There is little question that a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is the best way to end that protracted conflict — in theory. The failure to bring about such an agreement, however, after decades of effort, means that Israel and the global Zionist community need to look elsewhere.
The idea of a unilateral solution has been discussed more in Israel than in the diaspora, and more on the right than on the left, but it needs to be taken more seriously.
A unilateral move by Israel has one great advantage: It does not necessitate the involvement of any other entity. The negotiations, and there would have to be negotiations, would take place among Israelis and the global Zionist Jewish community; no agreement from Palestinians or Arab nations or Europeans or Americans would be required.
Under what might be called the “our state, not our state” proposal, the Knesset would declare, both in terms of legal claim de jure, and effective control de facto, what constitutes the borders of the State of Israel. Naturally, debate would have to take place among Israelis and Zionists in the diaspora, over what would be annexed and what would be renounced. When one eliminates the political and religious extremes, there is a great deal of agreement on where the borders should lie.
That Jerusalem, including the Old City and East Jerusalem, is not only Israeli, but is Israel’s capital, is accepted by virtually all Zionists regardless of party. Suburban settlements such as Ma’ale Adumim should also be part of Israel, though the decision might be made not to include some non-Jewish eastern suburbs or villages, such as Abu Dis. Along most of Israel’s present eastern border, the separation wall already broadly follows what is considered a relatively secure border that excludes most of the large Palestinian population areas in the Central Hills.
In a unilateral declaration, the number of Jews who would have to be uprooted from their homes should be minimized. Of course, isolated Jewish communities far from the border would have to be abandoned.
Secular and liberal Jews, however, need to recognize the importance of holy sites for the religious. For this reason, annexation might include the Tomb of the Patriarchs, and the site of ancient Hebron. It would be possible to draw a border around a “Hebron finger” extending from Gush Etzion to Kiryat Arba and the area around the tomb. Other settlements that could be included in a contiguous border should be considered, such as Modi’in Illit, which is densely populated with haredi Jews.
The most difficult issue to be worked out is the status of the Jordan Valley.
While most people look to the adjusting of the Green Line as the key to Israel’s security, professionals know that the most vital border is that with Jordan. The Israeli right would like to keep complete control of that border, but we must avoid completely surrounding the Arab population with Israeli territory. Whatever the legal structure might intend, this would make Israel responsible for that population, which is something to be avoided.
It might be decided to annex the western and northern shores of the Dead Sea, including or excluding Jericho, and the Allenby Bridge. Other parts of the valley might be included, as long as a corridor, parallel to the border of Gaza with Egypt, remained.
It has always been possible that in a negotiated settlement, some parts of what is now Israel would be traded back to the Palestinians. Parts of the Eastern Galilee, especially the so-called “Little Triangle” with its close to 300,000 Israeli Arabs, including 50,000 in Umm al-Fahm, have been mentioned as a possibility.
There is a tension, of course, between wishing the border to be as far east as possible, for security reasons, and wanting to avoid incorporating a hostile population, also for security reasons. Working out this tension and agreeing on other details would necessitate the left and the right making compromises and negotiating not a perfect, but a good, settlement.
Legal residents of those areas that are annexed, and those that have already been formally annexed, such as Jerusalem, should automatically become Israeli citizens. Those Palestinians who are not legal residents of Jerusalem might be returned to their homes of residence. If Arabs or others in annexed areas do not wish to live as Israelis, they would be free to leave, perhaps with compensation paid by the Israeli government. Israeli Arabs living in areas ceded, or rather beyond the declared borders of the state, might move into Israel, again, possibly, with compensation.
What would happen to the areas not within Israel’s declared borders? Here Israel would declare: “This is not our state.” Whether those territories became a Palestinian state or part of Jordan would not be Israel’s concern.
Clearly this “solution” would involve risk. There is the possibility that a terrorist organization would gain control of the area once Israeli security forces left. This is exactly what happened in Gaza. Nevertheless, the benefits of unilaterally declaring borders outweigh the risks. Israel can respond and has responded to aggression from foreign entities, including Hamas-run Gaza, in ways it cannot now in the West Bank: with counter-attacks.
What does Israel and Zionism gain from unilateral declaration of borders?
The IDF would be able to focus on what it does so capably: defending Israel’s borders. Jews, and indeed all of Israel’s citizens, would be free to purchase land, live in and feel safe in all parts of Israel, without the need to consider the impact on some hypothetical future peace process.
Terrorists in Israeli jails would not have to be freed in “confidence-building” measures. Other nations would find it easier to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when it is off the table as a matter of negotiation. Foreign aid would be given not to Palestinians in “occupied” territories or “refugee” Palestinians, but to needy people outside Israel.
The suggestions made here are only that — suggestions. The point is to put an end to the constant waiting for an increasingly unlikely negotiated settlement.
Anything is better than the two-state delusion.
If the Arabs cannot live in peace with the Jews in Greater Israel, the only solution is to expel them to Jordan, Gaza or to the homes and 120,000 sq. km. of land the Arabs confiscated when they practiced ethnic cleansing and expelled over a million Jewish families and most of them were resettled in Israel and today comprise over half the population. Enough is enough. It’s time for Israel to take off the gloves and take the necessary steps to protect the Jewish people in Israel. One of the fundamental obligations of the government is to protect its citizens at all costs, no holds barred.
All the territory west of the Jordan River is Jewish territory.
Israel must adopt a policy of zero tolerance. By pacifying the Arabs and the world nations, Israel’s government is failing to take care of the Jewish people. It should not be necessary to remind the government that the Jewish people have suffered for over 2000 years at the hands of other people or nations who terrorized the Jewish people in Diaspora.
Now the Jews in their own country with a strong defense forces and it must be protected at all costs. Israel has the power, means and resources it must stop the ghetto victim mentality. Israel’s government must overcome the leftist attitude and their delusional mentality of peace with an enemy that his goal is to destroy Israel. What happened in Gaza must be an example. Israel now has a terrorist government in Gaza that hits Israel’s population with thousands of rockets. The past history of appeasement and concessions only put Israel’s population in harms way and danger. Israel must hit hard all terrorists and perpetrators of violence with a no reprieve, “damn the torpedoes” policy.
If the current government of Israel cannot protect its people with all its resources, it is time to change the government. We need less talk and rhetoric and more action and results.
Anyone who promotes terror and violence is as guilty as the perpetrators and must be punished and not ignored.
Israel should send troops to arrest Abbas for inciting violence. He is not above the law.
Any person or group who incites violence against the Jewish people must be declared an enemy of Israel and treated as such. This applies to Arab Knesset members who incite and commit treason.
YJ Draiman
PS
When Muslims anywhere preach hate and violence, they must be shutdown immediately. The cover of religion as a front must be exposed.
The Muslims go to new countries and instead of abiding by the law, they promote violence and try to force the country to change the laws to the Muslim edict and force the rest of the nation to abide by the Muslim religion, this is not acceptable and must be stopped.
1 No Arab-Palestinian state west of the Jordan River
If you read the 1917 Balfour Declaration (Which emulated Napoleons 1799 letter to the Jewish community in Palestine promising that The National Home for The Jewish people will be reestablished in Palestine, as the Jews are the rightful owners). Nowhere does it state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River. The San Remo Conference of 1920 does not state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River, confirmed by Article 95 in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres. The Mandate for Palestine terms does not state an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. It specifically states a Jewish National Home in Palestine without limiting the Jewish territory in Palestine. It also states that the British should work with the Jewish Agency as the official representative of the Jews in Palestine to implement the National Home of the Jewish people in Palestine. I stress again; nowhere does it state that an Arab entity should be implemented west of the Jordan River.
As a matter of historical record, The British reallocated over 77% of Jewish Palestine to the Arab-Palestinians in 1922 with specific borders and Jordan took over additional territory like the Gulf of Aqaba which was not part of the allocation to Jordan.
No where in any of the above stated agreements does it provides for an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. The U.N. resolutions are non-binding with no legal standing, same applies to the ICJ. The Oslo Accords are null and void.
It is time to relocate the Arabs in Israel to Jordan and to the homes and the 120,000 sq. km. the Arab countries confiscated from the over a million Jewish families that they terrorized and expelled and those expelled Jews were resettled in Israel. They can use the trillions of dollars in reparations for the Jewish assets to finance the relocation of the Arabs and help set-up an economy and industry instead of living on the world charity.
YJ Draiman