High-ranking Likud politicians voice support for annexation of West Bank Area C, where all settlements are located, say lack of annexation strengthens international community’s demand for withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.
Israeli annexation of the West Bank’s Area C — where all settlements are located — received public support from two high-ranking Likud politicians on Tuesday evening, Minister Yuli Edelstein and MK Ze’ev Elkin.
“Lack of Israeli sovereignty over Area C, means the continuation of the status quo,” said Edelstein, as he spoke about an area of the country that is now under Israeli military control.
“It strengthens the international community’s demand for a withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines,” he said.
But Edelstein and Elkin cautioned that this was a process that should happen slowly, not immediately.
They were among a slate of speakers at a Jerusalem conference organized by Women in Green, called the Application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. It is the group’s third annual conference on this topic.
Support for annexation has increased in the aftermath of the United Nation’s General Assembly decision in November to upgrade the Palestinian status to that of non-member state.
Former Foreign Ministry legal advisor Alan Baker warned the conference that annexation was an abrogation of the 1993 Oslo Accords, in which Israel and the Palestinians committed to resolve their dispute through negotiations, rather than unilateral measures.
“Israel recognized its right to annex Area C, but has chosen not to do so for diplomatic reasons,” said Baker, who explained that he did not support such a move because of its diplomatic implications.
“We have committed ourselves to negotiations in the Oslo Accord, which is still in effect, whether we like it or not,” he added.
As one of the three legal experts who penned the Levy report, which stated that Israel has a legal right under international law to settle Area C of the West Bank, he said he believed that the government should focus on strengthening Jewish right to build over the pre-1967 lines.
He added that it should “stop apologizing all the time.”
Bakers explained that “No one can deny the Jewish people its place as an indigenous people” on both sides of the pre-1967 he said.
But he noted that international opinions increasingly, refused to recognize this “historical fact.”
European politicians he said have shifted their language with regard to the West Bank from “disputed territories” to “occupied Palestinian territories.”
Elkin said he disagreed with Baker. If the Palestinians do not have to adhere to the Oslo Accords, than neither do Israelis he said.
MK Yariv Levin (Likud) said he supported annexation but did not believe it was so feasible. Instead he urged politicians to focus on applying individual Israeli laws to West Bank settlements and its residents, rather than tackling the issue on a global scale.
The same building laws should equally apply to Tel Aviv as they do to settlements in Judea and Samaria, he said.
Edelstein said, however, that it must be clear that Israel is moving toward annexation, or it weakens any argument it makes about Israel’s right to Judea and Samaria.
He noted that such a step would not end the international debate over Area C as evidenced by the storm of controversy continues to range over Israeli sovereignty in east Jerusalem.
“Application of sovereignty does not automatically resolve the issue of disputed territories, as we say in the international legal language, but it is an important step that expresses our approach,” he said.
Failure to make such a strong statement, Edelstein added, “is like saying [Judea and Samaria] is not the legal wife, but a mistress.”
“Shifted”? — from disputed?
When did those dickheads ever characterize the territories as ‘disputed’?
— I can’t recall when they didn’t designate them ‘occupied.’
Ted, why is my comment 11 still in moderation. perhaps you should turn off the moderation software. There are large sites(yahoo, disqus,etc) that once you register as a member you are posted immediately.
@ yamit82:
Dear yamit,
Thank you for posting THIS particular comment…
I am running with it on a different path than the ‘annexation and transfer’ that it was intended…..
That was a priceless gem!
What is the difference between the declaration of a state and annexation wrt Oslo agreement? They are both political declarations. If they are not material breaches then they are both violations. If oslo remains after the pals violate it then it is not affected when the Israelis violate it. Jews’ fear of pagan slaughters is at the root of this clear double standard expressing business as usual with the Jews. The europeans make the most noise because of their need to remain the masters of the Jews and to teach the Jews a lesson. There is no rational explanation for the european repeated and pathological double standards, their violation of every agreement with the Jews and their frantic hysteria at Jewish assertiveness. It is explained only by their pathology. J’accuse!
The Jews must throw of f this yoke of double standards.
comment 11 in moderation
as I have repeatedly said: The 2000 year chronic , culturally congenital, serial Jew killers and swindlers are to this very day continuing their behavior to kill and swindle the Jews. The swindling is overtly apparent however there needs to be more recognition that their finding any excuse to side with the current day jew killers is merely a covert hiatus to their normal habit of jew killing directly. Every day brings them closer to the overt stage again. The Europeans need to be seen as existential enemies of the Jews and their actions seen as leading to their normal behavior of Jew killing. This hiatus from overt jew killing is abnormal for them, their nature will force a return to their normal behavior.
