November 17, 2009

Unilateralism is Israel’s only option

By Ted Belman

Last August, PM Salam Fayyad released a Plan to “establish Palestine as an independent, democratic, progressive, and modern Arab state, with full sovereignty over its territory in the West Bank and Gaza, on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.” within two years. Israel took little notice of it.

In early November Haaretz reported it included a secret provision which stipulated a “unilateral declaration of independence”. Then Israel took notice and said ‘If PA Declares State, Israel Will Annex Settlements’.

    “If the Palestinians take such a unilateral line, Israel should also consider … passing a law to annex some of the settlements,” Environment Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) said. [..]

    MK Danon says that Israel must not settle for annexing settlement blocs, but must rather annex Judea and Samaria in their entirety, except for Arab cities.

    Minister Erdan also said Israel has the option of tightening up travel restrictions for Arabs and stopping the transmission of tax money that the Israeli government currently transfers to the Palestinian Authority - money that is collected by Israel for the PA.

    Meanwhile, Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud) and Minister Landau have taken action to introduce bills for annexing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

The PA also threatening to seek the formal endorsement of the UN but the Eu and the US have turned thumbs down on the issue.

Even if the U.N. recognizes a Palestinian state, it would make little difference to the reality. In 1988 the Palestinians also declared independence and many states recognized it, but nothing came of it.

So long as Israel controls the land it controls what happens there.

But Alan Baker, writing in JCPA, says such declaration Undermines the Legal Foundations of Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy and “could set off a series of reactions - whether legal or political - that might create substantive, structural damage to the peace process.” because the Oslo Interim Agreement provides

    Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations.

So far Israel has been adamantly against abrogating the Oslo Accords no matter what the provocation. After 15 years of trying to negotiate a deal, perhaps its time for Israel to do so and the PA unilateral declaration, should it happen, could be just the pretext, if pretext is needed.

oslo1Everyone knows that there is no diplomatic solutions. Neither party is willing to make the necessary compromises. That’s why the PA talks about a unilateral declaration and the EU and some in the US talk about an imposed solution. Israel also is contemplating a unilateral solution. What might that be?

According to the remarks above, it would involve annexing parts, if not all Judea and Samaria. No land would have to be conquered. Israel has already annexed Jerusalem and the Golan and could do the same for other settlements such as Ariel and Maaleh Adumin and perhaps the Jordan Valley. At a minimum it would signal that these settlements, like Jerusalem, are non-negotiable.

This would be an incremental approach to gauge the reaction of the international community. It wouldn’t be pretty. The next step would be to annex all of Areas “B” and “C” with its Arab population of about 340,000. Area “A” with its 1.2 million Arabs would be dealt with thereafter assuming that it is not decided to do it all at once.

osloboxMike Wise, published the Jewish One State Plan, hereinafter referred to as the “Plan” a number of years ago. I first endorsed it in 2005 in my article Israel From the Mediterranean to the Jordan and have written much since.

In Caroline Glick’s article, Obama’s failure, Netanyahu’s opportunity she introduces this Plan.

    Israel should strike out on a new course and work toward the integration of Judea and Samaria, including its Palestinian population, into Israeli society. In the first instance, this will require the implementation of Israeli law in the Jordan Valley and the large settlement blocs.

but she doesn’t fully, at least in this article, endorse the Plan. The Plan proposes that Israeli law be extended to all of Judea and Samaria as follows,

    Annexation will provide a clear and well-defined status for West Bank Arabs. At the time of Annexation, the PA will no longer have a reason to exist and it and all terrorist infrastructures will be outlawed and dismantled. The PA and other terrorist organizations will be subject to Israel law and be dealt with in the same manner that all countries deal with internal subversive, treasonous and criminal organizations. Israel would no longer police the West Bank as an “occupation force”. It is important to understand that after Annexation, Israel will have significantly greater flexibility in dealing with issues and problems on the West Bank. Those problems will all be viewed as internal problems of the State of Israel and not problems subject to constant international scrutiny by those who view the West Bank as “occupied” territory.

Although Glick wants to integrate all of Judea and Samaria, she only wants to extend Israeli law to the “Jordan Valley and the Settlement Blocks”.

