Doc's Talk: Crucial that Netanyahu Creates Coherent Settlement Policy

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Crucial that Netanyahu Creates Coherent Settlement Policy

Isi Leibler
December 22, 2013
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4912

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu enjoys enormous public support. Most Israelis, including many of those who generally oppose his policies, supported his single-handed global campaign against a nuclear Iran and the delicate diplomacy he employed in resisting unreasonable demands from President Obama whilst retaining the support of the American people and Congress.

Given this level of support, Netanyahu has a rare opportunity of developing a coherent policy strategy, which is currently lacking, particularly with regard to the settlements.

He has a better understanding of the world of diplomacy than any other Israeli politician. But heading a coalition government comprised of conflicting groups ranging from Tzipi Livni’s dovish Tnuah to Naftali Bennett’s hawkish Bayit Yehudi – not to mention the factions within Likud itself - has made it extraordinarily difficult to develop a coherent strategy.

Besides this, Netanyahu faces ceaseless pressure from the Americans and Europeans, is often intimidated by a rabidly hostile media and unduly influenced by fickle public opinion polls. These elements combined, frequently divert him from his course and result in paralysis, zigzagging and the implementation of contradictory policies and statements which benefit our adversaries and confuse our friends.

For example: Netanyahu condemns Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority for their intransigence, incitement to hatred, calls for the demise of the Jewish state and criminal behavior. Yet, in order to placate the Americans and the dovish elements of his coalition, he frequently praises Abbas as a “genuine peace partner”.

But it is the absence of a coherent policy in relation to settlement construction which has most undermined our global status. On this explosive issue, over which there are serious and legitimate divisions within Israel, the Prime Minister’s inconsistencies have been a major contributing factor towards alienating our allies.

Netanyahu reassures right-wing elements that he will continue authorizing settlement construction. But in response to American pressure, settlement construction has largely been frozen. This erratic approach and repeated contradictory ill-timed statements have heightened divisiveness within the country and enabled our adversaries to depict us as duplicitous.

It has also led to a bizarre blurring of issues. For example, Netanyahu sought to compensate the abominable decision to release Palestinian terrorists with blood on their hands by authorizing more construction, unintentionally conveying the perception that settlement construction was a form of retribution against Palestinian malfeasance and terror.

Virtually the entire world is deluded into believing that settlements represent the principal obstacle to peace. In addition to making Israel appear dysfunctional and devious, our contradictory policies enable our enemies to blur the distinction between construction in the major settlement blocs and east Jerusalem which will always remain part of Israel, and the isolated outposts and settlements located in heavily Arab populated areas within the disputed territories.

Our enemies exploit this confusion to convince much of the world to denounce all construction over the green line as illegal, even including the Jewish suburbs of east Jerusalem. They leverage this further by using it as a benchmark to define our future borders as limited to the green line with minor adjustments - without reference to defensible boundaries.

With the ongoing confrontation with the Americans, domestic party political considerations can no longer justify the government’s burying its head in the sand and avoiding this issue. To avert disaster, Netanyahu must now seize the moment to develop a coherent and consistent government policy.

He must strive, initially behind closed doors, to formulate a long-term strategy to be endorsed by leaders of the coalition. They should resolve, as a matter of policy, to commit to intensifying construction in those areas over the green line which would unquestionably be retained by Israel. But in isolated settlements primarily located in the disputed territories in Arab populated areas, a status quo in relation to expansion should be maintained.

Adopting such a policy would deeply distress some of the most idealistic and Zionist elements in the country. But nevertheless, even those who unreservedly support all aspects of the settlement enterprise and the legitimate right of Jews to live anywhere in Eretz Yisrael must face the harsh realities confronting us and recognize that the time has come for clarity and tough decisions. The government must act rationally and adopt policies promoting the national interest and protecting the security interests of the nation which is facing a bitterly hostile world.

To persist with maximalist positions in this situation could threaten core security and other crucial areas where we are being pressured to make additional concessions. For example, it is insufficient to merely demand that Israel maintain a presence in the Jordan Valley. We must also resist efforts to impose the 1949 armistice lines with minor adjustments. We must insist on adherence to UN resolution 242 which refers to defensible borders. We must never concede to the division of Jerusalem. The government must accept the daunting responsibility, set aside emotions and act rationally and pragmatically. Our leaders should realize that if they do not succeed in achieving minimum long term security and recognition of the need for defensible borders, their failure will haunt future Israeli generations.

We are under no illusions. The current Palestinian leadership has displayed virtually zero intentions of reaching a settlement. They depict themselves as occupied underdogs in order to obtain more territory from us. Whatever concessions we make, they will readily accept but their goal remains the dismantling the Jewish state in stages.

Regrettably, the Americans are promoting an Alice in Wonderland scenario based on the false premise that there is a Palestinian peace partner and are pressuring us into further unrealistic concessions that would threaten our security. This is compounded by Secretary of State John Kerry, who not so long ago described Syria’s Bashar Assad a as a “reformer”, now frenetically seeking to compensate for his dismal political failures by engineering a cosmetic peace settlement at Israel’s expense.

If, when negotiations collapse, we become the losers in the blame game, we could face devastating repercussions.

The potency of our adversaries should not be underestimated. It is highly unlikely that we will be able to accept the Obama Administration proposals. The BDS movement has made massive progress in Europe and is gaining ground amongst liberals and in academia in the United States. Our enemies are determined to replicate the boycott against apartheid in South Africa and bring Israel to its knees. We are dangerously isolated.

Netanyahu’s leadership qualities will now be put to the test. He has popular support and no real competitor and thus in a position to pressure his coalition leaders Lieberman, Lapid, Bennett and Livni – and the hawks dominating his own Likud party - to work together in the national interest to craft common denominators for achieving a comprehensive strategic policy. This must be designed to enable us to stand firm and united to confront the mounting international pressures facing us in the months ahead.

If extreme right or left ideologues are unwilling to agree to a consensus on these issues, Netanyahu must seriously consider dissolving the government and creating a new coalition committed to broad policy guidelines which 75% of Israelis would enthusiastically support.

Should he achieve this goal, he would undoubtedly be recorded in history as a great leader who overcame partisan politics and intrigues and succeeded in adopting a coherent policy reflecting the national interest.

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom

Some of my recent articles:

Obama’s Munich Reverberates but Israel is no Czechoslovakia (December 11, 2013)
New Religious Leadership Needed (November 28, 2013)
Chaotic Government Undermines Our Global Standing (November 21, 2013)
No Illusions Concerning the Obama Administration (November 10, 2013)

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk