By Baruch Gordon, INN
A leading scholar who once was solidly against a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria now says a two-state solution is a falsehood. “Settlements are here to stay.”
For decades, former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti was a leading scholar in Israel’s pro-Arab camp, working diligently to curtail development of Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria.
He founded the West Bank Database Project in 1984 which documented social, economic, and political developments in the region, and reported on growth of the Jewish towns to Western powers which sought to halt the influx of Jews to their ancient towns.
In an interview last week, Benvenisti told Haaretz that a division of the land into a two-state solution is not practical and that the settlements are irreversible.
His comments demonstrate a growing trend among Israeli opponents of the Jewish return to Judea and Samaria. Many of the very same leaders of the struggle for “Palestinian Statehood” now recognize that it is too late – the Jewish towns of Yesha cannot be uprooted.
“Today, we are talking about 350,000 settlers. If you take into account (the Jewish neighborhoods of eastern) Jerusalem, then there are 550,000 settlers,” he said. ”Therefore, everyone understands now what I said 30 years ago: it’s irreversible. Nothing will help Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert or Tzipi Livni – it’s irreversible. You can’t get out of this mess.
“I am not offering solutions. It’s not my job. I am coming to say that today’s dominant paradigm [of a 2-State solution] is a falsehood, and I am fighting it. If you try and force an unjust division, you will get a crippled, hurt and upset Palestinian State, which will turn to violence.
“Regarding this scenario, Israel’s Right is correct. Look what happened in Gaza. The Disengagement [from Gaza in 2005] didn’t solve anything and put Hamas in power. Therefore, division is not a solution to the problem, but rather an escalation of the problem… At one time, it would have been possible to divide the land, but not today.”
Benvenisti added, “The time has come for you and your friends in Tel Aviv to understand – you cannot divide the land of Israel. It’s impossible. You can’t tell the Arabs to forget about Jaffa (Yafo) and Akko (Acre). They won’t forget. No Palestinian will commit to signing an end to the conflict. They won’t sign.”
He called the 1949 Temporary Armistice Lines, now known as the Green Line, “the left’s great alibi [that] no longer exists. The Green Line is dead… Dividing the land is apartheid. The people in Tel Aviv don’t want to understand this, but the Land of Israel is a united, geopolitical unit. Therefore, a division of the land is impossible from geographical, physical, and mental standpoints.”
His comments suggest a dramatic turning point. While world headlines continue to highlight possible breakthroughs in negotiations towards a two-state solution, Israel’s intellectual elite is gradually recognizing that Palestinian Statehood is no longer a viable option.
Yossi Sarid, former head of the Meretz Party, also recently admitted that the Jewish towns of Yesha are here to stay.
The pretense and support for a 2 state solution is nothing else but a blatant attempt, by whoever support this farce, to undermine Israel and Jews in general. Considerable politico-economic blackmail may be going-on against IL and therefore against the Jews.
The idea that some one can simultaneously be ant-Zionist and pro-Jew is absurd non sense. Anti-Zionists are only a subgroup of antisemites. Plenty are to be found among the Jews themselves.
Canadian Otter Said:
It can also come after annexation. Golan and east jerusalem were annexed and there is always talk of ceding them for peace. If the elected leaders of the majority of center and conservative voters are considering disengagement after gaza and lebanon then the situation is hopeless for annexation or settlement unless those leaders do not represent the wishes of the Israeli people and the Israelis say otherwise. why would leaders contemplating disengagement contemplate annexation. If Israel as a nation does not want YS then the only other legal alternative is for Jewish settlers, and diaspora jews, to sue in international court for representation of the agency for the jewish people citing Israels conflict of interest, petition the UN under article 80 for protection of settlement and form militias for self defense. Either jews want it or they dont. If they dont want jewish settlement why would they want annexation? If they want to circumvent the GOI politicians legally then the legal settlement rights are the only avenue (other than change of govt, but then to whom?) as annexation cannot be compelled in court. I am not guaranteeing they will win but nothing ventured is nothing gained and it would be in the media
@ Bernard Ross:
IT’S DANGEROUS TO THINK that partition can happen only through a Two State Solution.
