"Shock" at the Smotrich Plan – as if Judea and Samaria are not Jewish!

by Haggai Huberman, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Journalist Ronen Bergman's "shock" at the idea that Israel, and not the IDF, should actually administer Judea and Samaria reveals Israel's terrible PR failure of the past 57 years.

Revealed: Israeli Cabinet Minister Betzalel Smotrich has made dramatic progress in ensuring that Yesha (Judea and Samaria) not turn into a Palestinian state. Smotrich is not only the Finance Minister, but he also serves as a Minister in the Defense Ministry for Yesha affairs. 

Essentially, ever since the Six Day War, Yesha has been governed by the IDF – and Smotrich has made significant moves to transfer the IDF's authorities in Yesha to civilian bodies. Smotrich himself explained to an audience of "hilltop outpost" leaders earlier this month – in a speech that was leaked to journalists – that the body in charge of civilian affairs in Yesha will no longer be the Civil Administration run by IDF officers with a left-wing agenda, but rather a civil administration run by civilians who are in touch with day-to-day Jewish life in Yesha.

Bergman wrote in Yediot Acharonot what scares him so much about the Smotrich program: "It undermines everything that the State of Israel has always claimed in justifying its continued possession of the West Bank and the entire settlement enterprise there. Israel has always explained that the settlements are legal because the Geneva Convention allows the occupying power to make temporary use of the land in question until an agreement is reached to terminate the occupation. The Supreme Court has similarly ruled that as long as the settlement enterprise is under the wings of the army, the claim of 'temporary use' still stands."

Bergman added that the International Court of Justice is currently writing a studied brief to the UN General Assembly on "the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank," and he warns that it will cite Smotrich's moves to bolster its case against Israel. 

IDF Gen. (res.) Shlomo Gazit, the first head of the IDF Civil Administration in Yesha, wrote in his autobiographical book "At Decisive Junctures" the following: "It is hard to grasp this today, but the assumption that shaped our policy in those early days was that Israeli rule in the conquered territories would not last long… At least at first, we tried to refrain from taking steps that would contradict this assumption."

Even the annexation of eastern Jerusalem and its official incorporation into the State of Israel was to be seen in this light, according to Gazit: It showed that Israel was annexing only Jerusalem, and not the other 70,000 square kilometers of the Sinai, Golan, Gaza and Yesha.

Stop, Just Stop!

In short, the government of Israel over the years acted as if we were in fact occupiers - and the world responded in kind: "If you yourselves admit that you're occupying the land, and that you support a two-state solution [as Netanyahu announced more than once], then stop building settlements [Jewish communities] and get out of there as soon as possible!" 

This is a logical claim, and it demands a clear Israeli response: We must stop, once and for all, talking about a two-state vision! 

The Three-Word Triple Lie

In his shock, Ronen Bergman reveals Israel's great PR failure of the past 57 years, i.e., its own attitude towards Yesha as area that must be temporarily occupied for Israel's security needs. And there were even those who went further and referred to Yesha as the "occupied Palestinian territories" – each word of which is a lie: These are not just "territories," they are not "Palestinian," and they are not "occupied." 

Before I elaborate, let me just note that a nation cannot be an occupier in its own land. Unfortunately, we have not sufficiently remembered the exchange between Syrian-Greek King Antiochus and Simon the Maccabee (Maccabees I 15). The former accused the Jews of taking over "Jaffa, Gezer, and Jerusalem, the cities of my kingdom," and demanded that they "give them back now!" Simon famously responded: "We have not taken a foreign land… This is rather the inheritance of our forefathers which was unlawfully taken over by our enemies…"

Let us now state the facts: 

• Judea and Samaria are not "territories," for in the Land of Israel every land area has a name: Golan, Galilee, Jezreel Valley, Samaria, the Coastal Plane, Sh'felah, Judea, Gaza.

• Yesha is not "Palestinian" – for there was never anything under something called "Palestinian sovereignty." Nor is there any international legal document that states that these areas are one day to come under such sovereignty. The Oslo Accords certainly say no such thing; they say only that within five years the "permanent status" of Yesha will be determined based on negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That's it. 

• Finally, Yesha is not "occupied," because legally, area can only take on that status if it is taken over from another country. The Palestinians, as stated, never had a country and were certainly never sovereign in Yesha. At most, it was Jordan that was sovereign there – but only by its own decision; the world never recognized this sovereignty. And in any event, King Hussein ceded this sovereignty back in 1988.  

Not only that, but Israeli rule in Area C of Yesha – where the Jews live, broadly speaking – has nothing to do with Israel's conquest in 1967. It is rather rooted in an international agreement known as the Second Oslo Agreement. 

Even according to those who believe Israel was an "occupier," the "occupation" ended on Sept. 13, 1995 with the signing of the above agreement. It stipulated that Yesha would be divided into three parts: Area A, under PA control; Area C, under Israeli control; and Area B, under Israeli security control and PA administrative control. This state of affairs is to last until the "final arrangement" is agreed upon, while along the way the PA would receive additional areas, which in fact happened. 

Under the Oslo Agreement, 90% of the Arabs in Yesha are residents of the Palestinian Authority autonomy, with no Israeli control at all [except for security control in Area B]. Thus, the residents of the Palestinian Authority have independence, without a state.  

This same agreement also stipulates that Israel rules over Area C – and was signed by none other than Yasser Arafat himself. The settlements, too, have the same status, ratified by the signature of arch-terrorist Arafat and that of former US President Bill Clinton. With this, I can rest easy in my home in Elkanah, just east of the Green Line, and so can another half-million-plus Jews all over Yesha, knowing that we are "legal" by virtue of an international agreement. 

True, the PA area is not contiguous, but is rather divided into various pieces, of different sizes. This is for the sake of Israel's security. The lack of Palestinian contiguity is precisely that which stops Yesha from turning into Hamastan, Gaza-style. It is exactly what prevents the firing of rockets from Jenin into Afula and mortar shells from Kalkilye to Kfar Saba.

As such, it must be repeated again and again until the world begins to understand: There is no occupation! The agreement by which the PA runs Area A is the same one by which Israel runs Area C. If Israel's control over Area C is not recognized, then the PA itself is not legitimate! 

But here is precisely the rub: Why doesn't the world understand this simple truth? Because the State of Israel, in its official PR, barely ever states it! Israel does not tell the world the facts, nor does it focus on our historic rights. 

Ever since Israel liberated Yesha during the Six Day War, it has placed its PR emphasis on "security," totally ignoring our historic rights. The Arabs have prattled on and on about "Palestinian rights" and "holy earth" and even their supposed "3,000 year history – and these lies have actually seeped into the international consciousness. Israel, however, spoke about "security," which translates to "occupation" – and certainly not "rights" and "justice."

Arik Sharon, the great general who abruptly switched his colors from right to left and handed Gush Katif to Fatah/Hamas on a silver platter, said it clearly: "To hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is terrible, for Israel as well." [Current estimates of Gaza's population are much, much lower.] If so, said the world, "you're only there for your security – so we'll find you other ways to protect your security; meanwhile, get out!"

Israel is now trying to play catch-up in this PR campaign, but it is not yet too late: Now is the time to change our PR from a defensive approach to one that takes the offensive. 

In every international debate, especially in The Hague, our historical rights must be presented before any other Israeli arguments. This must be the focus of any political discussion for the next 50 years: Who was here first, the Jews or the Arabs? To whom does the Land belong to altogether, the Jews or the Arabs? 

Only after this discussion is over, and the obvious answer is made plain, will it be possible to start discussing essential questions of what type of political solution, if any, might be found.

The Iranian Roof Over Hizbullah

by Yossi Achimeir, Director-General of the Jabotinsky Institute in Israel, and former Director of Prime Minister [Yitzchak Shamir]'s Office, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The beginning of a boxing match is often characterized by the two competitors dancing around each other as they check each other out, sending trial punches one towards the other, approaching and withdrawing – preparing for the violent clash that will inevitably come. This is what today's skirmishes on the Lebanon border look like (for now).

Hizbullah occasionally launches rockets and unmanned aircraft into our territory, the IDF responds with air strikes and with targeted liquidations, and back and forth along these lines – but a full-scale conflict has not yet erupted.

The situation is heating up. The decision whether to initiate a real war has not yet been made in our security network. There is much talk about it. Threats and warnings are abundant, as if saying, "Hold me back, or else I'll let loose with full force."

And if and when the triggers are finally released, it will not be just a war between Israel and the terrorists. It will be a hard, full-scale war, in which primarily the home-front – Israeli civilians from Gedera to Hadera – will endure severe missile strikes. The cost is liable to be very high in casualties and ruins. Nevertheless, Israel's patience has apparently worn thin, and we can no longer endure the frequent attacks and the estimated 150,000 Hizbullah missiles waiting to be fired – and we will therefore have no choice but to move from threats and sporadic attacks to full-scale warfare. This will be the Third Lebanon War.

What will Iran do if Israel engages in full-scale war? An expert on Iranian affairs responded: "If someone builds four walls, won't they put a roof over them?" After all, Iran has built a comprehensive multi-front system for the purpose of causing Israel to bleed on all its borders. Now that the Hamas has exhausted itself, the spearhead has become Hizbullah.

When Iran attacked Israel on April 14th with hundreds of missiles, the onslaught itself failed, causing very little damage. But for the Iranians themselves, this was a significant achievement, "proving" to themselves that they need not be afraid of Israel.

That is, as the expert explained, Iran is no longer wary of a direct clash with Israel, having seen that they can attack Israel head-on and not suffer too greatly.

In the meantime, in Gaza, "the hands are those of Hamas, but the voice is that of Iran" – and the same is true regarding Hizbullah on Israel's northern border.

The Iranian threat is a real one. Iran not only wants to destroy Israel simply because it exists, but also strives to be the dominant power in the region, and Israel is what's stopping it. The question is: How long will Iran's "proxies" war last, with the participation of Hamas, Hizbullah, the Houthis, the Shiites in Iraq, and more, without Iran having to pay any of the price?

I heard another expert explain that although Iran dictates to Hamas, it is really Putin's Russia dictating to Iran. "The Russian-Iranian axis means that we are already in the midst of a world war," he said. "Russia wants to create a new global order." Russia has escalated its anti-Semitic rhetoric, but in order to retain its position of influence, it is willing to speak with Israel as well – but it will back Iran in any eventuality.

Of course, standing opposite Russia is the United States, who alone can deal with the Iranians, but appears to be suffering from a lack of motivation. Will they act to prevent Iran, which has already reached the 60% uranium enrichment level, from attaining military nuclear capabilities? This is the ultimate question of questions. What I am being told is that if war breaks out in the north, whether it is started by Israel or by Hizbullah, the U.S. will not sit by with its hands folded as its ally Israel is attacked. It will rather "surprise Iran," my source says.

The coming days are critical for Israel, which is liable to find itself embroiled in a "war of no-choice" exacting heavy prices throughout the country. During this world war, we will be in the epicenter. We will have to take our fate into our own hands – but to do so, we must all of us, from every sector, face up to the dangers facing us from every corner and end our internal wars.

These wars, which have something to do with democracy, signal to our enemies – who have no inkling in democracy – that we are weak from within. They therefore see this as a great opportunity to attain their end-all goal of destroying us. As Iran sees us, we are weaker, more vulnerable, more torn from within, and unable to take real action neither against southern Lebanon nor against Iran itself.

It is clear to all of us that the days ahead will not be simple. They are likely to be quite fateful, even to the point of placing the fate of the country at stake. In order to successfully negotiate them, several conditions are required - beyond the appropriate military response that will indeed be given, both near and far.

For starters, the government must concentrate primarily on what is truly important, and not deal with anything having to do with coalition politics or other matters that are simply not important for right now. The various commentators we hear every day and night, mainly all sorts of former generals, must stop their irresponsible depictions of Israel as unable to fight two fronts simultaneously, or even three, as we are doing right now.

Similarly, all the various protestors, with all their criticism and outbursts of wrath, must take a long time-out, until the danger to the country has passed – which will not happen in the next year or two.

In general, the fact is that the current danger to the security of the State of Israel has been an intrinsic part of our lives ever since Simchat Torah (Oct. 7th), and will continue to be so for a long while. And if everyone – the politicians, parts of the media, the Messianists [referring to those who still believe in a Palestinian state and peace with those who wish to destroy us? – HF], and the indefatigable protestors – does not wake up to what is happening, the responsibility for the weakening of Israel and an unprecedented war of existence upon us will be on them.