In your latest SubStack you wrote: “ Once again, we observe tactical success by the IDF, absent a long-term strategic plan. Regrettably, successive Israeli governments, dating back to Levi Eshkol’s tenure (immediately following the Six-Day War), have failed to develop a comprehensive blueprint for the West Bank.”
I beg to differ. The long-term strategic plan, while unstated and unwritten, is to hold and control all of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean while maintaining a pseudo Jewish majority through the denial of equal political rights to millions of non Jewish Palestinians. This has resulted in a regime and policy which has many aspects of apartheid.
It has been the tacit and explicit policy of every Israeli government since 1967 despite statements to the contrary. In the final analysis one should examine what is being done on the ground rather than what ministers have said. The actual actions on the ground, of support for widespread settlement and control, contradict any statements of support for a two state solution. When the obvious, unstated aim, is to control and keep the Jordan Valley as well as maximal areas in the WB with minimal Palestinians, the aims, objectives and policies are clear.
To repeat myself, if you want to know what Israeli policies are vis-a-vis the Palestinians and the WB then simply look at what is being done and disregard what is being said.
While I agree that has been the unstated goal of some Israeli governments, it was not all. Both Barak and Olmert were willing to give it all up. Sharon wanted to separate. Rabin helped establish a Palestinian Authority, their has been not real goal, except by extremist who have often controlled things on the ground. The Allon plan of 68 might have worked. The majority of Israelis do not want to rule the Palestinians but they are afraid of the consequences of withdrawing
Even the Allon plan called for annexation of about 40% of the WB, two separate Palestinian areas and retention of the Jordan Valley among other areas. In other words, maximum retention of land with minimum inhabitants.
While both Barak and Olmert stated intentions of giving it all up, it is my opinion, that they would never have been able to implement such intentions. Just a guess, but we will never know.
It’s paradoxical to state that the majority of Israelis do not want to rule the Palestinians but are fearful of the consequences of withdrawing. One cannot but rule over the Palestinians if one does not withdraw. It’s a case of wanting your cake and eating it. In order to cater to your fears, real or not, you have to accept the consequences of doing so, namely rule over the Palestinians while creating irreversible facts on the ground.
We have two separate problems. On one hand withdrawals in the past have not seemed to work. We withdrew to the Blue line in Lebanon and that has not stopped Hezbollah- we withdrew from Gaza- badly but all Hamas had to do was except the conditions of the Quartet and they would have continued to receive aid and there would be not blockade. But that did not happen. On the other side we have our crazy messianic who believe it's all ours. I have no solutions- it takes two to reach peace at the moment there are zero
On the other hand, far, far fewer soldiers and civilians are dying in either Lebanon or Gaza then were before each withdrawal. So… while neither withdrawal has achieved anything remotely resembling peace, they have both, in their own way reduced Israeli casualties and so do have some successful outcomes.
Maybe a WB withdrawal, almost impossible to visualize, would have the same outcome?
In your latest SubStack you wrote: “ Once again, we observe tactical success by the IDF, absent a long-term strategic plan. Regrettably, successive Israeli governments, dating back to Levi Eshkol’s tenure (immediately following the Six-Day War), have failed to develop a comprehensive blueprint for the West Bank.”
I beg to differ. The long-term strategic plan, while unstated and unwritten, is to hold and control all of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean while maintaining a pseudo Jewish majority through the denial of equal political rights to millions of non Jewish Palestinians. This has resulted in a regime and policy which has many aspects of apartheid.
It has been the tacit and explicit policy of every Israeli government since 1967 despite statements to the contrary. In the final analysis one should examine what is being done on the ground rather than what ministers have said. The actual actions on the ground, of support for widespread settlement and control, contradict any statements of support for a two state solution. When the obvious, unstated aim, is to control and keep the Jordan Valley as well as maximal areas in the WB with minimal Palestinians, the aims, objectives and policies are clear.
To repeat myself, if you want to know what Israeli policies are vis-a-vis the Palestinians and the WB then simply look at what is being done and disregard what is being said.
While I agree that has been the unstated goal of some Israeli governments, it was not all. Both Barak and Olmert were willing to give it all up. Sharon wanted to separate. Rabin helped establish a Palestinian Authority, their has been not real goal, except by extremist who have often controlled things on the ground. The Allon plan of 68 might have worked. The majority of Israelis do not want to rule the Palestinians but they are afraid of the consequences of withdrawing
Even the Allon plan called for annexation of about 40% of the WB, two separate Palestinian areas and retention of the Jordan Valley among other areas. In other words, maximum retention of land with minimum inhabitants.
While both Barak and Olmert stated intentions of giving it all up, it is my opinion, that they would never have been able to implement such intentions. Just a guess, but we will never know.
It’s paradoxical to state that the majority of Israelis do not want to rule the Palestinians but are fearful of the consequences of withdrawing. One cannot but rule over the Palestinians if one does not withdraw. It’s a case of wanting your cake and eating it. In order to cater to your fears, real or not, you have to accept the consequences of doing so, namely rule over the Palestinians while creating irreversible facts on the ground.
We have two separate problems. On one hand withdrawals in the past have not seemed to work. We withdrew to the Blue line in Lebanon and that has not stopped Hezbollah- we withdrew from Gaza- badly but all Hamas had to do was except the conditions of the Quartet and they would have continued to receive aid and there would be not blockade. But that did not happen. On the other side we have our crazy messianic who believe it's all ours. I have no solutions- it takes two to reach peace at the moment there are zero
PS thanks for your SubStack, I read it every week.
On the other hand, far, far fewer soldiers and civilians are dying in either Lebanon or Gaza then were before each withdrawal. So… while neither withdrawal has achieved anything remotely resembling peace, they have both, in their own way reduced Israeli casualties and so do have some successful outcomes.
Maybe a WB withdrawal, almost impossible to visualize, would have the same outcome?