As expected, U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry began his latest mission on Thursday with
praise for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas. The key part of his statement at Thursday's
press conference was that the issues are known (to the point of
exhaustion), and soon tough decisions will need to be made. Kerry's
current trip to the region represents the opening of a new chapter, as
the secretary of state tries to extend negotiations and make substantive
progress on painful issues.
It is likely that some
of the difficulties will be exposed before Kerry departs on Monday. Both
sides are continuing their preparations. Netanyahu's sharp criticism of
Abbas in front of Kerry was an opening shot.
The visit of a Likud
delegation, led by Interior Minister Gideon Sa'ar, to the Jordan Valley
on Thursday just before Kerry's arrival raised several questions. Are
Likud ministers, deputy ministers and MKs concerned that Netanyahu will
accept U.S.-proposed security arrangements that do not meet the minimum
that Israel is demanding? Do they fear that Netanyahu will give up on
the demand to maintain an ongoing Israeli military presence along the
Jordan River? By the way, Jordan actually prefers an Israeli security
presence in this area over a Palestinian one. Are these concerns why the
Likud delegation made the trip and demanded Israeli sovereignty in the
Jordan Valley? Or perhaps this was all just an internal Likud power
struggle, with ministers battling for the support of Likud Central
Committee members. In that arena, political attacks pay off.
Opinions on the Jordan
Valley issue are divided, from President Shimon Peres on down. Some
Israelis believe that, in the age of ballistic missiles, an Israeli
military presence in the Jordan Valley is not important. Others say,
however, that terrorists do not just use ballistic missiles, and an IDF
presence in the area is vital to the prevention of other types of
terrorist activities. This line of thought was used to justify the
Jordan Valley sovereignty bill that was approved by the Ministerial
Commitee for Legislation but was blocked from being brought before the
full Knesset and has no real chance of becoming law.
On the other end of the
spectrum, Labor MK Hilik Bar has proposed a bill that would prohibit
Israel from annexing Palestinian areas without the agreement of the
Palestinians. In other words, there would not be any more unilateral
annexations. What David Ben-Gurion did regarding west Jerusalem in 1949,
what Levi Eshkol did regarding east Jerusalem in 1967 and what Menachem
Begin did regarding the Golan Heights in 1981 would be forbidden by
law.
In essence, I agree
that Israel would be making a mistake if it were to unilaterally annex
parts of Judea and Samaria at this time. The diplomatic situation has
changed since Begin's annexation of the Golan Heights 32 years ago. But
the Knesset would also be making a mistake if it were to tie its own
hands by limiting Israel's options. There could be a scenario in the
future in which the government -- and perhaps a majority of the
opposition -- would feel that only unilateral annexation, or the threat
of it, would convince the Palestinians to stop their procrastination and
come seriously to the negotiating table.
Handcuffing ourselves would not
provide any benefits. On the contrary, it would unnecessarily weaken us.
The Knesset must be able to decide, with self-restraint, on
unreasonable proposals for unilateral annexations. It should not hide
behind a sweeping decision that is not suitable for all potential future
political situations. The right to annex should be preserved in
mothballs, but not thrown out the window.
No comments:
Post a Comment