Peloni
Hebron. Photo by JAMAL KIWAN, WESAM, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikipedia
In an important article by Elliot Kaufman in the Wall Street Journal, A New Palestinian Offer for Peace With Israel, a new peace proposal has been put forward by the most influential of Hebron’s clans, Sheik Wadee’ al-Jaabari, as follows:
“We want cooperation with Israel,” says Sheikh Wadee’ al-Jaabari, also known as Abu Sanad, from his ceremonial tent in Hebron, the West Bank’s largest city located south of Jerusalem. “We want coexistence.” The leader of Hebron’s most influential clan has said such things before, as did his father. But this time is different. Sheikh Jaabari and four other leading Hebron sheikhs have signed a letter pledging peace and full recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Their plan is for Hebron to break out of the Palestinian Authority, establish an emirate of its own, and join the Abraham Accords.
…
“The Emirate of Hebron shall recognize the State of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people,” the sheikhs write, “and the State of Israel shall recognize the Emirate of Hebron as the Representative of the Arab residents in the Hebron District.” Accepting Israel as a Jewish state goes further than the Palestinian Authority ever has, and sweeps aside decades of rejectionism.
The letter seeks a timetable for negotiations to join the Abraham Accords and “a fair and decent arrangement that would replace the Oslo Accords, which only brought damage, death, economic disaster and destruction.” The Oslo Accords, agreed to by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1990s, “have brought upon us the corrupt Palestinian Authority, instead of recognizing the traditional, authentic local leadership.” That would be the clans, the great families that still shape Palestinian society.
The sheikhs propose that Israel would admit 1,000 workers from Hebron for a trial period, then 5,000 more. Sheikh Jaabari and another major sheikh say Mr. Barkat has told them this number will grow to 50,000 workers or more from Hebron. Work in Israel is a valuable source of income for Palestinian communities, which have had little development of their own under Palestinian Authority rule, but most permits were suspended after Oct. 7. The sheikhs’ letter pledges “zero tolerance” for terrorism by workers, “in contrast to the current situation in which the Palestinian Authority pays tributes to the terrorists.”
To be certain, what Sheikh Jabaari is proposing is an important offer, but a full grasp of what he is offering is not yet clear. While many details remain to be explored, what should be noted is that the Kaufman article cites Jabaari as specifically pledging “zero tolerance” for terrorism by workers, but what is not made clear is whether terrorists will be tolerated at all in Hebron under this proposal. Indeed, we are none of us so old as to not be able to recall that Hebron was among the cities in Judea and Samaria which celebrated the October 7 attack in the days following that slaughter. Hence, an obvious question for Sheikh Jabaari is whether he will permit radical Islamists to remain in his sheikhdom? Will he allow the Muslim Brotherhood to exist there? Will he tolerate celebration of, and calls to repeat, October 7? Will he replace the Islamist teachings which have been taught in Hebron schools over the years for Israeli texts? Will Jews be able to travel to Hebron unescorted without threat of violence or need of police extraction?
Or is he simply proposing that he and his fellow sheikhs should take over managing the same radicalized/radicalizing population which the terrorist PA has overseen up to now? Like Jolani, the sheikhs want validation by the West, support of Pres. Trump, and inclusion in the Abraham Accords with Israel, yet are they ready to do the heavy lifting, implementing the necessary reforms, and ostracizing the radicals in their own ranks, eliminating the radical teachings and customs of their own people, to achieve these benefits?
Failing these requirements, it would not be peace which was being offered, but a change of management of the radicalized Hebron masses. While the rule of the sheikhs might well be preferable to the terrorist Pay-For-Slay PA, the limits of such a change in management should clearly understood from the outset, as the sheikhs gravitate towards the strength and stability of full cooperation with Israel, they must eschew the very doctrine and indoctrination which has simultaneously weaponized their people against the Jews under the Olso Accords and thereby victimized both Jews and Arabs in the same undertaking. If the sheikhs lack the strength and fortitude to shed these radicalized elements from their society, their proposal will only be addressing half the problem of Oslo, ie that the radicalization/weaponization of the relative Arab communities were being overseen by known terrorists, and the resulting peace proposal will hardly be capable of providing peace.
Kaufman’s full article can be read here:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/new-palestinian-offer-peace-israel-hebron-sheikh-emirate-36dd39c3
So far both the Shin Bet and IDF are opposed to this!
I am leary of bringing Arabs into Israel to work. It does not take many to kill Jews.
Hamas Oct 7, 20023 attack was aided and abetted by Gazans who working the Israeli kibbutzim.
That said I would like to hear alternatives.
I would love for the Arabs to move elsewhere, even buying them out. My question is where would they go? No one wants to accept them so far. We have been trying to find the Gazans home but only a moderate number have emigrated so far.
@Rafi
Because ultimately, these sheikhdoms will require support from the terrorist, and it will fall to the IDF and SB to either support them or see them fail. The sheikhs will be targeted with accusations of being Israeli quislings, and the radicals will be motivated against them. In the WSJ article it articulates that the sheikhs control just over half of the Arabs, which means that about half of the Arabs remain potential opponents to this new policy, and this would presume that the sheikhs could maintain full control of their respective clans, which is likely not entirely certain for all of the sheiks in question. So, if this is any representation of how things would fall out, we would be looking at the makings of a civil war between the heavily armed and trained US equity, PA Army against the clans of the various sheikhs backing Jabaari. While Jabaari indicates that he needs Israel to simply not back the PA, the need for Israel to support the emirates movement would clearly be a possibility, and I would argue that it is reasonable to expect that this possibility would be more likely than not.
It is reasonable that the IDF and SB would be reluctant to advocate for a situation which might lead to them being involved in an intra-Arab spitting match in Hebron, probably even more reluctant than they are to invade the yet to be invaded urban areas of Gaza after nearly two years of fighting.
Right now the IDF and Shin Bet are fighting daily in J&S for a long time.
The Emirates might be a solution that takes over a long time or it just be another mirage.
It certainly should be discussed. It clearly can not be near perfect because a solution has alluded for a long long time.
@Rafi
This is a temporary measure as war is meant to be. But the support required for the clans would require a permanently presence or some basis on which to deal with the radicals in the relative clans? Do you believe that the Mukhtars would individually or collectively have the means by which to oppose the power of the Muslim Brotherhood or some alternate internationally supported Islamist group. Even ignoring the radicals, who would deal with the strife between the clans which would resemble gangland fiefdoms? Is it reasonable that the 5 sheikhs which support Jabaari’s call for the emirates plan would be capable or interested in cooperating with each other on a permanent basis?
Additionally, these sheikhdoms are minimally disposed to spending their wealth towards the betterment of their people, so who do you suppose would be dealing with the breakdown of civil amenities? What about the rising tide of violence in the Arab sectors?
Actually, I think this move should be celebrated, but we must be critical about what is being proposed and how it will affect Israel when the sheikhs take control of these territories which they are likely to not govern well.
As to discussing this topic, this is all that I want, and it is the minimum of what we should all want. In this regard, I will be posting something more on this today, so you can look for it.
There are many questions which must be answered, and failing a central Arab authority to deal with these matters when the PA is gone, it will place a burden of society and security, not on the mukhtars, but upon the IDF and Shin Bet, which again is why it is reasonable for them to object to it, failing answers to these very easy and obvious questions which I have listed here, and which are far from an extensive list.
All of the questions raised in this article should, indeed, be asked of Sheikh Jaabari, and Israel should have his plan for implementing these radical changes before signing on to this.