Though well-intentioned, the letter to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from
The Israel Policy Forum signed by more than 40 American Jewish leaders urging
him to reject the
Levy Report is counterproductive, and their Jerusalem Post
article titled “Israel’s future depends on two states” defending that letter
compounds the error.
As it has not been translated to English, it is
reasonable to ask whether all or even one of the eminent US leaders who
subscribed to the IPF letter has read the 100-page Levy Report. The question is
important because in their letter they purport to understand the report’s
implications and ramifications sufficiently to confidently advise the prime
minister about how to deal with it and furthermore to publish their advice
internationally, before giving the prime minister an opportunity to
respond.
Of course, they could have obtained their insight into the
report from media articles, but then their knowledge of it would be very limited
and would depend on their favorite media. Neither right- nor left-wing
politicians, nor media, have published any rational in-depth analyses of the
report.
Rather, they have all been guilty of kneejerk hysterical and
misleading reactions. J Street proclaimed: “Levy committee recommendations
disastrous for prospects of twostate solution.” Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On said
the Levy committee was formed only to justify the vermin of illegal outposts
after the High Court of Justice and the attorney-general were not good enough
for Netanyahu, and on the right wing, National Union MK Arieh Eldad said the
report smashes into pieces the mantra of “occupation” as far as international
law is concerned and Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely described the report as the key to
creating a long-term change that will eventually lead to the complete
application of Israeli law over Judea and Samaria.
None of these
emotional comments throws any light on the gist of the document and it is
disappointing that eminent leaders allow themselves to be influenced by this
type of obviously irresponsible outbursts without taking the precaution of
sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Even the most conservative media have
been careless in interpreting the report. For example, the incessantly repeated
claim that the report declared the West Bank is not “occupied” is not quite
accurate.
What it actually said was that classic laws of occupation as
set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered
applicable to the unique historical and legal circumstances of Israel’s presence
in Judea and Samaria spanning decades, a conclusion arrived after serious
scholarly research that cannot be summarily dismissed.
It is worth
observing, too, that in urging rejection of the entire Levy Report, the IPF also
rejects its severe criticisms of the settlement policies of successive Israeli
governments and its recommendations to put things right.
The government
is advised to clarify its policy regarding settlement in Judea and Samaria with
a view to preventing future interpretation of its decisions in a mistaken or
overly creative manner. It recommends that new settlements may only be
established by the government and that the municipal boundaries of settlements
be finalized, with local authorities empowered to approve planning within these
boundaries and ministerial approval being required for any construction beyond
them.
The most puzzling aspect of the defending article is the contention
by the writers that adopting the report may bolster Israel’s critics who take
every opportunity to question the state’s legitimacy, even within its existing
borders. Surely logic dictates that it is the IPF’s internationally published
implied contention, that all Israeli settlements, including Gush Etzion which
was established before the state was declared and even the Western Wall are
illegal, that gives unconditional support to our critics.
Contrary to the
IPF’s contention, Israel’s position is strengthened by the Levy Report’s
conclusion, substantiated by intellectually sound reasoning that our presence in
the West bank is not illegal but that we are nevertheless prepared to make
territorial compromises in the interests of peace. As Netanyahu told Congress
last month, “The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in
which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy
a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people living in
their own state.”
Interestingly, IPF’s website states that it was created
with the encouragement and support of the late, lamented Yitzhak Rabin whose
footsteps President Obama urged us to follow.
It is therefore reasonable
to expect its leaders to accept his concept of a two-state solution, bearing in
mind that only a few weeks before he was assassinated, Rabin stated clearly that
the new borders of Israel will include Ma’aleh Adumim and the Jordan Valley
which the IPF letter now insists are occupied illegally.
The writer is a
freelance commentator on current affairs. His website is www.2nd-thoughts.org