Weaponizing Lies Like ‘Apartheid’ Against Israel Won’t Get You Peace - by Cade Spivey

To be clear, matters of Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty are not beyond debate. There are political, religious, and human rights issues that should be debated and considered very deliberately. But reducing one side or the other to terms that are the very embodiment of evil through ad hominem labels or inappropriately applied legal definitions is not helpful, and does not produce meaningful outcomes for people living these truths daily.

Cade Spivey..
Algemeiner..
17 August '20..

On a long drive from my native Indiana to to the state of Virginia, I listened to a podcast wherein the interview subject began with a fairly benign truism: “Words matter.”

The program, produced by Americans For Peace Now, began by stating that not every murder is a genocide and not all discrimination is apartheid. The interview then continued for another 30 minutes laying out a “legal” framework of apartheid, in order to shoehorn Israel into that definition, vis-à-vis Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank.

I agree that words matter. The words we use to describe an issue directly influence the substance of a debate.

I further contend that facts matter, and that merely using legal terms to describe a legal framework does not establish facts independently. Law was not meant to be argued in the abstract.

The arguments made to establish Israel as an “apartheid state” on the podcast were irresponsible and unwarranted, and promoted key assertions that have become commonplace in the misinformed effort to establish Israel as an apartheid state.

The UN defines apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

The term was derived from the system of racial segregation imposed in South Africa from the late 1940s until 1994. Separation of the races was strictly enforced in public accommodation, trade, education, marriage, and even sexual acts. The purpose was to cement the power structures that existed at the end of the British colonization of the region.

The cynical invocation of the term is used in the hopes of eliciting a sympathetic response to the alleged victims — in this case, the Palestinian Arabs. When the term is used to describe Israel, it is as inappropriate an analogy as comparing apples to hand grenades.

(Continue to Full Column)

How will the application of Israeli law to Jewish communities affect regular people living there? - by Naomi Kahn

Thus far, the debate has failed to explain how sovereignty—or a lack thereof—impacts the lives of the people living in Judea and Samaria, no matter who they are.

Naomi Kahn..
JNS.org..
05 August '20..

The debate surrounding the application of Israeli law to Judea and Samaria—all, part or none of Area C—has taken up quite a lot of the airwaves, columns of print, seemingly endless hours of public discussion and debate and international diplomatic energy.

Thus far, the debate has been high-brow, focusing on geopolitical scenarios, legal rights and wrongs, ethics and history, but has failed to explain how sovereignty—or a lack thereof—impacts the lives of the people living in Judea and Samaria, no matter who they are. When it comes down to it, how will the application of Israeli law to Jewish communities in what is known as Area C, the portion of the disputed territory designated for full Israeli jurisdiction under the Oslo Accords, affect regular people living there?

To sharpen the focus on this seemingly simple question, we must first understand the current reality—the “temporary” situation that has existed since June 1967, and the mechanisms through which Israel continues to administer this territory and to oversee the lives of its residents.

After Israel’s crushing victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Israeli government was apparently frightened by its own success. Rather than taking the natural, normal, standard steps that have always been taken by governments to secure their own borders after a war of self-defense, Israel did not restore the originally intended and internationally recognized borders of the Jewish State by reinstating its sovereignty over the liberated territory of Judea and Samaria—which had been occupied illegally by Jordan for 19 years. Instead, Israel voluntarily placed this territory in a state of limbo, relegating its status to “disputed territory” and placing it under military rule. The law that would be enforced in these areas regarding property rights, it was decided, would revert to the system enacted by the last known sovereign—in this case, the Ottoman Empire.

Unbelievable as this may seem, Ottoman Land Law continues to be the law of the land in Judea and Samaria. Contrary to what far too many journalists and foreign “Middle East experts” whom I have met believe, the Ottoman legal system is enforced by the State of Israel across the board; it applies to both Jewish and Arab residents of Area C.

This anomalous situation is, in a nutshell, what makes the application of Israeli sovereignty in these areas so important, so logical and so beneficial for everyone who lives there, and for the State of Israel and its neighbors, as well. Simply put, Ottoman Land Law makes no sense in today’s world, and the situation as it stands is untenable.

(Continue to Full Column)

Massive Illegal Construction as an Outcome of Israel’s Self-Imposed “White Paper” - by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

Israel’s National Outline Plan (NOP 35) has effectively frozen Jewish settlement in the Galilee and the Negev and spurred massive illegal building and land occupancy by the Negev’s Bedouin community. Without renewed Jewish settlement momentum in the land that is still available, the police and law enforcement agencies will be unable to alter this unlawful reality.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,630..
07 July '20..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-white-paper/

It is a historical irony that nearly a century after a string of British White Papers (in 1922, 1930, and 1939) sought to thwart the Jewish national rebirth by imposing draconian restrictions on Jewish land purchase and settlement—in flagrant violation of Britain’s obligation under a 1922 League of Nations mandate to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine—an official Israeli national development plan is effectively having exactly the same effect.

Approved by the government in 2005, the National Outline Plan (NOP 35) seeks to guide Israel’s spatial development in the first two decades of the 21st century while taking into account demographic forecasts, spatial infrastructure, and trends in land and site preservation. In reality, the plan has effectively frozen Jewish settlement in the Galilee and the Negev, leading in turn to massive illegal building and land occupancy by Bedouin in the Negev.

The police, the military, and the other law enforcement agencies suffer from a perennial shortage of manpower and resources, and from the lack of a regular presence in these lands. What is required is the constant, active presence of Jewish farmers and residents as well as an ongoing momentum of legal expansion.

