As I wrote last week, the release of a report establishing the legality of Israel’s presence in the West Bank issued by a panel of Israeli experts chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy has been widely condemned. The attacks on Levy’s report have come from both those who support the Palestinians as well as Israelis and friends of Israel who oppose the settlement movement. Among the most prominent examples of the latter came in a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu organized by the Israel Policy Forum, a liberal group that came into existence to support the Oslo peace process and which has been eclipsed in recent years by the failure of the polices they promoted. The IPF letter takes the position that, if adopted by the government, the Levy report dooms the two-state solution to the conflict and “will strengthen those who seek to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.”
While the concerns expressed in this letter are real, those who signed are mistaken not only about the impact of Levy’s report but also about how to build international support for Israel and the hope of peace. What the signers don’t understand is that it is the opposite tack — Israel’s abandonment of a position that would uphold its rights — that has done the most to convince the world the Jewish state is in the wrong and strengthened the resolve of the Palestinians to never accede to a compromise on territory and two states. While one document cannot undo the damage done by Oslo and 19 years of failed peace processing, the Levy report can at least begin to remind the world the Israeli-Arab conflict is not one of balancing Palestinian rights and Israeli security but the rights of two nations.
One of the letter’s most prominent signers, Shalem Center senior vice president (and COMMENTARY contributor) Rabbi Daniel Gordis, conceded in his op-ed published yesterday in Ha’aretz in which he explained his participation in the IPF letter, that its purpose was not to dispute Levy’s legal position. Indeed, it would have difficulty doing so from a Zionist frame of reference, as the rights of Jews to live and build in the West Bank was enshrined in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which is the last internationally recognized sovereign in the area. Levy’s point is not that the West Bank only belongs to Israel, but that it is disputed territory to which both the Jewish state and the Palestinians may assert a claim. Those claims can only be resolved by negotiations that could end the conflict with a territorial compromise.
But Gordis and his colleagues believe the mere assertion of Jewish rights in the West Bank, even if it is accompanied as it has been by an offer to negotiate peace and territorial compromise, will never be understood by the world. They believe it will signal Israel’s unwillingness to ever make peace and doom the Jewish state not just to unending conflict but also to the problems that will arise from the presence of a large Arab population under its control. These worries are not without basis. Israel is assailed by the world for its perceived unwillingness to make peace, even though the history of the post-Oslo era has shown that the land for peace formula it embraced brought it neither peace nor security.
But what Gordis and the other 40 signers of the IPF letter miss is that by consciously downplaying its legal rights in the dispute, Israel has unwittingly strengthened the hand of those who oppose its existence, be it inside or outside the green line. By ceasing to speak of the justice of Israel’s case, the so-called “peace camp” played into the hands of those who think Jews have no more right to live in Tel Aviv than in Jerusalem or the most remote hilltop West Bank settlement.
Far from encouraging the Palestinians to abandon their dreams of a “right of return” and the eradication of Zionism, the more Israel and its friends treat the West Bank and even Jerusalem as stolen territory, the less likely it is that the Palestinians will ever accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders will be drawn.
Indeed, if the Levy report has any impact on the Palestinians, it is a reminder to them that their hopes of achieving the eviction of every Jew from the West Bank as well as from the portions of Jerusalem that were illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967 are dead. If they wish to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank — something they were offered by Israel but refused in 2000, 2001 and 2008 — they must return to negotiations instead of sitting back and waiting for the Obama administration or the Europeans to pressure Israel into a unilateral withdrawal such as the disastrous 2005 retreat from Gaza.
Even the Obama administration has conceded that Israel will retain many of the settlements in a theoretical peace deal that will include territorial swaps. How can Israel hope to bargain for such an outcome if it is unwilling to state that Jews have every right to live in these towns and villages as well as in Jerusalem?
The assertion of Jewish rights is not incompatible with peace talks or even the surrender of much of the West Bank as part of a genuine peace accord. It is hard to imagine such talks succeeding under any circumstances in the absence of a sea change in the political culture of the Palestinians that would enable them to live with a Jewish state. But they have no hope of succeeding so long as the Palestinians think Israel can be made to give up all of the land without peace. Nor will the international community ever support an Israel they believe has “stolen” Palestinian land.
