By Ted Belman ——Bio and Archives--November 19, 2009
World News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
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
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.
Everyone 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.
Mike 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.
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,
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,
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
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.
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
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.
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 providesNeither 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.
View Comments
Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and Editor of Israpundit.org. He made aliyah from Canada in 2009 and now lives in Jerusalem.