The approval and implementation of the National Outline Plan as a long-term master plan was an under-the-radar revolution. Who doesn’t want to preserve green spaces and protect them from development and construction? Under the cover of a seemingly irreproachable idea, a quiet revolution was conducted.

When it comes to Israel, the Washington Post swings and misses (again) - by Michael Berenhaus

When will the Post give up their fear-mongering and prognostication about something that they have been so consistently wrong about? You’d think they would know better—and leave their crystal ball at home.

Michael Berenhaus..
JNS.org..
06 July '20..

In the June 30 article “Jericho fears its vision for peace could soon be lost,” The Washington Post airs its latest speculation about what “could” result from an Israeli action. In so doing, the daily newspaper stokes fear about something that will most likely not occur at all or not cause nearly as much damage as the Post alarmingly predicts.

In its latest apparition, the newspaper once again quotes a Palestinian (or simply declares), saying that the Israeli action du jour will foil the chance for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians as if it were a fait accompli. In this article, the Post predictably quotes the widely cited Palestinian negotiator and propagandist Saeb Erekat, who said that the declaration of Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, including his birthplace Jericho, will be “the lowest point of Palestinian-Israeli relations in the past few decades.”

The Washington Post reported that Erekat, now “secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization,” was born in Jericho and “can trace his family’s history in the biblical town back many generations.” To The Post’s credit, the very next day, on July 1, the editors did publish a correction stating that Erekat was not, in fact, born in Jericho, but in Abu Dis. So Erekat’s continuous sympathy crusade for the Palestinian movement is once again rife with non-truths.

The Post also had the temerity to quote another Palestinian, Bassam Abu Sharif, who also claimed a connection to Jericho. Abu Sharif, according to the report, is “a one-time militant known for a string of airplane hijackings in the 1970s.” A “string” sounds like more than a “one-time” occurrence and wouldn’t “terrorist” be a better description of a professional airplane hijacker than “militant”?

(Continue to Full Column)

(Excellent) With or without sovereignty - by Liat Collins

According to common wisdom, if Israel extends sovereignty to include the nearly half a million Jews living in communities in Judea and Samaria, while leaving the majority of the territory and the Palestinians in the PA’s control, this will be considered as an illegal and discriminatory act. That the Palestinian Authority won’t agree to having Jewish communities in its midst somehow is not perceived as problematic. The Palestinian demand that nearly 500,000 Jews be removed is not considered a call for ethnic cleansing. The Palestinians definitely don’t want to feel any Jewish presence. They want to be and feel judenrein.

Liat Collins..
My Word/JPost..
03 July '20..
Link: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/my-word-with-or-without-sovereignty-633663

A particularly useful Hebrew phrase keeps coming to mind lately: “Lalechet im u’lahargish bli,” “To go with and feel without.” It entered the Hebrew lexicon as an advertising slogan for a bra. As a marketing tool, however, it fell flat. Not many corporations can get away with a slogan that doesn’t mention the company name. Over time, most Israelis forgot what company and then what product it originally referred to. Meanwhile, the phrase took on a life of its own – like Nike’s “Just do it!” became a trademark that left its mark way beyond the world of footwear.

Over the years, the popular Hebrew catchphrase even became reversible and “To go without and feel with” – lalechet bli u’lahargish im – is equally part of the local lingo. The advertising copywriter who first came up with the concept could rightly say: “If I had a shekel for every time I heard the phrase, I’d be rich.”

Over the last few weeks, “Lalechet im u’lahargish bli” could have served as the succinct title of many news stories. Take the so-called unity government, which is anything but united – and seems more dedicated to infighting than fighting the coronavirus pandemic, which was the ostensible reason for its creation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to join with Blue and White leader Benny Gantz, but clearly he prefers to go with him while trying to ignore him. Alternate Prime Minister Gantz – a “to feel with and go without” mirror title if ever there was one – evidently feels the same.
But it was with the intensifying discussions of the extension of Israeli law to areas of Judea and Samaria that the catchphrase really came into its own. The July 1 date from which sovereignty could begin to be enacted has come and gone, but no one really knows what the full plan entails. Nonetheless, the title “To go with and feel without” suits the diplomatic effort almost as much as the better known “Deal of the Century” or “Peace to Prosperity” vision.

The Palestinian Authority has rejected the plan outright. The Palestinian leadership is not even willing to discuss it. Theirs is a classic case of going with and feeling without. Actually, it’s a classic case of chutzpah. The PA has both declared itself a state – one recognized by more than 130 UN member states – and yet, with UN support, the “State of Palestine” continues to declare that its subjects are perpetual refugees. If Israel goes ahead with the sovereignty/annexation plan, which affects 30% of the disputed territory, the PA warns that it won’t be responsible for the results: not for any violence against Israelis and not for the well-being and welfare of the Palestinians in the other 70%. In effect, the Palestinians are saying we have a state; we don’t have a state; we want a state; but if we don’t get a state – without preconditions – then we want Israel to be responsible for us instead. (Regular readers know that I favor some form of Jordanian option, linking the Palestinians to their Sunni, Arabic-speaking brethren in the Hashemite Kingdom, which has a Palestinian majority but wants to feel without.) Either way – with or without annexation – sadly, the Palestinians don’t seem likely to give up the threat and use of violence to get their way (which is the main reason Jordan doesn’t want to link its fate to them).

The unwritten constitution of the State of Israel, the one that begins with "Go from your country … to the land that I will show you" - by Nadav Shragai

Future sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, like areas of the country that are already under Israeli sovereignty, is part of our national security in its broadest sense, because the question isn't only how we defend our existence, but also why we exist.

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
03 July '20..
Link; https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/because-it-is-our-right/

A now-forgotten media debate that took place over 30 years ago is still relevant today. A group of highly decorated generals, retired career military, argued authoritatively that the settlements were of no value from a security and defense standpoint. The next day, Devar, the daily mouthpiece of the Histadrut Labor Federation, published a response from Cpl. (res.) Naomi Sapir. Sapir, better known as Naomi Shemer, threw cold water on the generals' opinion, as well as calm on the outraged settlers.

"Kibbutz Kinneret [Shemer's birthplace] has no security value, only Zionist value," the poet wrote.

"When Benzion Israeli went up there with two friends one pale morning, he didn't do so for reasons of security, only for Zionist reasons. It's lucky that no retired general was running after him with a security yardstick. The general would certainly kick all three out of there, and it's doubtful we'd have an IDF at all, or retired generals who issue security 'declarations,'" she wrote.

The fundamental principle in which Shemer believed, which is so lacking in the current discourse about sovereignty, was that "the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people … regardless of conditions or temporary ownership of territory, regardless of the essence of a passing rule or a question such as how many Jews are living in the Land of Israel at any given moment," as she wrote in Ma'ariv in December 1975.

That, if you will, is the unwritten constitution of the State of Israel, the one that begins with "Go from your country … to the land that I will show you" (Genesis 12:1) and continues on to "the hope that is 2,000 years old" and the genetic code of "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem." Even the League of Nations recognized that genome 100 years ago as "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and "the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" and the Jewish right to "settle in any place in the west of Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea."

The fuss over sovereignty now lacks these foundations. We are tossed around morning and night by floods of information about the economic and security damage that will be visited upon us when sovereignty is applied. We are busy with simulations and assessments in attempts to gauge the responses of Europe, the Arabs, the Palestinians, and Hamas, but we are ignoring one thing: our right.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, are focused on rights – their own. They aren't afraid to kiss the furrows of "their land," to lie endlessly about their past here, falsify history, and wave keys to the homes where their forefathers lived. Our language, however, has become poor and diluted. Security is important but doesn't come before everything else. We cannot stake a claim for international legitimacy to Hebron and the Jordan Valley or even Beersheba without the Bible, the patriarchs and matriarchs, and the Temple Mount and the City of David; without Rachel's Tomb on the road to Efrata, and Eli and Shilo and the field of the patriarchs in Hebron and the angels who go up and down a ladder in Jacob's dream in Beit El.

Clear Enough? Israelis Must Make Decisions for Israel - by Mitchell Bard

Israel’s leaders will make a decision that is in Israel’s best interest regardless of what Americans think, because they have learned over the years that no concessions they make to the Palestinians will be applauded or bring peace. And Israel is ultimately alone in defending itself.

Mitchell Bard..
Algemeiner..
01 July '20..

As the Israeli government nears a decision on whether to apply sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, some American Jews, pundits, politicians, and Middle East experts are saying that doing so will harm Israel’s interests. Many apparently believe that Israelis are unable to comprehend the consequences, but they do.

The concerns include:

- Provoking a Palestinian uprising.
- Damaging relations with Jordan and Egypt.
- Jeopardizing the normalization of relations with the Gulf Arab states.
- Aggravating relations with the European Union and facing sanctions.
- Attracting condemnation from the United Nations.
- Exacerbating tensions between Israeli and American Jews.
- Giving ammunition to demonizers of Israel and supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
- Strengthening critics and angering friends within the Democratic Party.
- Gaining recognition from Trump that might be reversed by a President Biden.

All of these are legitimate worries for Israel’s leaders. In the past, it was primarily Arabists in the US government who took the position that Israelis must be saved from themselves. Now some of Israel’s closest friends, including Democratic allies in Congress and their nominee for president, are speaking out against Israel taking unilateral action. The Trump administration, meanwhile, says that any Israeli action must be consistent with its peace proposal. Many Jews who traditionally defer to the Israeli government on matters of war and peace have joined the critics. And it is not just far-left Jews who are speaking out; moderate and even some conservative Jews have joined the chorus.

Meanwhile, none of the critics know yet what the government is going to do.

(Continue to Full Column)

Mitchell Bard is a foreign policy analyst and authority on US-Israel relations who has written and edited 22 books.

Want to Prevent an Arab State of Palestine? Embrace the Idea - by Yisrael Medad

Will Israel embrace a future with sovereignty, or will it slowly but surely make the decision more difficult, if not impossible, in the very near future? Will it trust the P.A. to perform as it has historically (admittedly a gamble), or will it face a gamble on the results of the upcoming American presidential elections?

Yisrael Medad..
JNS.org..
30 June '20..

There are multiple rational, cogent and persuasive grounds why no one should be touting the idea of establishing an independent Arab “State of Palestine” in the area of Judea and Samaria, while there are good arguments for extending Israel’s law and administration to parts, or all, of Judea and Samaria.

Firstly, besides the very obvious security threat such a state proposes due to the topography involved, but also the sure probability that Hezbollah and radical Islamic forces and Iranian units would move in, as well as the subsequent erosion of Jordan (Black September will not be repeated), it would become a second such Arab state in Palestine—and that is patently unfair. The Arab Palestinian state of Jordan already exists, as stipulated in Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, “in the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined.”

That came about because Great Britain desired that its Mandate for Palestine to reconstitute the Jewish National Home would be geographically restricted to the area west of the Jordan River; it viewed the Zionist provisions as “inapplicable to the existing local conditions” in the Transjordan region, and so they would be postponed or their application withheld there.

England’s policy was a result of the Emir Abdullah’s incursion into Maan in November 1920—a prelude to a march on Damascus as part of a campaign to recover Syria for his brother, Emir Faisal. There he remained for three months awaiting the British reaction. They were worried that Abdullah might complicate Britain’s relations with France, not about any fictional and non-existent Arab Palestinian people.

After all, from the Balfour Declaration to the San Remo decision to the British Mandate, the people living in the area of Palestine were “non-Jews” and “Jews.” Arabs did not exist there as a people. To convince Faisal’s champion to abandon his bluffed intent to foment strife in Syria, Abdullah was offered to head a British-sponsored Transjordanian administration. On March 28, 1921, Abdullah, who had proceeded to Amman, met Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary, in Jerusalem and the deal to create a fictional Emirate was finalized.

It should be stressed that in his talks at the time with local Arab leaders, Churchill made his opinion clear that:

it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the Jews and good for the British Empire. But we also think it will be good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine, and we intend that it shall be good for them, and that they shall not be sufferers …

Abdullah, however, never ceased to seek control also over territories west of the River Jordan.

(Continue to Full Column)

Yisrael Medad is an American-born Israeli journalist and commentator.

Why Sovereignty in the Jordan Valley Must Come First - by Nadav Shragai

Historic decisions may require careful consideration, but they also require courage and determination.

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
30 June '20..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/sovereignty-in-the-jordan-valley-must-come-first/

Is Israel really hesitating to grab the opportunity presented by the "deal of the century"? There are troubling signs that this might be the case.

First, the plan to apply sovereignty to large parts of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley involved 30% of the territory. Then came the idea of extending sovereignty in phases – a bad idea that only invites round of violence and terrorism. Now, it appears we've sunk even lower, as Arab officials have said that the sovereignty bid will exclude the Jordan Valley, and any move made in Judea and Samaria will only be symbolic.

Historic decisions may require careful consideration, but they also require courage and determination.

The US Middle East peace plan is not without its faults but Israel should have seized the opportunity and immediately apply sovereignty to the 30% the Americans suggested. But if that is not in the cards, Israel should start by extending sovereignty to the Jordan Valley first and shelve the plan to do the same with respect to the large settlement blocs.

The reason or this is simple: The greater Jerusalem area, Maaleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel will all eventually come under Israeli sovereignty – there's a public consensus about that, one even the international community understands that, albeit it will never publicly admit it.

Dear NY Times: Israel cannot “annex” its own land. But it can certainly extend sovereignty over it. - by Jerold Auerbach

In its reflexive critique of settlements — and, indeed, Israel — The New York Times has long been, and remains, either oblivious to history or exceedingly uncomfortable with it. By now it should at least know that a country cannot “annex” its own land. But it can extend sovereignty over it, which Israel is prepared to do.

Jerold Auerbach..
Algemeiner..
25 June '20

“Annexation Looms” headlined a mournful New York Times article (June 19) co-authored by Jerusalem Bureau Chief David M. Halbfinger and Adam Rasgon, Palestinian affairs reporter for The Times of Israel. They cited “respected former Israeli military, intelligence and diplomatic officials” who warn that if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has his way annexation would pose “a grave risk to Israel’s security.” And West Bank Palestinians, the Times reporters asserted, would suffer greatly.

For The New York Times, opposition to Jewish settlements has been an enduring obsession. A decade after the Six-Day War, as handfuls of Israelis returned to restore the ancient Jewish community of Hebron half a century after its destruction in the 1929 murderous Arab riots, a Times editorial warned against the “colonizing” of their Biblical homeland. Thomas Friedman, insisting that settlements were transforming Israel into “an undemocratic apartheid state,” bracketed “crazy” settlers with Palestinian suicide bombers and falsely accused them of assassinating Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. For columnist Roger Cohen, “messianic” settlers were to blame for Palestinian intransigence

But any Palestinian (or Times) fantasy that one day more than 400,000 Israelis now living in Judea and Samaria, the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people, will abandon their communities is inconceivable. Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel has always defined Zionism. The Netanyahu sovereignty plan confirms that historic reality.

(Continue to Full Column)

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of Print to Fit: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel 1896-2016, selected for Mosaic by Ruth Wisse and Martin Kramer as a Best Book for 2019.

Sobering Reality: Shattering the Illusions of Oslo - by Sarah N. Stern

Many other variations set along the same basic themes have been offered: Oslo II, the Hebron Accords, the Wye River Memorandum, the “road map for peace.” The same set of conditions was continuously placed upon the Palestinians, all almost entirely ignored.

Sarah N. Stern..
JNS.org..
24 June '20..

Within the next week, the government of Israel will decide whether or not to implement a part of the Trump “Peace to Prosperity” plan by extending sovereignty over 30 percent of Judea and Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. This represents a significant paradigm shift away from the Oslo Accords.

Paradigms are difficult things to break from. For the last 27 years, an elaborate crystal palace chiseled from Oslo was erected and has taken firm root in the brains of many well-intentioned people. Since its signing on Sept. 13, 1993, the agreement has caused an enormous industry of professional “peace processors” to spring up. These folks stand a lot to gain—and everything to lose—both financially and in terms of their own personal reputations by looking squarely at the facts on the ground of what has transpired since that time.

