What is the third option? Annexation

By Ted Belman

While in China, Olmert acknowleded that Unilateralism policy has been a failure. He was referring to the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza.

Instead he argues

    “under the existing circumstances, it would be more practical to achieve a two-state solution through negotiations rather than [unilateral] withdrawal.”

It does not follow that because unilateral withdrawal didn’t work, negotiated withdrawal would. Oslo was negotiated and it didn’t work. The Roadmap was negotiated and it doesn’t work. Rafah Agreement was negotiated and it doesn’t work.

Annexation of Judea and Samaria is the third option and it has the best chance of working.

January 9, 2007 | 1 Comment »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

1 Comment / 1 Comment

  1. Actually, the reason that Unilateral policy has failed is because they went the wrong direction and gave up land instead of bringing more of it under complete Israeli juristiction.

    I don’t think you are going to convince enough people into the the idea of annexing Judea and Samaria at this time to make it policy – too many people are afraid of the political fallout. However, as I have said before, a movement that advocates that action is important since things are quickly developing in the region so that what would be considered an extremist option today may be considered the only realistic option tomorrow.

    It’s called being ahead of the curve, which, Ted is on this. I have always believed that annexation is something that will eventually take place, if not by choice then by no other choice, but the consequinces of delay will include additional lives which will be lost.

Comments are closed.