'To prevent bloodbath, peace deal will have to include IDF presence in dominant communities'
Photo: Gil Yohanan
Elyakim Haetzni
Photo: Zoom 77
Staying on the land is the answer
Op-ed: Will State of Israel leave settlers to their fate, or take responsibility for its citizens and secure their life and rights in any future agreement?
Those ruling out the thought of turning regions of the Land of Israel into a foreign state are finding it difficult to discuss the idea of leaving Jewish citizens there as a minority.
Yet as a theoretic discussion, it is a challenging idea.
Article 80 in the United Nations Charter also guaranteed the preservation of rights explicitly in favor of "peoples," premeditatedly – the Jewish people. These rights are "recognition of the Jewish people's historical connection with the Land of Israel and of the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country," mass immigration and crowded settlement. They apply to both sides of the Green Line and are granted directly to the Jewish people.
There were three road signs on the way to the State of Israel: The Balfour Declaration (1917), the San Remo Conference (1920) and the mandate for the Land of Israel on behalf of the League of Nations (1922). In all of them the land is promised to the Jewish people.
Who Are They?
Eitan Haber
Most Israelis have never visited Judea and Samaria, and think all Jewish settlers are a homogenous bunch. Well, says Eitan Haber, they're not
According to the "two-state" plan, the State of Israel, in order to serve its citizens' interest, is supposed to build a state for a foreign people on lands which will be torn from the Jewish people, although the government is aware of the fact that the Jewish people owns the rights, and evidence can be found in its decision from December 2, 2012, in response to the UN General Assembly's decision to grant the Palestinians an observer state status: "The Jewish people has a natural, historical and legal right to its homeland and to its eternal capital, Jerusalem… The State of Israel, as the state of the Jewish people, has a right and claim to areas, the status of which is under dispute, in the Land of Israel… There is nothing in the UN resolution that detracts from the State of Israel's or the Jewish people's rights whatsoever in the Land of Israel."
The following question should be asked: And does the State of Israel have the right to detract from the rights of the Jewish people's rights over the heart of the country? The question was not raised as long as the State worked exclusively in favor of the Jewish people, as its trustee. Now, when it is about to take parts of its country, does this act compel the Jewish people? The answer will be given by the Jews who will remain in those places in the capacity of members of "the Jewish people," which will continue to own the rights even after the State ceases to represent it in those regions.
This new situation has two implications. In principle, a government renouncing the monopoly of exclusive representation of the Jewish people in certain parts of the Land of Israel will no longer be able to appear as "the state of the Jewish people." It has created, in its own hands, a new reality: Direct Jewish affiliation with a land beyond the limits of its rule. A Jewish community in the Land of Israel under a foreign government will communicate with Jewish communities in the Diaspora and in the Land of Israel as an independent body: Separated against its will from the body of the State, but still attached to its land.
On the practical level, the State will face a tough choice: Should it – according to the bad counsel of the radical Left – stand up and walk away, leaving the settlers to their fate; or take responsibility for its citizens and secure their life and their rights in any agreement signed?
In the first case, it is a known scenario: The Jews will be persecuted and the State – committed to the Palestinian sovereignty – will be unable to save them. There will be murders and perhaps Jews will even fire back, and then it is unclear whether the government will survive and perhaps the IDF will be drawn to the area too, and then… bye bye peace.
In order to prevent a bloodbath and the explosion of the peace, the government will be forced to include in the agreement an IDF presence in dominant communities and posts, and guarantee free movement on the ways leading to and from hundreds of points ("not a single settler will be evacuated," the prime minister promised). Will the Palestinians accept it? And would anyone else have accepted it?
For the information of those who still think in terms of resisting the "evacuation" in one way or another: The rules of the game have changed. Staying on the ground is the answer, and that's what will prove that the partition of the land is no longer possible.
