Israel should Annex the West Bank

[ChewDawg]

If the Palestinians continue their efforts for statehood at the UN unilaterally without negotiating with Israel first, I think Israel should renounce past agreements made with the Palestinians.

Going the multilateral route through the UN basically means the Palestinians want to end the Oslo agreement and begin experimenting with unilateral actions. It is a perfect example of the Palestinians not living up to their obligations.

In 1995, as part of the Oslo accords, Israel and the Palestinians agreed that “neither 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.”

If Abbas decides to disregard this section of the accords by seeking United Nations recognition of statehood, it would mean that Israel, too, is no longer bound by its contents and is free to take unilateral action.

This recognition exercise at the UN is a joke. Israel has withdrawn in the past due to international pressure (Gaza) and did it bring peace? No. Fatah collapsed and Hamas moved in. There are so many security issues that would need to be negotiated and this can only be done through direct negotiations.

However, if the Palestinians keep going the UN route, I think some massive retaliation should be demonstrated to teach them a lesson on what happens when you break your treaty obligations.

It is also so sad to see Fatah spend resources on this UN farce instead of really concentrating on “gas and water” issues that could really help their citizenry.

@Israel MK Danny Danon

Over the past few months, analysts in Israel and abroad have warned that Israel will face what Defense Minister Ehud Barak has termed a “diplomatic tsunami.” In September, the Palestinian Authority plans to bring the recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundary to the United Nations General Assembly for a vote. The Palestinians’ request will almost certainly be approved.

While most voices in the Israeli and international news media are calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to grant major concessions to the Palestinians to forestall such a move, he should in fact do the opposite: he should annex the Jewish communities of the West Bank, or as Israelis prefer to refer to our historic heartland, Judea and Samaria.The first immediate implication would be that all of the diplomatic and security assistance that Israel provides to the Palestinians would be halted, and the transfer of tax revenues — upward of $1 billion per year — would end permanently. This alone could threaten the very existence of the Palestinian Authority.

Second, a United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood would give Israel an opportunity to rectify the mistake we made in 1967 by failing to annex all of the West Bank (as we did the eastern half of Jerusalem). We could then extend full Israeli jurisdiction to the Jewish communities and uninhabited lands of the West Bank. This would put an end to a legal limbo that has existed for 44 years.

In addition to its obvious ideological and symbolic significance, legalizing our hold on the West Bank would also increase the security of all Israelis by depriving terrorists of a base and creating a buffer against threats from the east. Moreover, we would be well within our rights to assert, as we did in Gaza after our disengagement in 2005, that we are no longer responsible for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, who would continue to live in their own — unannexed — towns.

These Palestinians would not have the option to become Israeli citizens, therefore averting the threat to the Jewish and democratic status of Israel by a growing Palestinian population.

While naysayers will no doubt warn us of the dire consequences and international condemnation that are sure to follow such a move by Israel, this would not be the first time that Israel has made such controversial decisions.

In 1949, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion moved the Knesset to Jerusalem and declared it the capital of the State of Israel despite the 1947 United Nations partition plan, which had designated the city an international zone. Immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol annexed East Jerusalem and declared that the city would remain a united and undivided entity. And in 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin extended Israeli sovereignty to the Golan Heights.

In each of these cases, Israel’s actions were met with harsh international criticism and threats of sanctions; all of these decisions, however, are cornerstones of today’s reality.

Our leaders made these decisions based on the realization that their actions would further Zionist values and strengthen the State of Israel. The diplomatic storms soon blew over as the international community moved on to other issues. It would be wise of Mr. Netanyahu to follow in their footsteps.

If the Palestinians decide that they want to end the Oslo agreement and begin experimenting with unilateral actions, then an unexpected opening will present itself for Israel. Our leaders must seize this opportunity and right a historic wrong by annexing parts of our homeland.

nytimes.com/2011/05/19/opinion/19Danon.html

[TainanCowboy]

Just curious, what is the current “official” Taiwan gov’t position of the matter of UN acceptance of this terrorist state into their organization?

[cfimages]

neither 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

The increase in West Bank settlements by Israel which has seen the settlement population expand from 100 000 to 500 000 over the past 15 years shows that this quote you bolded was breached long before Abbas went to the UN. Using your reasoning, it’d mean that the Palestinians haven’t been bound by the contents and are free to take unilateral action.

[ChewDawg]

@cfimages

[quote]neither 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

The increase in West Bank settlements by Israel which has seen the settlement population expand from 100 000 to 500 000 over the past 15 years shows that this quote you bolded was breached long before Abbas went to the UN. Using your reasoning, it’d mean that the Palestinians haven’t been bound by the contents and are free to take unilateral action.[/quote]

Maybe you are reading a different Oslo Accords than I am. The Oslo Accords failed to include an explicit reference to ending (or even limiting) Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

On the other hand, final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are referenced throughout.

[cfimages]

@Cornpone Hercules

[quote=“cfimages”][quote]neither 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

The increase in West Bank settlements by Israel which has seen the settlement population expand from 100 000 to 500 000 over the past 15 years shows that this quote you bolded was breached long before Abbas went to the UN. Using your reasoning, it’d mean that the Palestinians haven’t been bound by the contents and are free to take unilateral action.[/quote]

Maybe you are reading a different Oslo Accords than I am. The Oslo Accords failed to include an explicit reference to ending (or even limiting) Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

On the other hand, final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are referenced throughout.[/quote]

Settlements create a change in status in the West Bank.

[bigduke6]

Cfi, again please post fact. If something is not mentioned or specified in an agreement then no one can be accused of breaking it.

[ChewDawg]

@cfimages

[quote=“Cornpone Hercules”][quote=“cfimages”][quote]neither 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

The increase in West Bank settlements by Israel which has seen the settlement population expand from 100 000 to 500 000 over the past 15 years shows that this quote you bolded was breached long before Abbas went to the UN. Using your reasoning, it’d mean that the Palestinians haven’t been bound by the contents and are free to take unilateral action.[/quote]

Maybe you are reading a different Oslo Accords than I am. The Oslo Accords failed to include an explicit reference to ending (or even limiting) Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

On the other hand, final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are referenced throughout.[/quote]

Settlements create a change in status in the West Bank.[/quote]

Depends on how you interpret Article XXXI(7) of the Interim Agreement. I would say that it only applies to the legal status of the territories and not physical or demographic statuses.

Furthermore, the Oslo process deferred any resolution of the settlements until final stage negotiations were held. If the Palestinians aren’t even willing to engage in direct negotiations with Israel (which contradicts their obligations) why should the settlement issue even be brought up?

[cfimages]

@Cornpone Hercules

Depends on how you interpret Article XXXI(7) of the Interim Agreement. I would say that it only applies to the legal status of the territories and not physical or demographic statuses.

Of course a fivefold increase in population is going to have an effect on the final status of the area.

[cfimages]

@bigduke6

Cfi, again please post fact. If something is not mentioned or specified in an agreement then no one can be accused of breaking it.

Scroll to 7 in Article 31 in the interim agreement as it appears on the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. You can also see in Articles 7 and 17 references to the settlements that existed at the time that are protected.

[GuyInTaiwan]

As much as it might shock everyone shitless, I’m going to agree with cfimages on this one. Israel does have its reasons (some legitimate) for doing so, but moving a ton of people into the Palestinian territories obviously changes things.

[bohica]

Maybe the Palestinians should do what Taiwan had done in the past with its UN bid. Just say they only want to “participate”, not actually “join” the UN. This should take care of the change of status issue.

[pqkdzrwt]

I would suggest they should, but for the fact I don’t think annexing the west bank will achieve much in the long run. Better to continue to focus on improved security and worldwide PR to gain support for the measures they are needing to take to improve their security.

The US seemed to do a fairly good job at gaining world wide support for their “war on terror”, I see no reason why Israel could not just do the same. ie Adopt all of the same language and rhetoric that the US uses, ie “War on Terror”, “country is at war with terrorists” and so on.

[greenmark]

Could someone explain how “annex the West Bank” and “massive retaliation” are not disproportionate responses to Palestinians seeking statehood in the UN?

Now whether or not such measures are proportionate given what else is going on there is a matter of debate – Israel may or may not be justified based on terrorist threats and security. But if so the argument for actions should be based on those justifications, not because of whether or not the Palestinian authorities may or may not have broken one of the terms of the 1995 agreement.

Otherwise, isn’t this simple opportunism?

[bigduke6]

@cfimages

[quote=“bigduke6”]Cfi, again please post fact. If something is not mentioned or specified in an agreement then no one can be accused of breaking it.

Scroll to 7 in Article 31 in the interim agreement as it appears on the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. You can also see in Articles 7 and 17 references to the settlements that existed at the time that are protected.[/quote]

Article 7 is below, with no mention of settlements.

7. Neither 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.

No status has changed.

Article 17 states

a. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and

b. powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council.

Settlements will be discussed in permanent status negotiations. Did I miss these?

2a states

a. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations

Also mentions permanent status negotiations. Settlements are specifically mentioned with reference to Gaza. The article states that 2a is superceded by 17a as hilighted.

However, lets put this aside for a minute.

Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. What did this get them? Well, the front line just moved closer to Israel which made it easier for Hamas and co to launch rockets.

Did they get any peace?

Security in the West Bank is even more crucial then Gaza, keeping in mind the neighbors to the east and the width of Israel.

Did you listen to Netanyahu’s speech? There was fighting long before there was any settlement in the West Bank, so the settlements cannot really be blamed for fighting.

However, I agree that Israel should dismantle settlements their once the security issue has been dealt with. This is and always has been the key to the West Bank for the Palestinians.

What happens if Israel withdraws and hands over the West Bank and rockets get fired from their? I am seriously interested to know what you think? Does Israel have the right to defend itself and invade?