“Two states for two people” and “land for peace” are lovely aphorisms, and make for nice bumper stickers. Responsible foreign policy, however, entails delving into the sobering reality and looking at the facts, as vexing as they might be.

The night after signing the Oslo Accords, PLO chief Yasser Arafat went on Jordanian television and said that this was “the peace of the brave”—words many in the West immediately embraced and interpreted to mean Arafat displayed the courage to finally make peace with the Israelis. However, he then added that this was “like the prophet Mohammad signed with the tribe of Koresh.”

That part of the sentence has been ignored, long forgotten from our collective memories. It references the fact that Mohammad had entered into a peace agreement with the tribe of Koresh—a stronger tribe—only to gain attack them later and totally vanquish them.

Such is the selective editing of many of us in the West, who tend to think with our cardiac organs and not our cranial ones. A “group think” mentality subsequently set in. We therefore sleep well at night, safe on this side of the Atlantic and far from having to deal with the bloody consequences of these monumental decisions.

(Continue to Full Column)

Sarah N. Stern is founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), a pro-Israel and pro-American think tank and policy institute in Washington, D.C.

The Risks of Maintaining the West Bank’s Status Quo is Far More Dangerous than Applying Sovereignty - by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

The Israeli government has been given an opportunity—one that may well never return—to promote the country’s vital national interests and bolster its future.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,610..
19 June '20..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/west-bank-status-quo-sovereignty/


Many of the most vociferous opponents of applying sovereignty over parts of the West Bank are former senior security officials who use their professional authority to convince the public that a wide range of grave risks would attend such a move. According to these individuals, the application of sovereignty would expose Israel to multiple deeply threatening dangers and is in any case unnecessary.

The implication of this line of thinking is that Israel’s current strategic position is riskless and hence preferable to the new position that would result from the application of sovereignty. That is a misrepresentation of reality.

If the Israeli government misses the opportunity presented by President Trump’s plan to apply sovereignty, the risks to Israel multiply; they do not decrease. That is because Israel will not be able to preserve its temporary security presence in the Jordan Valley forever.

The choice facing PM Benjamin Netanyahu is between the more or less recognized risks associated with applying sovereignty and the less knowable but undoubtedly serious risks inherent in the collapse of the status quo.

The application of Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and parts of the West Bank is a historic opportunity. - by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

Notwithstanding the undeniable risks, the application of Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and parts of the West Bank is a historic opportunity. It should be implemented in the light of a perennial vision, as part of the ceaseless process of redeeming the people and the land.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,606..
15 June '20..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/netanyahu-dilemma/

The matter of applying Israeli sovereignty to certain areas of the West Bank is being assailed from both left and right. The left-wing camp, backed by many former army officers and public servants, is portraying the idea as such a morass of risks as to invalidate the possibility that it contains any kind of opportunity at all. From the right, leaders of the settlement enterprise speak not only of grave security risks but of an irreversible step that awards the Palestinian Authority half of the territory that is still in Israel’s hands, which is known as Area C.

In the debate with the left, Netanyahu enjoys public support including from a growing group of former officers and security officials. The more difficult dilemma is the one posed by the right.

David Ben-Gurion faced a similar dilemma in 1937 when accepting the Peel Commission’s partition plan, which offered the prospective Jewish State a small fraction of the territory of mandatory Palestine. “The Jewish state now being offered us… is not the Zionist goal, but it could serve as a decisive stage on the way to realizing the larger Zionism,” he said, in an encapsulation of his perception of Zionism as a ceaseless pioneering struggle. (It is doubtful whether that sort of logic underpins Netanyahu’s approach.)

From a security standpoint, however, several things need to be clarified. First and foremost is the matter of control of the West Bank’s main traffic arteries. The prime minister promises that after the implementation of the Trump plan, the IDF will remain in charge of security on the ground, certainly when it comes to those key arteries. Yet security control in itself is not enough. If an artery is partially under Palestinian sovereignty, there will be no way to prevent dense construction on both sides of it. That means Israeli security control will dwindle until it becomes impossible.

For me, the answer is clear. The goal is to secure the future of the Israeli municipalities in Judea and Samaria - by Oded Revivi

The time to apply Israeli law in Judea and Samaria has come.

Oded Revivi..
JPost/Opinion
11 June '20..
Link: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/we-need-to-take-donald-trumps-deal-for-annexation-opinion-631173

There has been much debate among the leaders of the settlement movement in Judea and Samaria whether to accept or reject US President Donald Trump’s “Vision for Peace.” As a proponent, I quote Fredrich Nietzsche, who said, “many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal.” Now is the time to silence the background noise and ask ourselves: What is our long term goal? What is it that we as a movement want to achieve?

For me, the answer is clear. The goal is to secure the future of the Israeli municipalities in Judea and Samaria, “the settlements.” Trump’s plan, including the application of Israeli law in Judea and Samaria, is an insurance policy that will move us toward this goal.

Implementation of the “Vision for Peace” will denote a change in the way the world views both Israel and “the settlements.” In the past, the settlements were seen as an impediment to peace; but now, with our thriving joint Arab-Israeli industrial zones and other areas of coexistence, it is understood that we are a critical partner in the peace process. While it would be unthinkable to dismantle all that we have built in order to return to the 1949 ceasefire lines that served as unofficial boundaries until 1967, we understand that both Arabs and Jews live in Judea and Samaria, and we applaud this plan for not removing anyone from their home. It is, consequently, not surprising that there is a broad consensus among the Israeli public to accept the deal.

It is up to us, the settlers, along with the leadership of the State of Israel to accept the deal – but it is not entirely in our hands. Without the support of the international community we will find ourselves in the International Criminal Court in The Hague time after time, at every step of the way. The questions surrounding the definition of a Palestinian state is a matter of semantics and have been blown out of proportion – the very definition of background noise. The reality is that in the very small territory, there are both Arabs and Jews. We live adjacent to each other, but we do not overlap. Anyone who travels the roads of Judea and Samaria recognizes the large red signs that prohibit Israelis from entering the Arab regions. Call it a state, an entity, or an authority – these are just words. While the plan mentions a “Palestinian state,” it also explicitly assigns restrictions that will be placed upon it, clearly indicating that it will not function as a typical state.

Unfortunately, those opposed to the plan have spread a lot of misinformation about the significance of the map. It does not demarcate a future Palestinian state, but merely designates the territory where Israeli law is to be applied in the coming weeks. Despite the declarations from those opposed to the plan, the truth is that very little will change from the status quo. The security situation, jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority and traffic in the area will all stay the same. The IDF will remain right where it is today. And the Palestinians will not be any more threatening.

Once we apply Israeli law in Judea and Samaria, the “Vision for Peace” requires us to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians only if they meet the significant preconditions laid out in the plan. Until then, and in order to secure the future of the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria, it is not only our responsibility to accept the plan but to embrace it wholeheartedly. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explained multiple times the plan contains no directive to freeze construction in any Israeli municipalities in Judea and Samaria. It is clear that the Americans do not desire such an outcome either. In fact, the only freeze that has been discussed is in territories where there are currently no Israeli settlements or development. The fact is, every municipality that receives an upgraded status will be able to develop itself, within its borders and without soliciting permission from the military. These measures will strengthen the settlements, not weaken them.

Question. Who are the strongest least apologetic Zionist voices in Israel today? by Sheri Oz

Israel fought wars waged against us intending to achieve our extermination. We won. And then we apologize for not having let them get rid of us? Are we shy? Are we timid? We may have something to learn from Samer, Yoseph and Shadi about self-respect.

Sheri Oz..
Israel Diaries..
07 June '20..

It seems some of the strongest Zionist voices are those belonging to a Druze man from Daliat el-Carmel, an Arabic-speaking Christian from Haifa and an Aramaic Christian Maronite from Gush Halav. Let us look at what these three men posted on Facebook about the protest in Tel Aviv yesterday — the protest against extending Israeli law to our communities in Judea & Samaria. This will be followed by a quick note about what I found in the English-language Israeli media.

I will first post the English translation of each post and then the post itself.

Samer Berany wrote (my translation):

You won’t see this in the news media.

Good morning friends,

Yesterday there was a violent and dangerous anti-Israel demonstration in Rabin square under the auspices of 39 organizations and movements from the extreme left, among them many communist organizations, such as Maki, the Israeli Youth Communist Alliance and, of course, Hadash.

Yes, people… 39 organizations and movements without even a single Druze organization present.

Tens of thousands of participants, among them many Israelis who raised the PLO flag and sang the Palestinian anthem “Baladi Baladi”, but Druze and Circassians . . . zero . . . and no NGO or movement.

The media will not talk about that but as soon as they encounter a pitiful Druze individual who is prepared to moan about how bad it is among the Israeli people, they open the evening news with him or her featured in an in-depth story.

(Continue to Full Post)

Reality: 'Annexation’ isn’t what will prevent peace - by James Sinkinson

The simple truth is that the Palestinians don’t have independence because for almost three generations they’ve rejected every single peace proposal of any kind, including the latest one.

James Sinkinson..
FLAME/JNS.org..
02 June '20..

You’ve no doubt seen the media reports of politicians and pundits “deeply concerned” about or outright condemning Israel’s intention to apply sovereignty to about 30 percent of Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank).

In the wake of the Israeli government’s apparent intention to take this action around July 1, leftists in the United States and Europe have issued dire warnings that such “annexation” would:

• Nearly universally be viewed as a violation of international law.

• Render a two-state solution impossible.

• Choke off any hope of peace.

• Erode the strong support among the American people for Israel

As we’ll see, these predictions are either false, arguable or self-fulfilling. None is a sure thing.

Above all, these warnings ignore the chief enabler of Israel’s decision to apply its law to some half a million Jewish Israelis living in Judea and Samaria, the ancient Jewish heartland: Arab rejection of at least six generous offers to form a Palestinian state in this region over 72 long years.

First, the term “annexation” is a red herring. Annexation implies the seizure of land that belongs to another country, like Russia recently did in Crimea. But the land in question here was ceded to the Jewish nation in the San Remo Conference back in 1920, then ratified by the League of Nations and affirmed by the United Nations.

Since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, no nation has held legal claim to the land of Judea and Samaria except Israel. Although Jordan illegally occupied this territory between 1948-1967, it was driven out by Israel during the Six-Day War.

Jordan formally ceded control of Judea and Samaria to Israel in the peace treaty of 1994—once more settling legal rights to this land.

As for Palestinian Arabs, feel what you may about whether this group “deserves” independence or is “morally entitled” to their own state, in point of fact, there is no nation of Palestine, and the Palestinians have never held sovereignty over any land anywhere. What’s more, the Palestinians have no claims to Judea and Samaria through legally binding actions of any world body.

