Annexation of Judea-Samaria together with its Arab population, will culminate in Lebanonization of Israel and the end of the Zionist dream—as surely as the two-state paradigm it was meant to replace
By MARTIN SHERMAN
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
– An ancient English dictum of disputed origin
In my column last week, I once again raised the issue of the fading relevance of what has been hitherto the dominant policy paradigm that has all but monopolized the debate on how to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs: The two-state formula.
I urged initiating a vigorous debate on how Israel should react to this emerging situation and what policy prescription it should adopt to best contend with the onset of post two-state realities.
Preparing for post Two-State era
Clearly, the gathering skepticism as to the feasibility of the perilous and pernicious two-state idea is without doubt a potentially positive development for Israel. However, I cautioned, that whether the incipient benefits this entails will indeed materialize, depends largely on the prudence and foresight with which Israel conducts itself, and on the wisdom of the choices it makes.
For the threats that may well emerge in a post two-state era are no less menacing to the survival of the Jewish-state than the two-state prescription poses itself—arguably even more so.
I concluded the column by pointing out something that should be almost self-evident: To secure its survival as it was established to be – the nation-state of the Jews – Israel must embark on strategies that address both its geographic viability (i.e. its geographic imperative) and its demographic viability (i.e. its demographic imperative). Clearly, any policy, which does not contend adequately with either of these imperatives, imperils the Jewish nation-state, either geographically or demographically.
It is of course relatively easy to demonstrate, to all but fanatically obsessive two-staters, that—barring some wildly optimistic, and hence unrealistic, best case scenario—the two-state prescription, in any configuration remotely acceptable to even the most compliant Palestinian “partner”, will leave Israel unacceptably vulnerable geographically.
Sadly, however, I lamented that most alternatives advanced by leading critics of the two-state approach entailed proposals that jeopardize the existence of a Jewish Israel no less than the dangerous two-state folly.
Piquing one-stater’s ire
The column ignited a lively debate in cyberspace—particularly with “Right-wing” advocates of a one-state policy, whose ire I seemed to have piqued by suggesting that their proposal—i.e. annexation of all the territory of Judea-Samaria together with the Palestinian-Arab population resident there—would make Israel untenable demographically.
In defense of their position, they cite “alternative” (i.e. private initiative) demographic studies that show that the size of the Palestinian Arab population has been considerably over-estimated; and that in recent years there has been a dramatic plunge in Arab- Muslim birthrates, both in pre-1967 Israel and in Judea-Samaria, while Jewish fertility rates have risen strongly.
Let me clarify at the outset: I find these “alternative” demographic studies persuasive and believe their conclusions probably reflect the realities on the ground better than more commonly cited, official Establishment estimates. Moreover, there can be little doubt as to the steep decline in Arab-Muslim birthrates and the recent increase in Jewish ones.
However, even if we accept the numerical validity of these optimistic assessments, the political conclusions that “Right-wing” one-staters draw from them are – to greatly understate the case—highly questionable—and Israel would do well to avoid basing planning its long term national strategy on them.
Some daunting statistics
To grasp the detrimental repercussion of incorporating a large, and largely incompatibly recalcitrant Arab-Muslim population into Israel’s permanent populace—whether as fully enfranchised citizens or not—it is important to recognize that the problem is not only of electoral arithmetic at the polls. Perhaps far more important is the impact on the country’s socio-cultural fabric, its national coherence —and its ability to function as an undisputed Jewish state.
Seen in this regard, the statistics—even the optimistic version thereof—appear far more daunting. Indeed, even within the pre-1967 lines the picture of demographic trends and the socio-political effects likely accompany them.—are dour.
Thus, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), while in 1949, there were more than nine Jews to every Muslim within the Green Line, by 2015, this ratio had dropped dramatically to just under 4.3 Jews for each Muslim. In other words, in the six-and-a-half decades since independence, the Muslim population has more than doubled in comparison to the Jewish population – despite massive waves of Jewish immigration from around the world.
Moreover, the post-2000 statistics provide cold comfort for anyone pinning their hopes on decelerating Muslim momentum. For as recently as 2001, the CBS figures showed there were more than five Jews to every Muslim, compared to under 4.3 in 2015 – reflecting about a 17% percent decrease in the ratio of Jews to Muslims within pre-1967 Israel in less than a decade and a half.
Risk-fraught one-state proposals
Again, it is true that the difference between Jewish and Arab birth rates (once vastly higher in favor of the latter) is rapidly narrowing, almost approaching parity within the pre-1967 lines—with the Arab rate still just slightly above the Jewish one.
There is however, no guarantee that that this trend will continue, that Jewish fertility rates will continue to rise significantly above current levels, and that Arab rates will not bottom out around present figures. Indeed, today in Israel, family sizes are well beyond those of the OECD members, and accordingly, it is far from implausible that the birthrates may well remain at approximately current levels. To bet the “Zionist farm” on the assumption that current trends will continue and that a sizeable disparity in favor of the Jews will develop, is risky to say the least—if not dangerously farfetched.
Accordingly, the Muslim minority within the pre-1967 lines– without the addition of any co-religionists in Judea-Samaria – is fast approaching 20% of the total population. Thus in the absence of overwhelmingly compelling evidence to the contrary, the prudent working assumption for the nation’s future is that it is likely to stabilize at present levels.
This, together with growing Israeli-Arab political awareness and sophistication, poses an increasingly difficult challenge to preserving Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, a challenge –even without doubling the relative size of the permanent Muslim population, via annexation—which is likely to render it impossible.
Almost child-like naiveté
Indeed, it takes an almost-childlike naiveté to entertain the belief that Israel could sustain itself as a Jewish nation-state with a massive Muslim minority of 35- 40% – as the societal mayhem, which far smaller proportions have wrought in Europe, indicates.
In the past I have endeavored to underscore the irrevocable havoc a policy that calls for the annexation of Judea-Samaria and continued permanent residency of the Arab population there, is almost inevitably likely to cause – see: To My Colleague Caroline, A Caveat ; Sovereignty? Yes, But Look Before You Leap; Islamizing Israel – When The Radical Left And Hard Right Concur. I urge readers to take note of the arguments I raise in them—not all of which I am able to include in this essay.
There are only two post-annexation possibilities: Either the Arab population in the annexed territories will be accorded equal civil rights and liberties, or they will not. If they are not—and in the absence of any clear blueprint for their political future—Israel will be hopelessly, and rightly, exposed to accusations of ethnic discrimination—especially if the Jewish residents in those areas are accorded such rights.
If they are, the impact on Israel’s socio-economic and cultural fabric is likely to be devastating in terms of the effect on societal norms, leisure activities, acceptable modes of entertainment, gender equality and so on. This is especially true when the bulk of the newly annexed population has been subjected to decades of Judeophobic indoctrination and Judeocidal incitement.
The societal impact of one-statism
Once the Arab population of Judea-Samaria becomes incorporated into Israel’s permanent population, at least two crucial elements of national life are almost certain to be dramatically—and in Zionist-compliant terms, negatively –impacted. The one is the distribution of national resources; the other is population flows into, and out of, the country.
With regard to the former, clearly once the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria—whether enfranchised or not—become incorporated into the country’s permanent population, Israel will not be able to afford the kind of socio-economic disparities that prevail between the pre- and post-annexation segments of the population.
Accordingly, huge budget resources will have to be diverted to reduce such disparities – siphoning off funds currently spent on the Jewish population (and Israeli Arabs) in terms of welfare, medical care, infrastructure education and so on.
Indeed, if enfranchisement (eventual or immediate) is envisaged, the electoral potential of the Arab sector is liable to be elevated from its current 13-15 seats in parliament to 25-30. This will not only hugely bolster its ability to demand enhanced budgetary allotments, but also make it virtually impossible to form a governing coalition without their endorsement.
Moreover, various ad hoc parliamentary collaboration with radical Jewish left-wing factions are likely to nullify any formal calculations of an ostensible “Jewish majority”, and lead to legislative enterprises that ultra-Zionist proponents of annexation would strongly oppose – in an ironic manifestation of unintended consequences.
One-statism & the impact on “Aliyah”…and “Yeridah”
Some optimistic (or is that myopic?) one-staters believe that, following annexation of Palestinian-Arabs residents in Judea-Samaria, the Jewish population will be bolstered significantly by energized ways of Jewish immigration (Aliyah).
Such claims are unpersuasive, to say the least. After all, it is not immediately obvious how Israel, with a 30-40% Muslim minority ,will be any more attractive than it is today for Jews abroad to choose to live in it –and for Jews already resident in it to stay here. Indeed, a far more plausible case can be made for the claim that such annexation will deter Jewish immigration and spur Jewish emigration (Yeridah).
In terms of GDP per capita Israel will be catapulted backwards by decades, jeopardizing its status as an advanced postindustrial country and its newly won membership in the OECD—a development hardly likely to attract educated Jewish professionals from abroad to opt for Israel as their preferred place of abode.
Indeed, with an emboldened and enlarged Muslim minority, the new post-annexation Israel is not only likely to impede Jewish immigration, but stimulate Jewish emigration of current Israeli citizens , wishing to distance themselves, and their families, from the emerging post-annexation societal realities.
By contrast, the effect on Arab population movements in and out of the country is liable to be precisely the opposite. Annexation, and the prospect of being incorporated into the permanent population of Israel is likely to bring the currently accelerating Arab emigration to a shuddering halt.
One-statism & the Lebanonization of Israel
For those who believe Israel would adopt a far more robust and assertive policy than the Europeans in dealing with defiant challenges from its Muslim communities, the flaccid Israeli response to phenomena, like illegal Arab construction in the Galilee or general lawlessness (from drug trafficking to polygamy) in the Negev leave ample scope for skepticism, if not downright pessimism.
Annexation of Judea-Samaria, without any program for drastically reducing its Arab population, will inevitably culminate in the Lebanonization of Israel, with all the attendant inter-ethnic strife and violence that haunts that tortured and fractured country. It is a proposal that –however well-intentioned—will bring about the end of the Zionist dream—as surely as the two-state paradigm it was meant to replace.
Which brings me full circle.
Allow me to conclude this column with the same words I concluded last week’s.
“To ensure its survival as the nation state of the Jewish people Israel requires a policy paradigm that addresses both its geographic and demographic imperatives for survival…
Accordingly, it must be a proposal that ensures Israeli control over vital geo-strategic assets in Judea-Samaria and drastically reduces the presence of the hostile Arab population resident there—preferably by non-coercive means such as economic inducements…which, by the way, is what attracted the bulk of the Arab population here in the first place.
To formulate such an alternative policy paradigm in lieu of the two-state formula, to acquire sufficient legitimacy for it, to advance it in the public discourse and to generate widespread recognition for its adoption as a national imperative is undoubtedly one of the most pressing and pertinent questions on the Zionist agenda today”
Dr. Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategic-israel.org)
@ Felix Quigley:
@ CuriousAmerican:
Speaking of deplorables !!!!!!!!!!
3 interesting links on that:
Video on State Website Slams Rabin for Altalena Murders’ – Israel News – Haaretz
Video on State Website Slams Rabin for Altalena Murders’
Video includes archival footage showing interviews with Rabin and two other people who tell of the events of pre-state battle in which ‘Rabin admits responsibility for the massacre on the Altalena,’
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.687022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunting_Season
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair
and a terrific opinion piece in Yesterday’s Algemeiner
http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/09/11/we-never-left-the-jews-continuous-presence-in-the-land-of-israel/
A big question is the Palestine Poison Narrative as Richard Landes labelled it. This is a daunting situation that Jews and those who are in alliance with Jews are in.
The big problem is that the story of the Jews return to Palestine cannot be told in a conformist way. For example in Acre Prison the British hung Jews who were in the Irgun. The Hagannah were against the Irgun or were complicit.
These Jews being hung by the British is very reminiscent of the Irish rebels of 1916 being hung by the British following what became known as the “Easter Rising” a term that still to this day will electrify any conversation in Ireland.
The fact that the Hagannah were involved with the British in putting down the Irgun freedom fighters means that this story cannot truthfully be told in the Israel of today in a way that is not going to be very controversial.
The fact is that the more Israel has got involved in getting rich (oil computers etcetera.) the further away from telling this story they have become.
It is that dialectic that has led to the situation of today where the Israeli state places its young sergeant on trial for killing a terrorist who minutes before was trying to kill his IDF colleague.
Who in Israel today will tell this story. I say absolutely nobody. First of all it cannot be an individual issue as it requires a party. Second Netanyahu will betray big time. Third Bennett has totally disappointed. Fourth I feel that Feiglin is following the parliamentary electoral model and that will be disastrous.
I agree with Feiglin when he says take possession of our future.
But that cannot be done if he is not interested in telling the Jewish story.
There will be needed a new force to tell this story because it is not in essence a Jewish story at all, it is much wider than that, as my link between the hangings by the British in Acre and their hangings in Dublin should point to.
The interview of Feiglin with Yonah was interesting.She is a great interviewer, lively and to the point.
She began by laying it on the line…which is that despite all the good Israel has done from 1900 in that very area she is hated throughout the world.
Yonah said this as introduction to Feiglin.
I think he actually loved hearing this. You see this is the problem and why what he is about is just exactly 180 degrees from Martin Sherman because Martin talks all of the time about how to solve this.
In other words he sees it as a huge and perhaps deadly problem and Feiglin seems to see it as a blessing.
The other thing about the interview is that Yonah asked him about the election in US and this guy could not give tuppence….he was turned off totally by the question
So he goes inward. But the youth of the world go outward.
Youth cannot afford to go inward like that. They have the future ahead and it could be deadly…and the youth are right.
Note here I was not pushing an empty internationalism. There is actually a dialectic between the two…they both are united in a whole
By the way, are typos “on” huge irritant or “one” huge irritant? Just curious.
@ Ted Belman:
I believe that once the Arabs leave in definite numbers, it wqill only increase, especially if it is prominently declared by the Jewish State, that the longer they remain, the smaller their compensation for the land they squat on will be. Financial loss is a great “leveller” it affects every race and people.
By the way folks, there is on HUGE irritant for me, in reading the comments of several of our best posters. As follows….
The spelling of the word is L-O-S-E..not loose…(except when you’re talking about the screw in someone’s head) AND the spelling of the word is R-E-I N…not reign. We’re talking about reining in, (like controlling an impulse, or pulling up a horse etc), not of Royal Dynasties, who do REIGN, often succeeding one another and keeping it “in the family”.
Please folks, I really like reading the comments here, very cerebral, many of them, LOSING your spelling capability unneccessarily, gives me a headache. I’ve wanted to say this for a long time so please forgive me if I’ve caused any to be offended..
When we advance, they retreat. Look at how defensive and hedging the State Department’s condemnation of Bibi’s speech, now that he takes a belated stand for Jewish rights. Not the ranting tirades we have come to expect. Now it’s “unhelpful.”
Saturday, September 10, 2016
State Department Spokeswoman: Not a big fan of PM Netanyahu Video
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=71419
We need to grow some ___.
Yes. Annex all of the “West Bank” now. place everything under Israeli military rule for the time being. Restore the status-quo ante-Oslo. Figure out the rest later. If/when anybody claims tell them not interfere in our internal affairs and demand an apology the way everybody else does whether they are right or wrong (and Israel’s detractors are usually wrong.) The slogans should be “RE-OCCUPY YESHA NOW. “ANNEX YESHA NOW.” Once done, “anti-war” dissent should be criminalized. It always was in the U.S. before the Vietnam War. That’s why we never one again — except on the battlefield.
See interview with commander of North Vietnamese Forces, General Giap, age 102.
http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/
How long can this debate continue? Is time of the essence? Is there any urgency felt by the GOI? There is a rumor that the Obama administration will either propose, not object to, or simply abstain to a UNSC resolution to recognize Palestine before Obama leaves office in five months. The UNSC believes that its resolutions have the force of international law even though the countries voting on the resolutions (Like Russia and China) do not themselves feel bound by international law. How much more difficult will it be for Israel to annex YESHA after the passage of such a USC resolution?
This is just in the last week! We should remind them that Jordan is 77% of the League of Nations Mandate for the Jewish Homeland and we have beaten them before and are even better able to do so now. If they break the treaty all bets are off.
MainAll NewsMiddle EastJordan Threatens to Revoke Peace Treaty Over Temple Mount
Jordan Threatens to Revoke Peace Treaty Over Temple Mount
Jordanian minister blames Netanyahu for ‘not keeping promise’ of discriminatory status quo on Temple Mount, drafts plan against ‘breaches.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/186860
The 1929 massacre and the 2000 Oslo War were sparked by blood libels around the temple mount. And the Arabs were amazed when Moshe Dayan begged them not to flee and handed control over to them at the end of the 6 day war. (I read in Pierre Van Paasen’s terrific book (written during WWII, that the Dayan lost his eye when they took an Nazi-allied Arab outpost (they were doing what the British could not) and took prisoners instead of executing them. The prisoners escaped and the table turned.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_van_Paassen
Amazon has it for a penny plus shipping
https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Ally-Pierre-Van-Paasen/dp/0977102106
An important but forgotten primary source. In the 20’s he interviewed the Grand Mufti and disguised himself as an Arab to enter the Al Aqsa Mosque and report on his incitement. A great Christian Zionist supporter of Israel from the 1920’s on.
This above all needs to be emphasized. An older African-
American man on the bus in Harlem recently (out of the blue) began haranguing me about how the Middle East wasn’t called the Middle East (and I wound up having to inform him that Jews were a nation not a race. We are not colonial occupiers. They are!) It didn’t just go away after the Roman expulsion 2,000 years ago. We were still there (and remained until the present, though a minority, as with all the conquered indigenous peoples.) The Arabs/Muslims also stole it from us: “…After the conquest, Jewish communities began to grow and flourish. Umar allowed and encouraged Jews to settle in Jerusalem. It was first time, after almost 500 years of oppressive Christian rule, that Jews were allowed to enter and worship freely in their holy city.[78] Seventy Jewish families from Tiberias moved to Jerusalem in order to help strengthen the Jewish community there.[79] But with the construction of the Dome of the Rock in 691 and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 705, the Muslims established the Temple Mount as an Islamic holy site. The dome enshrined the Foundation Stone, the holiest site for Jews. Before Omar Abd al-Aziz died in 720, he banned the Jews from worshipping on the Temple Mount,[80] a policy which remained in place for over the next 1,000 years of Islamic rule.[81] In around 875, Karaite leader Daniel al-Kumisi arrived in Jerusalem and established an ascetic community of Mourners of Zion.[82] Michael the Syrian notes thirty synagogues which were destroyed in Tiberias by the earthquake of 749.[83]…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel
Israel should defend the right of Jews to live, pray or to walk around anywhere we want. Does it make sense that the Jewish Homeland and the most sacred Jewish sites that were desecrated by Muslim shrines built on top should be the exception? I found this a small step in the right direction:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-world-silent-as-palestinians-seek-ethnic-cleansing-of-jews-in-west-bank/
@ Ted Belman:
IL should push the legal right of ownership of J & S (Levy report) with ALL her arguments and then act accordingly.
@ ms:Yes Gush Katif and Yamit were not under Israeli law and not annexed to the state. Thanks for making my point so well.
The other part of the equation that is so difficult is the world is awash in refugees and not many takers for them and getting less by the day.
Yes if they go with money in their pocket and organized relocation help it will make it easier and smoother. The unknown answer that no one knows in reality is how many will leave, how many takers for them will their be and how long will it take.
I am for an educational campaign (diplomacy) as you advocate. I am for paid relocation for peaceful Arabs as advocated.
That said why should Jews living past the green line not live under Israeli law? Why not encourage more Jews to move to Judah/Samaria with the security that where they live is no longer being considered as part of some deal with the Arabs in trade.
In the seventies I lived on the Golan (Kibbutz Afik) back when Labor was in power. Shimon Peres visited us to give a little talk with a Q&A session at the end. One of us asked him if we were 100% keeping the Golan. His answer after a lot of arm twisting amounted to “anything is possible for peace”. Luckily that is No longer the case on the Golan.
The Jewish Towns in Judah/Samaria plus the Jordan Valley must have the same solid Israeli legal standing in-spite of the difficulties and zig zag interim border until A/B also become part of sovereign Israel. Gaza had 10k Jews and Judah/Samaria has 400,000. Add another 600,000 and the facts on the ground get even better.
Correction: should read Palestinian not Palestinian Jewish. That’s what they were called. Everybody knew that Palestinian meant Jewish. The Arabs didn’t call themselves that and neither did anybody else.
Sorry, FDR issued a warning. He issued a similar warning to Japan.
And are they states? And if not, are not the Arabs of the West Bank still stateless? If so, does the charter even apply to them?
On a side note, I read somewhere that upon receiving a report that Germany planned to user chemical weapons on Soviet Troops, he issued a warning that wereas the U.S. would not resort to a first use of chemical weapons, it would regard it’s use on any of her allied, military or civilian as an attack on herself and would respond by using the overwhelming might of the airforce to carpet-bomb German cities, towns, villages, and hamlets (I believe this was in 1944 when Germany’s airforce was gone.) And that an emergency Jewish solidarity committee associated with the Bergson group, asked that the threat be extended to the gassing of Jews. The response was no because a) they would have probably have act on the threat. and b) Because not having a state –even though the Palestinian Jewish (Israeli) brigades were winning the war for the British who had flubbed it in the Middle East [see “The Forgotten Ally” by Pierre Van Passen] Jews, NOT HAVING A STATE, could not therefore be an ally!
Many European countries expelled their ethnic German populations between 1944 and 1950.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%9350)
Interestingly enough, this was somehow justified legally
“… It was only in 1955 that the Settlement Convention regulated expulsions, yet only in respect to expulsions of individuals of the states who signed the convention.[281] …”
Gee, I wonder. Did the PLO or Hamas sign this convention?
@ Bear Klein:
Bear Klein you write:
No not after “an educational tour”, after billion dollar a year public diplomacy assault on world opinion see:
MY BILLION-DOLLAR BUDGET: IF I WERE PM (CONT.)
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-The-Fray-My-billion-dollar-budget-330947
Perhaps the most important lesson the pro-Zionist advocates of today should learn from the Palestinians is this: “If you will it, it is no fantasy.”
INTELLECTUAL WARRIORS, NOT SLICKER DIPLOMATS
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-the-Fray-Intellectual-warriors-not-slicker-diplomats
Israel’s greatest strategic challenge, its gravest strategic failure, its grimmest strategic danger is the (mis)conduct of its public diplomacy.
You write:
Israel does not have to wait to raise the funds. Oslo has by some estimates already cost the country over A TRILLION shekels – where did that come from.
Israel has a GDP of around a third of a trillion dollars. Allocating around 5-7% initially for a relocation enterprise is a matter of decision priority and political reslove nothing more
Bear Klein, you wrtite:
Like in Gaza 2005? Like Yamit 1982?
Unless “facts on the ground” have ideo-intellectual shields they are only cement and stones that can be laid waste in days
This is a great discussion. Thank you everyone.
Before deciding whether a staged process or single act of annexation is the better way to go, we must put certain building blocks in place.
1. The basic laws must be changed which strengthen the Knesset over the Courts and which allows us to get rid of the Arabs. At the moment, we cannot legally overcome that are are entitled to equality in Israel. The last thing we wan t to to put the J&S Arabs in the same place.
2. It may be that we have to terminate the Oslo accords first including the PA and the incitement and the school system and then proceed to encourage the Arabs to leave by not integrating them or subsidizing them in addition to paying them money to leave.
3 The Fourth GC prevents us from transferring the population out even if they are hostile. I think at the moment the choice is between the 4GC or ending the occupation. How do we end the “occupation” without declaring sovereignty. If we reject that we are occupiers of our own land, then what is the status of the land?
We must have clarity on such matters in order to best plot our course.
The urgency of the situation is due to the fact that the Arabs with the backing of the E.U. are trying to reverse the facts on the ground.
?http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-EU-building-hundreds-of-illegal-structures-for-Palestinians-in-Area-C-of-West-Bank-390184
And the courts are unpredictable:
?Court Awards Prime Yesha Land to Jordanian Arabs – News Briefs -?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/265620
Something must be done to reign in the authority of the courts.
Felix Quigley Said:
I do not believe this is an informed or fair perspective. See the interview I just posted.
@ Felix Quigley:
Thanks, Great comment.
But, seriously, another reason to annex Area C right now is that, in the beginning the 50,000 Arabs who live there now, who might be given a path to citizenship, would be immediately registered as such. Any others who came over the border would be illegals and since everything winds up in the courts, anyway, all of their illegal settlements would just be demolished and they would not be able to work or live there in practice. And, yes, as Bear said — I also agreed with everything he said in the last entry — the terrorists would have to be arrested — and, I would argue, executed. That’s another problem. Israel has no death penalty which encourages the taking of hostages to free terrorists and serves as no deterrent as the prisoners and their families are well-subsidized directly by the PLO/PA and indirectly by Iran, the EU, the U.N. and even the U.S.!!!
By the way, I agree with Felix Quigley’s last remark and felt it was extraordinarily well-phrased and pithy, too!. But, as I have repeatedly said: I am not holding my breath. (Maybe I should take tantric yoga again, Eventually, I suppose I could get so good at holding my breath, people would think I was dead and gone, as they do Israel, again and again. “Reports of My Death have been greatly exaggerated – Mark Twain.)
Not that I’m holding my breath. I read that in Yiddish there is an expression, “to kill to death” since everything violent in the Torah and subsequent practice was re-interpreted to mean something non-violent so there had to be an expression meaning to really kill. Here’s an amusing idea (black humor born of despair): The next time Israel has to go to war, she occupies everything but so as to clear up the terror and missiles problem in the short run without ceding sovereignty in the long run, Israel then has a fake war (like sealing a contract with a dollar for “consideration”) with no casualties with Sisi’s Egypt. Israel, “defeated,” will be “driven out” of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (with the exception of Area C which will be connected by highways that bypass surrounding areas and will be annexed to Israel.) Then Sisi will clean out the PLO Arabs, definitely expelling the babies with the bathwater. Like he is doing in Sinai. And nobody will care. Except Hillary.
Another way of looking at it: Oslo was a contract. Land For Peace. They broke it. The contract is void. Restore the status-quo pre-Oslo. The next time Israel has to go to war. Re-occupy everything. But, the military does not want to police occupied territory. Young reservists, brainwashed by Peace Now, don’t want to play the bad guy. But, we’ve seen the alternative. How many thousands of Jews were murdered, tens of thousands maimed, displaced, probably millions who lost loved ones. Reservists kidnapped from tunnels– at home — off duty. None of this happened before Oslo. I say the consensus should be to Re-occupy the West Bank, Gaza, Southern Lebanon (Sinai if Egypt ever breaks it’s treaty), Make Area C part of Israel proper, keep all of the Arabs except for those who have citizenship already in Israel under military rule for ever — yes, you can rule another people for ever — it’s the norm not the exception in history — and offer them generous subsidies to leave, permanently relinquishing all claims. And seize and permanently occupy all contiguous territory from which Israel is attacked. As areas become free of Arabs, they can be formally incorporated into Israel. Israel contributes so much, and is sufficiently independent that if we are united and spin it well, nobody will be able to do anything. Look at China,. Look at Egypt — presently an “ally” except for it’s backing of continuing the appeasement process. Egypt is doing the job Israel cannot of clearing out the PLO Arabs from Sinai, the sea in which the terrorists swim.
Sherman writes: If economic conditions in C are better than in A & B (as they certainly will be) this will attract residents from that latter to infiltrate into the former across the impossibly contorted and torturous frontiers totally disrupting and demographic consideration which are more a function of PHYSICAL PRESENCE than formal legal niceties
This raises an issue of principle. There are two historical issues to fight on. First is that Palestine was left as a desolate place. There was a small number of Arabs but even that small number had been interlopers. But with the coming of Jews the Arabs leaped aboard for economic gain. They were not natives. This land belongs only to the Jews.
Second is the very good deal those Arabs got from especially Churchill. They got all of present day Jordan. That is 78 per cent. They have done very well. Amazingly well treated by one and all.
So I reject with venom all this quibbling about ab and c. Stand on principle the Arabs must agree with the Jews rights or get out fast. That is the only answer to give and it is a simple answer. The only thing stopping it is the Netanyahu clones like above with their ab and cs and a bit today and a bit tomorrow.
As regards Feiglin. He is so repulsively conservative. There will be no revolutionary youth of the world to follow this guy. Nor will he win the youth in Israel. Plus he evades the big issues especially the war on Iraq and now the war on Assad. Politically he is a nonentity. A pompous piece of fluff.
Sherman does have some character but this guy none that I can see.
@ ms:
Martin, a staged approach will get the ball rolling forward and make progress including getting a stronger hold with Israeli law on the Jewish Towns.
Waiting for the world to accept Israel’s annexation of all of Judah/Samaria after an educational tour is dubious at best. Waiting to raise the funds to buy out all the Arabs is dubious and a formula for stagnation. Do this incrementally.
Israel applied Israeli Law to the Golan and did not wait for the world to accept this fait accompli.
Martin yours ideas are really very good. I like them but they need to be condensed to an action plan that can be implemented in short order in my opinion. I would love to see a new one page summary that communicates your ideas.