This is an article from the JPost. I would venture that your original comment applies to the JPost but not to Ted.
But let’s ask Ted.
Ted?
@ Shy Guy:
I am aware that the conference – “Applying Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea And Samaria” is covered elsewhere, but I am disappointed that Israpundit has not focussed on the cogent and compelling arguements for applying sovereignty, instead concentrating on fringe issues.
Does this reflect a reticence on Ted’s part to advocate such a move or am I reading too much into this?
Nigel Shaw Said:
That is separately reported here.
As for Edelstein, a BB poodle, if there ever was one.
@ drjb:
No. Netanyahu sent them to provide cover. His plan is to block the Levi Report, abandon Judea and Samaria, abandon Jerusalem and Temple Mount.
This article is a slanted view of the conference – “Applying Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea And Samaria.”
It presents only a minimalist spectrum, from the assertion that Jewish settlement over the Green Line is not against international law to the consideration of the advisability of the application of Israeli sovereignty over Area C.
No mention is made of the views expressed at this conference that actually argued for the wisdom of applying Israeli sovereignty over ALL of Judea and Samaria, as proposed by Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katsover of Women in Green, who convened this conference, Caroline Glick(no fool) and the brilliant Martin Sherman.
A major arguement against only applying Israeli sovereignty over Area C, is that rather than being interpreted as asserting Jewish rights over this territory, it telegraphs a willingness to disengage, both to faint-hearted Israelis and the Arabs.
The application of Israeli sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria will change the status of these territories from “disputed” to indisputedly parts of Israel.
The international furore will die down just as it did after Israel applied sovereignty over Jerusalem and later over Golan.
Most of the Arabs in the extended Israeli areas know full well that their healthcare and economic opportunities will be much more preferable than any other options, and those that refuse to live peacefully can live elsewhere.
These Likud politicians proposing annexing Area C do not change the status quo of the illusion of an Arab state west of the Jordan River.
Applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria will end that illusion, and fulfill G-d’s promise to the Jewish people.
Stating that annexation is an abrogation of the 1993 Oslo Accords is untrue, since legally speaking the Oslo Accords are already null and void.
The Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the PLO, a terror organization, are in violation of international law, ie the Nuremberg Principles.
According to Principle I of the binding Nuremberg Principles: “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”
The PLO carried out crimes of war and crimes against humanity against Israel and Israeli people. Any agreement with such entity that offers rewards and not punishments is null and void.
As legal “experts” they should have known that Judea and Samaria form an integral part of the National Home for the Jewish people according to international law.
Finally, annexation means also that Judea and Samaria territories, which are currently handled by the Defense Minister, should be removed therefrom and they should be governed as any city inside Israel in all terms and aspects: social, municipal, legal, security, economically, etc…
My friend – one cannot talk of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria before the Jew is the master of his own home.
The government cannot guarantee Jews’ safety in Lod. And it arrests them for trying to pray on the Temple Mount as was the case with Moshe Feiglin on Tuesday.
The words of Israel’s national anthem fall far short of the ideal, when the Jew has to give up his freedom out of fear of how the Arabs will react. And there are many cases like this, sad to say, in Israel today.
@ drjb:
drjb Said:
I don’t think BB’s problem is listening, it’s the doing that he has a problem with.
Many times I have spoken of the Talmudic parable of the king, his servant, and the fish. Never was it more apt. re: annexation and transfer.
“Once there was a king who sent his servant to buy a fish. The servant returned with a fish that stank. In fury the king gave the servant a choice of three punishments: “Eat the fish, get whipped for the fish, or pay for the fish.” In common with most people, the servant chose not to reach into his pocket and he decided to eat the stinking fish but after two bites the stench made him give up and he decided to get whipped for it. The pain of the lashes, however, made him stop that, too, and he cried out, “I will pay for the fish!”
And so the fool ate the fish, got whipped for the fish and, in the end, had to pay for it, anyhow. Stinking fish are not made to be eaten or to get whipped for. One must have the courage to look at the truth and pay the bitter price of honesty”.
Finally high ranking Likudniks are speaking out. Will Bibi listen?