(Continue to Full Column)

James Sinkinson is President of Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME), which publishes educational messages to correct lies and misperceptions about Israel and its relationship to the United States.

Israel’s Sovereignty Plans for Judea-Samara: It’s Not Annexation, It’s Restoration - FLAME

When discussing this issue with friends, family and colleagues, I hope you’ll clarify that declaring sovereignty should be Israel’s decision, based on what is best for its security and future. But even if Israel decides against the prudence of the move, it must firmly uphold that it is legal. Because if binding international law does not dictate a country’s borders, then its enemies will. And this cannot stand in the case of Israel.

FLAME - Facts and Logic
About the Middle East..
factsandlogic.org..
26 May '20..
Link: https://www.factsandlogic.org/israels-sovereignty-plans-for-judea-samara-its-not-annexation-its-restoration/


Within months, Israel’s new government will begin the process of declaring sovereignty over Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria (aka the West Bank). According to binding international law, the move is legal. While this legality does not establish its prudence, most Israelis and many American Zionists support it for existential reasons. One of those reasons is survival and another is a renewed chance for peace.

Israel’s long-standing intentions on this issue have been spurred by the recent peace plan put forward by the U.S. Israel’s declaration of sovereignty would mean the application of Israeli civil law to the Jewish settlements, which are majority Jewish and currently under military rule. The declaration would not in any way jeopardize the future establishment of a Palestinian state.

In fact, the current US peace plan is contingent upon Israel’s agreement to negotiate sovereignty for the Palestinians in other parts of Judea-Samaria. Every major peace plan ever put forward has included an incorporation of the major settlement blocks into Israel.

Critics charge that the move would be an illegal annexation of Palestinian land, which Israel captured from Jordan in 1967. However, this charge is based on a perverted reading of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The article “prohibits the transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied.”

However, when Israel entered Judea-Samaria in 1967, it was retaking lands it had been granted by the Balfour Declaration, ratified in 1920 at the San Remo Conference. Following a war of Arab aggression, Jordan illegally occupied the territory in 1948—changing the name to the West Bank, and ethnically cleansing the area of Jews.

The legal definition of annexation requires a state to declare sovereignty over territory outside its domain. But since Judea-Samaria was within Israel’s legal borders in 1967, with Jordan the illegal occupier, the term annexation is corruptly misapplied here. It is rather restoration of Israel’s legal territory—to say nothing of its ancient biblical homeland.

The Recurring Manufactured Outrage Over “Annexation” - Victor Rosenthal

A few words about the reality behind the so-called “annexation.” To start with, nothing is being annexed.

Victor Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
21 May '20..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2020/05/the-manufactured-outrage-over-annexation/

Annexation. The word is spat out with such vitriol that one would think that what is contemplated is mass murder. From Mahmoud Abbas to Jordan’s King Abdullah, to the European Union, to Justin Trudeau, the condemnations, warnings, and threats continue to flow. And of course, Joe Biden had his say.

A few words about the reality behind the so-called “annexation.” To start with, nothing is being annexed. It is the reasonable position of the Israeli government that it is sovereign in Judea and Samaria according to international law; and you can’t annex something that already belongs to you. But wait, you say, virtually the entire world disagrees, as is pointed out ad nauseum by sources like the BBC and the NY Times. Unhappily for them and the Palestinians they empathize with, international law is neither a popularity contest nor subject to a majority vote in the UN General Assembly. It is quite possible that the Government of Israel is right and “virtually the entire world” is wrong. This isn’t an article about that, but if you are interested, here is a good one.

The government calls it “extension of Israeli civil law,” and that is because presently those parts of Judea and Samaria that are not under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) are subject to a military government (this is the case whether residents are Israelis or Palestinians).

Those who are so up in arms about the proposal also like to say that “Israel plans to annex the West Bank.” The correct formulation is that Israel proposes to extend its civil law to certain parts of Judea and Samaria where Jewish communities exist, and to most of the Jordan Valley, with the exception of Jericho, with its large Arab population. It’s important to note that almost no Arabs live in the areas in question. Those that do will be offered full Israeli citizenship, just like the Arabs of Jerusalem – or Haifa, or Yafo.

The Jordan Valley has always been considered an area that must be under Israeli control in any permanent establishment of borders, because it is essential to Israel’s defense. No “two-state solution” that did not recognize this would ever be accepted by Israel. And neither would one which included the ethnic cleansing of Jews and the destruction of their communities in Judea and Samaria.

The furor over “annexation” is an excuse to attack Israel and the Trump plan, which is the first real breakthrough in diplomatic efforts to end the conflict since the unfortunate Oslo Accords institutionalized it.

Here is why a movement of high-ranking officers and IDF fighters supports Sovereignty - by Col. (Res.) Tal Braun

When a historic chance arises to do what is right and just and what ensures Israel’s safety in the long term, we must seize the moment and not hesitate to confront any challenges that might arise.

Col. (Res.) Tal Braun..
Opinion/Israel National News..
16 May '20..
Link: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/280336

'Habithonistim' (Protectors of Israel) is a new movement of high-ranking officers, commanders and IDF fighters.

As part of our National Security concept, we support applying Sovereignty in the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria (excluding the Palestinian Authority areas). We believe it is essential to ensure Israel’s current and future security needs.

This agenda generated the movement great traction of more than 1000 officers and commanders who joined us in the first three months since our establishment. Furthermore, Israeli society gave us massive support, endorsing our call for Sovereignty now.

The plan, which calls on the Israeli government to apply its sovereignty over territories in the Jordan valley and the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, brought great expectations, and at the same time, anxiety and tension to the region, from all sides of the political spectrum.

On February 7, 2020, The "Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS)", an organization composed of retired high-ranking generals from the left side of the Israeli political map, published a position statement regarding the American plan “for “annexation", criticizing it and rejecting any “unilateral” “annexation” on behalf of Israel. They basically claim the plan will endanger and threaten regional stability and Israel’s security.

Habithonistim's response to these claims is brought here. Our motto and message are clear- we call for "Sovereignty Now!".

1. Will applying Sovereignty destabilize the already sensitive relations with Jordan and affect security coordination or even terminate the peace accord?

The Bithonistim response:

- Israeli sovereignty is a Jordanian interest. Israeli Sovereignty over the Jordan Valley will keep Jordan stable by ensuring that it will share forever a common border with Israel and not a Palestinian Arab unstable entity that might overthrow the king and gain control of Jordan, undermining Israel’s security.

- The border with Israel has been a quiet border for decades- Israel shares its longest border with Jordan. From the Yarmuk River to the Red Sea is a distance of 309 km/ 192 miles, while the Jordan valley section is 71 km/44 mile long. A quiet border allows the Jordanians to tighten their security measures along much more sensitive borders other than Israel, such as with Syria and Iraq.

- Jordan has a range of vital interests other than security including:

1.Water agreements with Israel- Israel supplies at least 50 million cubic meters of water a year to Jordan according to the peace treaty. Jordan is urging for doubling that number in order to supply drinking water for all its citizens and hundreds of thousands of refugees (mainly from Syria) as well as for its agriculture all along the border with Israel, which Israel assisted in developing.

2. Economy (Industry, tourism, agriculture, etc.):

a. A new-shared Industrial area between the countries has a great influence on the stability and economy of the region.

b. Jordan and Israel both share common tourism interests all along the border, such as the Baptismal Site on the Jordan River called "Qasr al Yahud", the Dead Sea, the city and shores of Aqaba near the Red Sea (the only passage Jordan has to the sea and its biggest resort). Thousands of tourists from all over the world cross the borders regularly and visit historical, archeological and religious sites in both countries.

c. Israeli industries manufacture products and trade through Jordan.

d. Thousands of Jordanians work in the tourism industry inside Israel.

3. Foreign relations - Jordan will not risk its relations with the US government or other major supportive countries because of Israeli sovereignty on land they never owned, as the kingdom counts on their economic, security and overall assistance to exist.

4. Religion - Israel respects the connection of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the Temple Mount area, in the heart of the Old City of Jerusalem, as is written in the peace agreement. Jordan still has a special status, although the late king Hussein cancelled all Jordanian administrative claims and connections to the "West Bank", as a result of the Palestinian Arab uprising during July 1988, afraid of its eruption in his kingdom as well.

- Israel will be secured for decades by declaring its sovereignty over the Jordan valley, as it is the natural eastern border and defensive barrier for the land of Israel - fact well known to all of its conquerors and rulers since ancient times.

- Israel should not count on any Arab country to secure it, knowing that stability in the Middle East is fragile and agreements might not last as expected as is the case in western civilization. Therefore Israel counts on its own strength and intelligence to prevent any hostile activity and deter its enemies, while not undermining the importance of good, peaceful or at least quiet relationships with its neighbors.

Israel's leaders now have the historic opportunity to finish the job that the country's forefathers could not - by Prof. Eyal Zisser

What's particularly interesting this year is the almost complete inattention, and even apathy to the point of boredom, that Nakba Day is arousing across the Arab world, but also among many Palestinians in Judea and Samaria and Gaza and among Arab Israeli citizens. All these have apparently decided to move forward instead of remaining stuck in the past, let alone mortgage their futures to people who have proved time and again that all they're capable of is delivering calamity upon calamity to the Palestinian people.

Prof. Eyal Zisser..
Israel Hayom..
12 May '20..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/we-are-the-next-generations/

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's upcoming visit to Israel and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman's comments on Israeli sovereignty signal the return of this diplomatic issue to the forefront of the public and media agenda. Ironically, these developments are taking place in a week the Palestinians mark their annual "Nakba Day" on May 15. Although the end of the British Mandate on May 15, 1948, paved the path for Israel's establishment, it also led to the War of Independence, which the Palestinians observe as their national "catastrophe."

Indeed, the Palestinians' decision to reject the UN Partition Plan on November 29, 1947, and launch their armed struggle against the Jewish community has proven to be a fateful mistake, the first of many the Palestinians made, but they choose to mark the day annually and use it to inflame the street against Israel.

This year, Nakba Day falls under the shadow of the Trump administration's "deal of the century" and Israel's intention to apply sovereignty in parts of Judea and Samaria. It should come as no surprise that voices in the Palestinian camp are talking about another Nakba, which could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of a Palestinian state.

Similar to the Nakba of 1948, however, the Palestinians have brought this current catastrophe on themselves through a series of decisions they've made throughout the years, chief among them the employment of violence and terror, along with dependence on others, whether the United Nations or European Union, instead of taking responsibility for their own fate. Ultimately, the Palestinians would do well to leave the question of what transpired in 1948 to the historians, and in any case, their attempts to force the Palestinian narrative on Israel was always destined for failure and only prevents the sides from moving toward conciliation.