By MARTIN SHERMAN
As their vision of two-states descends into irrelevance, two staters wax increasingly desperate & delusional, and their policy proposals, increasingly unhinged & unethical
…we need a clear map showing Israel’s eastern border and the limits of its territorial demands. ..
The eastern border must be based on the required minimum to allow a significant number of settlers to join Israel, but no more than necessary. We must give up Ariel…The “no” to the settlements must be unambiguous. There is no need to evacuate them, and there is no need for a compensation plan for those who leave. The settlements beyond the border should be left to wither economically and be deprived of support. Anyone who wants to live in these areas will do so without the support or protection of the Jewish sovereignty within its borders… The Arab Palestinian people must eventually lay down their arms against the Zionist movement…Until this stage, Israel will continue to militarily hold territory east of the border…
– Einat Wilf “Yes to the Occupation, No to the Settlements”, Haaretz Dec 31, 2016.
These are difficult times for proponents of the two-state formula that envisages a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state co-existing side-by-side, in idyllic peace and prosperity. Their disarray and dismay are becoming increasingly evident as their desperate efforts to “preserve the option of two-states” become increasingly hare-brained—and hair-raising.
Traded one failed formula for another
For many years, over the last quarter century since the signing of the ill-conceived, and hence ill-fated, Oslo Accords, indeed until relatively recently, dogmatic two-staters insisted that we had a Palestinian “partner for peace”. Initially, they claimed that Judeocidal terrorist, (and Nobel laureate) Yasser Arafat was the guy who “could deliver the goods”, and imported him and his murderous cronies from Tunis, igniting a wave of carnage in Israeli streets, shopping malls, cafes, and buses—casually (read “callously”) dismissing the murdered and the maimed as inevitable “victims of peace”.
Then, having despaired of their blood-stained “peace partner”, un-chastened two-staters pinned their “noble” and “enlightened” hopes on erstwhile holocaust-denier Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen). When recalcitrant realities dashed these forlorn hopes, rather than admit error, they doggedly refused to discard their discredited credo. Accordingly, they began a frantic search for some other way to preserve the viability of their failed formula.
To do this, they decided on the inconceivable—and opted for yet another fatally flawed formula, that of “unilateralism”, which had failed spectacularly in both Gaza and South Lebanon, allowing these areas to become formidable arsenals bristling with weapons capable of threatening virtually all Israel’s major civilian centers.
However, aware of the difficulties of promoting such a policy, given the failures of past unilateralism, the authors of the new unilateralism claim that, having allegedly learned from previous mistakes, this time it will be different.
Forced to admit what they once denied
This time, they claim, although Israel will unilaterally forgo any claims of sovereignty over the vast majority of the territory in Judea-Samaria, and engage in the unilateral removal of Israeli civilian presence there, the IDF will remain deployed—until a satisfactory arrangement can be reached with some yet-to-be-identified Palestinian interlocutor.
However, by conceding the necessity of the continued IDF deployment, the two-staters, turned unilateralists, in effect, admit they had been wrong all along about there being a “partner for peace”.
Whew! Just as well we didn’t listen to them then!
Yet despite its glaring defects, the new unilateralism has attracted a good number of well-placed and well-funded adherents, both organizations and individuals. These include the well-endowed Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), the public advocacy Blue and White Future (BWF) which works closely with INSS personnel, and the Commanders for Israel Security (CIS) an organization reportedly comprising over 200 former high-ranking officers in the IDF, intelligence services and police.
Thus, for example, in a booklet published by CIS, reassuringly entitled Security First, which prescribes “foregoing claims to sovereignty over West Bank territories east of the ‘security fence‘”, despite the bald confession that, at present, there is no Palestinian peace partner. Indeed, it warns that “The situation on the West Bank requires the continued deployment of the IDF until satisfactory security arrangements are put into place within the framework of a permanent status agreement”.
Formula for open-ended occupation
The proposal for (re)adoption of unilateral concessions began to emerge in the public discourse about 3-4 years ago. Since then, I have warned, insistently and incessantly, of the appalling errors in the rationale of this misguided idea – see for example The coming canard: ‘Constructive unilateralism’ (April 19, 2013); Stupendously stupid or surreptitiously sinister, (April 25, 2013); Infuriating, insidious, immoral , (December 19, 2013;) Imbecility squared – Part 1 (June 10, 2016); Imbecility squared- Part 2, (June 10, 2016). I urge readers to peruse the arguments raised in them, identifying and analyzing the grave perils to which this new unilateralism will expose the nation.
Clearly by conditioning the end of IDF deployment on the emergence of “a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians [which] ushers in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements”, what new unilateralists such as the CIS are in fact promoting is a formula for open-ended occupation, whose duration is totally dependent on the Palestinian-Arabs.
After all, if the IDF is to remain deployed in the “West Bank” until some suitable Palestinian “peace partner” appears, sufficiently pliant to satisfy Israel’s demands but sufficiently robust to resist more radical domestic rivals that oppose those demands, what happens if such a “partner” fails to emerge?
Touting a giant South Lebanon on fringes of Tel Aviv
Clearly then, all the Palestinian-Arabs need to do to ensnare the IDF in what will inevitably become an increasingly unpopular “occupation”, making it an easy target for guerilla attacks by a recalcitrant population backed by armed Palestinian internal security services, is…well, nothing. All they need to do is wait until mounting IDF casualties in a “foreign land” create increasing domestic pressure to “bring our boys back home”, and mounting international impatience with unending “occupation” create growing external pressure, which will make continued IDF deployment untenable—and withdrawal becomes inevitable, without any “permanent settlement” or sustainable security arrangements.
Indeed, the basic element of the new unilateralism—the forswearing of claims to sovereignty over Judea-Samaria, on the one hand; and the continued deployment of the IDF in that territory, on the other—replicate precisely the same conditions that prevailed in South Lebanon until the hasty retreat by the IDF in 2000.
Creating clear and present danger
Clearly, under these conditions, any hope that the conflict can be officially resolved with some negotiated final-status agreement is hopelessly detached from reality. After all, why should the Palestinians offer any quid pro quo to negotiate the withdrawal of the IDF when Israel has a-priori conceded sovereignty to them and ceased all construction of the settlements, condemning them to inevitable decay and disintegration? Indeed, what would be the justification for any further IDF deployment in the sovereign territory of others – especially as that deployment itself is likely to be cited as the major grievance precipitating the belligerency between the sides?
Accordingly, the proposal for deploying the IDF for an indeterminate period, in territory over which it lays no sovereign claim—and hence, by implication, acknowledges that others have such claims to it—creates an unsustainable political configuration, which, sooner or later, will generate irresistible pressure on Israel to evacuate it—leaving the country exposed to the very dangers the IDF deployment was intended to obviate. Just as it did in Lebanon!! Only this time in territory abutting major trans-Israel transportation axes, adjacent to the country’s major population centers and overlooking its only international airport.
Whether by the bullet or the ballot…
But even in the unlikely event that some Palestinian-Arab partner could be located, who agrees, in good faith, to conclude a permanent status agreement and implement acceptable security arrangements that allow the IDF to evacuate Judea-Samaria, how could Israel ensure this agreement will be honored and these arrangements maintained over time?
Clearly it could not!
Once the IDF withdraws, Israel has no way of preventing its Palestinian co-signatories to any accord from reneging on their commitments—whether of their own volition, due to a change of heart, or under duress from extremist adversaries. Even more to the point, barring intimate involvement in intra-Palestinian politics, Israel has no way to ensure that their pliant peace-partner will not be replaced—whether by bullet or ballot—by far more inimical successors, probably generously supported by foreign regimes, who repudiate their predecessors pledges. Indeed, it is more than likely that it would be precisely the “perfidious” deal struck with the “nefarious Zionist entity” that would be invoked as justification for the regime-change.
But whichever of these outcomes emerges in practice, Israel is likely to be confronted with a situation where it no longer has security control in Judea-Samaria and with a hostile regime perched on the hills overlooking the coastal megatropolis.
And what do the unilateralists suggest then—you know, as their Plan B? “Protective Edge” on steroids?
Dismay and disappointment
Given all these grave and manifest perils that the new unilateralism entails, it was with considerable disappointment and dismay that I came across an article written by former MK Einat Wilf, indicating that not only has she become a new unilateralist acolyte, but in fact endorses a far more virulent and vindictive version of it.
Why I find her support of this pernicious policy proposal particularly distressing is because, with all my disagreement with her on the two-state issue, Wilf is someone I have always held in high regard, as a forceful and eloquent defender of Israel and Zionism, someone, endowed with grace, intelligence and intellectual courage, whose membership enhanced the level of the Knesset.
I was thus commensurately astonished and appalled, not only by the fact that she embraced this futile and feckless formula, but because she was advocating a far more radical form of it.
After all, nearly all other unilateralist proposals endorse:
(a) Retaining the large settlement blocs, under Israeli sovereignty. This is usually assumed to include the city of Ariel, with a population of around 20,000 and a fully accredited university with 15,000 students (including Arabs)
(b) Offering some kind of compensation to the Jewish residents of communities that the unilateralist formula envisages as being dismantled.
Melding the malicious with the moronic
Wilf, however, abruptly dispenses with both these elements (see introductory excerpt), recommending: “We must give up Ariel…The “no” to the settlements must be unambiguous. There is no need to evacuate them, and there is no need for a compensation plan for those who leave. The settlements beyond the border should be left to wither economically and be deprived of support. Anyone who wants to live in these areas will do so without the support or protection of the Jewish sovereignty within its borders…”
This is a breathtakingly outrageous suggestion—at once, both malicious and moronic. Although I believe that Wilf is neither, there is hardly a more charitable way to characterize her prescription to throw –or at least abandon—her countrymen to the wolves. It is doubtless music to the ears of the Judeocidal Palestinian terror organizations, rubbing their hands in eager anticipation at the prospect of being able to slaughter the hated Jews, bereft of “support or protection”.
In her callous disregard for the fate of her fellow citizens across the yet to be determined “eastern border”, Wilf seems to lose sight of the fact that original initiators of the “settlement project” were not some wild-eyed, bearded rabbi or shrill settler extremist, but prominent figures in the Labor Party, which she originally represented in the Knesset, such as Shimon Peres and the iconic moderate, Yigal Allon.
Wilf’s (anti)Zionism
Bizarrely, Wilf professes to be motivated by her concern for Zionism and desire to preserve its principles. However, in their essence, Wilf’s recommendation is the very antithesis of Zionism.
After all, the epitome of Zionism has always been to bring Jews living under alien rule to live under Jewish sovereignty, not to abandon Jews living under Jewish rule to live under alien—much less, inimical—sovereignty. Yet this is precisely what Wilf endorses.
Indeed, is Wilf really claiming that, in her eyes, Zionist principles can only be preserved by maintaining the option of establishing (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance and oppression of political dissidents?
Does her brand of Zionism really endorse depriving Jews of life and livelihood for no other reason than preserving the possibility of somehow eventually establishing said Muslim-majority tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a haven for Islamist terror?
Does it? Really?
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategic-israel.org)
JEWS JEWS JEWS LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP!!!
A quick tour of the areas surrounding Jerusalem from the north, east and south easily exposes the colossal construction that is taking place there. In most cases, these high-rise buildings are slapped together without licenses or any adequate planning or safety concerns.
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63620556
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9490/illegal-settlements
Most people in the west, I know for a fact, think that an illegal “Palestinian” house is one that maybe a farmer or herder builds out on the scrubland somewhere, not a big deal, and not bothering anyone. Besides there is a GENERAL feeling in the west that Israel (that is the Jews…those crafty and pernicious people that the Vatican for 2000 years warned about) had stolen that land…so for goodness sake do not be too hard on those poor and oppressed people “The Palestinians” sob sob sob.
So how to change this situation?
This is where the discussion must urgently start among these two groups of people and these two groups are quite distinct. Firstly those Jews (and I think the majority especially the youth) who despite appearances still want to fight to preserve their people. Secondly those in the west who are friendly for many reasons (some of which can be quite distinct and individual – meaning people come to issues from many directions) to the Jewish people. This second group needs a leadership which I believe is my movement I am building.
This is the problem and is also the issue that has to be posed in front of billions in this new era where the Trump Presidency is a great asset. Like this…On the one hand is a very, small, minority people in the world which is the Jewish people, tiny, brilliant, lied against but of great usefulness in every way to humanity. On the other the forces of Islam need I say any more.
CALL TO ACTION THIS IS CALL TO ACTION not a discussion club…Make contact, contribute to discussing this issue..without decision nothing will happen
Edgar G. Said:
I would like especially visual material on this. Such material would be most important for me in my work of defending Israel. Do you have any contacts of groups exposing what is going on? I would also look for interviews with these interlopers. And interviews with the Israeli police and authorities as to why this is not being stopped.
However when I say that we need a party of action of tight disciplined people, and every country is in severe deep crisis, so Israel is not separate, although here in response to the always thoughtful MS article I focus on Israel…This is not to say that there are not great initiatives and one of the best is to create a museum of Judea and Samaria
This will add into what MS is always proposing which is to tell the Israeli story in order to combat what I call since it explains things “The Palestinian Narrative”.
Edgar G.in reference to this old Arab practice of seeping into an area, this was very dominant in the beginning of the Mandate period, but in reference to your remark I take it that very few people are following this. There needs to be much coverage of this with videos photos interviews etcetera. I need in my own work of defending Israel from the outside to see this material. How can Jews there on the spot not be working to expose this in great detail? Maybe they are.
INESTIMABLE GOOD SENSE FROM SHERMAN AND OTHERS
More inestimable analysis by Martin Sherman but hampered in that MS continues to separate Israel out from the growing world crisis caused by the internal contradictions of a world capitalist system…also going mad.
However can I say to MS there is something seriously wrong with these people like “yer woman here” only the latest…also Caroline Glick remember her book…and I mean wrong in the sense of their basic “method”
Until we get to terms with that we are always on shaky ground.
As a Trotskyist I add to the discussion a couple of points:
Israel is sitting on the firmest of foundations, law in the form of the “Mandate principles of 1922” which are still lawful
And as my friend Curious American pointed out and I haven’t forgotten…archaeology
I like very much this parcel to the UN headquarters idea. We would pay the freight I presume…but work on recompense and look at the publicity…allied to this new proposed exhibition which I personally am very enthusiastic about. I do like Jewish people but I particularly like creative Jewish people who are into action.
There really is so much sense talked here by so many, Martin of course but also Bernard Ross. The whole thing though lacks a party of action…that is where I and Trotskyism must come in. Not this moment but sooner rather than later.
This is all so important. It is making the case to Donald Trump and his team. Do not sit back. Start with the premise he likes Israel but knows little. It is all to play for.
@ bernard ross:
Hello bernard ross,
Self-contradiction fallacy; ie: “until they can come to an agreement.”
It isn’t “unilateralism” if you come to an agreement. Moreover, what value could – as you recognize – an inevitably broken agreement have?
Your ‘argument’ is dependent on the World standing by while Israel only makes living conditions intolerable/inhumane, which is too unlikely to waste any consideration on – not to mention the above noted fallacies.
On the point of unilateralism, Sherman makes his case; his “Humanitarian Paradigm” holds up as the better solution.
(Note: It seems you are also conflating “Pals” to mean both their leadership and the general population – which is leading you to more misunderstanding.)
The U.N. a useless organization
In a Democratic legal system if you have decision that you think is erroneous or unjust you can appeal that decision and many times it is reversed.
U.N. opinions and or resolutions are biased, unjust, arbitrary and capricious (the same apply to the ICJ – International Court of Justice).
It is well known that the U.N. and the ICJ can only offer advisory recommendations which carry no legal affect. They can only recommend and if it is accepted by all parties, then their recommended opinion is applicable. Otherwise it has no meaning, validity, and no legal standing.
Therefore, my suggestion is stop panicking and aggrandizing these biased criminal organizations. Their recommended opinion has no meaningful value.
By reacting to and citing the recommendations of this criminal organization as having any validity, you are misleading the public that the recommended opinions by these criminal organizations might have some validity.
It is time to expose the fraud and deception by these unethical, corrupt and unjust organizations and dismantle them completely.
It will also save a substantial amount of money and resources that could be put to a better use.
YJ Draiman
P.S. The League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, since the league did not accomplish its purpose. The U.N. has not accomplished its purpose for what it was created to perform ethically and honestly.
In today’s society the Nations of the world can function without an organization such as the U.N.
If the Nations of the world desire to establish a new International Peace organization, it must put some very specific Charter, with a caveat, that if it is not performing ethically, honestly and justly, with respect to each member country, it will be dismantled.
A citizens committee might be set to monitor its functions to perform ethically, justly and unbiased opinions.
@ bernard ross:
xx
I’m with you all the way. About Area C however, has no one noticed that just a couple of years ago the estimated Arab population which had SEEPED into the are was no more than about 30,000. Now it’s being announced ar around 100,000 and they’ve been unlawfully not onlycoming in, but erecting buildings and villages all paid for by the UN.
Israel needs to send out about 20 crews of bulldozers and dump trucks, guared by the IDF and clear them all out in a few days, a week at most. They can then straggle back to where they came from….. Areas A and B…. A symbolic act with BITE, would be to send by special messenger to the UN Headquarters, a large CRATE, FULL OF DAMAGED, DISMEMBERED BUILDING PARTS F.O.B. (freight on board) which is the crowning plum of having the UN pay for the transport by ship and clearing Customs, which, I hope will slap a heavy duty on European manufactured items coming into the States.
My experience has been if you follow the money you will find the explanation. The money flows from the coffers of left wing orgs, euro, USA and western churches, nations and Orgs. Many Israeli orgs receive money directly or indirectly from such agencies and nations… duh.. its an industry… just like the industry of the hundreds of millions earned by catholic and lutheran charities from euro and western tax money to settle dangerous muslim migrants … and the leaders like Il Papa command their uninformed followers to welcome them even as they are slaughtering their brothers globally. Follow the money and the answers appear.
LOL, perhaps she got an offer she cant refuse…. defamers of the Jews put a lot of money behind their filthy projects.
Much more interesting than wasting time on every similar proposal for jewish giveaways would be the exposure of the leftist monetary connections with foreign entities who fund the muslims to drive out the Jews. I beleive it borders on sedition which in most nations is a form of treason requiring capital punishment
why bother to waste time discussing this absurd proposal… any Jew subscribing to this deserves the learning experience.
sounds right to me
MS has succeeded in psychologically imprinting Jews and Israelis with the notion that any unilateral action is negative… that Israel must depend on the PA to come to agreement to determine its future. I call on Martin to cease from this Orwellian use of the word unilateral or unilateralism… unilateral is GOOD if you act unilaterally to annex, to settle Jews, to deport anti semites.
Please stop this innacurate imprinting of a negative connotation on the word unilateral. It is not the word.. it is the actions that are negative or positive. Martin is saying that the Jews have no options accept by agreement with the pals… I say the opposite: that it is absurd to predicate decisions on agreement with pals… Israel should act unilaterally.
why does MS continue to confuse the use of the word unilateralism… nothing is wrong with Israel acting unilaterally… what is wrong is unilaterally withdrawing rather than unilatrally annexing or unilaterally settling every inch of YS. Unilateralism makes sense as opposed to holding up LON mandated Jewish settlement in YS. Israel should not be dependent on the pals for its decisions… if one acts unilaterally, taking into account that the evidence shows the pals would never honor any agreement and will always seek more after agreement, then you move ahead, settle and annex C and keep AB under Israel occupation until they can come to an agreement.
Do nothing to alleviate any misery, suffering or chaos for those who teach their children that jews are sons of apes and pigs. Poverty will make them seek to leave. There is no reason to reward their slaughters with gifts. My proposal will put the onus for agreement upon them… Israel will not require an agreement to move forward. Those ex jordanians left in C will not be granted Israeli citizenship; they can become gazans jordanians pa autonomy stateless, etc. They can be granted temporary residence subject to behavior and any anti semitic behavior would require mandatory deportation.
As for the world, it matters not what the Jews do, it is provn that the world will continue to apply anti semitic double standards on Israel. Israel must adopt a more aggressive paradigm towards foreign anti semitic pressures and double standards. Kowtowing and appeasing them by sacrificing Jews and jewish land is a proven failure… something new and opposite is required.
the eastern boundary is already defined by agreement with hashemite’s and carved in stone by the L.N.M its called the Jordan river