Monday, April 27, 2015

Gaza and a One State Solution

Is Gaza an Israeli province with the Palestinian Authority as current governor, or is Gaza a land already given to the Palestinian Arabic people?  I have presented the former perspective as the preferred interpretation of International Law, but it is easier to follow the latter perspective since you don't have to deal with Gaza to get it done. If the latter perspective on Gaza, that it is irrevocably surrendered, is established as Israel's foreign policy, then implementing Everyone Wins or a similar one state solution would focus only on Judea and Samaria for the time being. But what if I am right, that Gaza has never been fully transferred to another country? That then would do two things. First, it creates a legal mechanism for regime change of Hamas in Gaza without the need for concern of foreign complaints. It is an internal matter in Israel. Next, it would reveal a moral and legal liability to Israel for what Hamas does while on Israel's watch, urging immediate police action against Hamas rather than passively allowing the risk of their regime's existence next door to Ashkelon, Sederot and the other neighboring communities. 

My position is based on the concept of where is the other state? There is no Successor StateThere has been no alternative UN member state that has accepted the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority is not that yet, and by the grace of God, nor will it ever be.  When it assumed control of Gaza, it did so as an entity, an organization more than a nation, and certainly not a member nation of the United Nations. Further the current regime is no longer the regime that Israel tried to give Gaza to. Fatah recently called for the destruction of Hamas. Hamas is clearly no longer a member of the Palestinian Authority which was the supposed Successor of the Gaza Strip. Hamas's control of Gaza has nullified even that.

If you are familiar with the first chapter in Talmud Shabbos, this situation is likened to the concept of Hanacha (placement) and Akira (acceptance.) There was arguably (in the position suggested by some legal authorities such as esteemed Professor Eugene Kontorovich) a placement of the item (The legal evacuation from Gaza, under the International Law: "Session"). But to my knowledge there has been no mention that no member nation of the U.N. has received it as of yet (Succession). Thus we come to the startling realization that Gaza awaits acceptance as a full nation even today. I would go further still, that the Session of Israel leaving Gaza has already ended the moment Gaza became a fledgling terror state, nullifying the intent of the Session from Gaza by Israel that the act of leaving Gaza was predicated on. Thus it is a policy of self-restraint alone that keeps Israel from retaking Gaza immediately, legally, under International Law.

As recently as last year, Professor Malcolm N. Shaw's 7th guide on International Law continues to speak of the lack of clarity in the matter of Succession. But he does state clearly that International obligations fall upon the new State. In Gaza, what new state are we discussing? The Arabs in Gaza still remain unaccepted as a legal nation, and therefore cannot accept Gaza legally unless they are accepted, Heaven fore-fend. 

With this in mind, let's analyze the most recent one state solution, that of Jerusalem Post editor 
Caroline Glick. She has written and spoken of annexing Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) immediately. She has even written a book on the topic.  Caroline Glick's thesis is a world of improvement over current Likud policy of waiting indefinitely for leopards to change their spots and terrorists to repent.  I would be happy if her plan succeeded, but optimally speaking, from a peacemaking perspective, in my opinion, it is not far reaching enough to achieve maximum peace. I wish to illustrate the difference between her proposal of annexation of the entire Judea and Samaria and the concept of annexing all territories Judea, Samaria and Gaza simultaneously, and also the concept of filtering naturalization applicants from pro terror elements as per the plan I suggested. 

My 'Kulam Marvichim, Everyone Wins' peace plan contains mechanics that could be beneficial even if the will of the people was to only annex Judea and Samaria. So it is worthwhile for fans of Everyone Wins to continue to share links and info on it where appropriate. However, there are some reasons to not settle for an edit to the plan. As I stated when I first wrote it in regards to Rabbi Elon's / Israeli Initiative / Jordan is Palestine peace plan, I would be happy if that would work, because no peace is worse than a less than perfect peace. But it is not politically viable to place your nation's national security in the hands of another parliament (Jordan). True peace is more important than personal accolades. So I urge my fans to not slander any true peace deal, even if not authored by me. The Almighty God shall reward our good efforts in any case.

The main difference between Rabbi Elon's peace plan and Caroline Glick's is that Rabbi Elon's is not politically viable but is a full peace plan, while Caroline Glick's plan is a partial resolution of the peace problem, but is more politically viable. Everyone Wins is a plan in the middle of them, and still the path that I recommend as the way to go. For Everyone Wins is politically viable and resolves the conflict.