This bid for UN recognition is simply an Abbas PR exercise to try to take some pressure of himself for his failings so far. I also believe that it will lead to more fighting by creating unrealistic expectations.
My G-d, even Hamas was against unilateral independence. Shows Hamas and Fatah are now on the same page? They are as divided as they were a few months ago, except there are no Fatah members left in Gaza to throw off the roof.

[Baas_Babelaas]

The Palestinians have every right to a self-determined state.

Israel, and by de facto, the US gubment should see this.

If you trace back the history, and I’m sure you Israel-Palestine-ophiles have done, the land belonged to the Arab bruvvas, before the homecoming of the Jewish nation.

The Brits ran through and handed it over to the Yiddish fellas.

That’s the short story, and partially incorrect. But I lived in Israel and I know it’s an issue for all concerned.

Beautiful country by the way. I will go back some time soon, for a gander…

[cfimages]

BD6 - Adding 400 000 or so settlers to an area, a 400% increase on pre-Oslo numbers, does change the status before a permanent status of the area can be negotiated. The more settlers that are there, the less likely it is that Israel will agree to or be able to dismantle those settlements. That represents a change in the status of the West Bank before final negotiations which Israel agreed it wouldn’t do. That shouldn’t be so hard to understand. The reference to settlements in the permanent status negotiations is quite obviously in regard to the 100 000 who were that at the time the accords were agreed upon.

[bigduke6]

[quote=“Baas Babelaas”]The Palestinians have every right to a self-determined state.

Israel, and by de facto, the US gubment should see this.

If you trace back the history, and I’m sure you Israel-Palestine-ophiles have done, the land belonged to the Arab bruvvas, before the homecoming of the Jewish nation.

The Brits ran through and handed it over to the Yiddish fellas.

That’s the short story, and partially incorrect. But I lived in Israel and I know it’s an issue for all concerned.

Beautiful country by the way. I will go back some time soon, for a gander…[/quote]

Well, the only reason it can be called a homecoming is because the Jews lived their long before there was a religion called Islam or the Arabs. You can go back 1000s of years if you want.

I think the disagreement in most of these topics is not about whether the Pals have a state. I think everyone agrees on this. It is simply the way they go about it. Lobbing rockets into Israel is not the most productive way.

While I have agreed that Israel has also committed wrongs, this is not about fair as some believe. This is a real world scenario, where the Pals do not have the strength politically to only negotiate with pre conditions. The reason they are called negotiations is for parties to negotiate. This by definition negates pre conditions.

[bigduke6]

@cfimages

BD6 - Adding 400 000 or so settlers to an area, a 400% increase on pre-Oslo numbers, does change the status before a permanent status of the area can be negotiated. The more settlers that are there, the less likely it is that Israel will agree to or be able to dismantle those settlements. That represents a change in the status of the West Bank before final negotiations which Israel agreed it wouldn’t do. That shouldn’t be so hard to understand. The reference to settlements in the permanent status negotiations is quite obviously in regard to the 100 000 who were that at the time the accords were agreed upon.

Quite obviously? If it was obvious it would state that with no room for ambiguity, which it does not. Maybe the Israeli negotiators had sharper pencils.

Just because you do not like an agreement or the way it is worded does not change its validity. I believe Barack and Ohlmert maid offers whereby 99% of the Palestinians demands were met. This was refused.

Also, the Israelis will dismantle settlements. They have done it before on a large scale. However, security comes first.

Yes, the Israelis may be in breach of certain articles, but I would suspect the Palestinians are too.

BTW, what happens if the Palestinians get their state and lob rockets into Israel? I am really interested in your answer. Seriously.

[cfimages]

@bigduke6

[quote=“cfimages”]BD6 - Adding 400 000 or so settlers to an area, a 400% increase on pre-Oslo numbers, does change the status before a permanent status of the area can be negotiated. The more settlers that are there, the less likely it is that Israel will agree to or be able to dismantle those settlements. That represents a change in the status of the West Bank before final negotiations which Israel agreed it wouldn’t do. That shouldn’t be so hard to understand. The reference to settlements in the permanent status negotiations is quite obviously in regard to the 100 000 who were that at the time the accords were agreed upon.

Quite obviously? If it was obvious it would state that with no room for ambiguity, which it does not. Maybe the Israeli negotiators had sharper pencils.[/quote]

There’s no ambiguity. It says no change in status. Adding settlements and settlers changes the status of the area.

Yes, the Israelis may be in breach of certain articles, but I would suspect the Palestinians are too.

No one has ever claimed they’re not. But plenty try to place all the blame on the Palestinian side and none on the Israeli side.

BTW, what happens if the Palestinians get their state and lob rockets into Israel? I am really interested in your answer. Seriously.

Allow a state that’s free of blockades, occupying troops and helicopter gunships, that provides adequate land free of occupiers, that allows refugees to return home if they desire, that doesn’t seek to impose restrictions on where the capital can be situated and give it sufficient time to become firmly established without interference and it will no longer be an issue.

[bigduke6]

Still have not answered my question. :bravo: :bravo: