised I think about ten million dollars, is that right? Congratulations, Mazal Tov, for the great project of reforestation. I also saw JNF volunteers during the fire itself, and this is one of the activities that JNF has been doing for so many decades, before the State of Israel and after the State of Israel, before the forest fires, during the forest fires and after the forest fires.

Now, we face other conflagrations and other convulsions. In fact, we're going through a period of turmoil that can only be called historic. It is akin to the great revolutions that have taken place in modern times, but the question is which revolution is it. Is it 1989 in Europe? Or is it 1979 in Tehran? Or is it 2005, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon?

At the NY Times, Israel can't win; Palestinians can't lose

Leo Rennert
American Thinker
09 March '11

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/at_the_ny_times_israel_cant_wi.html

In the March 9 edition of the New York Times, Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner reports on a visit to the Jordan Valley by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This was an occasion for him to reaffirm that Israel must maintain a military presence in this strategic area in any peace agreement to protect Tel Aviv and Haifa from rocket attacks -- a prospect made more real by current turmoil in the Arab world, including anti-government demonstrations in Jordan ("Netanyahu Vows to Keep Eastern Posts" page A11).

Kershner also also reports that Netanyahu seems to be moving toward an interim agreement with the Palestinians, including temporary borders, instead of proceeding toward a final accord on Palestinian statehood.

Taken together, she adds, "the Israeli statements of intent, rejected by the Palestinians, were likely to further stymie any progress. Peace talks were suspended five months ago."

What makes this comment by Kershner so revealing about how the Times covers Israel and the Palesitnians is that, in her view, when Netanyahu puts down some of his markers for a peace agreement, this automatically "stymies" progress on the peace front because the Israeli proposals won't satisfy the Palestinians.

On the other hand, when Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas refuses to come to the negotiating table and insists on Israel first freezing construction of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, that -- again in Kershner's writings -- is also Israel's fault for not going along with Palestinian wishes.

Abbas thus is always absolved of blame; Netanyahu is always saddled with blame.

At the New York Times, when it comes to assigning responsibility for shaky prospects for a peace agreement, if it comes up heads, the Palestinians win; if it comes up tails, Israel loses.

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.
.

Abbas prefers occupation, stalls negotiations

Jonathan Boyko
The Middle East Informer
03 May '10

Fearing the incoming pressure from the Americans to begin either direct or indirect talks, Mahmoud Abbas chose a tactic to disrupt any possibility of such, by setting various preconditions:

Ynet:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he will demand already in the stage of proximity talks that Israel transfer vast areas in the West Bank, including those currently under full and partial Israeli control, to sole Palestinian control.

Abbas said that he would also demand that the Jordan Valley be included in the territories to be transferred to the Palestinians, although Israel has made it clear that it will not accept any pre-conditions to peace talks.

(Read 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.
.

Policy Debate - A Matter of Connecting The Dots

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
15 April '10

Dividing Jerusalem and putting the Old City under international administration will bring conflict – not peace.

Israel has to control the Jordan Valley in any deal with the Palestinians.

American guarantees that a Palestinian state would remain demilitarized can’t be relied upon.

A security pact signed by the United State can’t take the place of territory vital for Israel’s security.

It is naïve to think that withdrawing to the ’67 lines will bring Israel an enduring peace.

These are among the “dots” that polls, such as the recent survey carried out for IMRA by Maagar Mochot, consistently indicate the overwhelming majority of Israelis agree on.

And that’s important.

Because while withdrawal advocates may enjoy the support of most of the media as well as financial assistance from foreign governments and their surrogates, the dots back their opponents.

And it is considerably easier to enter a policy debate when all that’s left to do is connect the dots that the public already acknowledges.

That’s not just the situation in Israel.

Here is what American Jews answered last month when asked the most fundamental of questions in an poll commissioned by the AJC:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.”
Agree 75% Disagree 20% Not Sure 5%

Outright rejection of the working premise of “withdrawal brings peace” religion.

That’s not to say policy advocates should be complacent. If anything, they should be encouraged by the results to make the effort to get the public to connect the dots.

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.