The main reasons Everyone Wins must still be on the agenda are:

1) What about justice? We must not allow a terror state on Israel's doorstep to be established. Under my position on International Law, and the removal of Jews from Gaza several years ago, Gaza is still Israel's property.  Gaza today is a province of Israel, under the governorship of the Palestinian Authority, awaiting ratification of the legal process of Succession which has never occurred. That means, if the law is like my position in this matter, it is then Israel's moral responsibility to stand up to terror under their watch and within their nation. Hamas must fall and by Israel's hand or at least approval, according to International Law itself. Why didn't George W. Bush attack Gaza before leaving office and get rid of the Hamas led pseudo government? Israel said no. 

2) For those concerned with Halacha (Talmudic Law), there were two main perspectives discussed on Gaza. I'll say them in the name of two of the main rabbis of the previous generation, peace upon them, who supported those positions. One was the position of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, which supported the surrender of Gaza for the sake of peace and protection of life. The other was the position of Rabbi Aharon Soloveichik, which opposed any land concessions as even a little would strengthen violence and bloodshed. With utmost respect to my mentor, Rav Aharon, I personally felt we should follow Rav Yosef's advice, on condition it was followed with common sense, i.e. that the Palestinian Authority would be founded in a manner of gratitude, not arrogant triumph. They would teach their children peace, not jihad. But that provision was not the path followed and therefore I returned back to Rav Aharon's position on the matter due to the poor implementation of the Oslo Accords by Rabin, Peres and Beilin. After the gift of Gaza was accepted with arrogant triumph that empowered years of terror, intifada and bloodshed, Rav Ovadia Yosef also withdrew his support of Gaza-for-peace. Therefore, there no longer exists a halachic mechanism to surrender the God given gift of parts of the Holy Land by any significant number of Rabbis. Whereas Everyone Wins remains halachically acceptable. If International Law of Israel's current possession of Gaza still remaining intact has been correctly stated by me, then there is no reason to not take back Gaza and accept God's gift. If the International Law is like Professor 
Kontorovich's previously stated position, and the land was already forsaken, then there may exist a halachic reason to allow passivity, in the retake of Gaza unless war or Moshiach decide otherwise, from this theoretical aspect.

3) Most importantly, there must be no cities of refuge for terror. Halacha and Interntional Law would both agree with that. It's a grave danger to life to allow Hamas to rule. (A Jus Cogens for the state of Israel.) Gaza is enough real estate to be a entire state for terror, not just a city of refuge for terror. Attempting to reserve at least Gaza for a future Palestinian state a generation from now, is also reserving for a potential terrorist state a generation from now. IT's TIME TO END THIS. (If the Law is as Professor Kontorovich stated in regard to Israeli rights to that territory, then within that concept, a regime change in Gaza would still be on the table. And the search for Arab political moderates to become new governors in Gaza should, under such circumstance, then commence once the terrorists have been brought to justice.) 

We are attempting to offer democratic life to the innocent among those who have tried to kill us, not by or for any evil by this annexation. This is the underlining belief in Caroline Glick's thesis as well, otherwise how can we even offer the suggestion of annexation? Therefore, it's merely a question of adding Gaza without being overwhelmed by the volume of naturalization applicants, which the mechanics of Everyone Wins handles well. Another strength of Everyone Wins is that it does not change the electoral balance in favor of Arabs, whereas Caroline Glick's plan slightly favors Arabs over other creeds and races in Israel by adding more Arabs than Jews in one lump sum to the State of Israel.

If the West truly wanted a peaceful Palestinian State, it would have demanded that Palestinian Authority schools and media not irresponsibly indoctrinate their children with terrorists as heroes and bloodshed as a virtue. A majority of Palestinian Arabs have repeatedly called for violence against Israel. If you consider the Oslo Accords as an application for statehood. There simply is not enough virtue to consider it anymore. For the sake of it's own existence, Israel should not risk it.

Support Jordan is Palestine for any who want their own country, if you like, but don't rely on Jordan is Palestine to end this conflict, for that is not likely to occur.

A slow but sure approach to annexation, is a sure way to a slow relief from terror, we need to resolve this soon. But a slow but sure approach to naturalization of incoming Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza (as in the Everyone Wins peace plan) is a sure approach to lasting peace.

Annex the territories now with the provision in the law that Israel will naturalize the citizens there in a way that does not harm Israel's economy, infrastructure, or electoral balance. That works whether or not Gaza is included.

In lieu of that, annexation of Judea and Samaria first, however less than ideal, may need to be the path to go, but with the mechanics of Everyone Wins in place.

May the Lord of Israel enlighten us to the true path to peace. May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

No comments: