The Jewish people’s considerable rights to the land of Israel are founded upon several bases:
Jews have been on the land for close to 4,000 years, most notably within eastern Jerusalem (where the Old City and the Temple Mount are located), and Judea and Samaria – all places where ancient Israelite heritage is marked. Jews, in fact, are the indigenous people of Israel, present not only historically, but with continuity over the centuries.
In modern times there are legal precedents for establishing the Jewish claim to Israel: This is with reference to the San Remo Conference, the Mandate for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, confirmed in international law, and more.
These Jewish rights have certainly not diminished over the years. Yet there is a prevailing perception that this is the case – that there has been a rethinking of what properly accrues to the Jewish State of Israel. A revisionist perception, we might say.
This perception has been fueled by Palestinian Arab leader Mahmoud Abbas and his cohorts, who – in insisting ad nauseum that Israel’s proper place is behind the “1967 border” – reveal themselves to be major advocates of the dictum that, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Of course this business of a “1967 border” is a lie: there was no border established to Israel’s east after the War of Independence ended in 1949, only a temporary armistice line. The armistice agreement was not even with a “Palestinian people,” but with Jordan. Nor did Security Council Resolution 242 require Israel to pull back fully from Judea and Samaria, which was secured defensively during the Six-Day War in 1967.
But why bother with facts when a myth more favorable to the political interests of the Palestinian Arabs can be successfully generated? Today, a good part of the world believes that Judea and Samaria consist of “Palestinian land,” which Israel must “return.” The president of the United States speaks in such terms. Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, called “settlements” (pejoratively), are referred to either as “illegitimate” or “illegal,” and the stumbling block to peace. Eastern Jerusalem, today part of the united capital of Jerusalem under full Israeli sovereignty, is called “Arab Jerusalem.”
It must be noted, however, that this Palestinian Arab myth could not have been successfully generated had successive Israeli governments self-confidently and persistently presented truths to counter the lies. Regrettably, since Oslo, this has not consistently been the case.
While no Israeli government has ever declared Judea, Samaria and the eastern part of Jerusalem to be “Palestinian land,” some have skirted close to embracing this position by behaving “as if.” (A subject that perhaps merits a whole other article.) Some Israeli leaders to the left have swallowed the notion in its essence, speaking in terms of what the Israelis owe the “Palestinians.” Some others are ideologically opposed to any such concept but timid about bucking a position that is politically correct internationally. This requires a determined strength, as significant parts of the international community, e.g., Europe, are predisposed to a pro-Palestinian Arab, anti-Israel position.
The good news here is that we may be about to witness a shift in the situation.
The current Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is not ideologically committed to a notion of eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as “Palestinian land.” He is neither Ehud Olmert nor Ehud Barak.
Rather – with the single notable exception of the Iranian nuclear issue – Netanyahu is a man whose style is marked by a tendency to play along, rather than making waves. There is substantial reason to believe he has done this, again and again, in the mistaken belief that this will lessen the pressure on Israel and accrue favor within the international community. In point of fact, this is counterproductive.
In January, 2012, Netanyahu appointed a committee – popularly referred to as the Levy Committee – to examine the status of Israeli building in Judea and Samaria. Edmund Levy, former Justice of the High Court, headed the committee; its other members were Alan Baker, international lawyer and former adviser for the Foreign Ministry, and Tehiya Shapira, retired Tel Aviv District Court Judge.
The Committee’s Report, which was released on July 8, 2012, is 90 pages long in the original Hebrew. (Only summaries exist in English.) It consists of both conclusions and recommendations and provides legal arguments and research.
The accusations currently being leveled by the international community against Israel as a violator of “international law” because of building in Judea and Samaria are countered by the Levy Report conclusions. That is, because of both historical and legal factors, the decades-long presence of Israel in Judea and Samaria is not “belligerent occupation.” Israel’s situation is unique (sui generis) and Israel has the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria.
The Report then offers a number of important recommendations, consistent with the conclusions, regarding adjustments in Israeli policies and practices in Judea and Samaria. These recommendations would clarify the rights of Israeli citizens living in Judea and Samaria, who currently find themselves at a serious disadvantage: The Israeli legal system default there favors Arabs.
At present, law-abiding, tax-paying Jewish Israeli citizens who bought their homes in Judea or Samaria in good faith and with the assistance of multiple government agencies can be forced to abandon those homes, if ownership of the land on which their homes are located is challenged by local Arabs,before the issue of who actually owns the land has been properly adjudicated.
