Photo Credit: Israel State Archives
Ben Gurion Reading Declaration of Independence

{Originally posted to the author’s website}

My Middle East Forum colleague Nave Dromi disagrees with the negative view I expressed of Israel’s annexing some parts of the West Bank.

Advertisement



My six-part argument, as spelled out here, boils down to dismissing annexation as too-expensive symbolism. It brings no rewards but creates problems everywhere one looks. Therefore, I conclude, annexation obstructs her and my goal of an Israel Victory and Palestinian defeat.

Nave’s six-part argument, as presented here, holds that annexation advances that same goal: It puts territorial pressure on Palestinians. It guarantees security to all. It gives Israel the initiative. It seizes the moment. It has President Trump’s reliable backing. It enjoys wide support within Israel.

I accept most of these points, other than two: those about guaranteeing security (nothing on the ground changes) and about Trump (his volatile views cannot be predicted). But, for the sake of argument, I’ll even grant the one about Trump.

Even so, annexation’s benefits remain symbolic while the potential impact is entirely negative. The West Bank and its Jewish towns become yet more contentious. Palestinians may explode. International outrage, from the U.S. Democratic party to Israeli leftists to Arab governments, costs Israel. Israel gains additional Muslim citizens who reject its very existence. In all, it boosts the Palestinians’ cause against Israel … in return for roughly nothing.

Nave compares this moment to David Ben-Gurion’s leading the drive to declare Israel’s independence in 1948. Not so: declaring independence was not a hollow legalistic gesture like this but an epochal event – one that, by the way, had United Nations endorsement and the backing of the Soviet and U.S. governments. The comparison does not hold.

But turn it around: Ben-Gurion was a seasoned and canny political operator who, despite grave reservations, took practical steps such as accepting the U.N. partition plan of 1947. What if he were now Israel’s prime minister? He would reject paying a probably massive price for self-indulgent symbolism. He would say “No” to annexing any part of the West Bank.

Advertisement

SHARE
Previous articleReport: Bibi & Kushner Talked, Sovereignty Possibly Pushed Off
Next articlePhyllis Chesler on the Fight against Honor Killings
Daniel Pipes is a world-renowned Middle East and Islam expert. He is President of the Middle East Forum. His articles appear in many newspapers. He received his A.B. (1971) and Ph.D. (1978) from Harvard University and has taught at Harvard, Pepperdine, the U.S. Naval War College, and the University of Chicago. He is a board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace and other institutions. His website is DanielPipes.org.