IF ISRAEL PROCEEDS WITH ANNEXATION, ITS “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” WITH THE
U.S. AND WITH AMERICAN JEWS MAY COME TO AN END
BY
ALLAN C. BROWNFELD
————————————————————————————————————————-
In
the recent Israeli election, Prime Minister Netanyahu campaigned
aggressively on annexing portions of the occupied West Bank while his
opponent, Benny Gantz, opposed unilateral annexation. Now, with a
“unity” government with Netanyahu remaining prime minister, to be
followed by Gantz, The agreement between Netanyahu and Gantz says that
annexation should proceed in a way that does not harm Israel’s
interests.
The Economist notes that,
“Mr. Netanyahu will probably have the final say. ..Annexation of
territory that the Palestinians regard as part of their future state
would probably kill any hope of a two-state solution to the Palestinian
conflict and could ignite violence. Mr. Netanyahu will obviously want
to avoid that , but he may feel he needs to move before November, when
his chum Mr. Trump May be voted out of office.”
The
Trump administration has viewed annexation in positive terms. Its
attitude toward Israel has been described by U.S. Ambassador to Israel
David Friedman as “”an altar of holiness,”. Friedman, an ally of the
settler movement and an opponent of creating a Palestinian state,
referred to the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem as “a shrine.” At a ceremony
in Jerusalem, he declared that Israel was “on the side of God.” Israel
and the U.S., he said, should grow even closer, which would be a sign of
“holiness.”
In a historic reversal of
U.S. policy, the Trump administration announced in November 2019 that it
does not view Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. The
policy change was announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He
declared: “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the
West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” Prime
Minister Netanyahu hailed the change in U.S. policy. He said: “this
policy reflects an historical truth—-that the Jewish people are not
foreign colonialists in Judaea and Samaria. In fact, we are exiled Jews
because we are the people of Judaea.”
The
dramatic change in U.S. policy was challenged by 106 House Democrats
in a letter to Pompeo, organized by Rep. Sandy Levin (D-MI), who is
Jewish. They called upon him to “immediately” reverse his position.
The letter was signed by 12 committee chairs, including veteran Reps.
John Lewis (D-GA) and Maxine Waters (D-cA).
If
Israel proceeds with annexation it may bring to an end its “special
relationship” with the U.S. and with the American Jewish community. It
would also challenge the idea that Israel has bipartisan support and
confine its embrace to right-wing Republicans.
For
Israel’s right-wing, annexation has long been a key part of its agenda.
This has been the case since the area was captured and occupied by
Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. East Jerusalem was the first part
of the West Bank to be annexed following the 1980 Jerusalem Law.
Israeli law has been applied to Jewish settlements throughout the West
Bank leading to a system of “enclave law” and claims of “creeping
annexation.” Annexation of the Jordan Valley was first proposed in the
1967 Allon Plan, which was announced in September 2019 by Netanyahu as
his plan. In 2009, Netanyahu endorsed the two-state solution. But
before the April 2019 election he stated his intention of unilaterally
annexing Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
On
Sept. 16, 2019, in an interview with Israeli Army Radio, Netanyahu
said, “I intend to extend sovereignty on all the settlements and the
settlement blocs including sites that have security importance or are
important to Israel’s heritage.” On Sept. 10, 2019, Netanyahu announced
his plan to annex the Jordan Valley. The area to be annexed is about
22% of the West Bank. He said he had received a green light from the
Trump administration . The next day there was international
condemnation of the proposal from Palestinians, the Arab League, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom, among others. The U.N. Declared
that any Israeli move to impose its administration over the Palestinian
territory would “be illegal under international law.” The EU said there
will be a “strong response” if annexation proceeds.
Liberal
Zionists emphasize the damage to Israel’s international reputation if
annexation takes place. Israel will become a “pariah” says Americans
for Peace Now. J Street’s Dylan Williams says, “U.S. leaders should
make clear that it’d be nearly impossible to maintain the same special
relationship with an Israel that abandons a commitment to democracy.”
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) condemns the annexation plan as the
“death-knell of the two-state solution.”
An
aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-VT) calls annexation “recklessness
that goes against U.S. interest in peace.” According to the New Israel
Fund, “Annexation would be an existential threat to—-and perhaps even a
death-knell for Israeli democracy.” Yair Lapid, the opposition leader
in the Knesset, said that if annexation takes place, “...the peace
agreement with Jordan will be canceled. There will be irreversible
damage to the relationship with the Democratic National Committee and
Jewish communities in the U.S.”
Gael
Patir of J Street says that Lapid’s warning that annexation will damage
Israel’s relationship to the Democratic Party and American Jewry “is not
a notion that is understood in Israel.” She and Jeremy Ben-Ami, who
leads J Street, called for a campaign to convince Israelis that
annexation will threaten these most valuable assets. J Street, its
leaders report, is “publicly and privately” urging Joe Biden, whom it
has endorsed for President, to “reiterate” and “repackage” his
opposition to annexation and to make it clear that he won’t accept
annexation as president. Biden has said that, “Israel, I think, has to
stop the threats of annexation and settlement activity” because they
will undermine “support for Israel in the U.S., especially among young
people of both political parties.”
J
Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami called on right-wing elements of the pro-Israel
lobby to speak out against annexation. in a Zoom briefing, he addressed
the question of where AIPAC is on this question: “For anyone who is
watching us who belongs to AIPAC or supports AIPAC , I ask you to ask
them. It is notable, the silence of AIPAC. And many other
right-of-center organizations, on the queastion of annexation.—-when
they have tried to say through the years that they support two states.”
He said it is time to end a policy of “Israel, right or wrong.”
The
Union for Reform Judaism has called on the Israeli government to
refrain from unilateral actions that could hinder or thwart the renewal
of the peace process in the short and long term, especially “unilateral
annexation.” In Jeremy Ben-Ami’s view, Democrats
might be able to convince Israelis by threatening to rule out any
U.S. aid for annexation: “We not think that the U.S.should foot the
bill for anything that has to do with annexation.” He suggested Israel
might lose the “diplomatic immunity” the U.S. provides for its human
rights violations at the U.N. and elsewhere if annexation goes through.
Israel
promotes itself as a “democracy,” but by Western standards this is
hardly the case. Palestinians in the occupied territories have almost
no legal rights. Palestinians within Israel are second-class citizens.
Israel does not believe in genuine religious freedom, even for Jews.
There is an official state religion and government paid chief rabbis
are ultra-Orthodox. Reform Rabbis cannot perform weddings, conduct
funerals or preside over conversions. There is more religious freedom
for Jews in any Western country than in Israel. There is no such thing
as civil marriage. When a Jew and non-Jew wish to marry, they must
leave the country to do so.
In the view
of some observers, annexation would simply make clear to the world that
Israel is not the kind of Democratic society it proclaims itself to
be, and which many Americans of all religions think it is. Professor
Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania, in his new book “Paradigm
Lost,” calls for policy makers to give up the “false belief” in the
two-state solution and acknowledge the struggle for equal rights in a
one-state reality. In his view, annexation would create a single state,
which already exists. The effort of those who believe in democracy
would then properly turn to calling for equal rights for all of that
state’s inhabitants. The alternative would be apartheid.
In
a talk at the Middle East Institute in December 2019, Lustick reports
that he was “an avid and early supporter” of the Zionist state for
nearly fifty years. But in the last decade he came to believe that he
and other two-state advocates were being misled as Israel took over the
West Bank and Jerusalem, “territories no Israeli government will ever
withdraw from...Netanyahu has used liberal Zionists to proclaim that a
two-state solution is possible, when it is a delusion. Entertaining
that possibility is actually playing a sucker’s game into what the right
wants, which is a constant feeling of that carrot, that maybe we get
two states, and meanwhile you send the whole thing into decades and
decades and decades of apartheid.”
“what
I want in Palestine,”:says Lustick, “is something that Jews and Arabs
can live with and that honors the principles of democracy and
equality....The demographic argument is ‘racism’ that goes to the heart
of Zionism. Guess what folks, there are more Arabs than Jews west of
the Jordan...Where a state dominates Arabs for the sake of Jews, you are
going to subsidize the domination of the country by the clerical
right.”
Some have argued for years that
Israeli plans for annexation merely publicize the fact that there is
only one state in Israel and Palestine, with vastly different rights for
Jews and Palestinians and it’s been that way for 50 years. The
struggle should be for equal rights for all the inhabitants of this
single state, according to this view. Former White House side Dennis
Ross declared on Twitter, “It’s one state. Democracy and equal rights
for all—-or apartheid.”
Many Israelis,
concerned about their country’s treatment of Palestinians, lament its
departure from Jewish moral and ethical values. Prof. David Shulman of
the Hebrew University, notes that, “No matter how you look at it,
unless our minds have been poisoned by the ideologies of the religious
right, the occupation is a crime. It is first of all based on the
permanent disenfranchisement of a huge population...In the end, it is
the ongoing moral failure of the country as a whole that is most
consequential, most dangerous, most unacceptable. The failure weighs
heavily...on our humanity. We are, so we claim, the children of the
prophets. Once, they say, we were slaves in Egypt. We know all that
can be known about slavery, suffering, prejudice, ghettos, hate,
expulsion, exile. I find it astonishing that we, of all people, have
reinvented apartheid in the West Bank.”
If
Israel annexes portions of the West Bank it is unlikely to be supported
by very many American Jews. Within the Jewish community, Israel and
Zionism have become increasingly divisive issues. In his book, “Trouble
In The Tribe: The American Jewish Conflict Over Israel,” Prof. Dov
Waxman of Northeastern University writes: “A historic change has been
taking place in the American Jewish relationship with Israel...Israel is
fast becoming a source of division rather than unity for American
Jewry...A new era of American Jewish conflict over Israel is replacing
the old era of solidarity...This echoes earlier debates about Zionism
that occurred before 1948. Then, as now, there were fierce
disagreements among American Jews...Classical Zionism has never had much
relevance or appeal to American Jewry. Indeed, the vast majority of
American Jews reject the basic elements of classical Zionism—-that
Diaspora Jews live in exile, that Jewish life in Israel is superior to
life in the Diaspora...American Jews do not think that they live in
exile and they don't regard Israel as their homeland...For many American
Jews, America is more than just home, it is itself a kind of Zion, an
‘almost promised land.’ Zionism has never succeeded in winning over the
majority of American Jews.”
Since
1948, Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign
assistance. Since World War ll, according to the Congressional
Service, the U.S. has provided Israel with $233.7 billion, adjusted for
inflation. Israel now receives $3.8 billion annually from the U.S. in
military aid. By annexing portions of the West Bank, Israel would be
asking American taxpayers to subsidize an action which is clearly in
violation of international law. It could well bring its “special
relationship” with both the U.S. government and with American Jews to an
end.
No comments:
Post a Comment