These and a host of similar situations are violations of basic rights for Jews that should not be permitted to continue. Levy Report recommendations speak to these concerns.
I have it from an impeccable source that when Prime Minister Netanyahu first saw the Report, he declared, “Ah, this is just what we need.”
But information about the report was leaked, and Netanyahu, confronting the international furor that would result from its official adoption, did an about-face. He referred the Report to the Ministerial Committee on Settlements, where it was tabled without discussion. To this day, it sits in a drawer somewhere, effectively never having seen the light of day.
And so, the Levy Report disappeared from the radar screen of public awareness. But it was not forgotten by Israeli activists and politicians with a nationalist orientation, who understood its enormous importance.
In the fall of 2012, a small group of seasoned activists formed an ad hoc committee to pursue plans for securing the adoption of the Report by the government. International lawyers and politicians were consulted, the political climate was assessed and assessed again; and plans for a campaign evolved through several permutations. Persons and organizations of prominence who would lend their names to the campaign were sought (FP editor Jamie Glazov and FP parent organization, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, are both listed). Additionally, and necessarily, backers to provide funds were secured.
As the plans for the campaign have coalesced over the last few months, the Campaign Committee has become convinced that the timing is right.
This is, first, because of the farcical “negotiations” with the Palestinian Authority. If there are going to be such negotiations (certainly not advocated by the Campaign Committee) it is important that Israel negotiate from strength, and this means stating Israeli rights without equivocation. There is scant time to delay on this. It’s one thing to concede that Israel “must” withdraw from at least part of Judea and Samaria, because this is “owed” to the Palestinian Arabs, and quite another to say that it is Israeli land by right and any concessions to the Palestinian Arabs would be a matter of choice and discretion.
Then there has been an encouraging shift within the government, with a greater number of ministers and deputies who are nationalist or who tend to be opposed to the notion of a Palestinian state, such as: Moshe Ya’alon; Naftali Bennett; Danny Danon; Yisrael Katz; Tzipi Hotovely; Ze’ev Elkin; Uzi Landau; Yair Shamir; and Uri Ariel. Add to this list Yuli Edelstein, Speaker of the Knesset.
Lastly, there is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s second Bar Ilan speech of October 6.
(An English translation can be found here.)
Instead of speaking of a “two state solution,” as he had previously, he emphasized Jewish rights in the land. A change of tone that many consider significant.
And now, at long last, the Levy Report Campaign is kicking off.
The Campaign Committee is operating with the assistance of Regavim, a fine Israeli organization that works “to ensure responsible, legal & accountable use of Israel’s national lands and the return of the rule of law to all…aspects of the land.” (See http://regavim.org.il/en)
The campaign is envisioned in two stages – first within the Knesset and then more broadly within the public domain.
It is so new that neither a name nor a logo are yet in place. But the services of the educator who will work with the members of the Knesset have been secured. There will be major social media aspects to this effort, as well as organizational work done within the Knesset – in large part by Knesset members themselves – to generate significant and sustained support for the Report. Already, members of the Knesset approached informally have expressed considerable enthusiasm.
The goal of the campaign, of course, remains acceptance of the Levy Report by the government. Right now a process is being set in place that will take time to unfold, step-by-step. It would be foolish and unrealistic to anticipate immediate acceptance. First the climate must be created.
The Campaign Committee believes this effort will provide support for the prime minister, so that he is bolstered from within the nation – and thus better able to resist outside pressures. As well, the campaign should, in time, shift public perceptions regarding Israel’s rights.
If all proceeds well – something to be fervently hoped for – there will be subsequent reports following this first announcement.
Full disclosure: Arlene Kushner was a member of the ad hoc committee that initiated the campaign for the Levy Report, and remains an active member of the Campaign Committee today. She is an author, freelance journalist, and blogger, whose material can be found at www.arlenefromisrael.info.
@ Yidvocate:
Annex by all means and even be magnanimous and let those Arabs there not immersed in terror stay as legal aliens with full civil rights but no political rights just as was laid out in the Mandate of Palestine. They can look to Jordan for their political rights and if Jordan doesn’t recognize such rights, that is hardly a concern for the Jewish State
IL should act on her rights and stop believing that other will willingly recognize her rights. Procrastination help the enemy and tends to give credence to what is not theirs.
