By Ted Belman
I have long been an advocate of unilateral action reasoning that the agreements we get from Palestinians aren’t worth the paper they are written on and the cost of getting such worthless agreements is much too high.
Amos Yadlin Amos is the director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv. He formerly served as chief of military intelligence for the Israel Defense Forces. He makes The Case for Unilateral Withdrawal
He proposes that:
A generous offer should be made to Palestinians, the outlines of which are by now quite familiar, having been repeatedly put on the table by successive Israeli prime ministers. If, once again, the offer is rejected out of hand or meets with impossible and non-negotiable demands like the wholesale return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, or sovereignty over the Temple Mount, Israel on its own should continue to pursue a two-state reality.
You might wonder as I did why this offer should be so generous. Why not make a less generous offer?
But no, his suggested offer is unbelievably generous.
In that latter scenario, acting on principles formulated in consultation with its global allies and friends, Israel would shape its own borders, maintaining full control over Jerusalem, the settlement blocks, and the Jordan River. As for other areas under Israeli control, they would include for the time being all territories west of the security fence; the eventual disposition of these territories would be decided when the Palestinians are ready to negotiate seriously. Meanwhile, Israel would renounce its formal claims to political sovereignty in areas where very few Israelis reside—areas that happen to constitute some 85 percent of the West Bank. By taking such a unilateral initiative, Israel would wrest from the current Palestinian leadership its crippling veto power over partition, while simultaneously acting to secure its own future as a Jewish, democratic, secure, and just state.
Our so-called global allies wouldn’t give us an inch. Were we to seek their consent we would no longer be acting unilaterally and defeating the purpose of it. Notice that he wants to shape our own borders as opposed to “maintaining full control over Jerusalem, the settlement blocks, and the Jordan River.” Is he suggesting that we would not be sovereign over these lands? I think so because he goes on to say that the lands lying west of the fence to the greenline would also be in limbo.
He suggests we sweeten the deal for our global allies by renouncing our formal claim to sovereignty over 85% of Judea and Samaria which means we leave only 15% open for negotiations.
This is a horrible idea. In effect he is suggesting that we relinquish most of our land claims in exchange for what? Its not clear. At the same time 150,000 settlers would find themselves in land that we have relinquished our claim to.
Why not relinquish our claim to only 40% of J&S amounting to A plus parts of B and call it a day. We don’t have to prolong the conflict by offering to negotiate a better deal for the Palestinians in exchange for a peace agreement. Make no further commitment.
This tells you how left wing the INSS is.