We learned on February 16, that, once again, the United States is deeply dismayed that Israel is expanding Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.
The White House statement that day asserted that settlement activity creates facts on the ground that undermine the hopes for peace between Israel and a future Palestinian state. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated that all this will undermine the geographic viability of the two-state solution. Incidentally, she almost undermined her credibility when, in error, she used the number thousands of settlements instead of houses.
An earlier statement from Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the end of January while in Ramallah was even more detailed: “The United States will continue to oppose anything that puts that goal further from reach, including but not limited to settlement expansion and the legalization of illegal outposts, moves towards the annexation of the West Bank, disruption to the historic status quo on Jerusalem’s holy sites, demolitions, evictions, and incitement and acquiescence to violence.”
If you quantify Blinken’s words, they come out as six strikes against Israel while only two against the Palestinian Authority (PA). Worse, violence is not portrayed as a form of active behavior by Arabs of the PA. Blinken sees them simplistically as but acquiescing, as if somehow their will is weak.
All the above seems to have been but a foretaste of what was announced at Aqaba, Jordan on Sunday, at the end of the meeting of senior officials of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Egypt, Israel, PA and the US.
According to the official communique, “The Government of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority confirmed their joint readiness and commitment to immediately work to end unilateral measures for a period of three-six months. This includes an Israeli commitment to stop discussion of any new settlement units for four months and to stop authorization of any outposts for six months.” That freeze is in doubt now.
Basic hurdles that make Jewish resettlement difficult
There appear to be three basic hurdles that interfere with opponents of Jewish resettlement in the Jewish people’s national home. The first is that the Jews, it is claimed, are not a people. They are not a national group. They are but a religion; at most, an ethnoreligious community. The second is that Jews, for a variety of reasons, have no rights at this time to Judea, Samaria or Gaza. The third, a practical consideration, is that Jewish resettlement in Judea and Samaria thwarts and prevents the realization of a two-state solution.
ALL OF the above is patently wrong. Settlement or to be exact “the close settlement of Jews,” what I term “resettlement,” is an internationally recognized legal and legitimate right. It was guaranteed in international law.
As per Article 6 of the decision of the League of Nations in 1922, “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall... encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”
Moreover, the granting of the Mandate was based on the international “recognition... given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”
To reconstitute is to constitute again, to restore to a former condition. There was a Jewish national home in the past and it will now be rebuilt, physically and culturally. Indeed, the historical connection is not something petrified 2,000 years ago, only a biblical right – as if that is somehow inappropriate – but existed, continuously throughout the centuries since. Jews stayed in the land of Israel, immigrated to it and supported those who lived in it through charitable donations gathered from around the world.
By doing this, along with preserving religious obligations and the Hebrew language, the Jews remained a people in the best national sense. If it is appropriate to debate the national identity of the Jews, why cannot the Arab identity as Palestinians be discussed? Is it prohibited to point out that the Arabs resident in this country preferred to be known as Southern Syrians into the 1920s?
In the 20th century, Jews, through the diplomacy of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency, were forced to yield territorial rights to their homeland. An entirely new entity first called Transjordan was created west of the Jordan River in 1922, after having been invaded by a Saudi Hashemite, in 1920. In 1937, the first Partition Plan was formulated and followed in 1947, both being rejected by the Arabs.
Through a forced ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948, thousands of Jews, those not murdered in the mufti’s terror waves since 1920, were expelled from Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the very heartland of Israel. Our rights there are indisputable.
The concept of two states has been tried time and time again and failed. Not because of the Jews but due to the Arab view that Jews do not belong here nor do they deserve a state. That is an intolerable and unacceptable position.
The resettlement of Jews in their national home is not violent and does not encroach on private property. It is a right, not a wrong.
The writer is an analyst and an opinion commentator on political, cultural and media issues.