ribonut.co.ilribonut.co.il/images/ribonut eng.pdf · 2 / /SOVEREIGNTY2 // Political Journal / SOVEREIGNTY/ / /33 In recent months there has been a change in the people’s frame of

SOVEREIGNTYריבונות A Political Journal / Issue no. 7 / August 2016

Published by Women in Green and the Forum for Sovereignty

MAKING PROGRESSNRG Poll, Jan 2016: Are you in favor of the gradual application

of Israeli Law in Judea and Samaria?

44%In favor

18%No opinion

38%Not in favor

44% in favorof gradual application of Israeli law in Judea and Samaria

Minister Haim Katz:We need a declaration of commitmentto Judea and Samaria as there wasfor the Golan HeightsPage 4

Rep. Alan Clemmons:It is impossible for a Jew to bean occupier in his own ancestral homeland, JudeaPage6

David P. Goldman: Judea and Samaria ina region of failed states.Time is on Israel’s sidePage 12

60% of the youth favorthe application of the law on the entire area

61% of rightwingers favor the application of lawon the entire area

61% of ultra-orthodox favor the application of lawon the entire area

69% of those who de�ne themselves rightwing favor the gradual application of the law

18% of those who de�ne themselves as leftwingers favor the application of the law on the entire area

32% of those who de�ne themselves as leftwing favor the application of the law on the Jewish communities

Published by The Sovereignty Movement founded by Women in Green

A Political Journal / Issue no. 13 / June 2020

SPECIAL

EDITION

YES TO SOVEREIGNTYOVER THE LAND

OF ISRAEL

NO TO PALESTINE!

32 Political Journal / SOVEREIGNTY / 3 2 / SOVEREIGNTY / Political Journal

In recent months there has been a change in the people’s frame of mind. The idea, which till now still exacts a heavy price in blood, that withdrawal will reduce the intensity of the terror, is fading. The People of Israel has understood that the reality is not suitable to such notions, even if friends, or so-called friends, on the other side of the ocean put pressure on us to act in this misguided manner.

The People in Israel and its leaders understand that the cause of terror is not despair but rather, the Arab hope to destroy us and push us out of the Land that was promised and given to us thousands of years ago. The people understand that this hope must be cut off and therefore the time has come for sovereignty. Even if there are differences of opinion about whether it is proper to act gradually, step after step, area after area, or whether, perhaps, it is better to act decisively, once and for all, why, the answer is clearer now than ever - sovereignty is not only the realization of the Zionist and principled vision; responsibly applied sovereignty is also an essential answer for security.

These days, when, from the United States threatening winds are blowing to give a green light to anti-Israel political initiatives and the withdrawal of the American veto, the government of Israel must be alert and ready with its own answer, based on the will of the people, as was shown from the Survey that 78% support sovereignty in Ma’ale Adumim even at the price of such a confrontation.

The People of Israel yearns for decisive and determined leaders. Ministers Haim Katz, Yisrael Katz, Ze’ev Elkin, Miri Regev, Ofir Akunis, Yariv Levin, Naftali Bennett, Uri Ariel, Gila Gamliel and Ayelet Shaked, as well as deputy ministers Tzipi Hotovely, Rav Ben Dahan, Ayub Kara and members of Knesset Kish, Smotrich and along with them, members of the Land of Israel Knesset Lobby must realize and implement the vision of sovereignty. The first step is happening now, in the area of Ma’ale Adumim with the help of the Land of Israel Knesset Lobby, which is taking the correct action, and for this, we thank and

give praise to the director of the lobby, former MK Orit Struk, the Yesha Council , the heads of councils and many other activists who make their voice heard at full volume, accompanied by the fluttering sound of history and the whiff of approaching change in the air.

You have in your hands Issue no. 7 of Sovereignty, a journal published and distributed in hundred fifty thousand copies in Hebrew and English, in Israel and abroad. This journal, which constitutes a key part of the sovereignty campaign that Women in Green began in recent years, wins very positive resonance and is received enthusiastically as a serious platform for the clarification of the profound issues entailed in the implementation of the vision of sovereignty and turning it into an integral part of the diplomatic and political discourse in Israel. The journal’s success until now has been achieved with the help of cherished, like-minded people as well as each and every one of you, dear readers, who choose to distribute the journal and its contents among the ever widening circles of interested people.

Here it is appropriate to add a mention of the activities of Eretz ( acronym for Sovereignty Youth Organization). The young generation throughout the Land is awakening to the call for sovereignty and is taking an active part in it. You can read about it in the pages of this issue.

We call on you to continue in this same spirit, spreading the vision of sovereignty in every way possible, as well as by the use of our material. Be active partners in the vision and the revolution. Send us an email ([email protected]) and we will send you as many copies of the journal as you request.

***Pleasant readingSovereignty editorial staffEditor’s note: The positions brought in the journal, in

interviews and articles, do not necessarily represent the position of the editorial staff. The Sovereignty platform is a platform for presentation of various, sometimes even contradictory positions.

Contents

A Word from the Editors

There is progress toward Sovereignty; slowly but surely.Minister Haim Katz

4

The world starts to understand – the dispute is not over territory A talk with Danny Danon, our Ambassador at the UN

7Sovereignty is a historical and political necessity An interview with MK Yoav Kish

8The Commandment to settle the Land and apply SovereigntyRabbi Eliezer Melamed

10On the activity of the Land of Israel Lobby in the Knesset Orit Struk, former MK

11Judea and Samaria in a region of failed states. Time is on Israel’s side David P. Goldman

12Why are the really illegal settlements in the world ignored? Prof. Avi Bell answers

16SOVEREIGNTY / Political journal


Editor-in-chief and interviews: Shimon Cohen Editorial board: Yehudit Katsover, Nadia Matar

Translation from the original Hebrew Journal: Sally Zahav Photography: Miri Tsachi, Avi Kontorovich, Shlomi Shalmoni Design and concept: Studio Good Graphic design: Shay Zucker Production: Efrat Itzuvim Responses: [email protected] Fax: 972-2-9309148 Cellphone: 054-5236376

www.womeningreen.org www.ribonut.co.il Women in Green, POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel

Sovereignty in the media

The Eretz youth joins in the call for SovereigntyDaniel Gabai

23Forging a roadmap to Sovereignty, resisting the heirs of Sykes-Picot Ari Soffer

20

Public figures call for Sovereignty at the Women in Green events24

Rep. Alan Clemmons, pioneer of change in Republican policy towards Israel6 The Americans want

to hear us speak about our rights A talk with Jeff Daube

22

This political correctness is killing usA talk with Raheel Raza18

MK Shuli Mualem-Refaeli, Chairman of the Bayit Yehudi faction

Zeev Elkin,Minister of Jerusalem Affairs

Uri Ariel, Minister of Agriculture

Miri Regev, Minister of Culture and Sport

Mualem-Refaeli: The true war – “changing the diskette” with sovereignty

Ariel: The Time has Come to Say - The Time has Come for Sovereignty!

Elkin: The Collapse of the PA is at hand, Prepare for Sovereignty

Regev: The Zionist Answer to Terror is Sovereignty

In an interview with Israel Hayom (July 11, 2016), chairman of the Habayit Hayehudi faction, MK Shuli Mualem-Refaeli, presented a clear and resolute position on the issue of sovereignty, despite the possible consequence of a head-on collision with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

In the interview she explained that she believes that “the battle against terror must be waged against its three sources in parallel: ideology, funding and suicides. The military and the police work like crazy. I see it every day in the streets, but the real war is to “change the diskette” by applying Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. For the first phase we must do it in Area C, since it is their hope to chase us away that feeds this terror”.

"The majority of the Israeli public understands that there will not be two states here and it is clear to all of us that the 450 thousand Jews who live in Judea and Samaria today are not going anywhere. I have proposed the Normalization Law, which is intended to normalize the matter of the communities in Judea and Samaria”.

During the funeral of Rav Michael (Miki) Mark, Hy”d, who was murdered by an Arab terrorist, Minister of Agriculture, Uri Ariel, again called for sovereignty as the requisite answer for terror.“The government must say one thing,

clearly: From the Jordan River to the Sea there will be only one sovereign, and that sovereign is the State of Israel!”, said the minister in his eulogy and added: “anything else we say – whether involuntarily or perhaps from ignorance – can be interpreted by our enemies as a reason to hope and to continue the terror. Enough! The time has come to say: The time has come for sovereignty! The government must convene for this; for this, the prime minister must stand up today and send a clear message to the People of Israel and to the entire world and thus the passage will be fulfilled: ‘G-d will grant strength to His People, G-d will bless His People with peace’”.

Minister of Immigrant Absorption and Jerusalem Affairs, Zeev Elkin, takes a look around the corner, where he sees the approaching collapse of the Palestinian Authority. In an interview with Nitsan Keidar for the periodical Besheva (June 2, 1916), he spoke about the things we will face the day after and the vision of sovereignty that he advocates.“We will have challenges. The collapse of the

Palestinian Authority is an opportunity as well as a challenge. But ultimately, I think that the State of Israel must progress in the direction of realization of her national aspirations; in Judea and Samaria as well, meaning, the entire process of application of sovereignty. This is a revolution that will take more than one day. It requires a change in the public discourse – because somehow, we have gotten everybody, including ourselves, used to the demand not being taken seriously – not by us and not in the international community – and therefore I cannot promise when it will happen. It first of all requires the consolidation of a majority among the Israeli public and the political system for this to happen, and I think that just as once, the idea of a Palestinian state was anathema – it has managed to gather many supporters, by the Left’s hard and tedious work – thus, those on the Right must raise the banner in the matter of sovereignty and promote it with all of their strength.”.

Minister of Culture and Sport Miri Regev recently visited Gush Etzion. She was accompanied in her visit by Gush Etzion Council Head Davidi Perl and his deputy, Moshe Savile.

During the visit, Minister Regev came to the Oz veGaon Nature Preserve, which was established by Women in Green on the hill near the Gush Etzion Junction. As she spoke, Regev related to the question of how to deal appropriately to the terror attacks and stated that “Sovereignty is the Zionist answer to terror, and even if there were no terror, we must implement sovereignty because the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel”.

Political Journal / SOVEREIGNTY / 3 2 / SOVEREIGNTY / Political Journal











Contents



4















20




22



















3

4

7

6

8

5

13

12

10

11

16

24

Table of Contents:









We call on you to continue in this same spirit, spreading the vision of sovereignty in every way possible, as well as by the use of our material. Be active partners in the vision and the revolution. Send us an email ([email protected]) and we will send you as many copies of the journal as you request.***Pleasant readingSovereignty editorial staffEditor’s note: The positions brought in the journal, in


Contents



4















20




22



















Published by the Sovereignty Movement founded by Women in GreenEditor-in-chief & interviews: Shimon CohenEditorial Board: Yehudit Katsover, Nadia MatarTranslation from the original Hebrew:Sally Zahav, Josh Schreier, Ruchie AvitalResponses: [email protected] Fax: 02-9309148 Cellphone: 050-5500834The Sovereignty Movement founded by Women in Green, POB 7352, Jerusalem Israel, 91072, www.ribonut.co.il

Chairman: Dudu SaadaVice President: Dudi FinklerSales Manager: Yossi AlkaslasiGraphic Design: Studio BeshevaStudio manager: Sguli KirshenbaumEditorial manager: Naama Ben HayimProduction Manager: Shimrit SameachPublisher: Besheva

Sovereignty Movement - Advisory BoardUri Bank / Ruthie Ben Hayim / Shimon Cohen / Yossi Dagan / Yehudit Katsover / Ruthie Lieberman / Renee Margolis / Nadia Matar / Sam Salomon / Meryl Salomon / Shosh Shilo / Dr. Aviya Shoham / Lior Shurka / Avraham Shvut/ Atty. Karen Stahl-Don

The Sovereignty ForumKen Abramovitz / Eran Bar Tal / Itay Elitsur / Helen Freedman /Amb. Yoram Ettinger / Caroline Glick/ Atty Elyakim Haetzni / Dr. Motti Kedar / Rabanit Shulamit Melamed / Gen. Moshe Peled

Another survey shows: A dramatic majority in support of sovereignty

Former minister, MK Bezalel Smotrich finds parallels and similarities between the Trump plan and the Bar Ilan Speech

MK Michal Shir is convinced: Most of the Likud would oppose a plan that includes a Palestinian state

Determining facts on the ground is what led governments to action in the settlement enterprise. The same is true for sovereignty. Rav Eliezer Waldman, in an interview, states: We will not agree, in practice or in principle, to an alien entity in our Land

No nation sells its homeland. Don’t take sugar-coated poison. Benny Katsover warns

The Trump Plan & Sovereignty – a Christian response. Op-ed By Rev. Anthony Abma, CEO of Return O’Israel.

Atty. Elyakim Haetzni cautions against the ideological land mines in the Trump plan: Nibbling the sugar coating of sovereignty will immediately release the poison of the Palestinian state

Instead of relying on rumors, we simply chose to read the Trump plan. Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, the co-chairwomen of the Sovereignty Movement bring you the disturbing quotations.

Sovereignty does not depend on consent from the Americans and surely not on the establishment of a terror state in the heart of the Land. Head of Samaria Council Yossi Dagan in an interview

Are the Trump commitments binding on his successor as well? American history reveals a truth that the Israeli leadership has not internalized. Amb. (ret.) Yoram Ettinger speaks

The Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Arieh King on the disturbing part of the Trump plan dealing with dividing the city: a Palestinian capital at a distance of 50 meters from Jewish neighborhoods. They will not need tunnels…

Data from the Regavim movement illustrate the unrestrained, illegal Arab building. It is alarming to think of what would happen if, Heaven forbid, Israel totally abandons Area C. An interview with Yachin Zik.

How much would sovereignty actually cost? The Left comes up with of a cost of 52 billion. The truth is very (very) far from this number. Economist Erez Tzadok explains.

A disturbing insight from the violent events in the U.S. Shimon Cohen in an excerpt from an opinion piece

Three days of Reserve Duty for the Land of Israel












Contents



4















20




22





























Contents



4















20




22



















Dear Friends and Readers,We are facing days that are extremely signifi-cant for the future of the State of Israel, the future of Jewish settlement, and the future of Judea and Samaria. The Trump plan makes par-tial sovereignty contingent on Israeli agreement to a Palestinian state, and views Israeli commit-ment to this to be unrelated to the cooperation or lack of cooperation of the Arab partner. Israel, the American administration demands, will be obligated to make a commitment to the United States and will, for all intents and purposes, re-linquish all the territory outside the sovereignty map, to be used as an American bargaining chip in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority leadership.It was not to a day like this that we aspired when we demanded sovereignty. Israel must apply sovereignty in accordance with the Zion-ist vision, historic justice, and Israeli interests, and especially absolutely disconnected from any compromise deal guided on the basis of pres-sure and foreign interests. One does not make deals regarding one’s homeland!

In this spirit, this issue of Sovereignty is pre-sented to you. A series of personalities, from the political, communal, and spiritual fields of endeavor, cautions against the political reckless-ness latent in the Trump plan.In conversations that we conducted recently with elements in the Republican party, the party of the American president Donald Trump, they wonder how the concept of a Palestinian state, found its way into the plan of their president, despite the fact that this concept had been re-moved from the party platform, at the initiative of pro-Israel members of Congress.In these conversations, one had the sense that, even if this was not his intention, Prime Minis-ter Binyamin Netanyahu, who formulated the detailed parameters of the plan, thereby, for all intents and purposes, complicated matters for the American president in a pre-election period. President Trump’s supporters, who believe in the inseparable bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel in its entirety, criticize the plan, in a period when he needs their backing.We hope and believe that significant public pres-sure is capable of causing the Israeli govern-

ment to apply sovereignty independent of the Deal of the Century. First and foremost, this de-pends on the immediate removal of the concept of a Palestinian state from the negotiating table. As a result, growth of the existing Jewish com-munities and establishment of new ones under full Israeli sovereignty will be possible.In order to achieve this objective, we must mo-bilize for a comprehensive public effort. Just as the vision of sovereignty rose from the grass-roots, from the general public to the leadership, and from there reached the world, so, too, the struggle for the integrity of sovereignty, that will not, God forbid, be tarnished by the partition-ing of the land and the establishment of a for-eign state in its heartland, can and must also rise from the people to the decision makers, the government ministers. “We will go up and take possession of the land.” (Numbers 13:30)Meaningful and pleasant reading!The Sovereignty Editorial Staff


This issue is published in memory of Robert Wolfe, obm, lover of Eretz Israel and its sovereignty

68% 62%72% 14%64% 72%90% 62% 54%

A special survey that was carried out at the request of Samaria Coun-cil by the Ma’agar Mohot Institute examined the position of the Israeli public on the matter of the appli-cation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. The Survey shows that a majority of 68% of the Jewish pub-lic in the State of Israel supports the application of sovereignty in Ju-dea and Samaria.The survey also revealed sweeping opposition to abandoning Jewish communities to become enclaves. 72% of those who expressed an

opinion believe that the govern-ment of Israel should oppose a plan that results in enclaves.Among Likud voters the support for sovereignty stands at 64%. 90% of Yamina voters support sovereignty, 62% of Yisrael Beiteinu voters and even 14% of Labor-Gesher-Meretz (a faction that was formed with the formation of the new government). The survey also examined the hare-di public’s position on the matter and found that a sweeping major-ity of this community supports the application of sovereignty. Accord-

ing to a breakdown of respondents, 72% of Shas voters support sover-eignty as well as 62% of Yahadut HaTorah voters.The survey also examined the posi-tion of Likud voters on what their response would be if the Prime Minister chose to recognize a Pal-estinian state. A majority of 54% of Likud voters answered that they would not vote for their party again if Netanyahu would take such a step.Relating to the results of the survey, Head of Samaria Council Yossi Da-

gan says: “The survey proves what we knew all along. A clear majority of the public in the State of Israel longs for the application of sover-eignty in Judea and Samaria and opposes the recognition of a terror state in the heart of the Land. Most of the public in Israel opposes aban-doning communities to become en-claves. I call on the Prime Minister to listen to the voice of the people as it is expressed in the survey and to apply sovereignty”.

Survey: A Large, Solid Majority Supports the Application of Sovereignty

68% of the Jewish public supports the application of Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria

72% of those with an opinion believe that the Israeli government should oppose the outline of the enclaves

64% of Likud support Sovereignty

90% of Yamina voters support Sovereignty

62% of Yisrael Beitenu voters support Sovereignty

14% of Labor-Gesher voters support Sovereignty

72% of Shas voters support Sovereignty

62% of Yahadut HaTorah voters support Sovereignty

54% of Likud voters will not vote for Likud if the Prime Minister recognizes a Palestinian state












Contents



4















20




22






























Contents



4















20




22



















Smotrich: The Trump Plan is, for all Intents and Purposes, a Copyof the Bar Ilan SpeechThe Trump plan, which was portrayed as great tidings for Israel, which would receive immediate sovereignty with no binding compensation, has turned out to be a totally different political scheme. The chairman of the National Union, MK Bezalel Smotrich, warns, cautions, and guarantees a struggle.

The chairman of the National Union, a member of the Yemina party, former government minister, Member of Knesset Bezalel Smotrich, is one of the leaders of the opposition to the Trump plan from its inception, as long as one of its objectives is the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a compromise agreement with Israel. His concern over the details of the plan was exacerbated when he became privy to the map accompanying the plan and its ramifications. Reports regarding the contents of the dialogue between the Prime Minister and those members of the Yesha Council who support the plan, do not assuage his concerns.

“The point of departure is that immediately after Netanyahu returned from the United States after the unveiling of the plan, he would immediately apply sovereignty, sovereignty would be accepted unconditionally, we would be allowed to draw almost any map that would be advantageous for us, and in any territory where sovereignty is not applied at present, there would be a four year freeze. If initially it appeared that were the Palestinians to refuse to come to the negotiating table we would be absolved of any commitments and the status quo regarding the territory would remain, today the Americans are requesting that we entrust that territory in their hands for them to negotiate its status with the Palestinians. In addition, it turns out that the Americans are also demanding that any action taken will be with the full agreement of Gantz and Ashkenazi.”

The Bar Ilan speech marketed as a rightwing product

All the points of departure of the plan have evaporated over time, and the demand is that Israel cede the territory in which sovereignty will not be applied, while determination of its future will be negotiated between the Americans and the Palestinians.

“All these factors together indicate that the plan was not portrayed to us truthfully. It was portrayed as the desire to grant us sovereignty and not to give anything to the Palestinians, and it is all merely lip service. Now it has become clear that the Americans are relentlessly striving to implement both parts of the plan, and it has become clear that it was Netanyahu who drafted this plan. In other words, this is the Bar Ilan speech, but instead of calling it ‘two states’ they are calling it sovereignty, in order to market it as a right wing plan and to put the Right to sleep.”

From all this, Smotrich arrives at a troubling conclusion: “This is a plan whose dangers are extremely significant. We see the map and an indication of American intentions. If they insist on Arab territorial continuity but sever settlement continuity, their

intentions are clear. If one seeks to bolster Jewish settlement, one draws a map that maintains our continuity, and do not fervently insist on maintaining the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state.”

“A decisive majority of the Right opposes a Palestinian state, but says: ‘Let us adopt the first part and the second part will never happen.’ However, that depends on the details, Smotrich says, and emphasizes that the concern is not for long term harm to settlements, but rather to immediate harm, as the communities that will be severed from the central thoroughfares, like Kiryat Arba, which is to be disconnected from Gush

Etzion and Jerusalem, Eli, which will be disconnected from Route 5, which shortens the trip to Tel Aviv, and other similar communities. Other than the fact that these communities will be isolated, in all these communities there will be no construction, no businesses will open, and no mortgages will be provided.

“When the map severs the settlements into four segments, creates enclaves, and fervently insists on Arab continuity in order to facilitate establishment of a Palestinian state, all these together indicate that this is a comprehensive program, supported by 50 billion

dollars that the Americans are raising from various countries. What will happen in practice is that settlement will be harmed. Beyond the fact that in terms of consciousness, there will be a sense that it is not ours and therefore, the IDF will design its plans and facilities in accordance with this map, planned roads, like those circumventing Hawara and El-Aroub will be abandoned, as, ostensibly, there is no longer any need for them. The Palestinians will be able to continue to run wild with no supervision or oversight in Area C.”

It is clear to all- this is a package deal

Smotrich emphasizes that, in practice,

it is reality, not proclamations of sovereignty, that is the determining factor. Examples of this he finds in Jerusalem, where, despite the sovereignty there, Netanyahu does not build in Givat HaMatos, and in the Golan Heights, over which negotiations with the Syrians continued despite the sovereignty that was proclaimed.

“Sovereignty is important, provided that it corresponds with practical steps, enhances them, and facilitates establishing facts on the ground. We also agreed to stage sovereignty in the sense of: “Little by little I will expel them from before you” (Exodus 23:20), but not to a package deal that involves another side. Now they are attempting to employ talmudic reasoning and say that the government decision will relate only to the section addressing application of sovereignty; however, any child knows that you accepted sovereignty in exchange for and as part of a package deal, even if you did not write it explicitly. If you agree, Biden will come tomorrow and tell us that we received our part and now, he recognizes a Palestinian state on the remaining territory. This will come with support of massive European pressure and with the investment of tens of millions of dollars from the Americans to fund the practical construction of the Palestinian state.”

In light of all the changes that have been incrementally introduced to the detriment of Israel, Smotrich states: “Netanyahu and elements in the American administration presented the plan differently, perhaps it was true then; but then Kushner prevailed and his position was adopted. Bottom line, it is no longer the situation. The

The plan was not portrayed to us truthfully. It was portrayed as the desire to grant us

sovereignty and not to give anything to the Palestinians, and it is all merely lip service

MK Bezalel Smotrich, former minister of Transport

Phot

o: Y

onat

an Z

inde

l Fla

sh 9

0

Continued on page 14












Contents



4















20




22





























Contents



4















20




22



















Member of Knesset Michal Shir (Likud) believes that specifically because the Trump Administration is friendly, it will be possible to promote application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria without tying it to risking Israel’s future with the establishment, God forbid, of a Palestinian state. “The United States is Israel’s friend and Trump is one of the presidents most supportive of Israel; therefore, it is both possible and necessary to exploit this opportunity as long as Trump and his administration are in office, in order to elicit positive steps like the Golan Heights and the relocation of the embassy.”At the same time, she emphasizes that the Trump plan as it appears today is “very, very problematic,” in her words. “If its consequence is establishment of a Palestinian state, then I will certainly oppose it, and I believe that most of my colleagues in the Likud will oppose it under those circumstances.”She also notes that she discovered that, in fact, the Trump plan will lead to the actual evacuation of 25 communities. “One of these communities is Maale Yisrael near Barkan, a community that I established when I was 14 years old. It is a community in which there were always families and at a certain stage it became housing for students from Ariel. Today, there is a farm there as well. It is not merely that community, but rather, an additional series of communities, as well, that will become enclaves. This means that they will strangle them until their residents get up and leave. This is a euphemism saying that you are a fish in water and we will empty the aquarium. It is an evacuation carried out of one’s own volition, with no need for bulldozers and special patrol units, without the heartrending photographs from Gush Katif.”She also mentions that the delineation of the roads on the plan’s map leaves very troubling enclaves that are not viable, beyond the injustice that they create for the residents themselves. “I am told that there is no reason to worry because the Palestinians will not agree. However, I am not concerned regarding what the Palestinians will do, just as I am not

concerned what the gentiles will say. I think that the State of Israel is a sovereign state that needs to tend to its own needs. To conduct a dialogue with others, but ultimately, the one who decides about the demarcation of borders is the State of Israel, and the decision to apply sovereignty is in the exclusive hands of the State of Israel and the Israeli government. Therefore, if it is a check that we can cash today without agreeing to a Palestinian state and without it being contingent on a Palestinian state, that is one thing. However, if we are signing with the United States that we are accepting the application of sovereignty today, but tomorrow morning, with or without Palestinian agreement, a Palestinian state will be established, I expect that we will be smarter than that.” “True, we would all like to see sovereignty. The first legislation that I submitted in the twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-third Knessets, was the law of the application of sovereignty in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. I would very

much like to see sovereignty, but the question is: At what price?” said MK Shir.The majority in the Likud will oppose a Palestinian State. Such a plan will not pass.Regarding potential ramifications of a negative Israeli response on relations between the Israeli government and the administration in Washington, Shir does not sound particularly concerned. She attributes her equanimity to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s diplomatic and leadership abilities. “I trust the Prime Minister, his diplomatic expertise, his political acumen, and his close friendship with President Trump and

his administration, and I know that with political artistry, as he knows how to practice it, he will be able to accomplish this objective. If not, I expect that our statement will be that it is impossible.” Member of Knesset Shir is convinced that the package deal that combines sovereignty and a Palestinian state will not garner a majority in the Likud party, and not only will she oppose it, but so will most of the members of her party. Regarding members of the Right who support the plan, Member of Knesset Shir says: “I can understand the

other school of thought that seeks to cash the check as soon as possible. The problem is that we have already made similar mistakes in the course of our history, when we gave away the Temple Mount after having returned there, and, as a result, we got Al-Aksa. We see what it means to cede and not receive even minimal access to Joseph’s Tomb. We experienced this. I can understand the optimistic approach, but Israel cannot afford to adopt this optimistic approach, as soon, conceivable, there could be a different administration, and in Israel, too, the government could change. What will we say then, that we hoped for the best?”

Shir emphasizes the disconnect that the Trump plan creates between advancement of the plan and Palestinian conduct. Lack of cooperation on their part will not halt progress toward a Palestinian state. “This is not a contract with the Palestinians, and it does not matter whether or not they agree. Israel is signing the agreement with a superpower, an agreement that says that we receive sovereignty and also agree to a Palestinian state. It says that you agreed, but on what basis did you agree? That is negotiation. As a sovereign state, it must be we who apply sovereignty, regardless of the Trump administration and regardless of the Palestinians. We must establish facts on the ground. There will be some noise, but the sun will rise the next morning.” An additional issue that Member of Knesset Shir addressed is the decision of the High Court of Justice to abrogate the Judea and Samaria Settlement Regulation Law that was designed to prevent destruction of hundreds of houses throughout Judea and Samaria. Immediately following the decision of the High Court, Shir resubmitted legislation of the Regulation Law in which she integrated several emendations that correspond to the comments of Justice Solberg’s minority opinion that opposed the decision to abrogate the law.“The High Court decision, in my opinion, is nothing less than shocking. This law has existed for three years, and specifically on the eve of implementation of the Trump plan, you remember? It is impossible to claim that this is not politically motivated. This involves the fate of 3,000

“This is not a contract with the Palestinians, and it does not matter whether or not they agree. Israel is signing the agreement with a superpower, an agreement that says that we receive sovereignty and also agree to a

Palestinian state"

MK Michal Shir. Likud

Phot

o: Y

onat

an Z

inde

l Fla

sh 9

0 Yes to Sovereignty, Regardlessof the Americans and the ArabsMK Michal Shir of the Likud: If the plan requires recognition of a Palestinian state, I will not be the only one to oppose it. Most of the Likud will not be part of this. This involves the actual uprooting of 25 communities.













Contents



4















20




22






























Contents



4















20




22



















Benny Katsover, a member of the legendary Elon Moreh founding group, one of the first Israelis to settle in Samaria and a leader since its inception, notes that the settlement endeavor was not founded to accommodate the needs and convenience of the residents, but to solidify the sovereignty of the people of Israel over its land in its entirety, at a time when it appeared that the entire territory of Judea and Samaria was no more than a bargaining chip for diplomatic purposes. “And now there are those that are trying to turn it all upside down,” says Katsover, who repudiates the claim that there’s nothing to worry about because the Arabs can be trusted to reject the conditions of the Trump plan.“It’s wrong to say or claim that the other side will refuse and reject the plan and that as a result, nothing will happen. It’s wrong because it would mean that the communities deep in the territory will be frozen for four years and their situation will worsen even more. What will worsen even further is the situation of Israel’s state land located in Area C, which appears to be designated for a Palestinian state. Everyone knows that currently there’s almost no enforcement to prevent illegal Palestinian construction in those areas, in the places where there are no Israeli communities. This situation will be further aggravated if the Civil Administration becomes convinced that these territories are designated for a Palestinian state. The entire legal effort will become even more inadequate and feeble, and we’ll be seeing the Palestinians stepping up their efforts to take over even more state land. We’ll find ourselves losing hundreds or thousands of acres, in addition to what we’ve already lost.” Katsover also believes that the American intransigence regarding

any changes to the plan’s maps offers further proof of the plan’s overall intent and danger. They're working so hard to create Arab contiguity that cuts off the Israeli contiguity in dozens of places, not only in the enclaves. In fact, the Israeli communities will find themselves in a reality in which they’ll have to live in the shadow of the Palestinian police. Even a child understands the meaning of what will happen if Palestinian police officers control the roads, and the communities to which Israeli law is applied will be fully adjacent to Palestinian police control. The meaning of that is life in Ariel, Maaleh Adumim and other places will resemble what’s happening in the Gaza periphery.“All the components of the plan are catastrophic for the people of Israel and it must be hoped that Israel will reject this initiative completely. Israel must apply Israeli law to Judea and Samaria unconnected to this initiative as best it can,” says Katsover, who completely rejects the proposal made by Defense Minister Benny Gantz to the leaders of the communities of Judea and Samaria that Israel should take what it is offered and talk about the rest later. “That’s the confusion here. It’s not that we can take what’s offered now and deal with the rest later, because what we’d be taking now is a piece of candy with poison inside.“The Americans are conditioning their support for the application of sovereignty on Israel’s acceptance of its plan as is, which means that the people of Israel would be accepting maps that define the establishment of a Palestinian state over 70 percent of the territory. That is the main poison, and its implications are that either the Arabs will accept the plan, which would be a huge catastrophe and create a Gaza-like reality on every square foot of Judea and Samaria, or if they don’t accept the plan, the

When asked to relate to the Trump plan, Rabbi Eliezer Waldman characterizes it as the evil that should be shunned, while, at the same time, doing the good of establishing the facts of sovereignty in practice. “According to the verse: ‘Shun evil and do good’ (Psalms 34:15), we will begin with the Trump plan,” says Rabbi Waldman, and immediately proclaims resolutely, “Of course we absolutely repudiate, and cannot accept, neither in principle nor in practice, any restriction of our ownership and our right to settle anywhere in the Land of Israel. We did not accept upon ourselves any such matter in the past, and we cannot accept any such matter in the future.”“In addition, we will not accept any path that includes a freeze on settlement, development, or construction. The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish people; therefore, we are unable to accept any form of a Palestinian state, or any form of alternative rule in the Land of Israel. We are commanded to fulfill the commandment of settling the Land of Israel according to the definition of Nachmanides (the Ramban) that we shall not abandon it in the possession of any other nation or in desolation. We are commanded to settle and make the desert bloom,” asserts Rabbi Waldman, the head of the “Nir” yeshiva, and one of the first leaders of the settlement movement and among the founders of settlement in Hebron and Kiryat Arba.

At the same time, the Rabbi adds, we must move from ‘shun evil’ to ‘do good.’ “We are also commanded to do good. Hasidim said that the way to shun evil is through doing good; however, there is value in doing good for its own sake. The application of sovereignty is totally unrelated to the Trump plan. Thank God, the Sovereignty Movement, may they be blessed from Heaven, began advocating the application of sovereignty several years ago, before Trump, and thank God, their activities, the publications and conferences that they sponsored, have spurred segments of the people in Israel, among them members of Knesset, in support of this issue.”“We should have applied sovereignty immediately after the Six Day War, and now, we must certainly aspire to this. This is the most auspicious time to apply sovereignty. We do not accept any restriction or freeze, neither in the development of existing communities, nor in the establishment of new communities, nor in our freedom as Israeli citizens to move and go anywhere under Israeli sovereignty.”RabbiIn his statements, Rabbi Waldman cautions against the fundamental ramifications of postponing sovereignty: “If we do not establish sovereignty now, after the Arabs are threatening us and the European Union is threatening us, they will think, God forbid, that we are afraid of them. This will be a negative message on our part, as though we accept the Palestinian

We Will Not Agree, neither in Principle nor in Practice, to a Foreign Entity inOur LandRabbi Eliezer Waldman rejects any political program that includes a settlement freeze and certainly recognition of a foreign political entity in the Land of Israel. We must not stop coaxing the leadership to apply sovereignty, but unrelated to the Trump plan. In that way we will underscore that there is no occupied territory, but rather, a return to our ancestral heritage

Don’t eat poisoned candyThe Trump plan is a breakdown of values. No nation hands over its land to foreigners. The communities will seemingly remain unharmed, but in fact will be left to dry upuntil they're eventually abandoned. A warning by Benny Katsover

Rabbi Eliezer Waldman, one of the trailblazers of the renewed Jewish settlement in Hevron

Phot

o: N

ati S

hoch

at F

lash

90

Phot

o Yo

ssi Z

amir

Flas

h 90

Benny Katsover, among the first pioneers in Hevron and trailblazer of the settlement in Samaria

Continued on page 14Continued on page 14












Contents



4















20




22





























Contents



4















20




22



















Attorney Elyakim Haetzni, among the first Israelis to settle in Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War, was also among the first to warn of the dangers of the Trump plan. Today too, despite appeasement efforts from the prime minister, he considers the plan an existential disaster for and critical blow to Zionism, but also proposes an escape route from the prospect of a Palestinian state.Already at the beginning of his remarks, Haetzni criticizes the opponents of the plan who object to it mainly because of the harm it will cause to the communities of Judea and Samaria. That perspective, he explains, is a local one, and the prospective damage involved emanates from a far more sweeping and significant problem. “If I were discussing it from that perspective, I would talk about how people would have to drive to Jerusalem via Be'er Sheva, but that’s not the main issue. The main issue is giving up the mountain ridge and turning it into a sovereign Palestinian state. All the rest ensues from that. After all, I didn’t come to live in Kiryat Arba for reasons of convenience. Ramat Chen was very convenient. We had to drive to Kiryat Arba along patrol trails used by the military, and sometimes we had to open the lock on the gate with the key we received. We didn’t do any of that for reasons of convenience, of course, but rather to restore Israel to Hebron and Hebron to the Jewish people. And we restored that connection to Hebron in order to return the Jewish people to the land of Israel. To achieve that big goal, you have to go through a number of smaller ones.” “And look,” continues Haetzni, “after having already established

this glorious enterprise involving hundreds of communities, why are we suddenly getting weak in the knee and worrying about individual local communities. The criticism of the plan from the perspective that it’s bad for the communities is true, but it moves the focus from the central point. Let's not forget that the communities serve the land of Israel and God forbid if they're ever turned into Palestine. That’s the point from which the criticism must begin.” A further point that Haetzni does not view as central despite its importance is the question of how anyone can trust an Arab signature on an agreement to fulfill the plan’s prerequisites. Haetzni recalled how the Arab side is capable of perpetrating a major public hoax in order to make gains: “In the Oslo agreements, they signed a pledge to annul the Palestinian Covenant, which calls for Israel’s destruction. It is no less than a Nazi document. They pledged to annul it, the American administration applied pressure and they indeed held a gathering in Gaza in the presence of half of the White House together with fools from our side. At that gathering, they held a vote of sorts annulling the Covenant. It was all a hoax. They voted and laughed. Afterwards, they explained that the vote wasn’t legal and the ones that had voted weren’t the real delegates. It was all a well-staged performance. That’s how they, we and the world related to it, and despite that, it didn’t cancel the Oslo agreements, which continue to exist.“There are those among us who trust that the Arabs will never repudiate the Right of Return and will never

The great pitfalls of theTrump planThe Arabs have already shown that in order to make gains, they're capable of perpetrating a colossal diplomatic hoax. Agreements arenever abrogated in wake of such hoaxes. Attorney Elyakim Haetzni recalls lessons from the past and warns: The Trump plan is the completion of the Oslo process

No place on earth is as central to the Bible as the land of Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. The Jews return and rebuilding since the declaration of Statehood in 1948 is nothing short of miraculous. But this Biblical promise is incomplete as long as Israel is not the Sovereign nation over all her G_d-given land. Now after 70+ years of floundering in fear of attaining to her Covenanted potentials, it appears that the Israeli government is about to break free from the shackles of the past. The pledge by PM Netanyahu and the newly formed Unity Government to annex much of the biblical heartland of Israel in Judea and Samaria, sounds wonderful – but is it really?Much credit can be attributed to the Christian support for Israel which helped to elect the most pro-Israel President the United States has ever had. President Trump is highly commended for the numerous steps he implemented in support of Israel - but unfortunately there is a significant flaw in the current Trump Peace Plan. The Torah clearly states that the “strangers “within Israel’s borders are to be respected. But never was there to be a dichotomy between the land of Israel and the people to whom it was given. It is the Jews - and the Jews alone - who are entrusted as the Sovereign caretakers of the land. Bible believing Christians recognize this and that Israel’s complete restoration and Sovereignty can only be possible without the establishment of another foreign nation on its sacred territory.

The Trump Plan that accommodates another foreign, Palestinian nation within Israel’s borders, is absolutely contrary to both the Biblical Covenants and the prevailing International Treaties that assured the Jewish restoration to her ancestral homeland. To permit another State will ensure the conflagration of conflict as the withdrawal from Gaza has so blatantly proven.

Even a silent majority of Palestinian Arabs are recognizing that the only way forward for true and lasting peace, is under a Sovereign Israeli State. For the Trump Plan to require an Israeli building freeze – while Palestinians are free to build without restrictions; that conscripts existing Jewish settlements to be mere islands cut off from the rest of Israel - is completely untenable. This is a watershed moment of which the Parashat Sh’Lach provides an eerie backdrop. For the Israeli Government’s plan on July 1 to accept the Trump Plan and implement a partial annexation, is an act comparable to the disastrous report of the 10 spies and the dire consequences that followed.The implementation of complete Sovereignty is long overdue. While Jews and Christians thank G_d for the magnanimous support thus far of the Trump Administration, the Plan needs amending so that it aligns correctly with the Bible and International Law. Then – and only then – will steps of faith be made towards the Geulah that Jews and Christians long for.

The Trump Plan & Sovereignty - A Christian Response by Rev Anthony Abma, CEO of Return O’Israel

Phot

o: H

adas

Fro

sh F

lash

90

Atty. Elyakim Haetzni, participated in the Seder night at the Park hotel in Hevron in 1968, fighting publicist


Knesset Speaker Yariv Levin (Likud):

Sovereignty for me is the realization of the deepest aspirations of the Jewish People. It is our duty to implement our right, according to the legacy of our forefathers, for our sake and that of future generations.












Contents



4















20




22






























Contents



4















20




22



















A serious debate must be held only af-ter reading the material that is being debated. That is the claim proffered by many, quite justifiably, regarding the dispute over the Trump plan. That is why we read the plan verbatim in Hebrew and English. Here are several citations from the plan along with our observations regarding their content (the citations appear in bold).In the introductory chapter: Back-

ground: “Israelis and Palestinians have both suffered greatly from their longstanding and seem-ingly interminable conflict.” This

is an outrageous analogy that is morally and fundamentally errone-ous. Ever since the seed of Zionism began to germinate and the State of Israel began to flourish, the Ar-abs have arisen against us to elimi-nate us. By contrast, the Arabs of the Land of Israel immigrated here from the Arab expanse, were aware that they were interlopers in a land that is not theirs, and did not stop harass-ing the nascent state. If invasion was

not enough, they also murdered us, slaughtered us, demanded the land for themselves, and in 1964 (before the pretext of the 1967 “occupation”),

even demanded to be a people.“Palestinians have aspirations that have not been realized, in-cluding self-determination.” Why is it that the Jewish people, that ex-ists for thousands of years, forcibly expelled from its Promised Land, is supposed to pay with the land of its tiny homeland for the demands for self-determination by invaders who are not a people?The plan’s document continues: “Re-alistic two-state solution.” Are these tidings or a warning? In the

eyes of the drafters of this document, these are apparently tidings, but why in our land? If we seek to understand what is the solution that the docu-ment claims to be “realistic,” the ex-planation follows immediately. It is a solution that “would give the Pal-estinians all the power to govern themselves but not the powers to threaten Israel.”Haven’t we already experienced some of this with Oslo? Rifles and weapons were given then to the Arabs, who were trained by elite American com-

We Do Not Rely on Rumors,We Read the Plan’s Document

Accelerated advancement of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heartland, an immoral equivalence between Israel and the Arab enemy, partition of Jerusalem, a

construction freeze and isolating communities, and more, are the hazards scattered

throughout the text of the Trump plan. We read it and were outraged. Yehudit Katsover and

Nadia Matar

Danger! The Deal of the Century will establish a

Palestinian State!

” Why is it that the Jewish people, that exists for thousands of years, forcibly expelled from its

Promised Land, is supposed to pay with the land of its tiny homeland for the demands for self-determination

by invaders who are not a people?"

Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, co-chairs of the Sovereignty Movement

The map of the Deal of the Century

Phot

o: E

sthe

r Eliy

ahu












Contents



4















20




22





























Contents



4















20




22



















manders and officers. All these were ostensibly earmarked for a local po-lice force to maintain order. Our cries: “Do not give them rifles!” fell on deaf ears, and as expected, the rifles were directed toward us. More than 1500 Jews killed, thousands of wounded, hundreds of orphans, and dozens of widows were part of the tragic conse-quences of the Oslo catastrophe.

The text continues: “This necessar-ily entails the limitation of certain sovereign powers in the Palestin-ian areas (henceforth referred to as the Palestinian State).” No fewer than 48 times is the phrase Pal-estinian state mentioned in the docu-ment.The document also addresses what is called “the legitimate aspira-tions of the parties.” In that re-gard, it is written: “Any workable peace agreement must address the Palestinians’ legitimate de-sire for self-determination. This vision addresses these legitimate concerns through, among other things, the designation of terri-tory for the future of a Palestinian state, strengthening Palestinian institutions of self-government, providing the Palestinians with the legal status and the interna-tional standing of a state, ensur-ing solid security arrangements, and building an innovative net-work of roads, bridges, and tun-nels that enables freedom of movement for the Palestinians.”Later in the document (which, as mentioned, was characterized as auspicious tidings for Israel): “The question of territory, self-deter-mination, and sovereignty. Any realistic peace proposal requires the State of Israel to make a sig-nificant territorial compromise that will enable the Palestinians to have a viable state, respect their dignity, and address their legitimate national aspirations.”All this is written despite what is writ-ten later in the document: “With-drawing from territory captured in a defensive war is a historical rarity. It must be recognized that the State of Israel has already withdrawn from at least 88% of the territory it captured in 1967. The vision provides for the trans-fer of sizeable territory by the

State of Israel – territory to which Israel has asserted valid legal and historical claims, and which are part of the ancestral home-land of the Jewish people – which must be considered a significant concession.”In the chapter addressing borders, the drafters of the document wrote: “The Conceptual Map has been designed to demonstrate the fea-sibility for a redrawing of bound-aries in the spirit of UNSCR 242, and in a manner that1. Meets the security re-quirements of the State of Israel.” Where has basic logic gone? How will the security requirements of the State of Israel be met alongside a terrorist state situated in its heartland, when it has never ceased claiming its owner-ship of the Land of Israel in its en-tirety.2. “Delivers significant ter-ritorial expansion to the Pales-tinians…The Israeli population located in enclaves that remain inside contiguous Palestinian territory but that are part of the State of Israel shall have the op-tion to remain in place unless they choose otherwise.” This phrase: “Unless they choose otherwise,” is more than an allusion to the possibil-ity of evacuating and uprooting them in the future. After certain communi-ties will find themselves besieged in enclaves and surrounded by the Arab enemy, no one will build his house, no one will plant a vineyard, many will leave, and the path from there to de facto uprooting is very short. Even if the matters are not written explicitly, the implication is a silent uprooting of the communities.

Is Jerusalem partitioned or not?“Jerusalem will remain the sover-eign capital of the State of Israel,

and it should remain an undivided city. The sovereign capital of the State of Palestine should be in the section of East Jerusalem located in all areas east and north of the existing security barrier, includ-ing Kafr Aqab, the eastern part of Shuafat and Abu Dis, and could be named Al Quds or another name as determined by the State of Pal-estine.” So, partitioned or not? Here is another excerpt of the Trump plan: “Foundations of a Palestin-ian state…The transition to state-hood is complex and fraught with peril. The region cannot absorb another failed state, another state not committed to human rights or the rule of law. A Pal-estinian State, just like any other state, must combat all forms of terrorism and be accountable to its neighbors….” In other words, someone there really hopes and be-lieves that the Arab enemy, the one

that has aspired and continues to as-pire to establish a state on the ruins of the State of Israel, will be trans-formed into Canadians or Norwegians.The plan is a detailed plan that ad-dresses economy, security, tourism, crossings, refugees, and much more. We have brought before you some of the excerpts that outraged us, and that, for some reason, people do not always speak about and their conse-quences.The matters seem clear – the objec-tive of the plan is the establishment of a Palestinian state. The matters are written explicitly. Some will view the plan pragmatically, who will see winks and nudges between the lines, and have the sincere belief that every-thing will work in our favor, that the Arabs with their conduct and their re-calcitrance will save us. We must not close our eyes and walk on the brink of the abyss. We cannot support the very agreement to the concept of es-tablishment of a Palestinian state. On the basis of all public opinion surveys conducted in recent years, the major-ity of the people do not want it.The Sovereignty Movement was es-tablished as an ideological movement