@ yamit82:
Yamit, many of us want to read what you have written about Judaism, Zionism, Israeli politics, etc. But this is not possible in tegard to your comments that are blocked by Ted Belman’s blogsite software. Knowing this, why don’t you write more carefully so as to avoid the spam traps? Or, there is another approach. Chances are you have some other blogsite where they are willing to post whatever you have written. If so, let us know where we can find it.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
CuriousAmerican Said:
I agree but so what? Who wants peace? What we want is quiet and security. Both can be had by the overwhelming application of the power we already possess. It’s a matter of overcoming innate Jewish cowardice and fear and doing what needs to be done.
All Arab so called refugees originated within Green Line Israel and if the Arabs accept that refugees from Yaffa can be relocated some 20 miles into the West Bank, what’s wrong with extending the distance from 20 miles to 30 miles into Jordan? There is no reason Israel couldn’t facilitate the demise of the Jordanian Monarchy to pave the way.
I have 2 comments in the Spam dumpster!!!
@ CuriousAmerican:
The miracle of fleeing Arabs
Dishonesty can be evil
CuriousAmerican Said:
The miracle of fleeing Arabs
The 1947 partition of Palestine left the Jewish state with a 40 percent Arab population. Miraculously, the Arabs took off. Their flight started almost a year before the conscious Jewish policy of expelling the fifth column. Unlike in the previous periods of civil unrest, Arabs fled the country rather than temporarily moving into the hills. They fled without a hope of return, for they took their animals and belongings, and wouldn’t have realistically expected their villages to remain intact. Israeli leaders draw attention to the isolated calls by Arab leaders for the villagers to flee, ostensibly to clear the area for Arab military operations. No Arab villager would buy such nonsense. All of them understood that the Syrians and Jordanians wanted their emptied land.
God performs miracles without violating the laws of nature (that’s why there are atheists), and so the Arab flight was prompted by decades of unrest, a crumbling patriarchal society, a closed economy, spiraling clashes with Jews, loss of traditional leadership, and fear.
Most Palestinian leaders argued against fleeing the country, but the peasants were of a different opinion. Jews, for their part, slowly switched to Plan D, attacking first the Arab villages, most of which—willingly or not—housed militias, and eventually cleansing the land of Arabs to gain a contiguous Jewish state. Out of hopelessness and fear of retaliation, the majority of Arabs fled Israel in two waves: amid the clashes before the proclamation of Israeli independence, and after the Jews had won the war. Much smaller numbers of Arabs fled during the war itself.
The near-absence of Arab flight from Galilee demonstrates that Jews did not plan to evict them; Arabs fled only the zones of intense conflict, rather than the entire Jewish state. Arabs that remained in Galilee developed into a demographical time bomb, and created an Arab majority in many parts of the Jewish state. Despite the huge influx of Jews since 1948, the Arab population of Israel continued to rise, from 10-19 percent to 34 percent among the Israeli young today. In order to create a Jewish state, Jews had no choice but to make the Arabs go.
Jewish actions followed the cruel logic of war and state-building, nowhere more clear than in Dir Yassin. That village, like many others, had an implicit non-belligerency agreement with Jewish settlements, but eventually succumbed to Arab guerrillas and bandits. Many villagers from Dir Yassin joined the bandits, and raided Jewish caravans to Jerusalem and the settlements. Pervasive ownership of firearms, the Islamic sanction of robbery, unemployment, and the youth bulge assured the village’s militancy. In the attack on Dir Yassin, Haganah forces shelled the village while Irgun and Lehi fighters stormed it, naturally being unable to discriminate between the full-blown militants and armed teenagers. Some women were also caught in the fighting. Testifying to the fierceness of the battle rather than an atrocity, Irgun subsequently paraded the survivors from Dir Yassin through Jerusalem and sent them into the city’s Arab sector. Arab propaganda, however, made the operation into a massacre and frightened many Arabs into fleeing. In terms of killed-for-fled efficiency, Dir Yassin stands out as a brilliant example of good military practice.
In PR terms, Dir Yassin became a disaster for Israel for a single reason: Jews admitted it as such. No Palestinian talks about the Egyptian forces of Ibrahim Pasha or the British razing the Arab towns, though the Egyptian atrocities and British cruelties far exceeded Dir Yassin, Kfar Qasem, and all other infamous points of Jewish-Arab clashes. People complain of the things it makes sense to complain of. The Egyptians and the British offered Palestinians no opportunity to vent their grievances, but Jews were receptive to the enemy’s cries—and got more cries in return.
@ CuriousAmerican:
There is ABSOLUTELY no awareness, on either side, that the home team may have done something wrong. When I point this out, I am accused of sanctimonious behavior; prejudice, and bigoted behavior. I have had the unique experience of being called an Zionist lackey on one board, while being called an Arab stooge on another …. ON THE VERY SAME DAY! My position does not change
But what is hampering peace is that BOTH sides see themselves as TOTALLY innocent
@ CuriousAmerican:
The point is not what both sides think but rather that one side is right and the other is wrong.
If the point is no peace is possible, I am in total agreement.
You did not address the point.
Both sides think they are totally innocent.
No peace is possible
@ CuriousAmerican:
What “citizenship” are you referring to?
“Prevent a return” Israel has over a million Arab citizens. How many Jews are citizens of Arab or Muslim countries today? Take a tally pre-1948.
Get the picture? The exchange in populations was one sided and it’s nigh time the Jews returned the favor.
Curious American? A better name might have been Confused American!
This is fruitless. Israel has a right to that land.
But what is hampering peace is that BOTH sides see themselves as TOTALLY innocent.
I go on pro-Palestinian boards; and have to deal with absolute idiocies coming from Pro-Palestinians. When I correct their pro-Palestinian idiocies, I get called a Zionist lackey.
But here, I see the obverse.
You say Jordan had NO right to pull their citizenship. They say Israel had no right to pull their citizenship in 1949 and prevent a return.
He started it, teacher!
There is ABSOLUTELY no awareness, on either side, that the home team may have done something wrong. When I point this out, I am accused of sanctimonious behavior; prejudice, and bigoted behavior. I have had the unique experience of being called an Zionist lackey on one board, while being called an Arab stooge on another …. ON THE VERY SAME DAY! My position does not change.
You say that the Arabs wanted to drive the Jews into the sea in 1948. Actually, it was Azzam Pasha. He did not say that he wanted this. What he actually said was that he feared it might happen. He used weasel words.
THAT IS AWFUL. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! THAT IS AWFUL!
However, I could show you words BY THE JEWISH AGENCY, run by BEN GURION, which suggested population transfer (they did not have the term ethnic cleansing then) in 1938.
I still think Israel has a right to the land, but how do you think Arabs felt when they read that the Jewish Agency wanted to ethnically cleanse (that is what population transfer means) the Arabs in 1938?
I understand how Azzam Pasha’s statement must have sounded to the Jews.
Can you comprehend how the Jewish Agency’s proclamation sounded to the Arabs? I do not ask you to agree with the Arab view. I do not even ask you to sympathize. Can you at least intellectually understand what the Arabs thought when they heard the Jewish Agency speak of population transfer/ethnic cleaning?
Do you think the Jewish Agency’s proclamation of Ethnic cleansing of the Arab was any less infuriating than Azzam Pasha’s war cry?
Each side cites the other as the one who started it.
@ CuriousAmerican:
What you see is essentially correct.
Then “she can explain” that what was offered was offered gratuitously and that Israel owes these Arabs nothing. They were citizens of Jordan till Jordan illegally revoked their status overnight. There is no reason why Israel has to accept this – illegal revocation of Jordanian citizenship does not morph into a right to Israeli citizenship. Jordon already sits on 80% of what should have been Israel.
Annex by all means and even be magnanimous and let those Arabs there not immersed in terror stay as legal aliens with full civil rights but no political rights just as was laid out in the Mandate of Palestine. They can look to Jordan for their political rights and if Jordan doesn’t recognize such rights, that is hardly a concern for the Jewish State.
I have no problems if Israel annexes J&S, but she will have to offer the same deal to the Palestinians in J&S that she offered to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, and to the Syrians in the Golan. In other words, citizenship and enfranchisement. Otherwise she will have to explain why it was offered to the Golan and the Eastern half of Jerusalem, but not to J&S.
What I see is that Israel wants the land, but not the Palestinians on it. So Israel is fudging every option she has, because none of them are good.
The Arabs talk about rights and justice.
Israel talks about “painful concessions” and “security needs.” You never hear Israel talk once about the values of Zionism and Jewish dignity.
Jews are so pragmatic you have to wonder if there any are principles they hold sacred. Given the way the Levy Report disappeared without a ripple, I’m skeptical Israel can really be diverted from its present suicidal course.