by Meir Ettinger 28/02/2019
The Trump deal is approaching giant steps, and it appears that a right-wing government headed by Netanyahu, and Bennett, will tear apart parts of the homeland and hand them over to the enemies of Israel.
Very few people know what the so-called "deal of the century" that the administration is thinking about in the United States is, but many fear it.
After a long period during which fears were nesting in a Saudi speech this week, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, has frightened the fears. He spoke of setting permanent borders and economic incentives, unification of Gaza and Judea and Samaria, and marking the road to a Palestinian state.
In situations of uncertainty like now - which we do not fully know the dangers we face, and it is difficult to assess the political balance of power after the elections - there is a need for a risk management policy to decide how to prepare for the various scenarios, what kind of information line should we choose, and delay the figure. Assessing the chances of each of these possibilities being realized should guide the decision-making process of how we prepare and struggle with the same "peace" plan.
I am not a political commentator, and it is worth taking the things I write in a limited way, yet I will try to present here the risks and prospects as they seem to me, since we certainly have to prepare now and not wake up at the last moment.
It is reasonable to assume that as the election approaches Netanyahu and the Likud will try to sow panic over the rise of leftist power, as in the previous elections, the mass rally in Rabin Square "in honor of the Land of Israel" brought victory to Netanyahu, who did not evacuate settlements but also did little to advance the settlement of the land. To prevent the evacuation of Amona and the Path of the Patriarchs.
A cautious assessment suggests that the lowest risk is the rise of the left-wing government. Although the government of Ganz-Lapid will try to realize a more dangerous plan, which will probably include the evacuation of settlements beyond the blocs and the granting of more authority to the Palestinian state, the chances of a left-wing government's success are much lower. It is difficult to believe that a narrow left-center government, which contains substantial differences of opinion and relies on Arab votes, will succeed in leading a real initiative before it falls.
The second option (to which Naftali Bennett speaks all the time) is that the Likud will win the elections. Immediately after the American elections, they will present the "100-year deal." The Likud will join the unity government with Blue and White and together promote the Trump deal. This scenario is still not realistic, since the disengagement with Israel has moved significantly to the right, with a rebellion within the Likud, and a roundup of the " The new right "on the right, Bibi will have to rely on the votes of Labor and Meretz - even this seems less likely.
And here we come to the third possibility, which is perhaps less destructive but much more dangerous because its chances of passing through heaven forbid are very high.
In fact, there is no ideological difference between Bennett's plan and the "100-year deal" he is fighting against in the media, both materially and in terms of Arab ownership of parts of the Land of Israel.
The campaign of the New Right and the intimidation of "right or Palestine" are nothing more than mere words, since the difference between the same autonomy and the transportation continuum that Bennett proposes for a "Palestinian state" is quantitative and not qualitative. It may concern security elements of one kind or another, things that could be 'solved' in negotiations. But the basis of the plan - a huge economic investment in the development of the Palestinian Authority and regional initiatives that will give the Arabs tenure and status in our country are the same.
And the results - after all, we all remember the same 'autonomy' and 'police' that brought us the second intifada - so what actually changed Bennett's autonomy from a 'Palestinian state'? What exactly will allow protection of the new boundary of Area C, without control of the depth of the area, and without checkpoints?
The scenario that might happen, according to the third possibility, is that the danger will come from a rightist government: Bibi-Bennett (and perhaps others) are the ones who will carry out the 'century deal': the plan will undergo certain changes, especially terminological ones. Security measures, and debate over certain miles.
Bennett will present himself as someone who succeeded in preventing the establishment of a "Palestinian state" and in effect will enter a government that will promote a similar plan for the "lull" he proposes - adopting and fixing the Oslo Accords, which will win broad support for settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza - Normalization "and annexation of all the settlements", which will be accompanied by a building boom and hundreds of housing units.
From the public relations point of view, the plan will be presented as a right-wing achievement: We have given up nothing (since there is already autonomy, as Caroline Glick wrote this week: "Fixing the Oslo Accords"), and we received "annexation" and building momentum in the settlement, Even though, "harming the integrity of the land, total renunciation of "our Jericho and our Shekhem,“ a concession in principle and values that will eventually develop into a real security threat.
If this is indeed the most likely option and in any case the most dangerous - we must prepare in advance for a struggle to thwart it, and it will be a struggle not simple at all. In the last decade, the Right has unquestionably succeeded in the struggle against the evacuation of settlements and has shortened its achievements in opposition to a Palestinian state for security reasons, but has completely neglected the Greater Land of Israel, the love of the land, and the hope of redeeming the "remaining land" Jericho.
For the vast majority of the Jewish people, including high percentages of settlers in Judea and Samaria, there is no emotional or conscious connection to these places, and it will be very difficult to convince them not to give them up.
In order to thwart this plan, there is only one way: to break the boundaries of settlement and direction both in terms of practice and in terms of consciousness: to return the talk of the Land of Israel on the table. To break through the boundaries of settlement, to organize trips and trips to familiarize ourselves with all those parts of the country that are about to be torn from our hands, to develop the expectation of the redemption of the entire country. And at the immediate practical level - to fight for the establishment of outposts in Area B.
We should have done this a long time ago, but perhaps now it is time to wake up and understand that a million Jews in Judea and Samaria are capable of preventing the evacuation of settlements. But only breaking the boundaries of settlement will stop the handing over of parts of the Land of Israel to our fellow nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment