Don’t miss this opportunity to explore Israel off the beaten track, feel the conflict first hand, understand the security issues and politic realities, and have an unforgettable trip!
Would it be prudent for Israel to launch now the kind of unilateral initiative proposed by former Yesha Council Director Naftali Bennett, or is it best to leave well enough alone?
Under Bennett’s plan, Israel would annex Area C – where Jews live – granting full citizenship to the Palestinians residing in the area while at the same time Israel would make the heavy infrastructure investment required so that Palestinians residing in the remainder of the West Bank (under a “full” autonomy subject only to security-related limitations and restrictions on the return of refugees) could enjoy complete freedom of movement within and between those areas.
What’s wrong with continuing with the status quo?
That question itself hinges on a critical assumption, namely that the status quo can be reasonably expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
Will the Palestinians be able to change the situation on the ground or will they only spin their wheels in an ongoing series of international resolutions, declarations, and photo ops?
Would a second term President Obama pull all the stops to impose his vision on the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip?
Would a world facing a nuclear Iran seek to appease it by forcing Israel to make dramatic concessions to the Palestinians?
What’s the downside to acting now?
Would it shift the focus away from Iran?
Certainly in column inches and broadcast minutes, but that’s not necessarily the relevant measure.
As it stands today it would appear that an American and/or international decision to use force against the Iranian nuclear program would be driven by assessments of intelligence regarding progress in the Iranian program, with Israeli-Palestinian relations having little if any impact on – or relevance to – the decision making process.
And finally – is it better to implement Bennett’s plan already or instead to make preparations so that the plan can be implemented if and when the Palestinians cross some red line?
Is it realistic to assume that Israel would be able to annex Area C after the Palestinians took their move?
Certainly a lot to think about.
One thing is certain.
It would be a terrible mistake to postpone thinking this through.
Originally published by IMRA http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=55982
About the Author: Dr. Lerner is the Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis).
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
Obama went to begin the Arab Spring in Egypt which is still his target; Israel is just the lever.
Qatar’s wealth and Turkey’s size should not preclude us from telling it as it is: Qatar and Turkey are among the worst villains in the Gaza tragedy.
New Delhi would do well to remain aware of the predicament of Israel today.
his Tisha B’Av, and this Tu B’Av, remember: Hashem will protect us if we unite and rally around Him
Israel’s morality is underscored by its unprecedented restraint and care for loss of life.
The Gazan octopus arm is a test case, as the rest of the arms are closely watching it.
Obama has chosen shaky ally on the way out over strong ally solidly in the American orbit.
World War I had sown chaos throughout the centuries-old Jewish communities of Eastern Europe.
The IDF pounding continued and it again seemed only a matter of time before Hamas would be forced to accept the Egyptian proposal.
Nothing is ever so clear in the complex and often brutal calculus of urban warfare.
There can only be a finite number of tunnels, but the IDF keeps finding more of them…
The Israeli media portrays Israeli brass and ex-brass who oppose Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on the Iran issue as a group whose assessment is based solely on a cold hard analysis of the situation. Unfortunately, there is a reasonable possibility that the Israeli brass and ex-brass themselves have piggy-backed their agenda to the Iranian debate.
For years the Egyptians have been trying to erode the Sinai force restrictions set in the peace treaty they signed with Israel. Force restrictions that were a necessary condition for Israel agreeing to restore the Sinai to Egyptian control. The Egyptians see the force restrictions as impinging on their sovereignty. Israel always considered the force restrictions as critical for the Jewish State’s national security.
Minister Benny Begin and others who oppose the law argue that it will be voided by the Supreme Court and that the law will damage Israel on the international front. If the Supreme Court indeed voids the law this will no doubt bring praise for Israel from the international community – not condemnation. And rest assured the court will rule on the law in lightning speed.
Oslo took Yasser Arafat and his PLO off the dung heap of history, when only radicals in the West were talking about anything beyond a Palestinian autonomy, and lead ultimately to the diplomatic challenge we face today – with the critical message of UNSC 242 – no requirement of full withdrawal – being ignored.
Making gestures should in no way be accompanied by a reconciliatory approach towards objectionable Palestinian behavior and Palestinian pronouncements. Toning down criticism of the PA not only doesn’t serve the interests of Israel – it ultimately does not serve the interests of the Palestinians.
There is certainly much to be learned from the events of 1970 and the nightmare that followed in 1973. Much that is extremely relevant to our own times. Israel paid dearly in 1973 for accepting the Egyptian violation of the 1970 agreement. And the Jewish State may yet again pay dearly if it continues to accept the ongoing security violations of Oslo in the Gaza Strip.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/time-to-kick-the-palestinian-can/2012/03/11/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: