Connect with us

World News

Is the Jewish state asking for trouble by annexing settlements?

Published

on

Is the Jewish state asking for trouble by annexing settlements?

Just how far can Israel go to assert its rights over disputed territory without doing genuine harm to its vital interests? That’s a debate that has divided Israelis since June 1967 when in the course of a defensive war it came into possession of the lands of what the Kingdom of Jordan called the West Bank, and Jewish tradition calls Judea and Samaria.

The arguments about whether Israel should have created Jewish communities in both the West Bank and the parts of Jerusalem that were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 are now moot. The Jewish state’s enemies don’t recognize the historical, religious and legal arguments that Israel rightly points to as allowing Jews to settle in the heart of its ancient homeland. But the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected such offers, including those that would have given them an independent state provided that they were willing to end their century-long war on Zionism. Had they accepted any one of them over the course of the last 20 years, discussion about the settlements would not even be on the table.

So in the absence of a Palestinian desire to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders are drawn, Israel has three choices.

It can repeat Ariel Sharon’s 2005 disastrous experiment in Gaza, where he withdrew every soldier, settler and settlement, and pull back as an unsympathetic international community demands to the 1967 lines and let the Palestinians create whatever kind of lethal terrorist state they wanted in the West Bank and reap the bloody consequences of such folly.

The second option is to accept the status quo and wait, as Israel has been for the last 50 years, for the Palestinians to come to their senses and negotiate an end to the conflict. That’s the policy that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has followed until now as he tried to manage a conflict that cannot be solved, though doing so hasn’t won him applause from his country’s critics.

The third option is for Israel to annex some, most or even all of the settlements by applying Israeli law in the territories as laid out in the Trump administration’s peace plan unveiled earlier this year.

For supporters of the settlements, the need to act now—while the most pro-Israel administration in history is still in office—is imperative. If Israel waits, a possible change in power in Washington next January will end a historical opportunity to put facts on the ground that, like every other achievement in Zionist history, will endure whether the Jewish state’s foes like it or not.

That’s a prospect that is opposed by both those who still hold onto the failed “land for peace” formula in which the overwhelming majority of Israelis no longer believe because of Palestinian rejectionism and terror.

This week, however, a significant conservative voice has been added to those urging caution on Israel’s government. In a surprising op-ed published by The New York Times, Daniel Pipes, the president of the Middle East Forum, has laid out what he considers to be six good reasons for Israel to hold off on extending its law to the areas where settlements exist.

Pipes is an eminent scholar and an important pro-Israel voice, so he cannot be accused of seeking to undermine or harm the Jewish state. But though his arguments should be taken seriously, they aren’t persuasive.

The first point Pipes makes is that annexation may infuriate President Donald Trump if it’s is not done in the context of his “Peace to Prosperity” plan, which calls for such a step to be taken only as part of a negotiation in which a Palestinian state would be created. But as David Friedman, America’s ambassador to Israel, has stated in a recent interview in Israel Hayom, Trump is on board with Netanyahu’s plans, so there seems no chance of the presidential tantrum Pipes fears.

Second, Pipes says that a move on the settlements will alienate and weaken the diminishing number of friends Israel has in the Democratic Party and Europe. There is some truth to this since both Democrats and Europeans are infuriated by the idea of Israel acting in such a way as to render even a theoretical two-state solution impossible. It’s also true that Israel should do what it can to strengthen those Democrats and Europeans who remain supporters.

But it’s incorrect that implementing this aspect of the Trump plan will make a two-state deal impossible. Moreover, the idea that refraining from annexation will alter the anti-Israel drift on the left is a delusion. The Palestinians can have a state, but Trump’s scheme is right to signal to them that it cannot mean a full Israeli retreat to the suicidal 1967 lines. Those who claim to be Israel’s friends need to also acknowledge this truth.

The third argument is that annexation will end the growing cooperation between Israel and Arab states that look to it as a tacit ally against Iran. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt may oppose annexation. But they didn’t like Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights either, and it didn’t stop them from pursuing policies towards Israel that benefited them. The Arab world is no longer interested in enabling Palestinian intransigence, and measures that make it clear to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas that the cost of their refusal to negotiate for peace is going up isn’t likely to cause the Arab states to stop dealing with Israel.

Also read:  Jerusalem opens neighborhoods, commercial and spiritual centers to stimulate ‘local tourism’

Fourth, Pipes claims that annexation will infuriate the Palestinians and destabilize Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, leading to carnage that will cost Israel dearly. However, the Palestinians have shown little appetite for another self-destructive intifada that would, as in the past, cost them far more than it would Israel. Moreover, the implementation of the Trump plan would, like the U.S. gesture on Jerusalem, not affect Palestinian lives much. And neither the P.A. nor Hamas want to risk losing everything they have to gain nothing in return.