A generation of abdication of Jewish rights to the West Bank has not softened the hearts of the world or the Palestinians. If Israel is ever to negotiate a peace that will bring security, it must start by saying that it comes to the table not as a thief but as a party whose legal rights must be respected.
GREAT PIECE !!! Jonathan is, of course, correct in his assertion that by NOT asserting our rights to the WHOLE of the land between the Jordan and the sea has weakened our hold on ANY piece of this land. Only the obtuse and the disingenious will see that the Arabs are laying claim to the whole of the same land-including Tel Aviv! The best way to counter that-regardless of the world's opinion-is to assert the same rights for the Jewish people!
Michael, agree with you but think you left out a NOT: nOnly the obtuse . . . will NOT see.
Those who are so terrified that they would recommend taking the same position as the opposition can't be considered friends or allies. n nWhy would Gordis and his associates make such a suggestion? Perhaps they've already accepted defeat.
You can't base an effort for peace between Israel and the Palestinians on lies – it has to be based on truth if it has any chance to succeed. Yet Gordis et al want to base the peace negotiations on a lie. It only backfires on Israel. Israel should definitely exert her claims and make it clear that this is not a negotiation between a robber and a victim, but between two peoples that both have valid, legitimate, legal claims to the same territory.
That's nothing but moral equivalency. n nThe Jews have legitimate moral and legal claim to most of that land. They purchased most of it, anyway. n nThe Arabs are only there through military conquest. They stole it from the Jews, and have killed or driven away the Jews down through the centuries. How does that give them any moral or legal right to the land?
I suppose Rabbi Gordis is really arguing that sometimes the truth is not the highest value, rather peace or the peace process is. Perhaps in some cases there are higher values than truth, but Gordis bears a very heavy burden to prove this claim.
Dear Commentary Board Members: This would be a good time to use your considerable clout and connections to organize a counter-letter issued by equally or more prestigeous leaders. Ideally the letter would say "adopt the Levy Report for these reasons", but at a bare minimum, it should encourage debate about the report, rather than the mindless attempt to bury it, which is what these so-called 40 leaders say–a shocking statement from the illustrious Rabbi Gordis.
Has there ever been a finer example of Shtetle (or is it Ghetto?) Mentality?: "Of course we are 100% right about everything, but if we say so the Goyim won't like us, so let's never mention it again!"
Look, let's just quit the shuffling and jiving and get to the point. Roll back the borders of Israel to historic locations. Yes, that's right. Historic locations. Specifically, the locations under Solomon. Yep. All or Judea. All of Samaria. Settlements in Gaza. Settlements in the West Bank. Settlements on the Golan Heights. Establish a land for the Palestinians …. in Syria. Next problem? Iran? I have a solution for that.
Historic borders of Israel would include the West Bank, south Lebanon, Gaza, parts of Sinai, and Jordan. n nActually, you have a great suggestion. Let the Israelis have their historic borders again, and expand their population and economic and military power accordingly. Israel deserves this. The squatters occupying historical Israel have no right to this land, nor did they acquire it honestly and peacefully.
Actually, in Solomon's time, Syria was part of Israel -his father, David, conquered it- and the whole of the EAST BANK- now named Jordan- was Jewish for a thousand years. Let's ask for al lof that.
The liberal antisemites and progressive genocidaires care nothing for legal justifications of anything that Jews or Israel say, do and think. It's axiomatic. This is what paranoid thinking is. Say for the sake of argument a miracle occurred and the UN arose with one voice and supported the Jews. The same people who today write for the Guardian would claim that Jews control the UN too.
