by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen
The choice facing PM Benjamin Netanyahu is between the more or less recognized risks associated with applying sovereignty and the less knowable but undoubtedly serious risks inherent in the collapse of the status quo.
September 2019 annexation proposal by
Israeli PM Netanyahu.
The area to be annexed is in orange; the beige
area is the rest
of the West Bank. Image via Wikipedia
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,610, June 19, 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Contrary to the
alarming charge that the application of sovereignty over parts of the
West Bank would transform Israel into a binational state, doing so would
not affect 95% of the West Bankers who have been living under the rule
of the Palestinian Authority since January 1996. They will continue to
do so. The move does entail political risks, but they are smaller than
the security hazards that would accompany Israel’s inability to maintain
a permanent security presence in the Jordan Valley.
Many of the most vociferous opponents of applying
sovereignty over parts of the West Bank are former senior security
officials who use their professional authority to convince the public
that a wide range of grave risks would attend such a move. According to
these individuals, the application of sovereignty would expose Israel to
multiple deeply threatening dangers and is in any case unnecessary.
The implication of this line of thinking is that
Israel’s current strategic position is riskless and hence preferable to
the new position that would result from the application of sovereignty.
That is a misrepresentation of reality.
If the Israeli government misses the opportunity
presented by President Trump’s plan to apply sovereignty, the risks to
Israel multiply; they do not decrease. That is because Israel will not
be able to preserve its temporary security presence in the Jordan Valley
forever.
The choice facing PM Benjamin Netanyahu is between
the more or less recognized risks associated with applying sovereignty
and the less knowable but undoubtedly serious risks inherent in the
collapse of the status quo.
The dangers to Israel of a full withdrawal appear
to be obscure to a great many professional soldiers. The Allen Plan of
the Obama era, the brainchild of US Gen. John Allen, advocated a
complete withdrawal of IDF forces from the Jordan Valley. This is also
the basic plan for a permanent status agreement as outlined on the
“Commanders for Israel’s Security” website.
A full withdrawal would bring the kind of threat
currently posed by Hezbollah and Hamas all the way to the outskirts of
Highway 6. The Israeli public must weigh the risks inherent in the
application of sovereignty against the severity of the risks of total
withdrawal—not an easy task, as the latter set of risks is being
minimized for public consumption by members of the military elite.
It is important to reiterate: The prime minister’s
plan to apply sovereignty would have no effect on the vast majority of
Palestinians living in Areas A and B, which have been under PA control
since January 1996. Even if the Authority decides to cease to exist, it
is not a foregone conclusion that there would be a need to return to the
military administration.
The Israeli government has been given an
opportunity—one that may well never return—to promote the country’s
vital national interests and bolster its future. This is an opportunity
not only to expand territorial control but also to reposition Israel as a
nation that will dare to act on its own behalf even in the face of
threats. That is the embodiment of sovereignty: political power and
independence.
Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/west-bank-status-quo-sovereignty/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment