Surprise? NY Times Falsely Claims Israel Hasn’t Tried ‘Land For Peace’ - by Ira Stoll

...But to say Israel “so far has not tried…trading land for peace” is not, as the Times review claims, “the deepest truth.” It is, rather, a patent falsehood. Israel has tried it. It has been trying precisely that for decades.

Ira Stoll..
Algemener.com..
13 March '18..

A New York Times book review inaccurately claims that Israel hasn’t tried trading land for peace.

The review is by Kenneth M. Pollack, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is writing about the book Rise And Kill First: The Secret History Of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations, by Ronen Bergman.

Pollack writes, “The deepest truth is that Israel so far has not tried the one thing that could address the underlying grievances that give life to its terrorist enemies, trading land for peace.”

Actually, as the Times itself has reported over the years in its news columns, Israel has repeatedly traded land for peace, or at least for promises of peace.

(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. 

.

Important Question. Land for Peace or Land for Jihad? - by Daniel Kryger

...Israel has not only been fighting for her existence since her rebirth in 1948. The Jewish state is at the forefront in the epic ongoing battle between civilization and barbarism. By betraying the sister democracy Israel, much of the West is spinelessly betraying its own fundamental values. Genuine peace based on territorial compromises is only possible when borders represent peaceful coexistence. As long as Israel’s genocidal enemies view borders as war fronts against the reborn Jewish state, only overwhelming Israeli military deterrence will keep the wolves at bay.

Daniel Kryger..
MiDA..
26 December '17..
Link: http://en.mida.org.il/2017/12/26/land-peace-land-jihad/

The conflict between Muslim Arabs and Jews over a tiny sliver of land remains the most misrepresented conflict in modern history. Headed by the EU and the UN, the world community obsessively pretends that this is a conventional conflict over land and specific borders.

The harsh reality that the world refuses to acknowledge however, is that this unique conflict is an Islamic ideological opposition to the existence of a Jewish state within any borders. Even if Israel would shrink to Tel Aviv, it would still be considered an unacceptable affront in the eyes of countless of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia. Muslim fundamentalists make no distinction between the Jewish “settlement” Tel Aviv and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

Many American and Israeli liberals have joined the European ideological bandwagon that regards territorial compromise and kindness as the greatest of human virtues. In a characteristic Eurocentric fashion, the European experience is mistakenly believed to fit the entire world including the Middle East.

Historically, Europe used to be the most violent continent on earth where neighbors were locked in seemingly never-ending wars over borders, resources and influence. Europe was the epicenter of two world wars. World War 2 alone claimed over 50 million lives, including 6 million murdered Jews in the Holocaust.

Post-1945 Western Europe decided to build its future based on democracy and settling disputes through peaceful means. However, this only works with a counterpart that shares your fundamental values. Sweden and Denmark fought for centuries over borders but did not oppose each other’s existence. Today, both countries are peaceful secular democracies that would not dream of waging war against each other. The same thing applies to France and Germany.

Sometimes the Best Deals are the Ones You Don’t Make. - by Jonathan S. Tobin

...As Israelis learned when they withdrew every soldier, settler, and settlement from Gaza in 2005 only to see the strip soon become a terrorist state ruled by Hamas Islamists, the unforgiving law of unintended consequences hangs over all land-for-peace deals in such a dangerous neighborhood.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
01 December '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/2165753-land-for-peace-past-future-golan-heights/

Sunday’s attack on the Golan Heights, in which the Israel Defense Forces fended off an assault by ISIS, ended with the four terrorists dead and no IDF casualties. The incident was the first direct confrontation between ISIS personnel and the Jewish state. Few would bet that it will be the last. Most Israelis are likely offering a silent prayer of thanks for the failure of past efforts by Israeli leaders to cut a deal with Damascus that would have given up the strategic plateau that dominates the Galilee. Those—in Washington and elsewhere—who are pushing Israel to concede more territory that might one day come to be dominated by Islamist terrorists refuse to learn an important lesson.

