Step by step to sovereignty in J&S

Translation of Hebrew Arutz 7 article by Shimon Cohen

In another of Women in Green’s Sovereignty Conferences MK Yariv Levin laid out his idea – how to promote the application of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

The event opened with greetings from the heads of the Women in Green movement, Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, who emphasized the obligation of the Israeli Right to present a proper and realistic political alternative, and not to be satisfied with rejecting the Left’s vision of establishing a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel.

Both women noted that during the 46 years since the Six Day War the Right was not decisive in presenting a clear vision and in the absence of this clear vision, a window was opened for Palestinian hopes to establish a new state.

After the two women, rabbi of the community Rabbi Itamar Orbach spoke, welcoming the heads of Women in Green, the demographer Ettinger and MK Levin, who were the key guests of the conference. He then noted the importance of this day, the fourteenth of Iyar, Pesach Sheni, in which the spirit of redemption that began with the exodus from Egypt on the fourteenth of Nisan, arises again. Rabbi Orbach also mentioned that since it was the place where the Kingdom of Israel arose again after
the War of Judah Maccabee and his brothers, it is a suitable place for the conference whose objective is to strengthen and renew the Kingdom of Israel.

MK Yariv Levin, who not long ago was head of the coalition and will shortly be head of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, stated that the vision of sovereignty is indeed a vision that entails difficulties but will succeed in the end.

MK Levin focused his speech on the proper ways in which to put the idea of sovereignty into action, step by step. In the beginning of his speech he stated that indeed this is a long term and difficult task to carry out but “every such process begins with conferences such as these to acclimate people to the idea.

We cannot expect that after so many years when they conditioned us and are still conditioning us to think in certain ways, suddenly one day the public will get up and find itself promoting a different way.”

MK Levin mentioned what he defined as the “peace process industry“, in which so many resources and funds have been invested but the more that is done for it, the less this industry has achieved.

“The basic thing is a change of consciousness. We must first of all look at things and leave behind the slogans of ‘land for peace’ and ‘two states for two people’. The two state solution is no solution and would not end in two states. We must begin thinking and speaking in different concepts. To present an objective that we will work toward”, according to Levin, who states that along with the conferences whose purpose is to influence public opinion about the political change, we must act in the judicial sphere. “We must lead this process by judicial means”, says Levin and clarifies that it is a gradual process in which members of Knesset would take legislative steps, even if they are partial, and only if they can promote the larger process that will take place when the time comes.

As an example, MK Levin presented the Referendum Law that passed the second and third with the coalition’s agreement readings only recently, while the process was begun back in ’99 when it was determined then that a referendum must be held for any withdrawal of sovereign territory, but the law was qualified that it would be
applied after it would be determined how a referendum is to be carried out. At a later phase, in 2010, Levin himself brought to the legislature a law to define the methods of carrying out a referendum and with this, the law that had been shelved became enacted in practice.

Levin mentioned that until a few months ago MK Livni and Lapid expressed opposition to the law, opposition that led some journalists to think that this would be the death of the law, but despite that, Levin was able to bring the law to completion with the support of Minister Peretz and MK Mitzna. “It is possible and it takes a lot of time. It must be done in measured steps and the ground and infrastructure must be prepared so that when it becomes politically feasible we will know how to avail ourselves of the opportunity, “and thus Levin explained the main lesson of the Referendum Law.

In this spirit Levin remarked that a number of proposals exist for gradual promotion of the idea of sovereignty – sovereignty in the Jordan Valley, expanding the boundaries of Jerusalem, connecting Jerusalem with Ma’ale Adumim, sovereignty over the communities and the roads that lead to them and more. Levin expresses support for these processes but cautions against a proposal that is based on the concept
of blocs of settlement because according to him this process may result in disaster for a significant number of the communities. “The temptation to upgrade certain communities might result in the loss of others”, says Levin.

Levin adds that the objective is indeed full sovereignty over the entire territory but until then it is possible to promote the necessary legislation in phases one of which would be civil legislation that will bring equality between the residents of Judea and Samaria and the rest of the citizens in totally civilian spheres such as issues of health, order and sanitation and others, details that are today carried out by the orders of a general.

He also mentions the laws of planning and building that today prevent the authorities in Yosh (Hebrew acronym for Judea and Samaria) from
establishing a planning committee, which is the accepted method in
every other area of Israel. Legislative steps must be taken in this
matter as well and they will have additional value in the civil public
consciousness toward the areas of Judea and Samaria.

In addition to all of this MK Levin remarked that these steps will
become possible only if practical action occurs to make the necessary
changes in the judicial system
. Levin states that:

“We can no longer
accept the present reality in which the High Court, which represents a
radical leftist minority, perpetuates itself, dictates its values and
dictates its positions to us in many spheres and does this not only by
judicial fiat of the High Court but also because governmental systems
behave in impotent and biased ways that are difficult for us to deal

According to him, such a change in the judicial system is “essential and will enable us to take steps on the way to the application of sovereignty”. Levin mentions that “there are orders and regulations that can be carried out but these systems absolutely prevent their implementation. Along with the important battle in the area of hasbara (Israel advocacy) and legislation we must stress the required change in the judicial system”.

Note that the conference, in which more than a hundred and fifty people participated from Hashmonaim and surrounding communities, took place in cooperation with the new movement being established, “Am Chazak”(‘A Strong People’) . The event took place under the influence of the disturbing consciousness that the speakers and those present had regarding the civil administration’s intention to carry out the destruction of buildings in three communities in Judea and Samaria by
the end of the week. The heads of Women in Green, Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, see the vision of sovereignty as an inclusive answer to such destructive steps, “We cannot run to every outpost and to every agricultural area built on state land. In order for the Arabs not to take over, we need a general, realistic and structured solution, which is the vision of Israeli sovereignty over the entire area”, say the
two women.

May 16, 2014 | 36 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

36 Comments / 36 Comments

  1. @ honeybee:
    dear honeybee,
    i confess not knowing diddley squat about this ‘fracking’ subject. but i thought the video clip might lighten up a bit the forum… 🙂

  2. Hasn’t Netanyahu already talked about area E1? Give all building permits necessary not given yet and start to build! Much easier to control than all of C. Convince all of Likud to push Likud or get Danny Danon online. Start building Abbas border around Area A and possible pieces of B, with some modifications. Build a new empty city there and tell the arabs in C that they can move there for free.
    And maybe an area in Jordan and a bridge over from the Jericho area. Bribe Jordan with cheaper gas and better handling of their oil shale when the Israeli ways of fracking is economical.

  3. @ the phoenix:

    Tibi repeatedly referred to “the occupation.” This false notion is solidly entrenched among Arabs, the EU, the UN and, unfortunately, many Jews and Israelis who support the “two-state solution.”

    That single word is the cornerstone upon which the whole Palestinian narrative is built. That is what we must demolish. And not with a puny “hasbara” but with a massive, well funded, focused effort that would reverberate worldwide.

  4. @ Salomon Benzimra:

    @ Salomon Benzimra:
    There are two main points, to be brought out from that exchange, in my opinion:
    1. Feiglin’s response towards the end:

    Feiglin: This is my country and you will not remain in it.

    2. The open siding of Ben Ami (as a representative of the media) WITH THE MUSLOID ARAB!!!
    He keeps on demanding that the musloid be addressed properly…as MK TIBI…while not even adding “Mr.” When addressing feiglin…, saying that they, the media, channel 2, are not ashamed of bringing the musloid to play his violin…

    Ben Ami: Just like we are not ashamed to bring you.

    This is ridiculous! It sounds like something the curious american would say…

    The bottom line is this:
    Feiglin talked and is STILL talking the talk .
    He, and anyone else that shares the same ideals (expell the Arabs and build greater Israel) is facing endless roadblocks posed not by Arabs, us, eu, whatever… But by “Jews” !!! Israeli Jews that harbor such idiotic ‘fine soul’ sentiments towards their neighbors, tha Arabs (you know, the ones who would slaughter them without thinking twice…)
    which amounts to a lot of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING!

  5. Ted Belman Said:

    It need not annex area C in one fell swoop.

    the reason to annex C in one fell swoop is to take advantage of an opportunity presented Israel by the pals. The justification for annexation of C appears foolish if used for parts of C. it would be the same piece meal approach that has proven a failure as even annexed Jerusalem is considered, by the foreigners everyone is trying to please, as up for grabs. Annexation of C is a one time opportunity presented now only if based on the same reasons(plus settlement rights of world jews)as Putins annexation of Crimea. Protection of russian security interests, protection of russians residing in crimea, rights of the crimeans to self-determination under the UN charter as was done in Kosovo. all these plus protecting the rights of settlement of world jewry obtain in C.

    The opportunity presents in that the pals only have any control in A &B and by declaring a state or sovereignty they are unwittingly separating A & B from C. this separation allows the Israelis to treat C different from the rest of the “occupied west bank” as a result of pal action. Israell can annex based on pal action but keep A & B as disputed territory defacto managed by the PA. BTW recognition of a pal state is not necessarily bad for Israel if that recognition i only to Gaza as palestine(assuming Israel has given up gaza permanently). Recognition of states does not resolve border disputes and does not retroactively confer states rights to before their existence..

