DOCSLIB.ORG

United Nations International Meeting in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United Nations International Meeting in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL MEETING IN SUPPORT OF ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE The two-State solution: a key prerequisite for achieving peace and stability in the Middle East Moscow, 1 and 2 July 2015 ___________________________________________________________________________ CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY PLENARY III Efforts in the United Nations: the next steps Paper presented by Mr. Henry Siegman President U.S./Middle East Project New York CPR/IM/2015/15 2 The Two-State Solution is Dead. Long-live the Two-State Solution Anyone addressing a United Nations conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at this time faces the difficult task of not allowing himself to be distracted by the many timely subjects that virtually cry out for comment—beginning with the report of the United Nations committee that investigated the Gaza war, the Israeli elections that resulted in an extreme right-wing, anti-democratic government, the Palestinian submission to the International Criminal Court, new initiatives for a Security Council peacemaking role, and the pathetic and chronic inability of Palestinian leadership to heal its internal divisions that constitute a gift to its enemies that keeps on giving. I will avoid these important subjects and limit my remarks to my assignment, defining the present situation and where we go from here. The two-state solution is dead. It did not die a natural death. It was strangulated as Jewish settlements in the West Bank were expanded and deepened by successive Israeli governments with the express purpose of preventing the emergence of a viable Palestinian state. The settlement project has achieved its intended irreversibility, not only because of its breadth and depth but also because of the dominant political clout of the settlers and their supporters within Israel who have both ideological and economic stakes in a Greater Israel. The question can no longer be whether the current impasse may lead to a one-state outcome; it has already done so. There is also no longer any question whether this government’s policies will lead to apartheid, as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Israeli leaders warned they would. Palestinians live in a one-state reality, deprived of all rights, and enclosed in enclaves surrounded by military checkpoints, separation walls, roadblocks, barbed-wire barriers and a network of “for-Jews-only” highways, as well as “for Jews only” buses if the settlers will get their way. Israel’s colonial project has been successfully disguised by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pretense that he is seeking a resumption of talks for a two-state solution with President Mahmoud Abbas. It has also been strengthened by the pretense of President Obama and EU leaders that they believe a resumed peace process can still produce a Palestinian state. But these pretenses cannot be sustained, if only because of the inability of settlers to restrain triumphalist pronouncements of their achievement of a Greater Israel and their defeat of the Palestinians’ hopes for statehood, boastings that are rarely reported in our media, and because of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s public repudiation of his earlier commitment to a two-state solution during the last Israeli elections. But paradoxically, it is the triumph of the settlement project that contains the seeds of its ultimate reversal. 3 First, some history. Israeli decision-making elites long ago made a cold cost-benefit calculation that the benefits of establishing permanent Israeli control over the entire West Bank exceed the cost. Immediately following the 1967 Six Day War, Israel’s government announced it would withdraw from occupied territories in Egypt and Syria in return for those countries’ recognition of Israel, but made no such offer to Jordan, which controlled the West Bank before the war, or to the Palestinians. When asked in 1968 what would be the future of the Occupied Territories, Moshe Dayan—the legendary IDF chief of staff and, at the time, Israel’s minister of defense—replied with characteristic bluntness: their future, he said, “is being implemented in actual fact. What exists today must remain.” In 1977, replying to that same question, he said, “The question is not what is the solution, but how to live without a solution.” Avoiding a solution became the central strategic objective of nearly every succeeding Israeli government, but most particularly of the governments headed by Prime Minister Netanyahu. As for what to do with the millions of Palestinians who live within Israel’s enlarged borders, many Israelis believe that the long-unacknowledged silent ethnic cleansing that has been going on for years in what was designated by the Oslo agreement as area C, comprising over 60 percent of the West Bank, can continue. And when it no longer can, Israel would unilaterally draw borders around areas A and B, and Palestinians can call the imprisoned enclaves a Palestinian state, if they choose to do so. Advocates of Greater Israel also believe that by granting (or pretending to grant) citizenship to the small number of Palestinians who have managed to resist expulsion from area C, which would be formally annexed, the apartheid charge will have been neutralized— at least sufficiently so to placate American Jews and the U.S. administration. That was stated explicitly by Naftali Bennett, the head of HaBayit HaYehudi, a party that has a disproportionate number of ministers in the current government. There is one price, however, that the vast majority of Israelis, including many if not most settlers, will not pay for a Greater Israel: the loss of the state’s Jewish identity. It is an issue that Israelis believe can be finessed, either by continuing to hold out the promise of a two-state solution in an undefined future or by carving up the West Bank in a manner that excludes the heavy concentrations of Palestinian population from Greater Israel. But if those two options were precluded and the choice were either to grant citizenship to the Palestinians in a Greater Israel or a two-state arrangement with limited and equal territorial exchanges, Israel’s cost-benefit calculations would have to change. And it would come down to that choice if the disguise of the existing Greater Israel were stripped away. The issue would then no longer be where the borders of a Palestinian state are to be drawn—a matter Washington has for all practical purposes left to the Israelis to decide by vetoing efforts to bring the issue to the Security Council—but whether it is prepared to defend what finally would be seen by everyone as an apartheid regime. It is unlikely that even those Western democracies accustomed to pandering to their Israeli lobbies would be prepared to shield Israel from condemnations and sanctions when its apartheid can no longer be disguised. In these circumstances, one must assume no American 4 president would again declare at a UN General Assembly that Palestinian victims of such a system should seek relief not from the UN or international courts but from their occupiers who are committed to the Palestinians’ permanent disenfranchisement and subjugation. The key to changing the deadlocked status quo is therefore exposing the Greater Israel that has already been created by the settlement project in the West Bank and the de facto apartheid regime under which Palestinians now live. But the United States and the European Union will not be the whistle-blowers, most certainly not as long as Palestinians themselves continue to collaborate with Israel’s pretense that a one-state reality does not yet exist, a collaboration implicit in their adherence to the Oslo framework and to the myth that the Palestinian Authority and the strengthening of its institutions can still pave the way for Palestinian statehood. Nothing would expose more convincingly the Israeli disguise of the one-state reality now in place than a Palestinian decision to shut down the Palestinian Authority and transform their national struggle for independence and statehood into a struggle for citizenship and equal rights within the Greater Israel to which they have been consigned. Only by declaring that Palestinians will no longer be complicit with their occupiers in their own disenfranchisement will Israelis be confronted with the need to choose between a two-state arrangement and a single state that sooner or later will lose its Jewish identity. In recent talks with Palestinian leaders, some of them told me they fear that Israel would take advantage of such a move to annex area C and to consign Palestinians to enclaves in areas A and B, as proposed by Bennett. But Israel’s government has already done exactly that. Only those blind to the facts on the ground created by the settlements can believe there still exists a possibility for a two-state outcome that such a strategy would put at risk. It is highly doubtful that Israel can survive another half century of its subjugation of the Palestinians. The region has been transformed by the emergence of radical Islamic entities that, unlike their predecessors, will not suppress the regional furies provoked by Israel’s permanent disenfranchisement of the Palestinians. America’s ability to impose its own political order on the region or to protect Israel from the consequences of its own policies is in decline. Even Arab royals in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Emirates will in time be pressed to prove their legitimacy by joining efforts to deepen the ring of Arab hostility that surrounds and threatens a Jewish state that has permanently based its existence on the suppression and humiliation of an Arab Palestinian population under its control. The heightened sense of isolation and insecurity that Israelis will experience is bound to lead to an exodus of Israel’s best and brightest, and in time could spell the end of the Zionist dream.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Realpolitik Reassessment
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 178 From Camp David to Oslo: A Realpolitik Reassessment Sep 17, 1998 Brief Analysis he peace process has, in practice, meant Israel's acceptance by the Arab world. This process, however, is not T irreversible. It is mainly a function of Israel's military, economic, and strategic strength and the Arab recognition of structural weakness. Only as long as current conditions hold, the peace process will continue. The American role in the peace process is important yet should not be overstated. Much has occurred without the involvement of the United States. The Oslo Accord, which occurred without American knowledge of the negotiations, is a primary example. The peace treaty between Jordan and Israel also did not have much input from the United States. To be sure, a change in U.S. policy toward increased isolationism could significantly threaten the peace process. Realpolitik Reasons for the Peace Process. The root cause for the peace process has been several realist considerations: Reaction to past conflict. Failed attempts to eliminate Israel by military means have forced the Arab world, however reluctantly, to accept Israel. The use of force has proven too difficult and too costly in dealing with Israel. In addition, Arab recognition of Israel's nuclear capabilities has reinforced the notion that Israel is militarily strong and cannot be easily removed from the map. Weariness toward war has also forced the countries of the region to redefine their national goals. Populations have grown tired of protracted conflict. This has led to a willingness to discuss the possibility of peace by all nations in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Confronting Antisemitism in Modern Media, the Legal and Political Worlds an End to Antisemitism!
    Confronting Antisemitism in Modern Media, the Legal and Political Worlds An End to Antisemitism! Edited by Armin Lange, Kerstin Mayerhofer, Dina Porat, and Lawrence H. Schiffman Volume 5 Confronting Antisemitism in Modern Media, the Legal and Political Worlds Edited by Armin Lange, Kerstin Mayerhofer, Dina Porat, and Lawrence H. Schiffman ISBN 978-3-11-058243-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-067196-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-067203-9 DOI https://10.1515/9783110671964 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. For details go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Library of Congress Control Number: 2021931477 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Armin Lange, Kerstin Mayerhofer, Dina Porat, Lawrence H. Schiffman, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston The book is published with open access at www.degruyter.com Cover image: Illustration by Tayler Culligan (https://dribbble.com/taylerculligan). With friendly permission of Chicago Booth Review. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com TableofContents Preface and Acknowledgements IX LisaJacobs, Armin Lange, and Kerstin Mayerhofer Confronting Antisemitism in Modern Media, the Legal and Political Worlds: Introduction 1 Confronting Antisemitism through Critical Reflection/Approaches
    [Show full text]
  • Gaza and the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by Henry Siegman
    Expert Analysis August 2014 Gaza and the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood By Henry Siegman Executive summary The slaughter of Palestinian civilians and the Dresden-like reduction to rubble of large parts of Gaza by Israel’s military forces in the name of its own citizens’ security has exposed the hypocrisy at the heart of Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians. Israel’s claim to the right of self-defense in order to prevent its victims’ emergence from under its occupation is the ultimate definition of chutzpa. Without entering the debate over whether those rocket assaults were precipitated by Israel’s own violations of truces and cease-fire accords it negotiated with Hamas, as documented by various analysts (including Amira Hass, Peter Beinart, Nathan Thrall, Sara Roy and others), Israel’s claim to self-defense is based on a glaring falsehood. An occupying power is under obligation in international law to do two things: to end the occupa- tion, and until it does so, to protect the population under its occupation. Israel is in blatant violation of both of these obligations. The security threats to its own citizens it invokes to justify its assaults which regularly result in the killing of far more Palestinian non- combatants than militants are triggered by its occupation. An occupied people told by its occupiers its subjugation is permanent, and that they will never be allowed to exercise the right to national self-determination and sovereign existence on territories recognized by the interna- tional community as their rightful patrimony, has every right to resort to resistance, including violent resistance, to achieve its freedom, for they are reacting to the violence that is keeping them illegally under occupation.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It All About Territory? Israel's Settlement Policy in The