In 1992, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was elected, he thought Syria was Israel’s best option for peace. While Shimon Peres’s deputy Yossi Beilin was beginning the secret talks that led to Oslo without Rabin’s knowledge, the prime minister was concentrating on an effort to broker a different land-for-peace deal with Hafez Assad, the current Syrian dictator’s equally murderous father. Historian Itamar Rabinovitch, whose scholarly work was devoted to the notion that Israel had passed up opportunities to make peace with previous Syrian dictators, was appointed ambassador to the United States and chief negotiator with Damascus. But despite Rabin’s genuine desire to do a deal, the indirect talks with the Syrians failed. Assad senior had no interest in further hostilities with the Jewish state and wanted the Golan, but he never had any intention of making peace. The effort was eventually superseded by Beilin and Peres’s coup in getting the Palestine Liberation Organization to accept Israel’s offer, which brought Yasir Arafat into power in the West Bank and Gaza.

But that wasn’t the last Israeli flirtation with Damascus. During his first term in office later in the decade, Benjamin Netanyahu also dabbled with the idea of a deal with the Assad clan. He exchanged secret messages with Damascus via American philanthropist Ron Lauder. Netanyahu and his advisors have vociferously denied that they offered a full withdrawal from the Golan as others have claimed. But they admit that Assad asked for a map that would detail the border the Israelis were prepared to accept. It may be that this effort failed because Assad demanded a withdrawal up to the shore of the Sea of Galilee or due to the fact that, as was the case with Rabin’s attempt, the Syrian was never serious about peace. But either way, it’s clear that Netanyahu was at the very least prepared to give up most of the Golan.

Been There, Done That. 'Land for Terror'? Just Say No

..."Land for peace" quickly devolved into "land for nothing" before crumbling into "land for terrorism." Is this really a pattern worth revisiting? Moreover, the situation on the ground in the region is far more complex, and far more dangerous, than it was just 10 or 15 years ago.

Michael Freund..
MichaelFreund.org/JPost..
12 May '15..

Although Israel's new government has yet to be formally sworn in, international pressure on the Jewish state to resume peace talks with the Palestinians is already beginning to mount.

Over the weekend, an unnamed Palestinian official told the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper that Western diplomats are pushing to arrange a joint meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

And on Friday, the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, congratulated Netanyahu on forming a coalition, but stressed the need "to re-launch the Palestinian/Israeli peace negotiations as soon as possible."

And so, showing little regard for the disastrous consequences of their previous attempts at so-called peacemaking, American and European officials now seem intent on banging their heads – and ours – against the wall yet again.

Needless to say, they continue to adhere to their misguided conception of what the outcome of such talks should be, even before they have begun. As Mogherini put it in her statement last week, the aim is "achieving a comprehensive agreement towards the creation of an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian State living side by side with Israel in peace and security."

It is the same mantra that Western peace-processors have been repeating ad nauseam for decades, as if asserting it over and over again somehow makes it sensible.

But before attempting to rush into yet another fruitless round of diplomatic wrangling, the reckless advocates of Palestinian statehood would do well to take a quick look back at recent history.

After all, it was just 21 years ago this month that Israel and the PLO signed the May 4, 1994 Cairo Agreement, also known as the Gaza-Jericho accord, under which the Jewish state withdrew from Jericho as well as nearly 60 percent of the Gaza strip, all of which was turned over to Palestinian control.

The agreement was based on the quintessential formula of "land for peace," whereby Israel relinquished territory and the Palestinians promised to prevent violence and combat terrorism.

Subsequent deals, such as the Oslo II accord of September 1995, the January 1997 Hebron protocol and the October 1998 Wye agreement were all based on the same principle.

In each case, Israel handed territory over to the Palestinians in exchange for promises of peace. And in each instance, without fail, Israel's gestures were reciprocated with still more violence.

The 1994 Cairo Agreement unleashed a wave of unprecedented Palestinian terrorism, which included suicide bombings that shook the core of the nation.

"Land for peace" quickly devolved into "land for nothing" before crumbling into "land for terrorism."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Gen. Allen security plan project undermine Israel position?

...There is no telling what attempts will be made by the international community in general and the United States in particular to impose arrangements on the ground should the talks fail. General Allen’s security plan could very well serve as a critical reference for these arrangements. It isn’t going to be easy. It’s a very delicate matter as it involves interaction between American and Israeli security people. But in the absence of effective guidance, supervision and oversight, the outcome of General Allen’s project could very well be dangerously damaging to Israel’s interest and needs.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
06 December '13..