  6. Salomon Benzimra Said:

    most Israelis know that.

    I think this statement is inaccurate. I believe that a vast number of Israelis are not familiar enough with the legal and moral imperatives for their own side.
    Salomon Benzimra Said:

    But the world doesn’t. Hence, we should remind them forcefully of the historical and legal evidence.

    Although I have always been for lawfare, education and PR to establish these facts, I do not believe that the problem or goal should be in convincing the world. I see the problem in convincing the Jews.
    I see the prime reason for education to educate the Jews to make informed self-interested decisions and to stand unified behind them. I see lawfare as a strategic weapon in the war against the Jews and especially as “justifications” used after the fact of unilateral action as a form of diplomacy allowing those who seek to do business with Israel to have a “legal excuse” to do so. I do not agree with submitting arguments to proven kangaroo courts.
    furthermore, I do not see the issue of jewish legal rights in YS to be the main vehicle and opportunity here. these arguments which have gone unemployed in successive govs cannot suddenly be trotted out to convince the world. In my view Israel should employ the methods and tactics of Putin in this issue. Annexation should be done as a reactive action to the specific pal attack on Israels sovereignty, claims and interests. If the pals are declaring sovereignty over what they currently control AND areas currently under Israeli control then Israel would be a fool NOT to do the same with areas under its control. There is no need to go into old narratives never used except as a reference to one of the reasons for annexation. The declaration of sovereignty by the pals NECESSITATES similar action by Israel in order to protect the interests it was advancing in its negotiations.
    Putin took action first and then gave legal and moral reasons as the justification afterwards: he followed by a referendum along the lines of the UN charter wrt “self determinations of peoples of the area”. While the world argues those reasons he has taken control. His is the correct approach to use and FORGET and abandon at this too late date trying to convince the internationals of that which they knowingly repudiate, including their own treaties and agreements with the Jews. Lawfare should be used as an attack weapon on BDS and on govs reneging on their agreements rather than as a philosohical forum regarding the ALREADY established Jewish rights currently, and widely ignored even by Israel.

    However, I feel it is all moot as this incredibly grand opportunity will only be nibbled at and at most I would only expect annexation of the major settlements rather than all of C. This would be tantamount to declaring that Israel ONLY claims land upon which Israelis reside and that the vacant lands are the rightful, or at best, disputed property of the arabs. It is the Jews who need an education and NOT the world. The world is only a mirror of the absurd positions of the Jews. Whether Israel and the Jews are ignorant or knowledgeable of the facts this would only say whether they are ignorant fools or knowledgeable fools, in either case they are fools. I would have to wager that they will not, even with this fantastic opportunity, annex C.

    the greatest opportunity exists now for the specific reasons of Pal action which invites opportunistic reaction. However, does the pal application of non-member state admission/acceptance at the UN and their actions to apply for other memberships, constitute a declaration of sovereignty over specific areas and borders. I would suspect that declaring a state might not be the same as claiming sovereignty over disputed land. Note that abbas and BB keep stating that they wish to continue the talks. this tells me that there is still an agreement to resolve the sovereignty issues through talk rather than unilateral action. Both sides appear to be tiptoeing through the tulips. My suspicion is that it is all a mirage created for the street, that Abbas cannot possibly allow a real state to emerge at this time but that he must appear to be accomplishing something for his constituents(e.g. prisoner releases, fake states, applications, filed cases, rhetoric, etc etc etc.)
    Can you imagine abbas allowing millions of pals into A & B and even parts of C, even with a deal with Israel? If not, then you cannot imagine a real state at this time.
    everyone knows that the pals cannot go to Israel whatever the borders but few discuss the obvious which is that they also cannot go to the PA. Therefore, it is best for Abbas to maintain a status quo with the appearance of progress and achievements and for BB, in his mind, to do the same.

  7. If you say act plus explain our rights with a strong effort at the same time we are in sink. If you say wait until someone in the EU or USA gives a green light, that we will have to agree to disagree.

    Strong explanation to our friends for sure but being scared to act for what is important and right no.

  8. @ bernard ross:

    Generally true; but in this case it is the Pals who have made an unfounded denial of the legitimate rights of the Jewish people over the west bank.

    You know that; I know that; most Israelis know that. But the world doesn’t. Hence, we should remind them forcefully of the historical and legal evidence.

  9. @ the phoenix:
    The senseless points brought up by Tibi in his “conversation” with Feiglin are precisely what should be demolished in a large scale campaign spread worldwide. I bet, today, millions of people believe every word of Tibi.

  10. Salomon Benzimra Said:

    ANY Task B will be interpreted as a unilateral and unfounded denial of the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

    Generally true; but in this case it is the Pals who have made an unfounded denial of the legitimate rights of the Jewish people over the west bank. If it was not disputed they would not be in negotiations. If negotiations end and the pals make a claim of the west bank then they have “ignored” the “legitimate rights” and claims of the Jewish people and of Israel. In such a case one does not necessarily need to make a case but merely to secure ones rights in the face of the other party’s intransigence. However,I suspect that is why the pals and BB keep speaking about wanting to continue talks. However,as soon as it appears that the pals are formally claiming sovereignty over specific borders including the west bank then Israel has the right to proceed purely on establishing its claim (as do the soviets in the arctic) Declaring and recognizing a state does not commit to borders. Israel could if it wanted recognize them in gaza only. I think there is a reason why gaza never declares a state because it would enable Israel to annex the west bank and declare the residents citizens of the pal state of gaza. Right now the pals keep it vague, non-committal and without real substance. Perhaps its all about getting the fluff of a state without the meat. Like claiming to win a war when the enemy advanced to within 25 K of the capitol city. perhaps if everyone pretends the pals got a state(with no sovereignty, control or borders the pal electorate will be satisfied with the status quo of arguing over who is right in the court of public opinion. I don’t believe it is possible for Abbas to actually get a real state as he could not deny access to millions of Pals seeking to return to the area under his control, and he, and it, could not survive it. How do they keep out their own people? By claiming they are a state but blaming Israel for not allowing their brothers access to their faux state. A mirage?

  11. @ Bear Klein:

    So how long would you delay to exercise our rights over sovereign land?

    Can’t Israel walk and chew gum at the same time? I thought everyone understood that one doesn’t have to wait till Task A is finished to launch Task B.

    If Israel doesn’t even think of demolishing the Palestinian narrative, it will be viewed as acquiescing to the nonsense of “two-states-for-two-peoples” and ANY Task B will be interpreted as a unilateral and unfounded denial of the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

    Such is the situation we face now, avec 50 years of unrelenting Arab propaganda. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen – in any of the floating “solutions” – a strong rebuke of the Palestinian narrative.

  12. @ Salomon Benzimra:
    So how long would you delay to exercise our rights over sovereign land? What would be situation that you think it is okay do something in fact and not just talk?

    Perhaps we should implement Bennetts’ plan ASAP because as he says the world will grip anyway. They are still griping over the Golan (oh not such much). Israel annexed and it became a fact. We can explain until we are blue in the face but action is what counts. I remember when I lived on Golan and Peres told us at lunch that for peace he would consider relinquishing the Golan. Good thing he did not get his piece of worthless paper and Israel acted. Time has done the explaining of the situation for those who care to listen.

    I do not mean to be rude but your purpose of delaying sounds counterproductive. Whose permission do we wait for? Who is the sovereign in Israel?

  13. @ bernard ross:
    ALL your points make sense.
    Yet nothing is being done…
    All IP commenters (well, except one… But he doesn’t count) would be in agreement but that does not change the facts on the ground…
    The ones who CAN MAKE THINGS HAPPEN, appear to bend backwards to ensure that they…do not happen… Or worse!

    It was Sharon, the bulldozer that saw to it that entire communities were destroyed and thousands of families were left in shambles… Who would have thought?
    Likewise, bb, his signature speeches were the “imminent danger of a nuclear Iran” … Nu?
    Real territory is about to be given to the Vatican (!!!!) on a silver platter by the sob with the annoying gurgling accent!!
    The people taking to the streets?
    You gotta be kidding!
    As you have remarked on other threads, the ones who DO show up are the very ones who SHOULD be on the streets nonstop for reclaiming the biblical land…but the reason they are on the streets (hundreds of thousand strong) is different…
    I would summarize it in two words: ‘AM DAFUK!

  14. Salomon Benzimra Said:

    Why don’t we all, as a fist step, rally to what we all believe in?

    I agree, I think that the annexation of C would have a much broader appeal to a wider swath of Israelis: those to protect the rights of settlement for world Jewry, those who seek the security protection of the Jordan valley, etc., Those who do not want to rule the arabs, those who are afraid of demography, Those who wish to keep a tight leash on A & B by surrounding it, those who want to relinquish nothing keep a & B in dispute and under Israeli control,etc.

  15. Ted Belman Said:

    So if we annex only C and then start paying Arabs in B and A to emigrate, that’s the way to go. If they don’t take us up on our offer then we will know that compensated emigration will not work.

    there are strong legal arguments for annexing C which do not occur for A & B at this time.
    1-A & B and Pal control over most aspects other than security. Area C is completely under Israel control. therefore no definition of a states borders can claim sovereignty or control over C.
    2- by leaving A & B as disputed land being claimed by boeth parties it allows C to be separated and annexed on the sole basis of “rights to self determination of the resident population” as Jews are a majority of C.

    I would not give citizenship of arabs in C but consider them citizens of either Jordan, PA or Gaza, leaving their status “as is” and subject to future treaty negotians over gaza and A & B.
    3-The precipitant cause can be claimed to be the pal abandoning agreements and the resultant need to protect Israels interest in the land and to protect Israeli settlers, and to maintain freedom of immigration and settlement for global jewry in the still unpopulated areas of C.

    regarding A & B I would make no commitments but would leave the status as is subject to negotiations. Of couse such negotiations will now be only over A & B.
    an Israeli gov should market such annexation as a necessary reaction to protect Israels interests and remove it from claims.

  16. @ Bear Klein:
    The context is different now, and we should act accordingly.

    Look at Ben Gurion’s Proclamation of May-14-1948, where he lays out the rationale of his decision. If the world has forgotten this rationale, we should refresh their memory.

  17. @ Salomon Benzimra:
    We would not have a state if we first needed to convince the world of our rights. As Ben Gurion has been numerously quoted.

    “What matters is not what the goyim say, but what the Jews do.”

  18. The political will isn’t there to do it in one fell swoop. Plus much legislation has to be passed first to pave the way. I am in dialogue with Feiglin’s people and Martin Sherman and other’s on the problem’s. It may be that we have to get them to leave before we annex. If we first annex then we will have to deal with the High Court who may think only offering compensations to only Arabs in J&S would be discriminatory. So if we annex only C and then start paying Arabs in B and A to emigrate, that’s the way to go. If they don’t take us up on our offer then we will know that compensated emigration will not work.

    Another problem is that a majority of the Israeli people might be prepared to annex and offer citizenship but they will not support annexation without giving citizenship. At the moment we don’t have a majority for either.

  19. I am afraid the policies of the Israeli Right will be diluted with so many divergent ideas. From Efraim Inbar, advocating a “do-nothing policy“, to Feiglin’s, Glick’s and Bennett’s advocating “annexation,” to Levin opting for a “step by step sovereignty.”

    Why don’t we all, as a fist step, rally to what we all believe in? a) assert Israel’s territorial rights under international law and b) demolish the fake “Palestinian narrative” which precisely deny those rights.

    If the Palestinians managed to adopt the crazy notions of “land for peace” and “two-states for two peoples,” and to turn them into self-evident truths to a gullible world, it is because they succeeded in carrying out a long propaganda campaign. Why couldn’t we do the same in promoting the truth and deconstructing falsehoods?

  20. @ Bear Klein:

    Oh I agree with you wholeheartedly. That is a tragic reality. I’ve always maintained that we have met the enemy and it is not the anti-semites, the Arabs, the leftists, the progressives, no, sadly it is US!

    Shabbat Shalom………..

  21. @ Yidvocate: You have a valid point. However, if they do not go incrementally nothing may pass through the Knesset. Just do a head count of the right and center Knesset members who might vote for something. Meretz and Labor are automatic no votes. So you haave figure what can you can get Hatuana and Yesh Atid to vote for. Will the Haredeim vote with the government if yes that could offset some troubles with the center parties.

  22. @ Yidvocate:

    I am totally with you on this one yidvocate,
    Will an orthopedic surgeon, that has to proceed with amputating a limb, carry out this procedure over the course of many months/ years… Cutting a little piece….letting it heal….have the patient return for ANOTHER similar procedure…. again,
    And again
    AND AGAIN???
    This is NUTS!!!
    And annex.
    Expell and annex, expell and annex….
    Hmmm kinda has a catchy sound, no?

  23. My fear is that incremental steps will have the same effect in terms of global punitive sanctions as would annexation in one fell swoop and therefore total annexation becomes viable and more desirable at least in terms of global backlash.

  24. Levin is right. The legislative foundation must be laid first especially to redress the balance between the Courts and the Knesset. The Referendum Law and the nation state law are good beginnings.
    The right wing has the most power in Knesset, enough to pass the necessary legislation over time. While the public will not support the annexation of everything today, they will support incremental moves. Even moves to annex can start with expanding Jerusalem. It need not annex area C in one fell swoop. While the building blocks are put in place, and to complete the change necessary we will need a new government,we should be promoting the idea of sovereignty just as Women in Green, Feiglin, Sherman, and Glick are doing.
    Every movement with distant goals like the PLO or the MB institute their long term goals in phases. We should too.