For four decades, Israeli leftists have been saying what President Obama's administration (and the State Dept), many NGOs and the recent EU statement declare: Israel has no right to "occupy" territory acquired in 1967.
That these areas were originally designated by the League of Nations in the British Mandate as part of the "Jewish National Homeland," that no other legitimate sovereign power existed and there were no recognized borders afterwards, and that this was the historic heartland of the Jewish People didn't seem to matter.
The Oslo agreements created a totally erroneous impression that Israel's legitimate boundaries are the pre-1967 lines; this has no legal or historical basis. More importantly, reducing Israel to the pre-67 lines would create permanent strategic insecurity and invite constant aggression.
Many Israelis who oppose the right of Jews to settle in these areas make exceptions for eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. But, "occupation" is "occupation;" even though Israel extended its laws to these areas, it did not annex the Golan.
Why, then, should Israeli leftists be surprised or unhappy about the EU decision? Au contraire, they should be celebrating Israel's condemnation. Peace Now should be handing out candy. President Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, who concocted the Oslo Accords, should be applauding.
The EU statement is exactly where the "Peace Process" inevitably leads. Israelis who condemn "the occupation" (of 1967) as a "moral disaster," however, avoid what Arabs consider "the occupation" of 1948, the Nakba (catastrophe.)
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the EU statement what Labor and Meretz also advocate? Why should Arab Palestinians negotiate with Israel over Judea and Samaria when they and most of the international community believe that Israel is "illegally occupying" these areas? If Jewish settlements are wrong in Judea and Samaria, why aren't they wrong in Jerusalem and the Golan? If Jews stole land, what right do they have to keep any of it?
Paradoxically, the EU position, like that of Obama's administration, helps clarify the confusing "Peace Process." First, "the process" has nothing to do with peace; it is only about the creation of a second Arab Palestinian state, albeit one run by terrorist organizations. When establishing that state trumps the strategic and historic interests of Israel and the Jewish people, it means the end of Israel and Zionism.
Peace process led to isolation
Israeli leftists argue that they are protecting Israel and Zionism by renouncing "the occupation," while clinging to Jerusalem and the Golan, and perhaps even the settlement blocs. But once the principle of "occupation" – theft – has been accepted, there are no compromises.
"Settlements are the greatest obstacle to peace," they argue. "Israel cannot be a Jewish and democratic state as long as Israel occupies the West Bank." But these are worn, unfounded excuses.
Over 300,000 Jews live in Area C of Judea and Samaria, which is under Israeli control and in which all of the settlements are located; in addition, about 250,000 Jews live in new neighborhoods of Jerusalem. There are no accurate figures for the number of Arabs living in Area C; some estimate about 10- 15 % of the Jewish population.
Even more strangely, often the same people who are concerned about the demographic balance between Jews and Arabs defend the right of hundreds of thousands of illegal African immigrants to remain in Israel.
PM Netanyahu, like his predecessors, tried to draw the line around Jerusalem, hoping to appease his way out of the rest. But, these stalling tactics are signs of weakness. Egypt refused to concede Yamit; Jordan insisted on every centimeter of land they claimed; Syria demands the entire Golan Heights; why should Arab Palestinians concede eastern Jerusalem?
"The Peace Process" has led, not to peace, but to Israel's isolation in the world community. This was not because Israel wasn't forthcoming, but because it had already admitted that it was an "occupying power," and had no inherent, legitimate rights to the area in dispute.
Opposition to any Jewish building in Judea and Samaria by President Obama, the EU, and, of course, Arab and Muslim countries, and condemning all Israeli settlements are not new, but the context and the intensity of their onslaught is: threats from Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas; the effect of Goldstone's Report; the hostility of the UN and isolation by the international community place Israelis who oppose settlements in a difficult position. Especially for Israelis, settlements are a critical defining issue for Zionism and the future of our country. Whom do they support?"
