The Miracle of Olmert's Convergence Plan

by Haggai Huberman, Israeli journalist and author (written for the religious zionist periodical - Matzav Haruach), translated by Hillel Fendel.

It has not received much press, but the government made history this month when it made a series of decisions with historic significance for Judea and Samaria. Leading the way was Minister of Finance Betzalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism party), who also serves as Minster in the Ministry of Defense. Israel's mini-security Cabinet voted to fundamentally change how lands in Yesha are bought and administered, greatly fortifying the settlement enterprise.

The new changes include:

·         The removal of confidentiality requirements regarding land registry records in Yesha, thus increasing transparency and facilitating Jewish redemption of land

·         The repeal of the Jordanian law prohibiting the sale of real estate to Jews. [Nearly six decades after liberating Yesha, Israel has still never annexed the area, thus leaving some Jordanian laws in effect by default.] This allows Jews to purchase land in Judea and Samaria just as they do in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

·         An upgrade to the holy Tomb of Rachel site in a Bethlehem enclave, which will now have its own municipal administration, providing basic services.

·         Hebron: Building permits in the Jewish community and the Cave of the Patriarchs are now under the auspices of Israel's Civil Administration, instead of the Arab Hebron Municipality. Full municipal powers have now been granted to the Jewish Hebron Administration, which is now able to address residents' needs without having to depend on not-necessarily cooperative PA mechanisms.

At the same time, Israel has up-shifted gears in its war for the overall preservation of the Land of Israel throughout Judea and Samaria. Supervisory and enforcement activity will be applied in Areas A and B (under full and partial PA control, respectively) regarding pollution, water, and archaeological-sites infractions. 

The reason these decisions are so dramatic is because they erase, once and for all, the "vision" that reigned here precisely 20 years ago, when it appeared that the Jewish presence in Yesha was to be curtailed, condensed, and cut down to unsustainable proportions.  

Gloom in 2006

What happened 20 years ago was that Ehud Olmert was elected Prime Minister, shortly after – and on the coattails of – Ariel Sharon's ill-fated Disengagement plan. Just as Sharon withdrew unilaterally from all of Gaza, ultimately leading to several short wars and the Oct. 7^th massacre, Olmert was ready to do nearly the same in Judea and Samaria.

He called his plan the "Convergence," according to which Israel was to dismantle and withdraw from at least 60 Jewish communities, and retain no more than some 7% of Yesha. Like the Disengagement, this plan was also to be implemented unilaterally if agreement with the PA was not reached.

Following the elections of March 2006, the left-wing camp became (seemingly) firmly ensconced in power. The government was led by Olmert's Kadima party (originally founded by Sharon after the Likud largely withdrew its support for the Disengagement), and included Labor, Shas, and the seven seats - a fluke achievement - of the Pensioners' party Gil. The Gaza border was quiet, and the Disengagement was perceived at the time as a wise and safe move.

On May 4^th of that year, Olmert presented to the Knesset his new government, with guidelines stating clearly that "the area of Israel with new borders to be determined by the government, will require the reduction of Israeli settlement areas in Judea and Samaria." That is, the democratically elected prime minister of Israel promised to destroy dozens of Jewish communities, with or without an Arab partner for the move.

On June 14^th, Olmert – a former and long-time Likudnik – announced in Paris after meeting with President Chirac: "The Convergence plan is inevitable. I am determined to continue my path of separating permanently from the Palestinians, to attain safe borders that will be recognized by the international community."

The atmosphere in Yesha at the time was dismal, and many residents feared the worst. Some even began making secret inquiries and preparations regarding the compensation that they assumed would soon be offered them in exchange for their homes.

This was indeed Olmert's plan – but apparently, the Creator of the world had other idea. Just 11 days after his Paris declaration, events took their first sharp turn in a very different direction: Gilad Shalit was abducted from his tank on the Gaza border – and all of a sudden, the Disengagement didn't look like such a bright idea anymore.

Still, Olmert didn't back down, and vowed yet again to continue along his Convergence path. However, just two days later, on July 12, two reserves soldiers – Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev – were kidnapped and ultimately found to have been murdered by Hizbullah terrorists while patrolling Israel's border with Lebanon. At least five other soldiers were killed in that operation. With this, the logic of the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon of six years earlier – the brainchild of then-PM Ehud Barak – was also called into question.

Quite abruptly, Israel now found itself fighting two wars: the Second Lebanon War, and Operation Summer Rains following the kidnapping of Shalit. Withdrawals from Israeli-held territory, especially without an agreement with the enemy, no longer appeared very wise. On September 4, Olmert was forced to concede, telling the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee:

"Convergence No Longer on the Table"

"What I thought a few months ago regarding the Palestinians, is not correct at present. Our order of priorities, including what to do about the Palestinian problem, is different than it was in the past. At this point, the Convergence is not one of our priorities, as it was two months ago."

A year later, Olmert and the PA's Mahmoud Abbas, hosted by then-President George W. Bush, began trying to negotiate some kind of withdrawal from Yesha in Annapolis, Maryland. Olmert actually offered the PA some 94% of Judea and Samaria – but thankfully, Abbas rejected even this, and the conference ended with no agreement. The diplomats and negotiators packed up and went home, the plans for the abandonment of the Jewish homeland became a form of science fiction, and the Jews of Yesha – and many other Israelis whose lives would have been endangered had the PA been handed control – breathed a loud sigh of relief.

Back in Time

I ask the reader to go back in time to the month of Adar 5766/February 2006, when families in Yesha were quietly consulting with lawyers about receiving compensation. Now, imagine that someone told you then that 20 years hence, the government would not only obviate the need for compensation for the demolition of communities and homes, but would also enable the private purchase of land for the purpose of building communities. How would we have regarded such a “prophet”?

Thankfully, in this month of Adar, once again, things have happily turned upside down. Happy Purim!

Is the Gaza War Being Fought Morally?

Question: “They say that more than 70,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and that 90% of the homes have been destroyed. Is that moral? Are all the residents of Gaza Hamas-supporting murderers?

Answer: This isn’t accurate. We can divide the population into four groups..

A. The fighting circle – Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, tens of thousands of people. They absolutely must be eliminated.

B. The assisting circle – people who hide weapons in their homes, provide intelligence, and also those who handed out sweets and celebrated on the day of the massacre. This is a very large part of the population.

C. The captive / silent circle – people who oppose Hamas or simply want to live, but are living under a murderous terrorist regime. If they speak out against Hamas in Gaza, they are sentenced to death. That is why it is hard to hear their voices.

D. The children’s circle – they are mainly subjected to murderous indoctrination, but at this stage it is impossible to decide that a small child deserves death.

In summary, it is impossible to decide that everyone there is a murderer.

Question: “Why didn’t the opposition leave there, like in Germany?”

Answer: In Germany too there were Germans who could not stand the Nazi regime, but they had no power to resist or to leave — and the same is true in Gaza. The exit through Egypt is also closed. In addition, they are poor and cannot afford the high cost of leaving.

Question: “So, did we do something immoral?”

Answer: No. After all, they attacked us. We had no choice. We are defending ourselves. Our army is the Israel Defense Forces.

Question: "Maybe we should have fought more carefully?"

Answer: My answer has three parts:

A. The enemy is extremely cruel and murderous, and if we show restraint toward them, it will open the door for them to commit terrible acts again.

B. It is impossible to risk soldiers’ lives in order not to risk civilians. Of course, we prefer not to endanger civilians, and we truly did everything possible, but if we have to choose between the lives of enemy civilians and the lives of our soldiers, morality favors the lives of the soldiers.

C. They used the civilian population as a shield. They positioned themselves in hospitals,schools, and children’s bedrooms. They are responsible for those who were killed. They are the immoral ones.

Question: "If that’s the case, should we still be happy about those who were killed there?"

Answer: We should be glad about the killers and their helpers, but regarding innocent people and children, we should not be glad. We would prefer that nothing happened to them. We do not go to war out of a desire to kill, but to eradicate evil, and thank God, we are very successful.

Answers by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, published by Machon Meir.

Army Radio, Smotrich, and Supplies to Hamas

Based on articles in Besheva weekly by Emanuel Shilo, editor of the Besheva weekly and Zev Kam, public news commentator and reporter, edited and translated by Hillel Fendel.

What can we make of the Supreme Court's restraining order against the government's decision to close Galatz (Galei Tzahal, Israel's Army Radio)? This question must be understood on two planes: How should we understand what lies behind it, and what – literally – should we make of it in order to elicit the best results from a troubling situation?

Note that the judges could not deny that the government is authorized to close Galatz \. They therefore "merely" ordered the government to prove that it used its power to do so in a proper and procedurally-correct manner. 

It is our claim, of course, that it is the Supreme Court itself that is is not using its authority entirely properly. Such complaints, however, will not get us very far. At present, we can choose to react in one, or both, of two ways, in order to make some lemon juice out of these lemons. 

1. Army Radio should be "fixed" to make sure it does not broadcast mainly liberal, left-wing, not particularly nationalist views. It should rather have a more balanced line-up of broadcasters. This can be done in several ways. Firstly, the head of the station has a critical role in determining its tone – yet, most unfortunately, even after the Likud won the last election and took over from the Bennett-Lapid government, its first Defense Minister, Yoav Galant, did not take care to appoint a director who would bring a Jewish-national spirit to his position. The current director, Tal Lev-Ram, has served as Army Radio Commander for nearly two years; he can easily be replaced. However, his future, and that of the station altogether, is currently in a twilight zone situation, given that it is set to be closed in less than a month – if the Supreme Court does not make a final ruling to cancel that.

Another problem affecting the Galei Tzahal left-leaning spirit is the type of soldier who serves there. Even after recent significant efforts to diversify the staff's composition, they all still share a very basic trait: they are all non-combat soldiers. They spend their entire Galatz careers in Tel Aviv, and not on the battlefield. This is an important point, as it is well-known that the combat forces lean heavily to the right of the political spectrum; when tallying election results, it is generally accepted that "when the soldiers' votes arrive [they are counted separately]," the nationalist parties will gain a seat or two. Even those Galatz soldiers who come from the periphery absorb the "city spirit" and culture, and end up being influenced "liberally" (pun intended) by the older broadcasters.

Galei Tzahal sorely needs young broadcasters who come with the spirit of the IDF’s core units - the combat units' spirit of patriotic dedication to the country and its security As of now, of course, a soldier cannot be both an Army Radio broadcaster and an infantry man or tank commander. But it should not be too hard to arrange that after two years of service, combat unit soldiers can apply for a Galei Tzahal position.

This would also be a correct step so as not to exclude young Israelis from the opportunity to attend the country’s best media school, which happens to also serve as a springboard to coveted positions in civilian media. Why should they lose this professional advantage just because they served in combat units?

And finally, a great idea to enhance the patriotic spirit of Galatz would be to transfer its offices and studios to the Negev, were very many IDF units are located. This would help the soldiers serving in Galatz absorb the spirit of the field units. A station that broadcasts from the area of the Ir HaBahadim (a large, new, training camp complex serving thousands of soldiers south of Be'er Sheva) will be less Tel-Avivish, and much more IDF-like.

2. Until these changes are made, Army Radio's influence should be cut down. For all intents and purposes, it currently enjoys, together with only one other station (Reshet Bet), a monopoly on the public national radio airwaves. Just as television in Israel was opened to private commercial stations back in 1993, the same should be allowed for Israeli radio – not only regionally, as is the case now, but nationwide. And just as the commercial TV stations have proven to be a success, in terms of professionalism and political diversity (Channel 14 is known as a nationalist station and enjoys high ratings), so too can be expected if radio is opened up to national commercial concerns.

And so, even if the judges end up blocking Galei Tzahal's closure, the government is hereby advised to open national radio to competition, and thus supply the public with additional listening options. This will also lower Army Radio's ratings and reduce the damage it causes to the national morale. 

3. From here to the economy: The international financial services company Moody's has upgraded the State of Israel’s sovereign credit to Baa1, with a “stable” outlook instead of "negative." This past November, S&P made a similar decision. The positive state of the Israeli economy can no longer be denied, featuring its low inflation, low unemployment, very strong shekel, soaring stock market, and lower-than-expected government deficit. And all this after three difficult years that began with the cold civil war regarding the judicial reform and continued with two years of difficult and expensive combat in Gaza.

Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich came under much criticism for economic problems arising during his tenure, which were the inevitable result of the events of those three years. This criticism was clearly biased, stemming mostly from opposition to his positions on other issues, such as the importance of settling the Land of Israel. Now, when it can no longer be denied that the economy is doing much better than was feared, it would be nice if those who attacked him would give him some credit for its successes. Commentator Dr. Guy Bechor stands out for having spoken just recently of Smotrich as "one of the better finance ministers Israel has ever had."

4. An important note regarding Gaza and continuing American pressure: Political analyst Zev Kam notes that Hamas continues to rehabilitate and strengthen itself – and not without Israel help. The members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee heard an intelligence report informing them that while Israel allows between 600 and 800 truckloads of "humanitarian aid" to enter Gaza each day – the fact is that there is no need for more than 75 to 150 such truckloads.

This means that Israel is strengthening Hamas, which profits directly from the extra supplies, to the tune of between four to ten times the amount of aid that is required. Why does Israel allow this, given Hamas' ongoing threats to work to repeat the Oct. 7th massacre? The answer given to the committee members: "This is a diplomatic [governmental] decision stemming from international pressures."

When and If Iran Changes, Israel Must Move First - Or Turkey Will

based on an analysis by Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA.

Israel must be immediately prepared for the cataclysmic change that a new democratic Iran – something that could happen with little warning – will present for the entire Middle East. So writes analyst Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA.

"A potential regime change in Iran would be one of the most consequential strategic moments Israel has faced since the end of the Cold War," Lerner writes. "For decades, Iran has been the ideological engine and operational backbone of the regional confrontation against Israel. A genuine political rupture in Tehran would dismantle that framework almost overnight."

With many of his readers in the top echelons of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, Lerner emphasizes: "History shows that such openings do not wait to be debated at leisure; they are either seized early or shaped by others."

For one thing, Iran must normalize relations with Israel completely and immediately: 

"If a post-regime-change Iran seeks international legitimacy, there is no clearer signal than full diplomatic normalization with Israel. Such a move would demonstrate to Washington, Europe, and the region that Iran has exited the revolutionary framework that has defined Middle Eastern politics for a generation."

Lerner asserts that Iran must not wait for "perfect stability or full internal consolidation," which would invite third parties to manage Iran’s reintegration themselves. Rather, there must be mutual embassies in Jerusalem and in Tehran, with public declarations and formal recognition.

But that's only the beginning. Israel must then recognize and deal with the next danger: Turkey. Israeli nemesis Erdogan runs a country that is very liable to replace Iran as our central challenge. This is because once Iran exits the confrontation framework, the regional balance reconfigures – with Turkey "uniquely positioned to move first." All Turkey has to do is to become "the easiest and most influential land-based interface for Iran’s access to Europe and NATO-adjacent systems. Economic default status can later be translated - quietly but effectively - into political and strategic leverage."

"If Israel does not act early, Iran’s strategic break risks becoming Ankara’s strategic gain," Lerner warns.

"Preventing Turkish gatekeeping does not require confrontation," he writes. "It requires credible additional options that markets are willing to use. As Iran reintegrates, the goal should be to ensure that its trade and energy links are spread across multiple viable routes… an approach that Saudi Arabia is uniquely positioned to help enable." Israel can and must, quietly and behind the scenes, be involved in shaping these arrangements, especially Persian Gulf-based rail, port, and energy connections.

In sum, according to Lerner: "Speed itself is the strategy… What Israel cannot afford is hesitation that allows others to lock in structural advantages during the transition window. Iran’s potential transformation would open a historic door for Israel. Failure to act swiftly cedes initiative to Turkey."

As an example, Dr. Lerner writes in a separate post that Israel must move to ensure that the 2.5 million barrels of oil that Iran can be expected to export to the West after sanctions are lifted must be shipped via Iran, not Egypt.

