Israel - Sovereignty Now!
At the Herzliya Conference on February 2, Salam Fayyad called for a Palestinian state connecting Judea, Samaria and Gaza that has East Jerusalem as its capital, ending the “occupation of areas that were Palestinian territory before 1967”.
Published: february 02, 2010; Sovereignty Now!! (Arutz Sheva; israelnationalnews.com).
by Moshe Dann
Salam Fayyad, the PLO Prime Minister, claims that he is preparing the non political groundwork of the Palestinian state, while the US is seeing to the political aspects, that is, to making sure Israel ends “occupation”. He doesn’t blink an eye when talking about East Jerusalem being Palestinian territory before 1967, although there was no such entity at the time.
This should be a wake-up call for Israel, whose failure to express its legitimate sovereign rights over Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people, plays into the hands of those who would destroy Israel and weakens Israel’s diplomatic position.
A declaration of sovereignty would strengthen Israel’s demand for recognized and defensible borders.
Born in conflict and strife, attacked from within and without, the State of Israel has never known real peace. Cease-fire armistice lines agreed to in 1949 were never recognized by Arab countries; their intentions were to destroy Israel. These temporary lines are neither defensible, nor “borders.”
Although Egypt and Jordan recognized borders with Israel in peace treaties, the definition of Israel’s border with Jordan refers, on the one hand, to lines established by the League of Nations for the Palestine Mandate, which would seem to indicate that Israel’s eastern border is the Jordan River. On the other hand, a proviso in the treaty states, “without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.” This reflects Jordan’s reservations concerning Israel’s legal entitlement to Judea and Samaria.
Syria and Lebanon do not accept Israel’s legitimacy at all, continue a state of war, and do not recognize any boundaries with Israel. Despite formal treaties and “peace plans,” most Arabs reject Israel’s very right to exist, not which territory it occupies.
The question of what legitimately belongs to Israel became more complicated after Israel acquired Judea, Samaria and Gaza, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in 1967. Although Jerusalem was annexed in 1967 and Israeli law and administration applied to the Golan in 1981, Israeli politicians, jurists and media opposed extending Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.
Officially defining Judea and Samaria as “disputed,” Israeli jurists referred to these areas as under “belligerent occupation,” because they were acquired in war. Most of the international community, the ICRC, ICJ, and UN agencies hold Israel is “illegally occupying” these areas. Despite existing Israeli law and international law, Israel’s own position has led to confusion about the status of these areas and Israeli sovereign rights.
This became even more complicated when Israel recognized a “Palestinian Authority” (in the Oslo Accords of 1993) – a pseudonym for the PLO, which is still the “sole official representative of the Palestinian people,” and Israel unilaterally withdrew from large parts of Judea and Samaria, designated “Areas A & B,” in which nearly all Arab Palestinians reside.
More damaging, PM Ehud Barak (in 2000) and PM Ehud Olmert (in 2007) offered the PA 97% of Judea and Samaria, plus 3% of sovereign Israeli territory, including parts of eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount – in return for an agreement to end the conflict and claims against Israel. They were refused.
Part of Judea and Samaria remained under Israeli control, Area C, in which all Jewish communities built in Judea and Samaria (“settlements”) are located, including the Jordan Valley, and Judean Desert. Although citizens of Israel, its residents are subject to military law and administration, under “Emergency Regulations” handed down from the British Mandate. This situation violates basic notions of civil and human rights and democratic norms.
Instead of advancing its legitimate sovereign rights in these areas, Israeli politicians and jurists have been apologizing for and denying them. Some pundits and anti-Israel NGOs call Israel’s “occupation” of Judea and Samaria a “moral disaster.” The international community, including the US State Dept, call for Israel’s withdrawal .from all areas “occupied by Israel in 1967.”
It is unlikely that advancing Israel’s claim of sovereignty would change their position, but it would at least present an alternative argument over who has rightful possession. Not presenting its case for legitimacy makes it more difficult for Israel to justify its rightful possession of areas demanded by the PA.
That many Israelis accept the false notion that Israel is “illegally occupying Palestinian land” is especially troubling. Many do not know what Israel’s historic and legal rights are in these areas – or don’t care. They are concerned that extending Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria would compromise Israeli democracy and antagonize world opinion.
Their concerns and arguments are understandable and reasonable:
“Not realistic. There are all kinds of documents–for instance, Security Council Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords–that say these matters are to be determined through negotiations, not by unilateral declarations.”
“The strategic relationship with the U.S. is crucial to us. This would wreck it.”
“Prime Minister Menachem Begin said of the autonomy plan contained in the 1978 Camp David Accords: ‘Israel stands by its right and its claim of sovereignty to Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district. In the knowledge that other claims exist, it proposes, for the sake of the agreement of the peace, that the question of sovereignty in these areas be left open.'”
“No other state in the world would recognize such a move.”
But sovereignty is not a popularity contest. If it were, the UN General Assembly would probably vote for Israel’s expulsion, following Arab contentions that there were two “illegal occupations” — the first in 1948 and the second in 1967 — both deemed illegitimate and Israel itself, anathema.
The State of Israel, on behalf of the Jewish people, has the responsibility to say the truth: All of Eretz Yisrael, including Judea and Samaria, legitimately — historically, legally — is the sovereign homeland of the Jewish people. This is a statement of fact, regardless of political concerns and concessions.
That an Israeli government decides to abandon territory does not mean that those areas do not legitimately belong to Israel and the Jewish People.
As has been demonstrated time and again, Israeli control is the only stabilizing factor, the only barrier to anarchy and the expansion of terrorism.
Grounded in League of Nations decisions, which recognized the legitimacy of “Palestine as the Jewish national homeland” and called for “close Jewish settlement” in all of Mandatory Palestine, Israel’s sovereign rights are peerless.
Though Muslims today deny Jewish historic and legal claims, the Qur’an (5:20-21) powerfully affirms Jewish sovereignty: “Remember Moses said to his people: ‘O my people! Recall in remembrance the favor of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.'”
Extending Jewish sovereignty is not to aggrandize; it is an authentic statement of the historic and spiritual relationship between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. The return of the Jewish people to their homeland, the establishment of the State of Israel, and Israel’s achievements in science and technology are physical, material representations of a profound spiritual dimension–the fulfillment of Jewish destiny.
Sovereignty speaks to the purpose and the promise of the State of Israel and to everyone, Jew and non-Jew, who is inspired by that vision.
Israel should focus on Area C, in which 300,000 Jews live. Arab “Palestinians” living in Area C, about an estimated 30-40,000, most of whom have Jordanian citizenship, should be free to remain as residents, or opt for Israeli citizenship, taking on the obligations that come with it.
There are many details to work out, but that is for later– once the principle of Israeli sovereignty is affirmed.
To live in peace, to strengthen its strategic and security interests, to safeguard vital water resources, prevent environmental and ecological deterioration it is imperative that Israel maintain control of Judea and Samaria and embrace enthusiastically — Sovereignty Now!
About the author:
Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem.
Arab-Palestinians - The Trust Is Gone
It will never be the same again, says the writer. His words are prophetic, now that Netanyahu has met with Obama.
Published: march 25, 2010; Arutz Sheva.
by Ed Koch,
The Trust is Gone.
I consider the Obama administration’s recent actions against the Israeli government to be outrageous and a breach of trust. I refer to the denunciations by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials. The world knows what happened; nevertheless, I will try to put it into context.
Vice President Joe Biden was in Jerusalem to convey to the Israelis and the world that the United States government is committed to protecting and assuring the security of Israel from attack. While he was there, an Israeli government minister announced that the Israeli government had authorized the construction of 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem to be occupied by Jews. Currently, 280,000 Jews live in East Jerusalem, and these apartments were to be added to an existing complex, built on land owned by Jews; about 250,000 Jews live on the West Bank outside of Jerusalem.
The timing of the Israeli government’s announcement was unfortunate and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for it, but it did not mark any change in the Israeli government’s policy. That policy is and has long been to allow construction of homes for Jews in East Jerusalem.
Now a little history. In 1947, the United Nations passed a resolution authorizing the creation of a Jewish state within the British Mandate of Palestine. After it declared independence in 1948, Israel was immediately attacked by the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Although Israel repelled the attack, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem, separating it from its Western half. Ultimately, a cease fire was arranged by the U.N. and for the next 19 years until 1967, Jordan occupied East Jerusalem, including the old city, which historically had been the capital of King David’s ancient kingdom.
In 1967, the Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria again sought to destroy the State of Israel, but Israel prevailed in six days and conquered the Jordanian-held East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. During the 19 years that Jordan occupied East Jerusalem, it expelled all of the Jews living in what was historically the Jewish Quarter, and literally destroyed every synagogue and the homes of the Jews. When Israel reunited all of Jerusalem, Jews were, of course, allowed to live in any part of the city, and today, more than a quarter of a million Jews live in East Jerusalem. Numerous Arabs live there as well.
For quite some time and certainly since the Gaza War, the Palestinian Authority has broken off direct negotiations with Israel which had been ongoing since about 1993, in an effort to create two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, living side-by-side in peace. This so-called two-state solution always seemed out of reach, notwithstanding the efforts of Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to jumpstart negotiations.
President Obama has sought to revive the negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. He called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to assist by committing Israel to stop building new apartments in East Jerusalem and new settlements on the West Bank. In a move that Hillary Clinton, according to The New York Times, praised as “unprecedented,” Netanyahu agreed to a ten-month settlement moratorium on the West Bank. However, he refused to stop Jews from living in any part of East Jerusalem, which is considered by Israelis to be an inseparable part of their capital. Both the Palestinian Authority and the U.S. government, ultimately accepted Netanyahu’s offer, albeit grudgingly, and the Palestinian Authority agreed to engage in indirect talks through the American mediator George Mitchell.
Given this history, it was a shock to the Israeli and American supporters of Israel to have Joe Biden, a great friend of Israel, make the extraordinary harsh statement he made denouncing the future construction of 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem. The Vice President’s condemnation was even more baffling because, as The Times of March 12th reported, “he spent most [of the previous day] expressing his personal devotion to Israel, as well as the Obama administration’s ‘iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security.'” As someone high in political life once said to me after I mentioned to him the violation of his iron-clad commitment to me on a subject involving the mass transit fares in New York City, “Next time, get it in steel. Iron breaks.”
But even more disturbing than the Vice President’s reaction were the comments and implicit threats voiced by Hillary Clinton in a telephone conversation she had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, described in The Times of March 12th. “In a tense, 43-minute phone call on Friday morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s plan for new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem sent a ‘deeply negative signal’ about Israeli-American relations.”
Under President Clinton and George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Ministers have offered the Palestinians a state of their own on virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza, with land swaps to compensate for any portion of the West Bank that would remain in Israel, but those offers were rejected by the Palestinians.
What is most disturbing about the truly harsh and inflammatory rhetoric of both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton directed at the government of Israel, is that it is speculated President Obama himself may have ordered Biden and Clinton to make the statements they made.
The Times of March 16th reported, “…the President was outraged by the announcement of 1,600 housing units in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem during Mr. Biden’s visit, administration officials said. Mr. Obama was deeply involved in the strategy and planning for Mr. Biden’s visit and orchestrated the response from Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton after it went awry, these officials said.” President Obama and his administration’s overly harsh public reaction to the construction in East Jerusalem appears to have emboldened Israel’s enemies and provided a cover for their extremist views. It has also created a serious crisis of confidence among the Israeli public that it can depend on this administration for its security.
There will be an effort this week when Prime Minister Netanyahu meets with President Obama to mend fences. There will be huggy-kissy pictures with Hillary and handshakes by Bibi Netanyahu with Joe Biden and the President, but the relations will never be the same again. Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there. How sad it is for the supporters of Israel who put their trust in President Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment