On July 24, I posted a piece — “Why Republicans Must Take the Lead on Israel” — on FrontPage.
Its thesis, in brief: In January, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appointed the Levy Committee – headed by Edmund Levy, retired Supreme Court Justice, and including another retired judge and a lawyer who is an expert on international law – and charged them with considering the legal status of “unauthorized settlements” in Judea and Samaria.
The findings of that committee, which labored long and hard in its research, have now been released. It found that (emphasis added):
- “[F]rom an international law perspective, the laws of ‘occupation’ do not apply to the unique historic and legal circumstances surrounding Israel’s decades-long presence in Judea and Samaria.”
- “Likewise, the Fourth Geneva Convention [relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] on the transfer of populations does not apply, and wasn’t intended to apply to communities such as those established by Israel in Judea and Samaria.”
Now, the prime minister may in due course accept those findings. Or, feeling international political constraints, he may decide to simply table the issue.
My suggestion was that – in light of the clear evidence that the Palestinians do not really intend to negotiate a “two state solution” and the growing nationalist movement inside of Israel – it might be time for the Republicans to accept the major finding of the Levy Committee and acknowledge the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria.
While recognizing that this would not be a politically correct move, I suggested that an election year, when new policies and platforms are drafted, might be the appropriate time to act on this.
Not surprisingly, I have received a good deal of private communication regarding my proposal. Most was supportive. But I also received communication that expressed an enormous unease with what I was suggesting. What was interesting was that these apprehensive messages did not come from persons opposed to the notion of Israel’s rights in Judea and Samaria.
Rather, they were written by people who are on board with a nationalist agenda, but who fear that what I was suggesting would backfire: It would be understood, they maintained, as a bid to encourage the Republican Party to pressure the Israeli prime minister with regard to Israeli policy.
I am thoroughly convinced that this reading is incorrect and that the reverse is actually true. And so I have returned to my computer to draft this postscript to my original piece:
I begin by noting that the prime minister himself had appointed and charged the Levy Committee. In no way was I coming out of left field; I had simply suggested that the Republicans embrace the findings of Netanyahu’s own committee. In point of fact, the two members of the Knesset whom I mentioned by name as leaders of efforts to promote the findings of the Levy Report—Danny Danon and Tzipi Hotovely—are themselves members of Netanyahu’s party, Likud.
But there is something even more basic than this. I had not proposed that Republicans endorse the annexation by Israel of all of Judea and Samaria or even Area C. I had not suggested that the Republicans reject all possibility of negotiations with the PA, or declare the “two state solution” dead.