Israel's southern port of Eilat "is a considerably cheaper way for Iranian crude to reach Europe than through the Suez Canal, with the added advantage that the supertankers too big for the Suez Canal can easily dock in Eilat."

"And by becoming a route for post-sanction Iranian crude to Europe," Lerner concludes, "Israel won't find itself in the back seat when Turkey offers Iran considerably more expensive access to European markets."

Nearly Framed: Arabs Kidnap Woman – and Accuse Jews

by Hillel Fendel, former editor of Arutz-7's IsraelNationalNews.com.

With one Jew already sitting in prison for a life term for a political crime that all the evidence shows he did not commit, the Palestinian enemy nearly succeeded last week in framing yet several other Jews in a similar way. 

With the outrageous story of Amiram Ben-Uliel in the background – details to be provided below – News 14 Correspondent Eliyah Aviv reports that Arabs from the Jericho area sought to have residents of a nearby Jewish farm accused of kidnapping an Arab woman. 

Specifically, one morning two weeks ago, at 6 AM, a call was received at the police hotline that went like this:  

Man with heavy Arabic accent: "They came into the house, burnt the house, and took the woman… They're religious… They live up above, near the Bedouin… I want you to send the army there very quickly, before they kill the girl... They saw them dragging her and running away. They [the Jews] yelled at them, threw them out, and burned the house."

Dispatcher: "Jews took her?"

Arab:  "Yes, yes, that's what I'm telling you. Who else, Arabs?"

As it turned out, yes, it was Arabs who took her. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The speaker is a resident of Aqabat Jaber, southeast of Jericho, reporting that residents of the Hanan Farm kidnapped his sister and burned down his house. It happens to be that only one family, an idealistic young couple and their children, plus a few volunteer youths, live in the Hanan Farm. 

Of course this call to the police brought the entire region's security apparatus to its feet, fearing a kidnapping as well as vengeance attacks against the Jewish farm. After questioning the suspects and the accuser, the police determined that the kidnapping was carried out by none other than a relative of the accuser, as part of an extended family feud. The woman in question was found in a house in Jericho. 

Reporter Aviv concluded, "This grave incident shows that the enemy in Judea and Samaria will do everything and anything to harm the new enterprise of Jewish farms in the area."

As cited here a number of months ago, "One of the most welcome items on the list of Israel's gains from the war in Gaza is most definitely the unprecedented upswing in settlement construction in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) over the past two years… The army truly understands the role of the new farms and hilltops as a forward defensive shield for the rest of the Jews in Yesha." 

In addition, the farms preserve many thousands of acres of the Land of Israel for the Jewish People; where Jews farm and graze sheep, Arabs do not come to graze – or to throw rocks at passing Jewish motorists. 

But let us return to the name Amiram Ben-Uliel mentioned above. He is a young Israeli husband and father serving three life sentences in jail – including years of solitary confinement – for a murder he confessed to only after being severely tortured. He has maintained his innocence for years, and is joined by many others who say he was framed to cover up a feud between two families in the Arab village. No fewer than ten homes in the village were reportedly set ablaze in a similar manner over the course of several months as part of the internal strife.

The case in which Ben-Uliel was accused happened over a decade ago, on July 31, 2015, in the Arab village of Duma, some five miles east of Shilo in Samaria/Shomron. Two homes were firebombed in the middle of the night; one was empty at the time, but the Dewabshe family was present in the second home. A baby died in the fire, the father and mother died later of their injuries, and a four-year-old boy was severely hurt.

Shortly afterwards, Ben-Uliel was arrested and charged with the three deaths. After a long and controversial trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to three life sentences. The verdict was handed down based on the man's confession and his reenactment, which followed severe torturous interrogations and which he later recanted. 

Critical to note: No other supporting evidence was found against Ben-Uliel, and in fact, much eyewitness testimony of what happened that night actually negates the reenactment. 

Many in Israel therefore see this case as a travesty of injustice, and a public campaign for a new trial has been initiated.

A review of the details of the case can be read here.

A detailed call for Ben-Uliel's pardon or commutation of his sentence by Prof. Yoel Elitzur can be read here.

In light of what has happened with Amiram Ben-Uliel, the news that opened this article cannot be ignored.