    DIIS REPORT 2012:08 DIIS REPORT IS IT ALL ABOUT TERRITORY? ISRAEL’s SETTLEMENT POLICY IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY SINCE 1967 Leila Stockmarr DIIS REPORT 2012:08 DIIS REPORT DIIS . DANISH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 1 DIIS REPORT 2012:08 © Copenhagen 2012, the author and DIIS Danish Institute for International Studies, DIIS Strandgade 56, DK-1401 Copenhagen, Denmark Ph: +45 32 69 87 87 Fax: +45 32 69 87 00 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.diis.dk Cover photo: Bernat Armangue/AP Layout: Allan Lind Jørgensen Printed in Denmark by Vesterkopi AS ISBN 978-87-7605-504-2 Price: DKK 50.00 (VAT included) DIIS publications can be downloaded free of charge from www.diis.dk Hardcopies can be ordered at www.diis.dk Leila Stockmarr, PhD Fellow, Roskilde University [email protected] 2 DIIS REPORT 2012:08 Contents Abstract 4 Dansk resumé 5 Abbreviations 6 Introduction 7 Aim of the report 7 Part 1 10 Back to basics 1: the intertwining of territory and legitimacy 10 The nature and extent of the phenomenon 11 Strategies of legitimisation 13 Part 2 17 The international community’s legal positions on settlements and occupation 17 Occupation 17 Settlements 19 Israeli contra-arguments and ‘legal regime’ 20 Settlers at the frontline – a question of security? 22 Shifting dynamics of the settlers’ influence 23 Restricting use of space: internal closure, planning and zoning 25 Settlements and outposts: a false dichotomy between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ 30 Part 3 32 Back to basics 2: asymmetry as a precondition 32 Blurring the lines: Oslo’s failure to halt
    [Show full text]
  • Imposing Middle East Peace Forceful Outside Intervention Is the Only Alternative to an Unstable and Dangerous Status Quo
    18 The Nation. January 25, 2010 Imposing Middle East Peace Forceful outside intervention is the only alternative to an unstable and dangerous status quo. by HENRY SIEGMAN srael’s relentless drive to establish “facts Olmert was mistaken in one respect, for he on the ground” in the occupied West said Israel would turn into an apartheid state Bank, a drive that continues in violation when the Arab population in Greater Israel of even the limited settlement freeze outnumbers the Jewish population. But the to which Prime Minister Benjamin relative size of the populations is not the INeta nyahu committed himself, seems finally decisive factor in such a transition. Rather, to have succeeded in locking in the irrevers- the turning point comes when a state denies ibility of its colonial project. As a result of national self-determination to a part of its that “achievement,” one that successive population—even one that is in the minor- Israeli governments have long sought in ity—to which it has also denied the rights order to preclude the possibility of a two- of citizenship. state solution, Israel has crossed the thresh- When a state’s denial of the individual and PETER O. ZIERLEIN old from “the only democracy in the Middle national rights of a large part of its population East” to the only apartheid regime in the Western world. becomes permanent, it ceases to be a democracy. When the The inevitability of such a transformation has been held out reason for that double disenfranchisement is that population’s not by “Israel bashers” but by the country’s own leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Israel” Project and Balkanization of Syria
    Balkan and Near Eastern Journal of Social Sciences Fildiş, 2017: 03 (03) Balkan ve Yakın Doğu Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi “Greater Israel” Project and Balkanization of Syria Ayşe TEKDAL FİLDİŞ Namik Kemal University, Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of International Relations, [email protected] Abstract: Oded Yinon, the former senior official with the Israeli Foreign Ministry and journalist for the Jerusalem Post published a book in 1982 which is called; “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” also known as the Yinon Plan. It is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states. Yinon Plan called for the “dissolution” of “the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula.” Each country was to be made to “fall apart along sectarian and ethnic lines,” after which each resulting fragment would be “hostile” to its “neighbours.” Later, plans to balkanize Syria, Iraq and other Middle Eastern states were laid out by former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a 2006 trip to Tel Aviv. It was part of the so called “Project for a New Middle East”. This was a carbon copy of the Yinon Plan drawn up by Israel in 1982. Former US Secretary of State John Kerry called for Syria to be partitioned saying it was “Plan B” if negotiations failed. But in reality this was always plan A, although officially Plan A was “Assad Must Go”. Then NATO planned on shifting narratives from, ‘evil dictator must be stopped” to “we must protect the minorities”.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Modern Palestine
    A HISTORY OF MODERN PALESTINE Ilan Pappe’s history of modern Palestine has been updated to include the dramatic events of the s and the early twenty-first century. These years, which began with a sense of optimism, as the Oslo peace accord was being negotiated, culminated in the second intifada and the increase of militancy on both sides. Pappe explains the reasons for the failure of Oslo and the two-state solution, and reflects upon life thereafter as the Palestinians and Israelis battle it out under the shadow of the wall of separation. I P is Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Haifa in Israel. He has written extensively on the politics of the Middle East, and is well known for his revisionist interpretation of Israel’s history. His books include The Making of the Arab–Israeli Conflict, – (/) and The Modern Middle East (). A HISTORY OF MODERN PALESTINE One Land, Two Peoples ILAN PAPPE University of Haifa, Israel CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521683159 © Ilan Pappe 2004, 2006 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2004 Second edition 2006 7th printing 2013 Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by the MPG Books Group A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Division for Palestinian Rights
    DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS UNITED NATIONS ASIAN MEETING IN SUPPORT OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE UNITED NATIONS FORUM OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN SUPPORT OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 15-17 December 2006 07-54067 CONTENTS I. United Nations Asian Meeting in Support of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People Paragraphs Page Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 1-6 3 Opening statements…….………………………………………………… 7-33 3 Plenary sessions...………………………………………………………… 34-75 7 Plenary I…………………………………………………………………... 34-47 7 Plenary II………………………………………………………………….. 48-62 8 Plenary III…………………………………………………………………. 63-75 10 Closing session……………………………………………………………. 76-82 12 II. United Nations Forum of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People Opening statements.....………………………………………………….. 83-86 14 Plenary I…………………………………………………………………. 87-99 14 Plenary II………………………………………………………………… 100-117 16 Closing session…………………………………………………………… 118-119 19 Annexes I. Kuala Lumpur Declaration……………………………………………………………………. 20 II. Call for Action………………………………………………………………………………… 23 III. List of Participants……………………………………………….……………………………. 24 2 I. United Nations Asian Meeting in Support of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People Introduction 1. The United Nations Asian Meeting in Support of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was held in Kuala Lumpur on 15 and 16 December 2006, under the auspices of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly resolutions 60/36 and 60/37 of 1 December 2005. The Meeting was followed, on 17 December 2006, by a United Nations Forum of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People held at the same venue. 2. The Committee was represented by a delegation comprising Paul Badji (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee; Rodrigo Malmierca Díaz (Cuba), Vice-Chairman of the Committee; Ravan A.G.
    [Show full text]