Archive Date: 8 August 2013 - distributed on 6 December 2013 a second time after US plan presented

There is a very good possibility that US Gen. John Allen, working together with top Israeli security people, will succeed in preparing a security plan, vetted by the Israeli security technicians, that can seriously undermine Israel’s negotiating position.

A reminder: Back in 2000 Israel's Senior Negotiator With Syria, Major General (Res.) Uri Saguy , who had served in the past as head of Military Intelligence, took the position that “peace will not eliminate the strategic threats to Israel, but will prevent their materialization”. Saguy believed that since Assad’s goal was to recover the Golan that once he had that Syria would not attack Israel. That belief served as the basis for his support for grossly unworkable security arrangements in the North as part of a plan to leave the Golan.

Saguy is in very good company. Most of the top people in Israel’s various security and defense systems share a similar ideologically driven optimism regarding the efficacy of “land for piece of paper”.

Time and again over the last two decades the embarrassingly naïve analysis of Israel’s security people led them to advocate reckless plans and arrangements – with many of those actually implemented literally blowing up in our faces.

Back to the present.

The key condition that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has set for the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state is that there are viable and effective security arrangements on the ground that do not rely on a third party.

Mr. Netanyahu’s condition might be termed an “if pigs can fly” requirement, given the fundamental inescapable fact that once a sovereign independent Palestinian is established that it retains that status even if it utterly and completely ignores – or even openly violates – the terms of the peace agreement that served as the platform for the creation of that sovereign independent state.

But while the above may very well be the driving perspective of Prime Minister Netanyahu, this most certainly is not the outlook of the people meeting with Gen. John Allen.

Ari Shavit, the Golan, and Land for Peace

P. David Hornik..
frontpagemag.com..
10 August '12..

I recently went up north for Shabbat. I spent hours just looking at the mountains of the Golan Heights as they reddened toward evening. But slowly the pure pleasure I was getting out of their amazing beauty was replaced by a deep discomfort.

So wrote left-of-center Israeli columnist Ari Shavit on Thursday in Haaretz (full text available here). He knew well, of course, that beyond the tranquil scene he was witnessing lay Syria, a zone of turmoil and brutality.

Indeed, Shavit couldn’t help but think

what would be happening today if the ideological position I had long held—peace in return for the Golan—had been accepted…. I have to admit that if the worldview I had championed had been applied, battalions of global jihadis would be camping near Ein Gev [beside the Sea of Galilee] and there would be Al-Qaida bases on the shores of [the lake]. Northern Israel and the country’s water sources would be bordering this summer on an armed, extremist Islamic entity that could not be controlled.

Shavit and most of the Israeli left had, of course—until the chaos erupted in Syria last year, when they fell silent—long advocated restoring the Golan Heights to the tender mercies of the Assad regime. In 2000 then-prime minister Ehud Barak tried in earnest to hand the Golan over to Hafez al-Assad, father of the current embattled president. Assad responded by posing conditions that even the “peace”-hungry Barak could not meet—inducing relief among realistic Israelis and frustration among the left.

Must read interview with Minister Moshe "Bogie" Ya'alon

LOTL..
17 June '12..





"Better to pay the heavy price of war than allow Iran nuclear weapons capability. It is crystal clear to me"

The hourglass of confrontation with Iran continues to diminish. Minister of Strategic Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon spares no words to explain how he knows the horrors of war and does not rush. Still, he takes very seriously the possibility of a regional conflagration, and within months - not years.

...Ari Shavit Haaretz Magazine section 06/16/2012

Minister of Strategic Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon gave an extensive and encompassing interview last week to Ari Shavit of Haaretz, for Haaretz's supplement, Sof HaShavua. While the full interview is available here in Hebrew, the English sits behind the Haaretz paywall. However, both Israel Matzav, and Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA have provided independently translated major excerpts into English that certainly deserve our attention, covering a very wide range of topics.

Link to original article in Hebrew - Ari Shavit

Link to excerpts in English - Israel Matzav

Links to excerpts in English - Dr. Aaron Lerner IMRA

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.

Arens - Unilateral folly

Civilians have now become equal partners with the Israel Defense Forces in the war against Israel's enemies. That is not the way it was supposed to be.