The Plan further provides,

    It is essential that the process and strategy of offering Israeli citizenship to West Bank Arabs must be very carefully planned, including its timing, demographic, geographic, historical and social factors. Citizenship will include all the benefits currently available to the citizens of Israel including: health care, education, welfare, economic incentives, employment, social safety nets, voting rights and others. The responsibilities of citizenship will include a public oath of loyalty to the State of Israel. The procedures and the details of the citizenship offer will be determined as an internal matter by the State of Israel. Each country determines its own citizenship rules and there are many models ranging from extremes like Switzerland where citizenship is often not granted for several generations, and the extremely restrictive standards set by Islamic States to the more liberal standards applied by other countries. Since the process will be phased in over time, the possibility to adjust the procedures appropriately will be available as circumstances require.

The reason Glick excludes Area “A” is because of the 1.2 million Arabs living there. She and most Israelis don’t want to extend Israeli citizenship to them no matter on what terms. The Plan doesn’t see this as a problem that can’t be dealt with.

There are about 200,000 Arabs in Jerusalem who have been given blue cards which entitled them to work and vote in municipal elections. Some suggest that such cards, rather than citizenship, should ultimately be given to the Arabs in the annexed territories .

Jerusalem Summit, a Christian/Jewish think tank, in 2005 published Prof Martin Sherman’s article, Redefining the Palestinian Problem which proposed an humanitarian solution rather than a political one. This proposal involves resettling the refugees elsewhere and offering compensation to Arabs living in Judea and Samaria to leave. Nothing unusual about that.

Apparently, Denmark to pay immigrants $20,000 to go home if they “can’t or won’t” assimilate

    Denmark is boosting cash incentives to entice immigrants to return to their homelands if they ‘can’t or won’t’ assimilate into society.

    The offer now on the table is close to £12,000 for every person who takes up the offer to leave.

    Critics of the measure say it sends the wrong message to foreigners but the centre-right government in Copenhagen is forging ahead with the plan.

    The financial carrot is ten times more than that previously offered under a scheme which as been law since 1997.

Sarkozy has also floated such a plan. So why can’t Israel do likewise.

Paul Eidelberg is totally against relying on Netanyahu’s “economic peace” which Glick supports. He says they “succumb to the wishful thinking of crypto-Marxists and capitalists who think there is an economic solution to human conflict, including religious conflicts.”

One consequence of bettering their economic lot would be that Arabs would immigrate to this area rather than emigrate from it. The reverse of what we want. But that is not what he is concerned with. He wants to deal with reality and not fantasy. Therefore the problem must be solved in a different way.

One suggestion that he makes in The Eidelberg Plan is for Israel to become more Jewish. He believes that this would cause Arab Israeli emigration. But aside from not saying what to do with Judea and Samaria, he agrees that “Palestine” won’t come into existence because neither side will make the necessary compromises.

Currently PM Netanyahu, supported by Barak and Peres, is banging the peace drum for all he is worth. He is begging for negotiations to begin and hinting he will be generous but has not yet backed away from his demands of recognition, an undivided Jerusalem and demilitarization. The Obama administration has supported him in accepting that negotiations should be without pre-conditions. The PA wants to have negotiations begin where Olmert left off and to have an end result of the creation of Palestine with ‘67 borders.

I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Netanyahu is not about to give away the farm.

What negotiator starts negotiations by showing how much he wants them. The reverse is always the case. Therefore, I believe that Netanyahu is talking the talk knowing he won’t have to walk the walk. Many in the know, that I have talked with, agree.

Today, the focus of the Middle East players is Iran. The creation of Palestine is of little concern.

Assuming no diplomatic solution will be forthcoming for the creation of Palestine, Israel will begin to make moves, probably after Iran is dealt with, to incorporate Judea and Samaria unilaterally. The key questions in so doing will involve whether to extend Israel law to Area “C” only or to all of Judea and Samaria and whether to give blue cards or Citizenship based on significant requirements.

The peace process has brought death and destruction and not brought us closer to peace. Time for new approach.

Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times a week ago, agrees.

    “It is time for a radically new approach. And I mean radical. I mean something no U.S. administration has ever dared to do: Take down our “Peace-Processing-Is-Us” sign and just go home.”

This would enable Israel to do its thing as suggested above.

ADDENDUM

The JCPA released a study entitled International Recognition of a Unilaterally Declared Palestinian State

    International law has traditionally required that four separate criteria be satisfied before the recognition of an entity as an independent sovereign state can be considered:

    1. The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control.
    2. The entity must possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control.
    3. The entity must have the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations.
    4. There must be effective and independent governmental control over a permanent population.

    Only if the Palestinian entity satisfies the traditional criteria for statehood by exercising independent and sovereign governmental control (including the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations) over a permanent population in a defined territory over which it has possession, can its recognition as a sovereign state be considered.

It concludes that “should the Palestinian Authority unilaterally declare a state, under present circumstances, it would not meet these legal criteria, and hence should not be recognized.” That doesn’t mean it won’t be.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:02 pm |

13 Comments »


  1. MK Ariel to Abbas: Make My Day, Declare Statehood
    by Gil Ronen

    Comment by Ted Belman — November 18, 2009 @ 9:36 pm



  2. Email from Martin Sherman

    Ted

    I know you are aware of my proposal for a unilateral Humanitarian Solution to the Palestinian problem developed with the Jerusalem Summit - but I thought you might still find some interest in the subsequent argumentation

    Best wishes

    Addressing the Palestinian Issue

    Is there a formula for resolving the Palestinian problem without exposing Israel to unacceptable security risks?

    1. On the one hand:

    To survive as the nation-state of the Jews, Israel must address two imperatives:

    - The demographic imperative

    - The geographic imperative

    (see http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/pictures_worth_1000_words.php - Click to Enlarge Photos)

    On the other hand:

    Israel is facing two dangers:

    - The long standing danger of the two-state solution
    - The emerging (and arguably more severe) danger of the one-state solution

    2. On the one hand:

    The “two-state solution” does not address the “Geographic imperative ”

    On the other hand:
    The “one-state solution” does not address the “Demographic imperative”

    Accordingly what is required is strategy that addresses BOTH the Geographic and the Demographic Imperatives.

    This is the gist of the argument why the approach proposed hereunder is the only possible avenue of action - other than all-out war and forced expulsion – that offers a non-coercive resolution. It is also a proposal that – according numerous opinion polls – would be enthusiastically embraced by many miserable fate-stricken Palestinians (especially the among the refugees) who, according Khalil Shikaki are less interested in being nationalist standard-bearers than in living fuller lives.

    For English PDF synopsis of the proposal , see: A New Paradigm for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: From the Political to the Humanitarian + responses to FAQs

    Comment by Ted Belman — November 18, 2009 @ 9:41 pm



  3. email

    Ted:

    I agree with Caroline Glick’s ideas: Integrate Judea and Samaria dn exclude Area A. We simply do not need that demographic. Denmark and France can do what the heck they
    want. Muslims did not invade these countries; they immigrated or came as refugees. Arabs tried thrice or more to destroy Israel.

    We owe them NOTHING. Let Area A simmer it it wishes or let Jordan give them citizenship.

    Focussing on becoming more Jewish will get us support from the evangelicals as well.

    Found out yesterday that Obama had signed in a law HB1388 in January allocating $20m for immigration from Gaza!!!

    Also, the news is that Nidal Hasan was on the payroll of Homeland Security!

    Comment by Ted Belman — November 18, 2009 @ 9:48 pm



  4. email from Joel Bainerman

    The One State Solution is the best solution

    By: Joel Bainerman

    Contrary to what most Israelis believe- the One State Solution (OSS) is not a “bi-national federation whereby the Jews give up their national sovereignty and enter into a 50:50 partnership with the Arabs.

    In a OSS Israel grants full Israeli citizenship to the West Bankers ending the state of military rule over them. The Israeli army continues to safeguards the borders between Israel and Gaza and the West Bank and Jordan.

    Nothing else would change in a OSS. Hebrew and Arabic will still be the two main national languages. Arabs holidays would become state holidays for Arab citizens. All citizens of the State of Israel would be free to work and take up residence anywhere in the country..

    The One State Solution is a win-win for everyone.
    *The West Bankers will no longer be in regional conflict with Israel. They will be able to pursue their full economic rights in the Israeli national economy- equal to any other Israeli citizen. This includes a right to work in any job- anywhere in Israel- and the right to own assets and property. As citizens, they would have the right to sue the Israeli government in a civil court for what they claim was the theft of their land or other property.

    *The Israeli government would take over the task and responsibility for rehabilitating the approximately 175,000 refugees who live in refugee camps today on the West Bank. It would also upgrade the entire social, economic, educational, health and public infrastructure in the West Bank. As the West Bank economy grows a local, municipal tax system will be introduced so that the local councils have the money to maintain the infrastructure and provide for essential government services.
    .
    **Israel will no longer have to deploy the Israeli army to rule over the West Bankers nor will any Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria be dismantled. Israel’s reputation abroad will improve as there will no longer be any justification for the criticism that Israel “violates the human and civil rights of the West Bankers” as they will be granted full Israeli citizenship.

    Economic benefits of the One State Solution

    The West Bankers are more valuable to Israel’s long term interests gainfully employed in the Israeli economy and as consumers in the national economy- rather than the remaining under its military rule.

    The One State Solution will enable the Israeli government to invest 50 billion shekels over the next ten years for new infrastructure projects and apartment buildings for the West Bankers. Tax revenues collected by the Israeli government from the Israeli companies and workers on these infrastructure projects will repay the interest and principal on the invested capital. This additional economic growth will be critical as it will compensate the Israeli economy for the loss of exports due to the slowing of the global economy over the next five or more years.

    The Israeli Arab economy will experience unprecedented growth in a One State Solution. The Israeli Arabs will serve as a bridge between the Israeli and West Bank economies. They will be the lead managers in the new infrastructure development projects that Israel will finance in the West Bank and in Israel-Arab communities.

    The One State Solution can work

    The “Two State Solution” to solving the conflict didn’t work. It was tried and it failed. The stark reality is that there never will be a stable, prosperous independent Palestinian state. We need to move on to something else.

    Israel has the right- and indeed- the moral responsibility- to grant full citizenship to the people under its dominion and sovereignty. The OSS does this.

    The OSS to the conflict already exists. It’s called the State of Israel. No agreement with any existing Palestinian political entity is required for Israel to begin allocating work permits and ID cards for every West Bank resident. It will be up to the West Bankers if they wish to accept it. Most probably will. Considering the other options available to them- (the status quo) most West Bankers will see no reason not to take the offer. What are the alternatives?

    For the Israeli Jewish population annexing the West Bank does NOT endanger the Jewish majority of the State of Israel. The size of Israel’s Arab minority is not relevant. If this minority is gainfully employed- happy and content. Israel can remain a Jewish state with Jewish sovereignty- and still be a bi-ethnic state.
    A OSS will not create a bi-national state but a much more efficient “bi-ethnic” state.

    Comment by Ted Belman — November 18, 2009 @ 10:11 pm



  5. Israel should have annexed Gaza and the West Bank (and Sinai) after the 1967 war. When Egypt attacked Israel in 1973, Israel should have made it clear that Egypt would never get the land back and furthermore, if Egypt ever tried anything like that again, Cairo and the Aswan Dam would be blown up (just for a start). That is the only thing aggressors understand.

    Comment by Bill Levinson — November 18, 2009 @ 10:36 pm



  6. i agree with bill #5

    THE LAND OF ISRAEL FOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL
    ANNEX YESHA NOW

    Comment by bugsy — November 19, 2009 @ 12:48 am



  7. Levinson<blockquote.Israel should have annexed Gaza and the West Bank (and Sinai) after the 1967 war. When Egypt attacked Israel in 1973, Israel should have made it clear that Egypt would never get the land back and furthermore, if Egypt ever tried anything like that again, Cairo and the Aswan Dam would be blown up (just for a start). That is the only thing aggressors understand.
    ________________________________________________________________
    I am old enough to remember Israel’s wars of 48, 67, 73. The media at that that time was solidly behind little Israel being attacked by massed Arab national troops. The media then was no less liberal/left than the ia now. What was different what was different then wast Israel was perceived as courageous underdogs, pitted against bullying foreign invaders. Now the situation has been radically reversed. World opinion now sees Israel as the bully and Palestinians as victims. And that image cannot be easily erased. If you think world opinion is not important, think again.Since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and escalating since Gaza is that Israel’s reputation and global position has been steadily eroding, by small increments. No dramatic changes but there is a demonization that enforces Israel status. Over time that can have devastating effects.

    Bill the kind of final coup de gras, knockout blow that you keep dreaming about is illusory.America and the
    the world opinion. It never happened in the past, it will not happen in the future,. Israel’s military victories brings some short term gains but along with enduring long term political defeats.

    There was a popular catchy song written some 25 years ago.

    Those were the days my friend

    We’d thought they’d never end

    We’d sing and dance

    Forever and a day

    We’d live the life we’d choose

    We’d fight and never lose

    And sure to have our way
    ________________________________

    Those days of fighting and never losing are long gone.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fblikM3DJHw

    Comment by h peskin — November 19, 2009 @ 3:22 am



  8. Jerry Honigman writes

    Ted, I have written for years now that Israel cannot wait for Arabs on this matter. They refuse to recognize a 9-mile wide israel, so how can they be expected to accept one bigger?

    I have written that Israel must draw its own essential lines–allowed via UNSC Res. 242…the same UN whom Abbas now wants to force the pre-’67 Auschwitz/armistice lines, not borders, up Israel’s tush again– and then annex those lands. To repeat what i stated before, those Arabs who find themselves within the new Israel will be offered citizenship under strict conditions…they breathe wrong and they find themselves sunning themselves on the beaches of Gaza. Those Arabs who wish not to stay in the new Israel will leave…period.

    242 called for secure, recognized borders. Arabs, again, won’t recognize a smaller Jewish State–they’ll never gonna accept a bigger one. So, Israel must set its own, reasonable borders which reflect the spirit of the final draft of 242. Arabs won’t like it…Foggy Folks won’t like…What a shock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Tough shit.

    Comment by Ted Belman — November 19, 2009 @ 3:54 am



  9. email

    OFFERING CITIZENSHIP TO WEST BANK ARABS WILL EVENTUALLY MEAN THE END OF ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE.

    THE ANNEXATION OF THE ARAB PARTS OF THE WEST BANK (I’M NOT INCLUDING THE SETTLEMENTS IN THIS) SHOULD RESULT IN THE FORMATION OF AN ENTITY CALLED “WEST-BANK AUTONOMOUS PALESTINE”. IT WOULD BECOME AN AUTONOMOUS REGION, SUCH AS CHECHNYA USED TO BE UNDER THE SOVIETS. IT WOULD BE INTERNALLY INDEPENDANT, BUT WITH ISRAEL CONTROLLING IT’S EXTERNAL RELATIONS.

    Comment by Ted Belman — November 19, 2009 @ 3:56 am



  10. Salomon writes

    Very interesting article, Ted. Thank you;-)

    I will comment on just two points:

    1. The Wise Plan: I know you supported it; I never did. The reason I didn’t is two fold:
    a) the 67% purported Jewish majority from the River to the Sea is excessively slim for a state aspiring to be rhe “nation state of the Jewish people”. All existing nation-states (Iceland, Poland, Japan, etc.) have their sovereign founding people at way over 90%.
    b) even assuming that 67% is all right now, no one could guarantee this number won’t drop further in the years/decades to come.

    2. If the UN Security Council stupidly recognizes the unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence, I think this could be an excellent opportunity for Israel to throw in its Legal Rights forcefully. How could the UN, in violation of its own Charter; in violation of Art. 5 of the Mandate; decide to carve a new sovereign state out of an existing member state?

    Anyway, I think the Sherman/Danish routes are by far the best once Israel shows its determination to annex at least part of J&S. The “economic development” route launched by Shimon Peres and continued (apparently) by Netanyahu, is definitely the worst option.

    Comment by Ted Belman — November 19, 2009 @ 3:58 am



  11. (VIDEO) Palin: Jewish Settlements In Israel Should Expand

    http://www.thejidf.org/2009/11/video-palin-jewish-settlements-in.html

    I love it.

    And I would love to see the reaction of lefties when the see and hear it.

    Comment by RandyTexas — November 19, 2009 @ 4:54 am



  12. This whole situation is baffling. I am not a student of Israel having said that I am not crazy about that map. Good grief, before long the Palestinians will spread like cancer and begin to devour the Israelis.

    Why should Israel appease the world by accepting the migration of Palestinians to establish a state with it’s capital in Jerusalem?

    Israel will begin to look like Europe with the Muslims taking over little by little.

    As I see it Israel at all cost has to maintain sovereignty over all the land they occupy including all of Jerusalem.

    Just maybe they can be bought and move.

    Think about it, the Palestinians don’t have true leadership. The so called leadership is split with the gangsters really in control and we all know they cannot be trusted.

    Any agreement wouldn’t be worth the paper it is written on.

    Israel should continue to build and extend their communities until the radicals have no choice but leave.

    None of the Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Hezbollah Lebanon will not interfere for fear of the IDF retaliation.

    It’s hard to understand why this tiny nation is subject to so much interference from outside governments and radical Islam.

    Could it be like Sara Palin, hated by liberal left because they fear her, especially because she represents what is good., likewise the Jews are hated by radical, liberal left because they are feared for the good they represent.?

    But then again, what do I know?

    Comment by rongrand — November 19, 2009 @ 5:20 am



  13. [...] reading here: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Unilateralism is our only option Share and [...]

    Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Unilateralism is our only option | Drakz News Station — November 19, 2009 @ 6:05 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.