Fifth, Pipes says annexation will alienate the Israeli left, causing it to abandon Zionism and the country. The problem with this argument is that the Israeli left has been largely destroyed as a political force by Palestinian intransigence with few who believe in the idea that there is a viable partner for peace. The overwhelming majority of Israelis have rejected more concessions to the Palestinians until they are ready to make peace. The huge majority in the new Knesset in favor of annexation would have been unimaginable 20 years ago. Most Israelis remember the fatal consequences of Oslo and the Gaza withdrawal and have drawn appropriate conclusions.

Sixth, Pipes puts forth that extending sovereignty over the settlements will create more Arab citizens of Israeli, thereby causing more demographic issues for the Jewish state. But the joint Israeli-American committees drawing up the maps for annexation are minimizing this problem. While one can argue that the borders they draw will be unmanageable, the plan will not create the problem he’s worried about.

The best argument for annexation is that it actually fits in with the clever theory of the conflict that Pipes and the MEF has championed in recent years. Anything that signals to the Palestinians that it’s time for them to give up their fantasies of destroying the Jewish state and acknowledging its “victory” is a good idea. Rather than a “self-indulgence that will bolster the Palestinian cause,” the move on the settlements will make it clear to the Palestinians that time is not on their side. Extending Israeli law into the settlements with the support of the United States tells Palestinians that their dreams of a return to the 1967 lines, like their fantasies about destroying Israel altogether, is never going to happen.

Just as the warnings about Trump’s Jerusalem move burning down the Middle East were false, so, too, are predictions of post-annexation doom. Friends of Israel need to reject Pipes’s advice about joining with ill-intentioned Obama-administration alumni and BDS supporters to try to deter Israel from acting to assert its rights. Instead, they should do as the Trump administration appears to be doing—listening to the Israeli people and their elected representatives, and supporting their decisions.

 

 

 

-JNS 

 

Latest News

Alleged Boko Haram Funding: Senate Invites NSA, NIA, 2 Other Security Agencies

Published

on

Alleged Boko Haram Funding: Senate Invites NSA, NIA, 2 Other Security Agencies

The Senate has summoned the National Security Adviser, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, to provide a briefing on the alleged funding of Boko Haram by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Also invited are the heads of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of State Security Services (DSS).

According to the upper legislative chamber, the meeting with the heads of these security agencies will be in close session.

The senate’s resolution follows a motion sponsored by Sen. Ali Ndume (APC-Borno) during the plenary session on Wednesday in Abuja.

The motion was prompted by a trending social media video in which U.S. Congressman Scott Perry claimed that the U.S. aid agency, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), had funded terrorist organisations, including Boko Haram.

Perry, a Republican representative from Pennsylvania, made this claim during the inaugural hearing of the Sub-committee on Delivering on Government Efficiency.

The session, titled “The War on Waste: Stamping out the Scourge of Improper Payments and Fraud,” focused on alleged misappropriations of taxpayer funds.

Ndume said the social media had been awash with the trending video of a United States Republican congressman, Scott Perry representing Pennsylvania alleged that USAID had been funding terrorist organisations across the world, Boko Haram inclusive.

He said that the devastation caused by Boko Haram in the North-East region of Nigeria and other parts of the country, included bombing, the UN office in Abuja and police headquarters among other attacks.

He stated that the attacks had become a major concern, causing the loss of thousands of Nigerian lives and widespread destruction of property, leading to an unprecedented level of internal displacement across the country.

Ndume noted that over the years, the Federal Government had made significant efforts to implement measures aimed at curbing the activities of terrorist groups, spending substantial resources.

However, these efforts appeared to have yielded limited results, as terrorist activities persisted.

He said that the monumental devastation caused by Boko Haram in Nigeria should be a matter of concern as it had dented the image of the country among the community of nations.

Ndume said allegations began to emerge at this point that some international organisations were behind the unwholesome acts.

He therefore added that urgent steps needed to be taken by the federal government to unravel the mystery.

Contributing Sen.Shehu Kaka (APC-Borno), who seconded the motion said the allegation was weighty, saying that banditry and other forms of criminality had affected the 109 senatorial districts.

He emphasised that efforts should be focused on uncovering the sources of funding for Boko Haram.

Sen. Abdul Ningi (PDP-Bauchi) said that it would be impossible for the senate to adequately address the matter in plenary without the input of relevant security agencies, who should be invited to brief the senate on the issue.

Ningi, therefore, urged the senate to adopt a single motion to invite the NSA, as well as the heads of the DSS, NIA, and DIA, to brief the senate on the allegation.

In his remarks, Senate President, Godswill Akpabio thanked Ningi for his contribution and emphasised that the concerned security agencies should brief the senate in a closed session.

He noted that such sensitive security matters should not be discussed in public.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Trump Administration Mandates There are Only Two Biological Sexes

Published

on

Macron, Scholz, Other World Leaders Congratulate Trump

…Revokes ‘nearly 80 destructive radical executive actions’ of Biden administration

On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an order proclaiming that there are only two biological sexes: male and female.

Trump signed the order from the White House just hours after his inauguration.

“My Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognise women are biologically female, and men are biologically male,” the order states.

“It is the policy of the United States to recognise two sexes – male and female.

“These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”

The order directs that official government documents, such as passports and visas, reflect male and female as the only two sexes.

“The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system,” the order states, referring to “gender ideology extremism.”

U.S. presidents can implement political priorities with the help of so-called executive orders without the approval of the U.S. Congress.

However, they can also be challenged in court more easily than laws.

Trump had announced during his election campaign that he would take political measures against the rights of transgender people in the United States.

He spoke of “transgender lunacy” and “child sexual mutilation,” and repeatedly made disparaging comments about those affected.

The participation of trans women in sports events was particularly made an election campaign topic by the Republicans.

Trans people or transgender individuals are those who do not feel they belong to the gender they were born as.

Trump’s statements are part of a broader societal debate in the U.S., where conservative circles are increasingly demanding measures against the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) individuals.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk, one of Trump’s closest confidants, has also expressed criticism of medical treatments for trans young people.

His child, Vivian Jenna Wilson, who has lived openly as a trans woman since 2020, has publicly criticised him for his stance. 

In another development, U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday took gigantic steps to revoke immediate past U.S. President Joe Biden’s policies by signing executive orders.

Trump signed a few other executive orders in front of the crowd at Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., just a few hours after being sworn in as the 47th president of the United States, including the revocation of nearly 80 executive orders from the Biden administration.

“I’m revoking nearly 80 destructive radical executive actions of the previous administration,” Trump told the crowd at the signing ceremony.

Trump signed an executive order to delay the TikTok ban imposed by the Biden administration by 75 days “to permit my Administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course of action concerning TikTok.”

He also signed an executive order that will let the United States withdraw from the World Health Organisation.

Trump also declared a national energy emergency in an executive order with an eye on driving down energy costs.

As the first of this kind declared by the U.S. Federal Government, the emergency is expected to enable the government to crank up energy production by tapping emergency powers.

The United States is the largest producer of both crude oil and natural gas and is also the top exporter of liquified natural gas (LNG) globally.

The incoming U.S. president also signed an executive order to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord.

The move means the United States will pull out of the Paris climate accord for the second time.

During his inauguration speech, Trump, who has long regarded clean energy as expensive and wasteful, also vowed to redouble the efforts to extract and utilise fossil fuels.

“I will also declare a national energy emergency. We will drill, baby, drill,” he said.

“We have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have — the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth,” Trump claimed. “And we are going to use it.”

Adopted in December 2015, the Paris Agreement is an international endeavour to tackle human-caused global warming and related crises, which the United States formally joined in September 2016.

The first Trump administration officially let the United States, one of the world’s top emitters of greenhouse gases, exit the Paris climate accord in November 2020, dealing a major blow to international efforts to combat the climate crisis.

The latest executive order among many others by Trump will mark another round of back-and-forth moves regarding the U.S. commitment to dealing with climate change on the global stage.

Joe Biden, who succeeded Trump in becoming the 46th U.S. president in 2021, signed an executive order on Jan. 20, 2021 — his first day in office — to bring the United States back into the Paris climate accord.  

– dpa, with additional information from Xinhua

Continue Reading

Latest News

WTO Hosts Seminar On Green Supply Chains

Published

on

WTO Hosts Seminar On Green Supply Chains

A seminar on “Building greener and more Resilient Supply Chains” was held in Geneva as part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Public Forum 2024.

It was co-hosted by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and the International Trade Centre (ITC).

The four-day public forum would feature over 130 sessions with nearly 4,400 participants from government, business, academia, and civil society.

CCPIT Chairman Ren Hongbin said that today’s globalised economy created both opportunities and challenges.

He emphasised the need to embrace openness and inclusiveness while upholding true multilateralism.

He also stressed that building greener and more resilient supply chains was crucial to addressing global challenges.

ITC Deputy Executive Director Dorothy Tembo underscored the ITC’s commitment to collaborating with partners to offer technical assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

It would offer assistance, especially to those in developing countries, to tap into the potential of cross-border e-commerce.

She said the goal was to build greener supply chains and reduce the carbon footprint of e-commerce, thereby contributing more to sustainable development.

In its Digital Economy Report 2024, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) emphasised the urgent need to adopt an environmentally sustainable and inclusive digital strategy, said UNCTAD’s head of E-Commerce and Digital Economy.

Torbjorn Frederick stressed that China had issued innovative guidelines promoting the sustainable development of the digital economy. 

– Xinhua

Continue Reading

Editor’s Pick

Politics