Moshe Arens..
Haaretz..
05 June '12..

It seems that some of our military-men-turned-politicians are suffering from the unilateral withdrawal syndrome. It may be typical of the military mindset: Get it over with! Finish the job! Do something! Do anything! Actually, on some occasions that may be the correct strategy. It usually comes under the heading of "Cutting your losses." But often it may be the wrong way to go.

Two of our illustrious military leaders seem to have been afflicted by this syndrome. One was Ariel Sharon, who peremptorily decided on the unilateral withdrawal from Gush Katif and the forceful uprooting of 8000 Israeli citizens from their homes, in the expectation that the move would ease Israel's defense problems and advance the peace process. The other is the present defense minister, Ehud Barak, who has a long record of espousing unilateral withdrawals in the expectation that therein lay the solution to our problems, or else that this is the way to evade an oncoming tsunami that he thinks he sees approaching on the horizon.

His first opportunity came in 2000, when, as prime minister and defense minister (he insisted on holding both positions ), he decided on the unilateral withdrawal from the south Lebanon security zone, abandoning Israel's ally, the South Lebanon Army, and bringing the Hezbollah terrorists up to the border fence in the north. He expected this move would transform Hezbollah from a terrorist organization into a Lebanese political party that would abandon its policy of launching attacks against Israel, or alternately that Israel, after the retreat, would be able to deter Hezbollah from continuing its terror attacks against Israel. It didn't work.

Bedein - Unseen Consequences of a Palestinian Arab State

David Bedein..
The Times of Israel..
07 May '12..

On my first night in Israel, August 31, 1970, my 20th birthday, I arrived at the campus of Hebrew University, to participate in a study group that met every Thursday night at the Lauterman building at Hebrew U and every Monday night at the Gillman building at Tel Aviv U, to consider the idea of what it would be like to establish a Palestinian Arab sovereign state in the areas that Israel had acquired in the lightning war of June 1967.

The name of that study groups was Siach, whose initials stood for Smol Yisrael Hadash, the Israeli New Left.

I had read about Siach in the New York Times a few weeks before/

The fact that Israelis were discussing such matters was intriguing, especially since the members of Siach let it be known that they were different than the new Anti Zionist group that had also formed on campus, Matzpen, which stated openly that Israel must simply withdraw unilaterally from areas that it had “conquered” and challenged the right of a Jewish state to exist as a Jewish state.

Yet the idea that Israelis were discussing the idea of an independent Palestinian Arab entity seemed revolutionary at the same.

Indeed, when upon arrival at the gate of Hebrew U to ask the guard where Siach was meeting, he asked in great consternation , in Hebrew that I could understand, “How long are you in Israel that you can go to meetings like this?” , to which the answered surprised of the guard, “Six hours, sir”

Yet as I review my notes, articles and files from from those Siach discussions of 1970, it is easy to discern that the rational questions that we asked then about the consequences of such an entity seem to be missing in the discourse of the present day, when a Palestinian Arab State seems just around the corner.

Here are the issues concerning the consequences of a Palestinian Arab State that Siach was discussing then, all of which are relevant to the discussions that should be taking place in the Israeli public domain

Harvardi - Rockets from Gaza prove that "Land for Peace" remains a mirage in the desert

Jeremy Harvardi..
The Commentator..
13 March '12..

Within the last four days, more than 160 rockets have been fired by Islamic terrorists from Gaza. As the world has looked elsewhere, nearly a million Israelis in the south have endured a daily round of terror, intimidation and disruption.

While Israel has fought back bravely against unprovoked Palestinian violence, the BBC has focused all too predictably on the unending "cycle of violence" in the region.

But if the latest escalation from Gaza teaches us anything, it is that the received wisdoms about the Arab-Israeli conflict continue to fly in the face of reality. Land for peace and Israeli disengagement is not the panacea promised by the Left, for the Palestinian version of peace is a fatal cocktail of terror, hatred and incitement.

Indeed, whenever Israel has vacated territory in recent years, she has usually paid a very steep price. In 2000, Ehud Barak ordered the IDF out of Lebanon after many years of bloody warfare. Despite the fact that the occupation of Lebanese territory had ended, Israel suffered rocket attacks and the abduction of its soldiers by Hezbollah.

Sherman - To be or not to be – that is the question

Martin Sherman..
Into the Fray..
JPost..
06 January '12..

It is time to have a clear-headed, hard look at reality: The two state solution is dead.

The maximum any Israeli government can offer is less than the minimum any Palestinian leader can accept. The real gap between both sides is much greater than perceived, and that gap is growing – Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council, 2009

The land-for-peace idea has now collapsed. We have to find another way, and a new concept is urgently needed – Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan, former head of the National Security Council, 2007

It is time to have a clear-headed, hard look at reality: The two state solution is dead. Where do we go from here? – Prof. Carlo Strenger, columnist for Haaretz, 2011

It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Even if one strongly disagrees with his ideological predilections, Jerusalem Post columnist Gershon Baskin was nonetheless correct in assessing the magnitude and urgency of the emerging danger when he recently stated, “We have a very short period of time remaining before we come to the conclusion that there is no longer any resolution to this conflict that enables us to have a Jewish nationstate in the Land of Israel. If this happens, it will be the end of the Zionist dream that so many have worked so hard for so long to create and sustain.”

Approaching crossroads

The Jewish people is rapidly approaching a crucial juncture. It will soon have to decide whether or not it is willing to maintain its nation-state; whether it is willing to forgo over a century of unparalleled sacrifice, effort and achievement to satisfy the cynical and hypocritical dictates of political correctness; whether it is prepared to surrender substance for form; to forsake real national freedoms for the artificial facade of feigned individual equality.

As the infeasibility of the two-state paradigm becomes increasingly apparent, even to the staunchest of its erstwhile supporters, the need to formulate a cogent alternative that will preserve the Jewish nation-state is becoming increasingly pressing.

Glick - The land-for-peace hoax

Caroline Glick..
carolineglick.com..
06 January '11..



The rise of the forces of jihadist Islam in Egypt places the US and other Western powers in an uncomfortable position. The US is the guarantor of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. That treaty is based on the proposition of land for peace. Israel gave Egypt the Sinai in 1982 and in exchange it received a peace treaty with Egypt. Now that the Islamists are poised to take power, the treaty is effectively null and void.

The question naturally arises: Will the US act in accordance with its role as guarantor of the peace and demand that the new Egyptian government give Sinai back to Israel? Because if the Obama administration or whatever administration is in power when Egypt abrogates the treaty does not issue such a demand, and stand behind it, and if the EU does not support the demand, the entire concept of land-for-peace will be exposed as a hoax.

Indeed the land-for-peace formula will be exposed as a twofold fiction. First, it is based on the false proposition that the peace process is a two-way street. Israel gives land, the Arabs give peace. But the inevitable death of the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord under an Egyptian jihadist regime makes clear that the land-for-peace formula is a one-way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent. Arab commitments to peace can be revoked at any time.

Then there are the supposedly iron-clad US and European security guarantees that accompany signed treaties. All the American and European promises to Israel - that they will stand by the Jewish state when it takes risks for peace - will be exposed as worthless lies. As we are already seeing today, no one will stand up for Israel's rights. No one will insist that the Egyptians honor their bargain.

Inbar - Israeli Control of the Golan Heights: High Strategic and Moral Ground for Israel

www.imra.org.il

Prof. Efraim Inbar
BESA Center monograph
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/MSPS90.pdf


To read full paper click here

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations of the international community for peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors are almost universally based on the “Land for Peace” formula, which, in the case of a possible Israeli-Syrian deal, links withdrawal from the strategic Golan Heights with a peace agreement. Such a formula, however, does not serve Israel’s interests. Giving up the Golan plateau deprives Israel of its best defense against potential Syrian aggression. It also signals Israeli weakness and undermines Israel's deterrence. Designing borders in accordance with current but changing military technology and transient political circumstances is strategically foolish.

Moreover, the expected political returns for Israel from a peace treaty with Syria are meager. Syria is unlikely to align itself with pro- Western Arab states and abandon its regional alliance with Iran in return for Israeli territorial concessions on the Golan Heights. Damascus has made abundantly clear that such realignment is not on the table. Its ability to “deliver” Hizballah in Lebanon is also questionable. Moreover, a peace treaty with Syria is not going to affect the diplomatic fortunes of Israel in the region or in the world. And, Syria, as well as the rest of the Arab world, has little to offer to Israel in economic or cultural terms. Israel hardly desires to integrate into a despotic, corrupt and poor region. This calculus is not affected by the prospects of a change in Syria's leadership.

Another compelling reason for not accepting the “Peace for Land” formula is that the status quo serves Israel’s best interest and preserving it requires Israel to maintain its military superiority. Thus, while the possibility of disrupting the status quo by force exists, a Syrian challenge would be difficult diplomatically and militarily. As long as Syria fears escalation and Israel's power, Israel has the upper hand. Israeli policies toward Syria should be guided by such power politics, just as most territorial disputes are conducted, and Syria must at some point swallow its pride.

Since retaining the Golan is more important for Israel than reaching a peace treaty with Syria in the foreseeable future, Israel should insist on a new paradigm, “Peace for Peace,” based on the principle of defensible borders. The demand for secure borders seems reasonable and is rooted in international resolutions such as UNSC Resolution 242. The political unrest and volatility in the region, including questions about the foreign policies of Israel’s neighbors, similarly prescribe against taking any significant security risks by ceding the Golan to Syria.

Israel should augment its claims for defensible borders on the Golan Heights with normative, legal and historic arguments. A return to the 1967 border is morally repugnant because it implies that the aggressor of 1967, Syria, should not pay any price for its flagrant violation of international norms. Israel should also emphasize its historic rights to this piece of territory and point out that these claims were accepted in the 20th century in internationally recognized documents. It should use these historical and legal arguments to bolster its claim of sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

Israel must regain the moral high ground in order to show that it is demanding land that is part of its historic patrimony – not land that was conquered by force. A discourse rooted in normative, historic and legal considerations is important in this quest. Such a discourse will buttress realpolitik imperatives that dictate Israeli control of the Golan Heights.

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.
.

Gordon - The End of Land for Peace?

Evelyn Gordon
Commentary/Contentions
06 September '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/06/end-of-land-for-peace/

The deteriorating Egyptian-Israeli relationship has produced an interesting side effect: For the first time in 30 years, Israelis are seriously questioning the wisdom of “land for peace.” Even veteran land-for-peace advocates like former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief David Makovsky now acknowledge war with Egypt is no longer unthinkable. Recognition is growing that Egypt’s nonstop demands to boost its forces in Sinai threaten the Israeli-Egyptian treaty’s main achievement: the demilitarization of Sinai, which ensured Egypt could never attack Israel by surprise.

Hence Elliot Jager, another erstwhile land-for-peace advocate (and former senior Jerusalem Post editor), warned in Jewish Ideas Daily today that “If the treaty with Egypt must be gutted in order to save it, something may be terribly wrong with the underlying land-for-peace approach.” Guy Bechor, a regular columnist for the mass-circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth, bluntly declared the land-for-peace formula “dead” last week. Even Akiva Eldar of Haaretz, a diehard leftist who still wants an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, admitted despairingly after last month’s cross-border terror attacks from Sinai that “When the border between Israel and Egypt is open to murderers, it’s harder to condemn Israel’s leaders for refusing to utter the words ‘negotiation on the basis of the ’67 borders.’”

As Bechor noted, the land-for-peace approach has several inherent problems. First, it encourages the Arabs to view peace as a concession Israel must pay for rather than something of value to them. Second, it trades an easily-reversed asset (peace) for an almost irreversible one (land), which undermines deterrence: The Arabs can abrogate their side of the bargain without fear of losing the quid pro quo they received. I’d also add a third: It encourages war by making aggression cost-free. After all, the land in question was captured in a defensive war against three Arab states in 1967; agreeing to return every last inch – as Israel did in Sinai and Gaza and is now expected to do in the West Bank – thus sends the message Arabs risk no permanent territorial losses by attacking Israel.

All these evils are obviously compounded when territory is given to people who loathe Israel (as both Egyptians and Palestinians do). Many Westerners seem to think this hostility would disappear if Israel would just “end the occupation.” Prize-winning reporter Anthony Shadid, for instance, asserted in the New York Times last month Egypt’s current hostility stems from “deep popular resentment over the plight of Palestinians,” thus implying it would vanish were this plight alleviated.

There’s only one problem with this theory: As a 2007 Pew Global Attitudes poll found, fully 80 percent of Egyptians think “Palestinians’ rights cannot be taken care of if Israel exists.” In short, their problem isn’t Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank, it’s Israel’s very existence. And 77 percent of Palestinians say the same.

It’s too late to reverse the withdrawal from Sinai, but it’s not too late to avoid repeating the same mistake in the West Bank. Thus, if Egypt’s new hostility awakens Israel to this danger in time, it will prove to have a silver lining.

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.
.

Bechor - Mideast rules must change

Guy Bechor
Israel Opinion/Ynet
01 September '11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4116543,00.html

Land for peace formula dead, Israel must adopt doctrine based on equality

Ever since the Six-Day War we’ve been hearing, like a mantra, the buzz about “land for peace.” The tiny Israel, a small dot on the globe, shall give up “land,” and in exchange it shall receive “peace” from the Arab side.

This mantra was so absolute that it was accepted here as an unqualified truth that cannot be denied; we even went as far as to convince the world that this is good for us. However, in the wake of the shocks experienced by the Arab world in recent months, there is no escaping the assertion that this mantra is no longer valid.

While Israel paid with hard, irreversible currency when it handed over land to the Arab side, the Arabs paid with soft, completely reversible currency - that is, words and agreements. Now we are hearing claims that these deals were made with the regimes rather than with the “people”; that is, they lack any legitimacy.

In Egypt there are many voices, including among presidential candidates, declaring that the Camp David Accord with Israel must be annulled or at least changed. That is, change the aspects that pertain to “peace” with Israel. Yet if the Egyptians wish to annul the Camp David Accord, will they return the Sinai desert to Israel? After all, they received this territory through the peace treaty between the two states, after failing to secure it through war. Yet for some reason, this is unthinkable for them.

The peace treaty with Egypt is undergoing changes rather casually at this time in respect t to the deployment of Egyptian troops in the Sinai, an issue that was a major element in the agreement. This shows how easily one can change agreements or understandings and possibly annul them altogether.

Slowly, Egypt is returning its army to the northern Sinai, a move that may prompt harsh implications for the ties with Israel. Yet did anything change about the land? Did Israel again annex Taba? Of course not. And why does the tiny Israel have to pay with land? After all, the Arab countries around it hold huge territories. Why wouldn’t they pay with land, while Israel gives them peace?

Fresnozionism - Goodbye to ‘land for peace’

Fresnozionism.org
28 August '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/08/goodbye-to-land-for-peace/


The Land for Peace theory (LFP) has always been something like this:

Israel and the Arab states are in conflict. The conflict can be ended if Israel gives up the lands it occupied in 1967.

This proposition was suspicious even in 1967, since the Jewish state — or even the Jews in pre-state Palestine — had never had peace until then, even without the territories. But the world in general — certainly the US and the European Union — at least pretends that it is true, and has worked hard to get Israel to divest itself of the land. So far Israel has evacuated the Sinai peninsula and the Gaza strip, surrendering them to complete Arab control. This represents by far the greater part of the lands conquered in 1967.

The Oslo accords included a great concession by Israel: the PLO — which had been responsible for numerous murderous terrorist attacks against Israelis inside and outside of Israel — was allowed to return to the territories and constitute itself as a government, the Palestinian Authority. As a result of the Oslo accords, about 95% of the Arab population of Judea and Samaria now live in areas under Palestinian civil control.

One would think that if LFP were true, then there would have been movement toward peace as a result of Israel’s concessions. But this has not proven to be the case:

With regard to the Sinai, although the Egyptian regime refrained from overt conflict (in return for billions in US aid), it did not reign in incitement, nor did it take steps to improve relations with Israel. The ‘peace treaty’ was treated as an extended cease-fire, and now as the regime changes we are seeing a retreat from the idea of peace.

With regard to Gaza, in effect a continuous state of war with Israel exists, and only fear of massive military intervention keeps a lid — loosely — on terrorism.

With regard to Judea and Samaria, the PLO never accepted the ‘peace’ part of the LFP formula, insisting on receiving land without granting recognition (Mahmoud Abbas recently reiterated his refusal to accept a Jewish state as a neighbor to ‘Palestine’). The PLO does not accept the idea of ‘two states for two peoples’ and understands the ‘two-state solution’ as an Arab ‘Palestine’ free of Jews, and an Israel which — by virtue of ‘right of return’ — will have an Arab majority.

Maybe the Right Term is “Land for Defensible Borders”

Rick Richman
Commentary/Contentions
11 April '11

(Excellent! While there are some specific points that I must disagree with, there is just too much here to give pause, to pass this by. YH)

Today’s Wall Street Journal publishes a letter from Richard Calkins under the heading “Maybe the Right Middle East Term Is ‘Peace For Land.’ ” Calkins argues that the order of the peace process should be reversed:

“Peace for land” calls for the Palestinians to accept responsibility to demonstrate a commitment to peace with Israel in return for statehood and land. . . . Unless Palestinians demonstrate an irreversible commitment to peace, they don’t have standing to expect statehood and an irreversible grant of land. Even this won’t work unless the international community accepts a legal obligation, via treaty, to enforce the agreement.

But maybe the right term is “Land for Defensible Borders,” since—as an anonymous soldier once said—“there is no such thing as peace.” There is certainly no such thing as an “irreversible commitment” to it. The Oslo accords were sold as such a commitment, but ended instead with a terror war initiated by the Palestinian who coined the phrase “peace of the brave.”

Nor is there such a thing as an “international community” obligated to enforce an agreement. After Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon, the “international community” adopted a “binding” UN resolution prohibiting rearmament in southern Lebanon, put boots on the ground to “enforce” it—and then didn’t.

UN Resolution 242, the founding document of the peace process, did not refer to “land for peace” but to withdrawal from an unspecified amount of territories for “secure” borders. In exchange for withdrawals from Hebron and Gaza, the Clinton and Bush administrations provided Israel with formal commitments of support for “defensible borders.” Those who accept indefensible borders in exchange for “irreversible commitments” of “peace,” to be “guaranteed” by the “international community,” are likely to be trading land for war.

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.
.

Is Opposing a Palestinian State and Palestinian Suffrage Racist?

Victor Shikhman: Stories
04 January '10

One of the arguments prevalent among those who advocate for the creation of a Palestinian state, including among staunch Zionists - such as Jeffery Goldberg - is that the Jews of Israel must make a choice between two incompatible futures. In one scenario, Israel relinquishes the territory it liberated through defensive war in 1967, divesting itself of millions of Palestinian non-citizens under its control and allowing a Palestinian state to take root in what is commonly referred to as the West Bank. The State of Israel will then remain an overwhelming and unassailable Jewish majority country, continuing to bestow democratic rights on all its citizens without risk of undermining the country's Jewish character. Alternately, Israel may annex the West Bank, but must then grant voting rights to the 1.5-2.5 million Palestinians who reside there (the exact number is debated), ostensibly ending the Jewish people's modern journey in national sovereignty.

In my last post, I discussed the traditional and contemporary commitment of Jews - all Jews - to democratic norms. Of course, Jefferey Goldberg's full argument is that certain problematic sectors of Israeli society - Jews of Middle Eastern and of recent Eastern European origin, residents of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and the rapidly growing haredi minority - are a unique obstacle to Israel relinquishing territory for a Palestinian state, while remaining opposed to granting citizenship to the 1.5-2.5 million Palestinians residing in the West Bank.

It may very well be that large constituencies within Israel are opposed to granting the Palestinians either a state or Israeli citizenship and voting rights (as opposed to say, permanent residency rights). However, neither Goldberg nor Israel's progressive left is really dealing with the reasons why this may be. Instead, they're suppressing the basis for inconvenient opinions and segmenting Israel's Jews into the good and the bad, the reasonable, progressive Zionist democrats, and the illiterate savages who are too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves. Pigeonholing people between the solution preferred by the country's self-anointed elite and the promise of a veritable apocalypse is not intellectually honest dialogue. Further, labeling a likely majority of the Israeli population as anti-democratic and racist for obstructing either a Palestinian state or Palestinian suffrage as Israeli citizens presumes a lack of alternative motivations.

(Read full "Is Opposing a Palestinian State and Palestinian Suffrage Racist?")

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.
.

Land For Peace (1994)