  • No Peace Possible Between Israel and Palestinians Without Hamas
    Siegman- No Peace Possible without Hamas 1/4 Siegman: No Peace Possible Between Israel and Palestinians without Hamas - Es gibt keinen Frieden zwischen Israel und Palästinensern ohne Hamas Henry Siegman, Direktor des United States/Middle East Project, im Interview Im Folgenden dokumentieren wir ein Interview, das im März 2008 mit Henry Siegman, dem Di- rektor des United States/Middle East Project des Council on Foreign Relations gemacht wurde. Henry Siegman war früher Direktor des American Jewish Congress und gilt als einer der bes- ten Kenner des Nahost-Konflikts. Die Auffassungen, die Siegmann hier vertritt, decken sich weitgehend mit einem Artikel, den er am 10. April 2008 in der Süddeutschen Zeitung veröffentlichte: "Israels falsche Freunde". Siegman: No Peace Possible Between Israel and Palestinians without Hamas Interviewee: Henry Siegman, Director, United States/Middle East Project Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor March 7, 2008 Henry SiegmanHenry Siegman, an expert on Middle East negotiations, says that no peace will be possible between Israel and Palestinians unless Hamas is brought into the process. “The notion that the Israeli government leaders and our own government have that it is possible to exclude Hamas from peace talks and have a successful result from those talks is a fantasy,” he says. “It’s not going to happen.” Because of President Bush’s refusal to deal with Hamas, he says, it is unlikely that any pro- gress can be made until there is a new president in the White House. There’s a bit of a lull right now in the fighting between Hamas and Israel, which has led to over one hundred Palestinians dead and a few Israelis in the past couple of weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creation of a Regional Coalition Against Israel: Obstacles and Warning Signs
    The Creation of a Regional Coalition Against Israel: Obstacles and Warning Signs Shlomo Brom and Ofir Winter In April 2018, the IDF Strategy document was published, which assessed that “in recent years and in looking to the coming years, Israel’s strategic standing is solid and has a ‘positive balance sheet’ that is better than all of its enemies in the region.” According to the document, the implication of such a balance sheet “diminishes the potential for war against a military- political coalition.”1 Indeed, an analysis of the overall regional situation, which includes Israel, and individual analyses of the states that could be a central threat reference show that Israel is unlikely to face a broad regional Arab-Islamic coalition in the foreseeable future that would pose an existential—not even serious— threat to its security. The reasons for this are varied, including the absence of a hegemonic, conventional ideology that champions this objective; Israel’s military advantage and the lack of sufficient military power and resources among its potential enemies; inherent and unbridgeable internal divisions and rifts within the Arab and Islamic camps; great support for Israel by the United States; the weakness of the Arab state framework and the inward focus of the states in the region; the view among some of the Arab states that Israel is an ally—albeit covertly—in addressing shared strategic threats, which they see as more important than the conflict with Israel; and the The authors are grateful to the members of the research team: Dr. Yoel Guzansky, Dr. Mark Heller, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • TAMA 100 – a Master Plan for Greater Israel
    SOVEREIGNTY WŽůŝƚŝĐĂů :ŽƵƌŶĂůͬ/ƐƐƵĞ ŶŽ͘ ϵ ͬEŽǀĞŵďĞƌ ϮϬϭϳ WƵďůŝƐŚĞĚďLJdŚĞ^ŽǀĞƌĞŝŐŶƚLJDŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƵŶĚĞĚďLJtŽŵĞŶŝŶ'ƌĞĞŶĂŶĚ:ƵƐƚWĞĂĐĞĨŽƌ/ƐƌĂĞů From the State of Israel To the Land of Minister Gila Gamliel presents an Israel ŽƵƚůŝŶĞĨŽƌĂƉŽůŝƟĐĂů plan: Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria and TAMA 100 – A ĂWĂůĞƐƟŶŝĂŶ^ƚĂƚĞŝŶ^ŝŶĂŝ Master Plan for ^ĐŽŽƉ͗A team of experts Greater Israel is preparing TAMA 100, a EĂƟŽŶĂůKƵƚůŝŶĞWůĂŶƚŚĂƚǁŝůů͕ ĨŽƌƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƟŵĞ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ:ƵĚĞĂ and Samaria, as an indivisible ƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨ/ƐƌĂĞů Former Minister Gideon Saar͗ ^ŽǀĞƌĞŝŐŶƚLJŵƵƐƚďĞƚŚĞ>ŝŬƵĚ͛Ɛ WŽƐŝƟŽŶ dŚĞ^ŚĂƐWĂƌƚLJŝŶĨĂǀŽƌŽĨ^ŽǀĞƌĞŝŐŶƚLJ͘ ŶŝŶƚĞƌǀŝĞǁǁŝƚŚMK Yoav Ben Tsur, ŚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞĨĂĐƟŽŶ͘ 2 / SOVEREIGNTY / Political Journal Table of Contents: Minister Gila Gamliel’s /ŶƚƌŝŐƵŝŶŐWŽůŝƟĐĂů MK Bezalel SmotrichƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐŚŝƐƉŽůŝƟĐĂů 4 WůĂŶ͗/ĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐƚŽďĞĂWĂůĞƐƟŶŝĂŶƐƚĂƚĞ͕ 14 ƉůĂŶ͗/ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĂƩĂŝŶƚƌƵĞƉĞĂĐĞǁĞ ƚŚĞŶŝƚĐĂŶŽŶůLJďĞŝŶ^ŝŶĂŝ͘ ŵƵƐƚĂƉƉůLJ/ƐƌĂĞůŝ^ŽǀĞƌĞŝŐŶƚLJĂŶĚƚŚƵƐ ĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůĂƐƉŝƌĂƟŽŶŝŶ &ŽƌŵĞƌMinister Gideon SaarŝƐŶŽƚ ƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚŽĨ/ƐƌĂĞů͘ 6 ŝŵƉƌĞƐƐĞĚďLJƚŚƌĞĂƚƐĂŶĚƐĞůĨͲŝŶƟŵŝĚĂƟŽŶ͗ ^ŽǀĞƌĞŝŐŶƚLJŵƵƐƚďĞƚŚĞ>ŝŬƵĚ͛ƐƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ͘ MK Yehuda Glick ĞdžƉůĂŝŶƐǁŚLJĂ 15 &ĞĚĞƌĂƟŽŶŝƐƚŚĞŵŽƐƚƌĞĂůŝƐƟĐƐŽůƵƟŽŶŝŶ Rabbi Shmuel EliahuŝŶĂŶ/ŶƚĞƌǀŝĞǁ͗ ŚŝƐŽƉŝŶŝŽŶ͘ 8 ^ŽǀĞƌĞŝŐŶƚLJŝƐƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽĨĂ ƉŽƐŝƟǀĞĐŽŵŵĂŶĚŵĞŶƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞdŽƌĂŚ͘ 16 Moshe Feiglin’sWůĂŶŽĨWŚĂƐĞƐ͘ Ken Abramowitz ĞdžƉůĂŝŶƐǁŚLJ/ƐƌĂĞů 9 ŵƵƐƚŚŽůĚŽŶƚŽ:ƵĚĞĂĂŶĚ^ĂŵĂƌŝĂĨŽƌŝƚƐ ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞĚĞdžŝƐƚĞŶĐĞ͘ Rep. Alan ClemmonsŝŶKnjǀĞ'ĂŽŶ͗͞EŽ 17 ŵŽƌĞƉŽůŝƟĐĂůĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŶĞƐƐ͘dŚŝƐŝƐLJŽƵƌ :ĞƌƵƐĂůĞŵʹŶŽƵƚůŝŶĞĨŽƌ^ŽǀĞƌĞŝŐŶƚLJ͘ >ĂŶĚ͘͟ LJ Prof. Robert Wolfe. ĐŽŶŽŵŝƐƚAmatzia SamkaiŽŶƚŚĞĮƌƐƚ :ƵƌŝƐƚ͕ƩLJ͘ZŽƚŵĂŶƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗dŚĞƚŚƌĞĂƚŽĨ
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies Founded by the Charles H. Revson Foundation Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Editor: Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov 2010 Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies – Study no. 406 Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Editor: Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov The statements made and the views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors. © Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Israel 6 Lloyd George St. Jerusalem 91082 http://www.kas.de/israel E-mail: [email protected] © 2010, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies The Hay Elyachar House 20 Radak St., 92186 Jerusalem http://www.jiis.org E-mail: [email protected] This publication was made possible by funds granted by the Charles H. Revson Foundation. In memory of Professor Alexander L. George, scholar, mentor, friend, and gentleman The Authors Yehudith Auerbach is Head of the Division of Journalism and Communication Studies and teaches at the Department of Political Studies of Bar-Ilan University. Dr. Auerbach studies processes of reconciliation and forgiveness . in national conflicts generally and in the Israeli-Palestinian context specifically and has published many articles on this issue. Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov is a Professor of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and holds the Chair for the Study of Peace and Regional Cooperation. Since 2003 he is the Head of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. He specializes in the fields of conflict management and resolution, peace processes and negotiations, stable peace, reconciliation, and the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular. He is the author and editor of 15 books and many articles in these fields.
    [Show full text]