The silver lining of Palestinian statehood?

In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Israel's ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren said that the establishment of a Palestinian state (h"v) could alter the status of all existing agreements between the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. and Israel. According to Oren, Israel has agreements with the P.A., not with the 'government of Palestine'. Agreements that could be "put at risk" include treaties on security cooperation, economic and even water-sharing. "The Palestinians risk all that has been achieved if they go forward with this...and that would be a great tragedy," Oren said.

Pressure mounts on Obama to ditch the illusion of 1967 stability

According to The Hill, Democratic senators are likely to support a new resolution which would show broad, bipartisan consensus within Congress that the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders are not only "indefensible", but also contrary to U.S. national security interests.

Senators Joe Lieberman (Conn., Independent), and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) are behind the current resolution. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) voiced support, claiming there is “total agreement” in Congress that “the ’67 lines will not work." Other rebukes of Obama's reckless Israel policy include speeches delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) speech at AIPAC on Monday and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) at the AIPAC conference on Sunday and Monday. Both offered harsh criticism of Obama's hubris of determining borders of a sovereign nation on a podium rather than on the negotiation table.

On the absurdity of transferring populations and redrawing borders as a mechanism for solving problems of national security, George Berkin at NJ Voices makes the following analogy:

How’s this prescription for solving our conflict (illegal immigrants and drugs) with Mexico: Renegotiate the border, starting with where the line stood in 1844 (i.e. before we acquired a large chunk of territory in the Mexican War).

Or here’s a suggestion for resolving problems between Washington and Paris: renegotiate the western U.S. border based on geographic lines in effect in 1802, before the Louisiana Purchase.

While we’re at it, let’s return to the geography of July 1861, just after the Confederate states declared their independence but before the Civil War set things back to right.

Hey, why not? Overturning established borders to return to a previous line of demarcation sounds like a good idea, especially for those unhappy with the status quo.

...The U.S. would never agree to go back to previous borders, no matter how much other parties might promise that doing so would bring peace to the Southwest or improve relations with France or South Carolina.

But the analogy breaks down for other reasons – instructive reasons as we think about how the Palestinians are determined to destroy Israel.

First, none of the examples at the beginning of this post asks the U.S. to surrender part of Washington, D.C., the political (and emotional) seat of our government. But the “pre-1967” borders that President Obama wants Israel to return to would require the Jewish state to hand over part of Jerusalem, the political, emotional and spiritual heart of Israel.

Second, Americans would certainly feel bad about handing over part of the Southwest to Mexico. But no one can credibly claim that doing so would make it nearly impossible to defend what remained of our nation.

Not so were Israel to give up the territories it won – in a defensive war – against its assembled enemies nearly a half-century ago. Some commentators have pointed to Israel’s success in defending itself in 1967 as “proof” that Israel could repeat that military success, if worse came to worse. But having succeeded once before, under remarkable circumstances, is not a solid security strategy.

Third, none of my examples of territorial “givebacks” would be a first step to an ultimate goal of destroying the United States. Again, we would regret losing Texas and part of California, but the U.S. would remain standing. Mexico accepts the U.S.’s right to exist.

...It seems clear that demanding that negotiations start from Israel’s pre-1967 borders will not bring peace. Instead, Palestinian leaders, flush with a “pre-1967” victory, would establish a Palestinian state, and then make their next demand. They would demand a return to the area’s pre-1948 borders – that is, a return to the days before Israel became a new nation.

Fayyad suffers heart attack in US

May 12, 2011: Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad declares Palestinians have created all conditions for establishing a Palestinian state.

“The mission has been accomplished."

"We presented our plan in August 2009 to enable setting up a state in September 2011. But already on April 13, at the donor states’ meeting in Brussels, the UN, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund stated that we crossed the statehood line. Our vision had become a reality."

“I imagine myself celebrating our Independence Day in Jerusalem, in the east of the city, in the heart of the Old City."

Palestinian independence day, in the heart of the Old City?

Ten days later...

May 22, 2011 (Lag Ba'Omer): Palestinian PM suffers heart attack

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad suffered a heart attack while visiting the U.S. and is recovering at a Texas hospital, a spokesman said Monday.

...Fayyad has developed close ties with Western leaders, who would like him to stay on as prime minister. The Palestinians receive hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid every year, and Fayyad has won praise for his efforts to build a Palestinian state from the ground up.

A Palestinian state side-by-side Israel is a mirage in the desert. Israel was not under control of the territory in question in 1967, and yet it was nonetheless drawn into a war. A Palestinian state - and all the more so a unilaterally declared one -- is an existential threat to Israel. David Frum from CNN writes today:

It's not just the geography. It's the topography.

When you look at maps of the Middle East, you see at once that pre-1967 Israel was very narrow -- just nine miles across. The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport stretches wider than that.

But what you do not so easily see is that pre-1967 Israel was low as well as narrow. Israel emerged from the 1948-49 Arab invasions holding the coastal plain along the Mediterranean. The invaders grabbed and held the highlands between the plain and the Jordan River Valley.

Those highlands rise almost 3,000 feet above the coastal plain. Whoever controls them can shower missiles and rockets upon Israel's cities and factories -- with much greater accuracy and lethality and much less vulnerability to retaliation from ground forces than a rocket fired from level ground.

Israel experienced such a barrage in the three years leading up to the 2008 Gaza war. Thousands of rockets were fired from Gaza into southwestern Israel. Southwestern Israel is relatively lightly settled, so most of the rockets exploded without killing anyone. Even so, Israel suffered 16 killed and dozens wounded by rocket fire between 2005 and 2008. Had those rockets been fired into central Tel Aviv -- or against the runways of Ben Gurion Airport -- they would have inflicted horrific human and economic damage.

Holding the highlands matters for external as well as internal security. The West Bank boundary with Jordan extends for almost 100 kilometers (more than 60 miles). Yet in all that length, Israeli military experts assess that there only three routes across which an armed force can travel. Whoever holds those controls land access to Israel from the east.

Obama patronizes Israel...again

From JTA:

Obama: Israelis should soul-search about seriousness on peace

President Obama reportedly urged Jewish communal leaders to speak to their friends and colleagues in Israel and to “search your souls” over Israel's seriousness about making peace.

...several participants at the meeting told JTA that the president also implied that Israel bears primary responsibility for advancing the peace process.

...“Many people felt that their worst fears about Obama were confirmed with respect to Israel,” one participant said. “They felt an enormous hostility towards Israel.”

Egypt: The end of Land for Peace?

Could the lesson from the latest events in Egypt be clearer? Land for peace is a joke in the Middle East. In 1978, Israel agreed to give the vast, strategically located and resource-rich land of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for the specter of 'peaceful' relations with Israel. Now, with the danger of Islamist regime change in Egypt, Israel has lost its strategic edge and is soon to be left with no peace.

Contrary the media's reports, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are not absent from the protests. What kind of pro-democracy protestors raid a jail holding top Hamas militants? Countless videos have revealed Western reporters awkwardly interviewing protestors who tell them: "We hate the US! We hate Israel! That's why we want Mubarak out!" Will the West and wake up and realize that it is essentially installing a government that will act out against its interests? Contrary to critics, this does not mean that Israel or people still thinking straight in the US support dictatorship. It does mean that the Bush doctrine of spreading Arab democracy is naive, and that democracy can very well lead to Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon if pursued as an end in itself.

The Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt's best-organized and largest opposition party and will inevitably play a key if not central role in the new government. The Brotherhood's stance on the peace treaty with Israel is no secret: Last Thursday, Rashad al-Bayoumi, the leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, called on any government that replaces Mubarak's regime to withdraw from its treaty obligations:

"After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel."

The Brotherhood has also called for years to stop Egypt's supply of gas to Israel, and seized the unrest last week to renew its incitement. Several days later, the pipe supplying gas to Israel exploded near El-Arish in the Sinai. The governor of El-Arish initially called it an act of terrorism. Several hours later the gas company announced it was as a leak. A leak, days after an opposition groups calls to cut off gas amidst massive political upheaval? Quite a coincidence!

Most who know the region well were not fooled by the illusion of the last 30 years of 'peace' between Israel and Egypt. While there may have been an opening for an end to all-out war with Israel so long as Egypt was ruled by a US-backed dictator, any unleashing of the people's rage today is likely to bring Islamist influence into Egypt, which does not bide well for Israel, nor the reigon, nor the world. Even Saudi Arabia is pissed off at Obama: "This isn't how you handle issues in region," said the Arab official. "Egypt needs to be treated with respect."

All Israel can hope for at this point is that Egypt will be wooed by Turkey rather than by Iran, keeping its fundamentalism in check. Regardless, Israel, and the IDF in particular, will need to readjust to the reality of an enemy on its southern border, only this time, without the Sinai buffer zone.

If anything can be gained from this painful look back, it is that there is no longer, and never has been, any evidence for the myth that giving away more land will bring Israel peace. There is huge pressure on anyone involved in this conflict to take into consideration the international community response at every step. However, a new era is approaching, an era when that Jewish people will have to learn that טוב לבטוח בה' מבטוח בנדיבים it is better to rely on Hashem than to rely on princes. Hashem wants the Jewish people in the land of Israel, and we must rectify the sin of the spies, and not fear. כל גוים סבבוני ובשם ה' אמילם all the nations have surrounded me, and in the name of Hashem I will cut them off.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, zt"l, may his merit be a blessing for all Am Yisrael, saw through the illusion of negotiations, and never feared to voice the truth about Israel. The website A True Peace has now made the prophetic statements and positions of the Rebbe on the Arab-Israeli conflict available online.

In 1979, the Rebbe stated: "The peace accords with Egypt are dangerous for the Jewish People."

In 1979, the Rebbe also warned: "Next after giving away the Sinai, will come concessions to the PLO."

This post was inspired by the Chabad weekly Sichas HaShavua, Parashas Terumah. In retrospect I was also inspired by Shiloh Musing's post on taking a sabbatical from peace talks.

Kfar Chabad, Israel

New proposal: 80% of settlers can stay in exchange for land swaps

Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Cave of the Patriarchs, minutes from
Kiryat Arba, from which said proposal anticipates Israel's withdrawal

According to JTA, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel U.S. think tank with close ties to the Obama and Bibi administrations, has released proposals for a two-state solution that would allow up to 80% of Jews in Judea and Samaria to stay in place in exchange for land adjacent to Gaza, Sinai and other parts of the West Bank. 

The maps thus propose a contiguous Palestinian state with Israeli "fingers" into the northern West Bank.

On the one hand, this proposal makes a crucial point: the "settlers" are not the obstacle to peace; with land swaps, most could stay in place, without endangering the continuity of a Palestinian state.

On the other hand, the proposal is seriously misguided. First, it rests on the faulty notion that giving away the land of Eretz Yisrael will magically bring about security. The recent pullout from Gaza demonstrated clearly the backwards logic underlying this assumption; as soon as Israel pulled out, Gaza Palestinians elected Hamas and have not stopped firing rockets on Israel since.

But even if we were to consider land swaps, the said proposal contains at least a serious error. It anticipates the necessity of Israel withdrawing from Kiryat Arba, currently home to 10,000 Israelis. Kiryat Arba, founded in 1968, lies 5 minutes from the Cave of the Patriarchs, and is a common place for Jews around the world to stay for Shabbat and holidays when visiting the Cave. If Israel were to withdraw from Kiryat Arba, it would ultimately be abandoning Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca and Leah, not to mention Adam and Eve, who according to tradition are buried in the cave as well.

In November, when Netanyahu was mulling over the continuation of a building freeze in Judea and Samaria, the rabbi of Kiryat Arba, Rav Dov Lior, wrote the following:

In this difficult hour for the State of Israel, which is facing harsh pressure from the nations of the world, and especially from the 'western power,' to give up our right to our historic homeland, I am taking the step of wishing you 'chazak ve'ematz' (be strong and firm) from the heights of the Judean Mountains, the birthplace of the Kingdom of Israel, the place where our holy Forefathers rest, and the location in which Israel's greatest leaders lived and acted in the past.

Chazak Ve'ematz, indeed!