Benny Begin: No Arab sovereignty west of the Jordan

Former Likud minister strongly opposes adoption of US plan and the idea of a Palestinian state in ‘regions of our homeland.’

Arutz Sheva Staff,

Former Minister and Likud figure Benny Begin on Sunday strongly opposed the idea that the government would officially approve the Deal of the Century introduced last week by U.S. President Donald Trump.

In an interview with Reshet Bet, Begin said, “It is an interesting document but it is not a plan. The Americans also call this document a ‘vision’, also the maps that it contains are called envisioned maps.”

“Of course, this document cannot actually be realized and therefore it should be viewed as an update on American policy in our region. It bears a certain import, but care must be taken to leave it at that,” he noted.

Begin explained, “This is an American document, it does not have to and should not be adopted as an Israeli plan. It is a stupid idea. Because of the very negative elements that exist in this plan.”

When Begin was asked to clarify what he considered wrong in the Deal of the Century, he noted the intention to apply “Arab sovereignty in the regions of our homeland west of the Jordan.”

“I can tell you that before the Bar-Ilan speech, and after the speech I was asked about my position on the possibility of adopting the speech in the Knesset and in the government, I immediately dismissed it and I think that this was at least a partial contribution to the fact that the speech was not adopted by the government and was not raised in the Knesset. It didn’t happen and it cannot happen in the future,” Begin said.

Among the negative elements of the plan, Begin also noted that “in order to obtain the desired area for the Arab sovereignty referred to as a Palestinian state in the document, they intend to double, roughly, the area of ??the Gaza Strip. They give away parts of the Negev for this matter, which is fundamentally invalid.”

Begin added, “Enclaves of Jewish communities within an Arab area are unacceptable, as is the mere raising of the possibility of annexation of ten Arab communities, including, according to my account, two hundred and fifty thousand people, into a Palestinian sovereign state. It is forbidden to force such a solution on them.”

Begin also made it clear, on the other hand, that the green light for applying sovereignty is not a reason for him to cease his opposition to the plan. “I never thought there was a rush in applying the law to additional parts of Judea and Samaria. It’s not like the messiah’s here.”

February 3, 2020 | 4 Comments » | 268 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel –
    David Ben Gurion
    (David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as the State’s main founder).
    “No Jew is entitled to give up the right of establishing [i.e. settling] the Jewish Nation in all of the Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such power. Not even all the Jews alive today [i.e. the entire Jewish People] have the power to cede any part of the country or homeland whatsoever. This is a right vouchsafed or reserved for the Jewish Nation throughout all generations. This right cannot be lost or expropriated under any condition or circumstance. Even if at some particular time, there are those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have no power nor competence to deprive coming generations of this right. The Jewish nation is neither bound nor governed by such a waiver or renunciation. Our right to the whole of this country is valid, in force and endures forever. And until the Final Redemption has come, we will not budge from this historic right.”
    BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND
    INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
    THE LAND OF ISRAEL:
    at the Basle Session of the 20th Zionist Congress at Zurich (1937)

  2. Begin is right about most of this. But he is wrong that there would be no benefit to Israel in formally extending sovereignty over the Jewish settlement and JV now. For one thing, it would give the 500,000 Jews in Judea-Samaria the same rights as other Israeli citizens. At present, they can be expelled from the “administered territories” on the whim of the military authorities, with no reason given. They can also be expelled from their homes and their homes destroyed by an arbitrary decision of the military authorities. Arabs have a right to petition the High Court directly to hand over land belonging to or inhabited by settlers, and the settlers don’t even have the right to be represented in the proceedings. This would change if these settlements were declared to be sovereign Israeli territory. The settlers would become full citizens of Israel . At present, they are not.

    Another benefit would be that future Israeli governments, such as a Blue-White government, would find it difficult to bargain away these settlements in negotiations, once they are established as Israeli territory by law.

    It would also make it very difficult for future

  3. @ Adam Dalgliesh:
    At this point it would be impossible to expel 500,000 Jews from the West Bank (plus more than 300,000 in East Jerusalem if the question arises) without completely destroying the country. It’s not going to happen.

  4. What’s the worst that could happen if Israel just applied Sovereignty and civil law without making any concessions, even in principle? Would Israel really be subject to sanctions? Would the nations really kill the goose that keeps laying golden eggs for them? And, if so, how badly would that hurt, how many trading partners would go along? Let’s talk worst case and likely scenarios. I think there hasn’t been enough debate about that. Just too much fear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*