I find it amazing and disturbing that the vice-president of the so-called neo-conservative think tank, the Shalem Center, opposes Jewish sovereignty in the heartland and core of the Land of Israel – Judea and Samaria.Our Arab and Moslem enemies don't now nor have ever differentiated between Jewish rights to Hebron or Tel-Aviv; as with King Solomon and the disputed baby, any suggestion of compromise and partition is rightfully perceived as renunciation of any claim to any part of the land. Gordis and the other noble souls of the Israeli Policy Forum endlessly repeat the underlying fallacy of the Oslo process: they are busy negotiating with themselves, rather than with anyone in the real world. What will it take to wake them up?
The left wants to stick to a story they fabricate. Typical of communism. The Palestinians dream is the destruction of Israel and as long as we keep that dream alive the Palestinians/Muslims and the West will make life miserable whenever they can.
Bibi is not going to fundamentally change his position no matter how many papers fall out of the sky challenging the Fourth Geneva Convention's applicability to the non-state territories of Y"S. Bib has no intention of reneging Area A enclaves already given to full control to Fatah. Israel may, or may not, finally stop the Wafq from trashing Jewish antiquities on the Temple Mount. Israel, may become slightly more aggressive in licensing Jewish building, including on disputed private plots, on the West Bank or it may not. At this point the dreams of a rapid expansion beyond current boundaries throughout areas under sole or joint Israeli security control are unlikely to be fulfilled. Past is prologue here.
Past is never prologue when we're dealing with the supernatural and unpredictable history of the Jewish people and the Zionist enterprise. Jews are already 20% of the residents of Judea and Samaria (and that's without counting the Jews of Jerusalem). Their burgeoning demographic pressure and uncomplicated patriotism will indeed expand beyond current boundaries to fill all of Area C (under Israeli control). This is likely to happen with or without Bibi's encouragement or Obama's permission. The recent past of obstruction and delay, even of reversals such as Gush Katif, don't obscure the larger picture of Jewish renascence and Arab decline. Much more unlikely than the Jewish return to the land is the establishment of a Palestinian terror state. We are living the dream.
Well, the supernatural unpredictability of Jewish history does not, on that level, guarantee redemption rather than reproach at any particular juncture–but for now imo the patterns of Israeli society and its interaction with the Arab sector are a brake against unrestricted growth. And the failure of the ultra-Orthodox to commit to national mobilization and Kadima's departure will only confirm status quo inertia–which doesn't preclude incremental growth (which Bibi is open to) but does inhibit radical or romantic "breakout." The Supreme Court and institutional arrangements between Likud and Peres will continue to stall out development in contested, non-state areas of Area C, though it is natural that Area C is the sector for continued and incremental thickening of Jewish neighborhoods in Y"Sh. Obama isn't a local factor per se. For sure, imo, the crystallization of a Palestinian state entity is also stalled out–what is is. But your own analysis is not proposing a revocation, miraculous or no, of the provisions already made for Palestinian urban and suburban development in Palestinian and shared areas.
"Well, the supernatural unpredictability of Jewish history does not, on that level, guarantee redemption rather than reproach at any particular juncture" nSomething that should not be overlooked, particularly at this time of year.
We must declare the Jewish rights befor the following surrender! And the World`s respect is with us.
The Balfour Declaration was a British Policy that was adapted to deal with the principle of self determination. The chief basis for opposition to the Balfour policy in 1917 was that while since 1845 the Jews were a plurality in Jerusalem and by 1863 they had a majority in Jerusalem, in all of Palestine in 1917 they were only a 10% minority. Out of a total population of about 600,000 there were only about 60,000 Jews in all of Palestine. The opponents charged that to award sovereignty to a 10% minority would be "antidemocratic". On September 19, 1917 the British Foreign Office issued a memo replying to this argument, agreeing with the argument in concept, but stating that as applied to the Balfour policy, it was "imaginary". That is because the exclusive political rights that were being recognized for the Jews in the Balfour Policy, would be placed in trust and that these rights would not vest until the Jews in Palestine had attained a population majority and the other attributes that were deemed needed by a modern European nation-state to exercise sovereignty. Until then, the Jews were to have only a beneficial interest but the British or the Americans, as trustees would have legal dominion over the trust res, the political rights to Palestine, and therefore they would be exercising sovereignty subject to the limits of the trust document or British Mandate.