Friday, May 23, 2014

What Part of "NO"...?

Michael L.

no1All the major Israeli dailies, including Y-Net, the Times of Israel, and the Jerusalem Post are reporting that Benjamin Netanyahu, with the encouragement of Naftali Bennett, is mulling over the possibility of a unilateral disengagement of much of Judea and Samaria.

In the Times of Israel we read:
Economics and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home) said Friday that he supports Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s talk of Israeli unilateral action in the West Bank as an alternative to negotiating with the Palestinians. While it was not clear whether Netanyahu was talking about annexing mainly Jewish-settled territory or withdrawing from mainly Palestinian areas, Bennett made plain he was backing annexation

“The era of negotiations has come to an end. I’m hearing talk about unilateral action on Israel’s part and I support that,” Bennett wrote on his Facebook page.

Bennett made the remark following an interview Netanyahu gave to Bloomberg, published overnight Thursday-Friday, in which the Israeli head of state hinted that Israel may have to consider taking unilateral steps with regard to the West Bank after laying blame for the collapse of peace talks on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
We are all aware of what happened with Gaza after Ariel Sharon withdrew from the area.  As much as the Palestinian-Arabs dislike negotiations with Palestinian-Jews they tend to like autonomy even less.  When Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip it opened the region to full-on control by Hamas who used the area as a launching pad in efforts to murder Jews.

It is fully understandable, therefore, that many Jewish people, or those who may care about the well-being of Jewish people, are reluctant to endorse Bennett's route.  Bennett wants to annex some modified version of Area C and call it a day... at least for the moment.

I have been arguing in favor of something similar for a long time.  I make no suggestions about just what the shape of Israel should ultimately look like because that should be up to the Israelis, but I very much encourage the government of Israel to finally make that decision and to do so without negotiations with the Palestinian-Arabs.

It is obvious that the Palestinian-Arabs have no intention whatsoever of coming to a negotiated conclusion of hostilities with the Palestinian-Jews and, therefore, Israel needs to take matters into its own hands.
"Let me be clear - negotiations are always preferable. But six prime ministers since Oslo have failed in their pursuit of a negotiated settlement. They've always thought we were on the verge of success, and then Arafat backed off, Mahmoud Abbas backed off, because they can't conclude these negotiations," said Netanyahu.
Indeed.  At this point there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that dictator Abbas has no interest whatsoever in a negotiated conclusion of hostilities.  We are constantly told that a subsection of the great Arab majority in the Middle East, the Palestinian-Arabs, are persecuted by the Jewish minority in that part of the world.  And, yet, somehow that allegedly persecuted Arab subsection simply cannot bring itself to accept autonomy and peace for itself and its children.

Oh, well.

That being the case, Israel has every right to simply declare its final borders and remove the IDF to behind those borders.

Perhaps the single, foremost problem facing the Jewish people today is that of Arab-Muslim Supremacism in the Middle East.  Given Israel's technological and military superiority over the impoverished and hostile Arab majority, Bennett is probably correct.

A unilateral disengagement will not, of course, end genocidal Arab-Muslim hostility toward the Jewish minority in the region, but it is certainly preferable to this endless process of begging the Palestinian-Arabs to accept Jewish autonomy on historically Jewish land.  They have said "no" over and over and over again since at least 1937, when they rejected the Peel Commission Report.

What part of "no" do we not understand?


  1. The "occupation" will not end anytime soon simply because the Palestinian-Arabs and there supporters do not want it to end. The "occupation," after all, is the primary weapon that the Palestinian-Arabs use against the Jews. If they were to let it end by simply accepting Jewish sovereignty on historically Jewish land then what would they have?

    Bare in mind, of course, that when Israel ended the occupation of Gaza we were told that even if though the occupation is over the occupation is not over. Despite the fact that there is not a single Israeli soldier in Gaza we are told that Israel still "occupies" Gaza.

    Palestinian-Arab identity requires the "occupation" as a means of projecting their never ending sense of entitlement and victim-hood.

  2. One aspect of the status quo, which is effectively Israeli sovereignty with Palestinian autonomy in Areas B/C, to bear in mind is that Israel arresting Palestinians in Area A does not constitute an invasion. Unilaterally giving that up will not change any Arab attitudes. Further, the international community would hold that Israel's withholding what the Palestinians are entitled to, ie. all of Jordan's 1949 conquest, would leave the Palestinians with a casus belli, thus giving Israel no more room to maneuver in terms of responding to Palestinian attacks.