Doc's Talk: Jordan Valley sovereignty bill sparks political storm

Monday, December 30, 2013

Jordan Valley sovereignty bill sparks political storm

Likud MK Miri Regev's proposed bill to apply Israeli law in Jewish areas of the Jordan Valley is approved by Ministerial Committee on Legislation • Justice Minister Tzipi Livni calls bill "irresponsible" • PM expected to block bill from becoming law.

Shlomo Cesana, Edna Adato, Gideon Allon, Mati Tuchfeld and Israel Hayom Staff

The Jordan Valley sovereignty bill has little chance of becoming law

Photo credit: Gil Eliyahu

Despite the sensitive timing, at the height of peace negotiations with the Palestinians and with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry set to arrive in the region later this week, the Ministerial Committee on Legislation on Sunday approved a bill proposed by Likud MK Miri Regev that would apply Israeli law to Jewish lands and communities in the Jordan Valley.

The committee's action set off a political storm that has exposed internal divisions within the government.

"This bill is purely motivated by diplomatic and security considerations," Regev said. "Until now, the position of all Likud governments was that under any permanent agreement with the Palestinian Authority, the communities in the Jordan Valley would be transferred to the sovereignty of the State of Israel."

The bill was passed with the support of eight ministers from the Likud, Habayit Hayehudi and Yisrael Beytenu. Three ministers from Hatnuah and Yesh Atid voted against the bill.

Interior Minister Gideon Sa'ar (Likud) said, "There is a public consensus regarding Israeli sovereignty in the Jordan Valley. We do not need to be alarmed that it will be known that it is important that the Jordan Valley remain under Israeli sovereignty in any permanent agreement."

Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi) emphasized that the bill is "part of Israel's security."

The Jordan Valley is located on the eastern edge of Judea and Samaria, the area that Israel captured from Jordan in the Six-Day War in 1967. In the current Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the Jordan Valley has been a source of disagreement. Thus far, the Palestinians have rejected Israel's demand to maintain a security presence there following the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Kerry said in Washington earlier this month that the need to resolve the dispute over the Jordan Valley was "a critical threading of a needle that has to happen in order to achieve an agreement."

Science and Technology Minister Yaakov Peri (Yesh Atid) expressed opposition to the bill approved by the ministerial committee on Sunday.

"There is no connection between the proposal and Israeli security," Peri said on Sunday. "This proposed law, two days before the return of the U.S. secretary of state on his mission to broker peace, and at the height of sensitive negotiations, is a provocative proposal, meant only to gain to political publicity."

Environmental Protection Minister Amir Peretz (Hatnuah) said on Sunday, "There is no practical outcome to approving this bill other than international damage to the State of Israel."

Finance Minister Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) strongly criticized the bill, saying, "It ties the hands of the prime minister at a time when he is conducting in negotiations."

Most savage in her criticism was the committee's chairwoman, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni (Hatnuah).

"This is an irresponsible bill and whoever supports it is irresponsible," Livni said. "This is a bill that will hurt the State of Israel and isolate it. I have no respect for the person who proposed this bill and I have no respect for your decision, ministers, to support it. You are only supporting the bill because you know it won't pass in the Knesset plenum. If you thought it would pass, you would oppose it."

Later, Livni posted on her Facebook page: "Amir Peretz and I will submit an appeal to the government and Yair Lapid and Yaakov Peri have announced they will do the same. Perhaps this is the reason the Likud ministers allow themselves to support the bill -- they are trying to have it both ways. To be in a government that is conducting negotiations on diplomatic settlement, a responsible government that protects the economy and Israeli security, but also to kiss up to the Likud Central Committee."

And what about the prime minister? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave Likud ministers freedom to vote and did not prevent them from backing Regev's bill. In a meeting of Likud ministers that took place prior to the cabinet meeting, Netanyahu he did not address Regev's bill. But he clarified that on diplomatic matters, it is best if there is a debate in the cabinet and not through proposed laws in the ministerial committee. "The right way to address policy matters is in a full cabinet meeting," he said.

At present, with an appeal to be submitted by Livni and Lapid, the bill is in the hands of the government secretariat and will only be discussed further at the prime minister's discretion. At this stage, Netanyahu has no intention of advancing the bill, but the very fact that it was approved by the ministerial committee benefited anyone who wanted to win political brownie points from its approval.

Regev said she was happy with the outcome. "Approval of the law by the ministerial committee for legislation at this time when negotiations are underway with the Palestinians is a type of absolute statement by the government that the communities of the Jordan Valley are a strategic and security asset for the state of Israel and will always remain in Israel's hands."

"Israel must decide to extend its sovereignty over this wide swathe of land, which is relatively sparse in terms of Palestinian population, and to say openly: The Jordan Valley will remain under Israeli sovereignty forever and ever," said MK Moti Yogev (Habayit Hayehudi).

The head of the Jordan Valley regional council, David Alhiani, welcomed the bill, but did not delude himself as to its fate: "I assume that the proposed law will not come to pass. Nevertheless, it is enough that this proposed law was approved by the ministerial committee in order to signal to the Americans that there is agreement among most ministers over extending Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley."

Meanwhile, on the Left, there was criticism of the government.

"We are talking about an absurdity that shows Netanyahu has lost control of the ministers, of the Likud and the entire diplomatic process," said MK Omer Bar-Lev (Labor).

"De facto annexation of the Jordan Valley is not only against international law, it is also an unnecessary provocation against the efforts of the American administration to advance a diplomatic process," said Meretz Chairwoman Zehava Gal-On.

Palestinians reacted with fury to the approval of the bill.

"Israel is destroying the diplomatic process," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said.

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