Annex or apply Israeli Law at at a minimum to all the Jewish Towns and the Jordan Valley. This has benefits to those living there and will help more people join in! That is a major benefit in controlling the area. In other words if people know this is permanent it will increase the Jewish populations and strength our hold. Facts on the ground are the most important dimension. Just like in building the Yishuv.
Bear Klein says:”Just like prestate Israel was built. The Yishuv was not built all at once.”
True – but largely irrelevant.
A staged approach is called for only if it makes things easier that an “all at once one”. In the case of annexation, that is not the case and partial annexation will not solve any of the problems total annexation entails – indeed, it is likely to exacerbate many – see:
SOVEREIGNTY? YES, BUT BEWARE OF ANNEXING AREA C
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-the-Fray-Sovereignty-Yes-but-beware-of-annexing-Area-C-338475
Partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will solve none of the problems Israel faces today, and exacerbate many
By international Law Israel is already sovereign over all the Land from the Jordan to the Sea. That the various governments have been reluctant to declare this is one major cause of the present problem, aided by the Oslo fiasco of bringing Arafat and his terrorists in after so much trouble and blood to get rid of them.
Maybe the real deep down cause is in the Jewish genetic code which is “backward about coming forward”, and which prefers to haggle to a compromise instead of being UNCOMPROMISING on at least the vital issues.
Who knows…? So many “plans” have been proposed, promoted, and abandoned, some even dredged up again every so often. You find soft-headed geniuses everywhere, especially in Israel.
There is no question, Israel MUST assert it’s holding the Land as of right, and being the indigenous inhabitants. Tell the EU to look into it’s own looming Muslim crisis, in other words “butt out”. A good way to “hint” would be to destroy every EU funded building put up in Area C as soon as possible, and not allow the High Court to dictate to Government except on legal matters-not political… ! decisions. .
@ ms:I have no problem with what you have said.
To get the ball rolling one must start to implement and doing this incrementally would have the best chance to get off the ground.
Just like prestate Israel was built. The Yishuv was not built all at once.
Israel should extend sovereignty at the earliest opportunity and declare the Palestinian collective what it declares itself: The enemy – and treat it accordingly.
It should then give notice that it will begin a staged denial of services to that enemy collective – water, power, tax collection, port services etc – and in parallel offer generous relocation grants to allow non-belligerent individuals to extricate themselves from the impending hardships. All remaining Palestinian Arabs will be considered enemy aliens.
Clearly the Palestinian Authority and the myriad of armed organizations must be dismantled (as they will have to be in all other TSS-alternative proposals) and the Israeli security services be deployed to vigorously prevent fratricidal intimidation of acceptance of relocation grants.
However, one thing should be clear – without a massive Israeli public diplomacy assault on world opinion, no TSS-alternative will be politically acceptable – other than a a one-state-for-all-its citizens, which will result the end of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people
@ ms:
So Martin how long will be before the Arabs are all bought out?
Will we have to wait until then to assert sovereignty?
You think the peaceful Arabs will sell out while the terrorists are still around?
Jews are living in Judah/Samaria now in large numbers why should we not extend sovereignty to Area C now? The borders are a mess already in Judah/Samaria.
I do see that it is all non-contiguous and that it is a problem and that there have different workable proposals to overcome this. But, sovereignty once ceded is difficult to recover (in the case of Gaza, Caroline Glick says it is impossible to recover territory voluntarily ceded under international law. But, I believe that dotting every and i and crossing every t before declaring Israeli sovereignty over the entire West Bank is foolish. The Israeli Arabs behind the green line lived under military rule until 1967. There is no reason why a distinction cannot be made between Jews and Arabs until this is worked out. The important thing is to mold public opinion to a consensus that Israel must claim and control the land of Israel in it’s entirety in principal, irrespective of what it does in the present. The main enemy is the liberal proponents of appeasement in the film industry, the military, the intelligence community, the cabinet! Public opinion about the goal must change and then there can be a debate about how to implement it. Not only to protect Jewish lives and the Jewish state. This land is ours! And to make concessions from a position of strength is idiocy and treason. There needs to be film makers to counter the Amos Ozs and Natalie Portmans. Professors, musicians, etc. Culture shapes. Glamour motivates and rules, Winners are glamorous, losers are abhorred. There was no rush to join the Communist, Nazi or Fascist parties after they were humiliated and on the run. But, first we must be united in the view that Israel is ours. Period. All of it. And not just for pragmatic reasons. Otherwise, we are putting the cart before the horse, fiddling with the window curtains on the titanic.
I do have to specify that, in my view, Israel should extend Israel’s authority throughout Judea and Samaria, granting, at best, limited supervised, and revocable autonomy to the Arabs, much in the spirit of Mcarthur’s governance of Post-War Japan. Also, as has been suggested, the 9 areas (not emirates, that’s too much authority) of Arab concentration should be governed by the traditional Arab clans, after they have agreed to work within an Israeli framework and forbid violence. Expulsion would be nice — Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon expelled the PLO arabs with no problems but Israel will never do it so it’ s not really an option. “Purity of Arms” and such nonsense.
I agree with many of the comments about the incremental approach. I would actually prefer a coercive approach given that the overwhelming majority do not want to live and peace and the problem is the risk of being stabbed, shot, run over, raped etc. by one’s Arab neighbors. The main problem is the liberal courts that have unlimited and uncheckable power plus, as Prof. Paul Eidelberg has pointed out, the proportional system of representation rather than the American Presidential system which keeps candidates from being accountable at the ballot box and enables fringe groups to sit in the parliament. I think this is a bigger problem than international isolation. History shows the international community and the Muslims back off when Israel takes a stand, and become hostile and aggressive when Israel is apologetic (the is true generally.) But, until Israel has a constitutional referendum and adopts the American system of government (I am not holding my breath) the important thing is to keep the land in Jewish hands and try to avoid the interference of Israeli courts, hoping for the best.
For the only non-coercive approach that can ensure the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people – see:
Synopsis: http://tinyurl.com/qe7ae6y
PALESTINE: WHAT SHERLOCK HOLMES WOULD SAY
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=251509
UNINVENTING PALESTINIANS
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=249674
RETHINKING PALESTINE
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=250612
PREVENTING ‘PALESTINE’ PART I
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=283307
PREVENTING ‘PALESTINE’ PART II
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=284173
PREVENTING ‘PALESTINE’ PART III
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285044
THE HUMANITARIAN APPROACH: RESPONDING TO READERS – PART I
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285742
THE HUMANITARIAN APPROACH: RESPONDING TO READERS – PART II
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=286107
RETHINKING PALESTINE: A PARADIGM SHIFT FROM THE POLITICAL TO THE HUMANITARIAN
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/rethinking_palestine_a_paradigm_shift_from_the_political_to_the_humanitaria/
SHIFTING THE PALESTINE PARADIGM: FROM THE POLITICAL TO THE HUMANITARIAN
http://www.jinsa.org/publications/research-articles/israel/shifting-paradigm-palestine-political-humanitarian
THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM: A REAL SOLUTION
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/03/the-palestinian-problem-a-real-solution-2/
RETHINKING PALESTINE
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3863043,00.html
It looks to me that the most practical (and elegant) solution is the Kedar paradigm: the mini emirates. But every potential and sensible solution proposed should be analyzed for the + and – and once the country has reached a consensus trough a vote from the Israeli people (and NOT the Knesset) the country must pursue the choice made by the people.
A committee of “wise people” (legal experts, security experts, IDF, Govt, religious, secular, etc) should be assembled with the only task for selecting the best option. Keeping in mind that the West and the Muslims are and will for a long, long time do their best to undermine Israel purpose. It may of course be to much to ask the “wise committee” to act in the best interest of the country (above and beyond personal political gains). Out of Israel interference must be rejected for if you want to change the country, just move to Israel. The majority of the diaspora does not consider the survival of Israel their most important consideration.
Martin, Jews now live as you well know in Area C in the tune of 400,000 Jews. Why should they not be entitled to know their future is secure there and we are not pulling out? They and Israel will benefit from the application of Israeli law.
Yes by annexing this you do not solve all problems. Yes Arabs who live there will need to be registered to stop infiltrators. Arabs now infiltrate into Israel illegally as we discuss this on a daily basis. What is to stop them now from infiltrating into Area C?
Areas A/B will also eventually also become sovereign Israel. Instead of taking the Glick approach and making it all sovereign Israel with one stroke of the pen I recommend doing this incrementally.
It will take a long time to whittle down the Arab numbers to those willing to co-exist and get rid of the terrorists and their supporters. I am for buying out the properties of peaceful Arabs who wish to leave with their families.
In the interim and in the future Israel will in any case continue to keep security control from the sea to the river.
You maybe right that the political pain of annexing C would be the same as annexing it all. However allowing the residents of Area A/B able to travel in Israel is a security nightmare. If you annex C and are applying Israel law you are better able to build, build, build more Jewish homes and towns this will help keep Arabs out. Israel will be able to better keep Arabs from capturing land there and stopping the EU from building illegal Arab shantytowns. You are taking a firmer hand and moving the ball of sovereignty forward.
Waiting to annex C until you have bought all the peaceful Arabs out and got rid of the terrorists means standing in place and not progressing. Establish the fact that we are not moving from the Jewish towns and the Jordan Valley. This also will be the testing ground on buying out and getting rid of Arabs who do not want to co-exist. The lessons we learn as problems come up can be applied to areas A/B.
Also I am not opposed to annexing some of Area B to make security arrangements improved. This is an interim step. In the long run we will apply sovereignty to all of Judah/Samaria. To do that in one step is dangerous. Waiting until all the bad Arabs have left is not viable either.
Bear Klein writes”Once Israel has successfully integrated Area C it can then work on Areas A and B.”
The problem is that you cannot isolate – and certainly not insulate – Area C from Areas A &B. (See map kindly provided by Ted)
If economic conditions in C are better than in A & B (as they certainly will be) this will attract residents from that latter to infiltrate into the former across the impossibly contorted and torturous frontiers totally disrupting and demographic consideration which are more a function of PHYSICAL PRESENCE than formal legal niceties
The political pain involved in annexing 60% of the territory (Area C) will no less than annexing all of it (including A & B)
In any case: If only C in annexed – what will be the status of A/B??
The conflict is not solvable in one quick motion and there is no magic pill solution. However incrementally the conflict can be won. I have an outline that combines ideas i from Bennett, Feiglin, and Martin Sherman. The people coming up ideas for the new paradigm Israel needs to replace the failed to state approach need to listen to others with the ideas and see how to remedy what they sees as flaws. We need to work to together to solve the this problem.
There was a big división in the Bolsheviks in the early months of 1917. The question was not exactly about the issues that Jews today face true enough. But the question was about vital issues all the same.
It concerned the división of that society of Russia into classes (take it from me there are always classes) but in Russia was a small and very Young working class (check on this it was very Young – industry had arrived very late) There was a massive peasantry. But the peasantry never could unite to defeat Czarism. There was an intermediate layer which I hesitate to even call a class that Kerensky represented in some ways.
Should the working class abide by the decisions of the overall parliament of Russia (Constituent Assembly)?
That sounded good and proper and a section of the Bolshevik leaders said that is the way we must go. We will be democrats and we will be a constructive minority in that parliament.
Here I have to point out despite the hatred that many Jews have of Trotsky that Trotsky had thought of this in advance and had decades before this situation actually arose had seen the problem.
Which was in brief. If you decide in your wisdom to go with the democratic parlaiment, the capitalist clases of Russia will move to construct a bloody dictatorship using that very democratic parliament.
Or should the working class take the state power and establish ITS dictatorship over the capitalist class.
Lenin and Trotsky joined forces from about April 1917 (the famous April Theses) Lenin in an imprompt manner coming bit by bit to the previous foresight of Trotsky and the working class led by that faction of the Bolsheviks fought for the working class dictartorship.
yes I know there are differences but there are some ideas that are the same.
A Young sgt is in jail this morning because he shot and killed a terrorist who had just tried to kill a fellow IDF soldier.
Meaning that Netanyahu is Kerensky
Netanyahu is like those Bolsheviks who argiued against Lenin and Trotsky let us all play the game of democracy. Lenin pointed out that leads to our slaughter.
Let us play the democratic game “PAY THE ARABS TO LEAVE”.
I wonder at this. Is this not another Little tune in the play the democratic tragi-opera?
I have got other ideas and proposals but have no space here to expound but I can tell you they have nothing at all to do with how Antisemties in britain and US are viewing things. Nor do they have anything to do with Netanyahu’s latest gimmick a Wall around Gaza.
I do suspect that the victory of Trump terrifies Bennett and Netanyahu because Trump will give Jews the liberty to be really revolutionary in approach but they cannot be that.
The more Netanyahu travels the world the further he gets from solving the situation.
An interesting situation opens up in any case. Victory is NEVER guaranteed except by supernaturalists.
@ ms:
In support of Sherman, I offer this map of Area C.
How will Israel secure the border?
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Have a look at the map of area see- not its contorted torturous borders which would be almost impressible to demarcated and even less possible to secure. If you cannot demarcate and secure the borders of you sovereign territory – declaring sovereignty is meaningless
ANNEXING AREA C: AN OPEN LETTER TO NAFTALI BENNETT http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Annexing-Area-C-An-open-letter-to-Naftali-Bennett
Between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, there can — and eventually will — prevail either exclusively Jewish, or exclusively Arab, sovereignty.
SOVEREIGNTY? YES, BUT BEWARE OF ANNEXING AREA C
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-the-Fray-Sovereignty-Yes-but-beware-of-annexing-Area-C-338475
Partial annexation of Judea-Samaria will solve none of the problems Israel faces today, and exacerbate many
EARTH TO BENNETT; EARTH TO BENNETT…
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-the-Fray-Earth-to-Bennett-Earth-to-Bennett-353126
It is difficult to know what is more disturbing: Whether Bayit Yehudi chairman Naftali Bennett really believes the delusional drivel he wrote in his op-ed this week, or whether he doesn’t, but wrote it anyway
Correction: Bennett — adopting Glick’s position, advocates giving the Palestinians in the rest of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) “autonomy on steroids.” —
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196071
http://www.timesofisrael.com/bennett-says-he-backs-palestinian-autonomy-on-steroids/
Only the 50,000 Arabs in area C. would get a path to citizenship or citizenship. Israel is 80% Jewish, 15% Arab and 5% other now. I think your argument about the future has merit though, in general. So, Arabs should be given subsidies and incentives to leave, relinquishing any land they have and go to any country in the world. Many would prefer to go West. Many have professional education, skills and capital and would be welcome in the West or any country that doesn’t discriminate such as the Arab countries (no is making an issue of this.)
I am afraid this article is shooting down a paper tiger. Caroline Glick has clearly advocated — and the Jewish Home Party has adopted her position — annexing only area C and leaving the rest as it for the forseeable future. All of the Jewish settlements are in Area C. All of the Jewish Sacred/ National Heritage Sites. It is 62% of the West Bank. It has a Jewish population of 350-400,000 and an Arab population of about 50,000. It is the only part of the West Bank under complete Israeli control but the military occupation mostly applies to and oppresses Jews and is governed by the laws of the British Mandate under international law.
[Ted: Delete the earlier comment above. It was cut off. This comment is far more developed]
It is not merely birthrates per woman but age of women at childbirth.
Though the Jewish and Arab women now have approximately the same number of children (roughly 3), the Arab women have them much younger. Ettinger’s numbers do not fully address this.
What this means is that by the time the Jewish family completes producing another (second) generation, the Arab family will have already started on the third generation.
In about 60 years, the result will be devastating. Jews will have produced two generations of children, while the Arabs will have produced three.
Do the math. It is the difference between 3² and 3³ which is between 9 and 27.
If you want to remain ethnically Jewish, the Arab Muslims have to be removed. The Christian Arabs have lower birthrates than Jews or Muslims, and being more civilized, are not a problem.
How do you get the Muslims to move without bringing the world’s wrath on Israel more than it already is?
PAY THEM TO MOVE.
Sherman in this essay, has squarely placed his thumb on the problems and the solutions -provided they work out as he says, but you know, the slip betwixt the cup and the lip-……
By coincidence I have been saying the very same things about the demographics and relying on the permanency of increased Jewish birth fate, ever since the subject came up, about 4 years ago, and I’m delighted that my “voyaging spirit” has, during my sleeping hours, entered Sherman’s head.
Another point I’ve been making for YEARS is that there is no large pool of Jews left to come on Aliya any more. The Russians were the last ones, and the Americans won’t come, except as they do now, in negligible dribs and drabs. Jewish immigration will remain the way it is now, even the temporary French spurt, was only for a few thousand people and is slowing down.
So what next…… As long as the 2 SS is still on the books there is no hope for getting rid of the Arabs, and this MUST come sooner or later to ensure Israel’s survival. And, aside, the perpetrators of the Oslo Accord, which brought such continuing tragedy to us, have never been called to book. Mainly I suspect through the corruption endemic in Israeli upper society. To have shed so much blood and effort in getting rid of Arafat and his monsters, and then to bring them back with the same foolish closed eyes and ears hope,(like the pre-War European Jews) was the height of foolishness and soft-headedness that is just too outrageously ridiculous to even properly absorb in a rational mind.
Words fail me every time think of it. And Peres is still standing, honoured instead of having died in prison with the other mamzerim of the cabal..
I agree with everything Martin has said particularly that we have come full circle. As I see it all we can expect barring any dramatic event is continuation of the status quo.
Most commentators do not pick up on the likelihood of a change in status (either TSS or OSS) causing increased yiriada especially among mobile professionals whose Zionism may already be “Zionism-light”. This would certainly be exacerbated by even a whiff of international economic sanctions.