Ehud Barak and Avigdor Lieberman, two top ministers in the coalition, openly talk about Disengagement (see link on my talkback #1 on this page). The PM does not disclose much, but his moves for the past four years clearly lead to partition, whichever flavor he chooses, the ever elusive agreement with Abbas, or just plain Disengagement.
Too many people are still in denial of obvious signs staring them in the face. And now the settlement enterprise has come to a full stop. The Freeze is there to stay. Without sovereignty over all of J/S the game is over, and the only options will be how much of the 1.7% of the settled land can be retained. Unless there is a tidal wave of popular demand for full Israeli sovereignty for J/S, the elite will raise its white flag once again, or will allow circumstances to take their course – with the same results.
I reiterate: Less talk and more action. No more conferences. Just set up a national organization with a single aim: full sovereignty for Judea and Samaria, with details to be discussed and negotiated after the fact. Enroll the most reputable religious and secular leaders in that organization and inspire the population with a renewed vision for Israel. And then do it!
Canadian Otter Said:
this can only happen in a 2 state solution. This article is showing how that solution is losing ground. It is only settlement that has gained ground in the battle all diplomatic “solutions” have failed(perhaps as a blessing)
Canadian Otter Said:
I agree but the existing fact on the ground is that Israel is in control of Y&S but by blocking settlements because of “dithering” negotiations it has harmed the situation. If it had been settling all along while negotiations continued, dithered and failed the real facts on the ground would be much better off now. I am not against annexation, I am for it but jewish settlement should proceed now, immediately, as it should have all along. The paradigm of limiting and restrict jewish settlement rights has proven a failure to Israeli soveriegnty claims as well as Jewish settlement rights. It is exactly the argument that the state will not be able to protect the settled Jews in a final settlement that has created the current setback of not having enough settled Jews. My view is get about the massive settling of Jews no matter what else is going on.
Canadian Otter Said:
the govts that abandoned these jews abandoned them because annexation was not in their minds, they are still with us. These paradigms are discredited but those that led Israel into these paradigms still enjoy credibility. It is only through national voting that annexation can be forced. The concept of banning jews from anywhere is repugnant to Jews except when viewed as an Israeli sovereignty issue and pal rights. Proceed with your annexation as best you can but proceed with jewish settlement with the same effort. Annexation without ultimate jewish settlement is meaningless but jewish settlement can proceed with or without annexation and no change in the current legal status of the west bank, only the local interpretation of the existing laws. If settlement had proceeded all along the west bank would have been annexed by now. Only Israeli myopic politicians have prevented this. You can sue in court to compel compliance with palestine mandate but you cannot sue to compel annexation as an individual world jew.
BERNARD, settlements are great but without Israeli sovereignty, some or all of them may have to be abandoned, just like those in Sinai and in Gaza. That’s my point. And even if they remain, what good are they if they become surrounded by the Nazi State of Palestine?
And considering that there’s a ton of legal evidence supporting Israeli ownership of the land – http://www.justicenow4israel.com/ – what are supporters of Jewish Judea and Samaria waiting for? To reach agreement on the Arab citizenship issue? !!!!
That does NOT have to be resolved ahead of time. Extend sovereignty now, then set up a committee to look into the best way of dealing with the Arabs. That would take years. Decades, even.
Right now Israelis continue to dither while the PA and their friends set irreversible facts on the ground, Arab countries arm themselves to the teeth, and Israelis watch as their country’s last trace of respectability and legitimacy in the eyes of the deranged international community vanish to nothing.
Things don’t look good. Extend sovereignty now, and fix the details later.
that’s good
The inevitable question will become what to do with those who cant commit to an end of conflict. I suppose if one likes to live worrying about whether their neighbor will blow them up you can make them citizens. Having them further rather than nearer makes sense to me. Under any solution there will have to at least be the transfer of all the troublemakers, jew haters,inciters, muslim fanatics, Wakf’s etc. Luckily there are nearby JEW FREE, to make them more comfortable, locations within driving distance. One of the problems is bibis policy of economic development of pal areas: this may encourage a dangerous population to stay.
Canadian Otter Said:
He rejects a division but might desire retaining the arab population in one state. The important thing is that jewish settlement causes facts on the ground and anything which facilitates Jewsish settlement NOW would be worth pursuing. Israel should concentrate on the legal arguments of the mandate directives and proceed immediately to massivvely settle jews citing the legal precedence. Who else can be allowed soveriegnty over the west bank? the arab muslims have proved that there is not one area under their control from the former mandate territory that is not JEW FREE. Therefore their rule would be in direct conflict with the mandate to settle jews as they have proven that they would not fulfill the mandate. Where in international law is it allowed to block settlement of Jew west of the jordan river? They can only argue about Israeli sovereignty over the area NOT the legality of JEWISH settlement which is simply and clearly stated in law… By the time all the arguments are over, with aliyah and affirmative action on settlement, the facts on the ground will overcome. In any scenario Jewish settlement is key Therefore, laying the legal groundwork to soften up public opinion, Jews and otherwise, is important. The significance of benevisti is that opposition to 2 state division can delay partition and allow settlement to proceed. NOW In the end there will be the question of the current arab inhabitants whatever the other questions are. The notion of Jewish settlement being illegal and immoral must be attacked and discredited.
Canadian Otter Said:
Sorry CO, got to disagree with this, In my view the legal, diplomatic, and moral arguments have been allowing the detractors to jewish settlement to muddy the watters and to obfuscate the internationally still legally binding directive to “encourage jewish settlement west of the jordan river” I do not believe that jewish settlement should be held back due to negotiations regarding Israeli soveriegnty. As it stands now Israel has not extended sovereignty over YS therefore it is the current administrator. Under Mandate law, which was never rescinded, and continues under article 80 of UN charter: “the settlement of Jews west of the Jordan river is to be encouraged” This is a binding obligation on any territorial administrator and all signatories to the relevant institutions. There is no reason why jewish settlement should not occur now. Furthermore, if YS is annexed then Israel must immediately determine citizenship of west bank arabs and whether or how they must be transferred. However, if Israel retains its current status and operates as successor to the mandate trustee(UK) it can fulfill the mandates directives of settling Jews while still not granting citizenship to the arabs. Either choice can work toward ultimate Israeli sovereignty over YS. I think it would be easier to proceed with Jewish settlement overtly than immediately annexing YS or coming to any partition agreement. I think also an affirmative action program to speed up massive Jewish settlement, and aliyah, with land grants in YS to new settlers modeled on the US Homestead act can be justified in order to restore justice for the time lost in jordanian occupation and subsequent GOI blocking of Jewish settlement. Jewish settlement has a great deal more legal justification and precedence than the Israel soveriegnty issues and can proceed so that when jewish settlement occurs there then becomes a majority of jews in the west bank and self determination principles as well as Mandate law would compel Israeli soveriegnty. Further, I think the GOI is also unwilling to fulfill the mandate directive to settle jews because of costs of protection couple with there view that the territories will be lost. However, an administrator, Occupier and sovereign are all reuired and expected to protect the inhabitants. The GOI have been muddying the waters of jewish settlement rights with their sovereign issues also. The GOI should either annex and deal with the issues or start an affirmative action program to settle jews as a fulfillment of its obligation as a non sovereign, administrator, successor mandate trustee. Both is best but one is still good. There is no valid legal reason to block jewish settlement, rather it is illegal. Jewish settlement does not legally impede or conflict with any other negotiations. A legal suit to compel GOI to observe its legal obligation to settle jews under mandate law might further this issue. Peace now is always suing so why not jews to secure jewish settlement.
FACTS WON’T GET IN THE WAY OF a reelection of Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu by a large number of votes, both of which advocate partition. The current coalition has DISENGAGEMENT 2 on their minds. Both Ehud Barak and Avigdor Lieberman support the idea. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5922 – And the PM has shelved the Levy Report.
Although the above Meron Benvenisti claims to reject the creation of another Arab state, BEWARE of those who appear to support the settlements without advocating for Israeli sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria as well. Even the tiniest Nazi Arab state would give a foothold to Iran and other terror groups to launch attacks against Israel.
Also, let’s keep in mind that the Jewish settlements cover barely 1.7% of Judea and Samaria – “Ten Unknown West Bank Facts” – a 2.4 minute video – http://hasbara-videos.blogspot.ca/