whose objective is to put an end to the fallacious discourse regarding the “occupation,” to put an end to the un-certainty surrounding the question of the rightful owners of the Land of Israel, to put an end to the Civil Ad-ministration, and to put an end to the reality that any leader who desires peace views Israel as the one who is supposed to relinquish its land. As a movement of this kind, we cannot come to terms with the very exis-tence of a discourse regarding a for-eign country in our heartland.We are obligated to continue to pro-mote the idea of Greater Israel in practice and not leave it merely in the conceptual realm. Almost a decade has passed since our first Sovereignty conference in Hebron in 2011, whose aim was to promote the idea and to instill it into the public consciousness. Many outstanding people attended that conference. At present, it ap-pears that the idea is taking shape in practice; however, this is not hap-pening in a healthy, correct, just, and Zionist framework. The concept of sovereignty has been totally distorted and has become a cellophane wrap-per obscuring the establishment of a Palestinian state. We will not be party to this! It is incumbent upon the Israeli Prime Minister to remove the estab-lishment of Palestine in the heartland of the Land of Israel, and to progress bravely and proudly toward sover-eignty as rightful owners of this land. In the name of truth and justice, in the name of the fathers and mothers who sacrificed their lives for our land, and for the sake of future generations who will, with God’s help, establish many more cities and communities and welcome into our tiny land mil-lions of more Jews who will flow and stream here in the coming years, with God’s help.

It is clear – the objective of the plan is the establishment of a

Palestinian state

We cannot support the very agreement to the

concept of establishment of a Palestinian state.

On the basis of all public opinion surveys

conducted in recent years, the majority of the people

do not want it

The map of the Deal of the Century

Signs hung in the Negev warning "Here Palestine will be established", as part of a billboard campaign by the Sovereignty Movement

Deputy Minister of Educa-tion MK Rav Meir Porush

(Yahadut HaTorah):

“To me, sovereignty is: A mem-ber of the Council of Torah Sages,

Rabbi Menahem Zamba, Hy”D defined it before the Holocaust – The Land of Israel is like a Torah Scroll, and in a Torah Scroll, even if one letter yod, the smallest let-ter, is missing, it is not complete and it is invalid. It is so as well

for the Land of Israel – it belongs entirely to the Jewish People and it is forbidden that any part of it be lacking. This is our belief”.












Contents



4















20




22






























Contents



4















20




22



















In a series of meetings with the me-dia, Samaria Regional Council Mayor Yossi Dagan has been trying to de-bunk what he calls false myths. One is that Israel must receive American endorsement for any sovereignty-related move it makes, and the sec-ond is that the price of sovereignty entails the establishment of a Pales-tinian state and the abandonment of communities located in enclaves sur-rounded by the Arab enemy. Dagan considers the application of sovereignty a kind of insurance pol-icy, based on the Golan Heights Law (1981), which requires the support of 80 Knesset members to approve concession of sovereign Israeli terri-tory, but even more so, he empha-sizes the moral significance of ap-plying sovereignty. “It will correct an injustice of many years towards half a million residents.” “I completely repudiate the assump-tion that the application of sover-eignty must also involve agreement to accept the establishment of a ter-rorist state. Moreover, I reject the notion that the application of sover-eignty must be contingent upon the approval of any other state, even a friendly and important one like the United States,” says Dagan, chal-lenging Israel and its prime minis-ter with precedents from the past. “Menachem Begin and Levy Eshkol, who applied sovereignty to the Golan Heights and Jerusalem respectively, acted contrary to the position of the United States. Eshkol, as the leader of the left, decided to apply sover-eignty to liberated Jerusalem after the Six Day War despite vehement American opposition. Begin did it in one day and an infuriated US Presi-dent Ronald Reagan threatened to terminate the US’s strategic coop-eration agreement with Israel. In response, Begin himself suspended the agreement and applied sover-eignty, declaring at the time that Is-rael is neither a banana republic nor a vassal state. A few months went by without the strategic cooperation agreement and then he flew to the US and made up with Reagan.”Dagan adds, “Olmert did the same thing when he decided to bomb the

reactor in Syria”. Based on these past events, Dagan is convinced that the conclusion for today is clear: “Certainly when we’re talking about Trump, who supports Israel and has less than six months before the elec-tions. Since everyone knows that his base loves Israel and supports sov-ereignty even more than some mem-bers of Netanyahu’s government, it would be foolish to say that the ap-plication of sovereignty mandates US approval. Dagan describes US sup-port for Israel’s actions as important but secondary to the act itself, add-ing, “There’s no question that US sup-port is in no way worth recognizing the establishment of a terrorist state in Israel’s heartland and is not worth forcing us to differentiate between different types of communities, turn-ing some into isolated fortresses in danger of being dried up and having their construction frozen.” Dagan accentuates his point: “Even the application of sovereignty is not worth recognizing a terrorist state in Israel’s heartland and separating communities into blocs. Furthermore, such agreement is not even needed. We are an independent state and this is my call to the prime minister, as I told him on the evening of the declaration in the White House, and I say it now to our American friends too who know that I worked actively to elect Trump: Our prime minister is Netanyahu, not Trump. The nation expects Netanyahu to correct a his-toric injustice, to apply sovereignty and take a stand against the estab-lishment of a terror state in the heart of Israel.” Regarding any concerns that US-Israel rela-

Netanyahu must insist on applying sovereignty without recognizing a terrorist stateSamaria mayor Yossi Dagan: Don’t be confused. Sovereignty must be applied without recognizing a terrorist state. Trump will respect Israel for standing up for its national interests and his supporters will encourage him to do so

Whether the Trump plan will be promoted or suspended appears to largely depend on the US elec-tion campaign timetable. Trump is convinced that the presentation of the plan as helpful to Israel will convince supporters of Israel to vote for him and consequently, he is carefully leveraging the plan to dovetail with his campaign. In Is-rael too, the feeling is that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in view of the not unrealistic pros-pect that Trump may turn out to be a one-term president. But are the promises and commitments of an American president also binding on his successor?Former Israeli diplomat Yoram Et-tinger, who maintains ongoing ties with US movers and shakers, replies with a disturbing no to that ques-tion, backed by past experience, including but not limited to Israel’s.“Even if the American assurances come from the purest of inten-tions, it’s important to understand that since the establishment of the US in the 18th century and up to the present, certain features have always been part of these commit-ments. One is that the assurances are never specific. The current plan calls for Israeli security control from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, but who defines what ‘control’ is, what ‘Israeli control’ is and what ‘Palestinian control’ is. Today, Trump is defining it, but tomorrow it might be Joe Biden, and what’s certain is that each will interpret it according to how he sees the situation, with each taking contrary views.“Furthermore, no commitment is automatic. The fact that there’s a promise to carry out the commit-ment doesn’t mean it will happen immediately. That brings us to the third feature, and that is that every assurance is subject to American in-terests at the time designated for its implementation, and the interests are determined by the president sit-ting at that time in the White House. All of this means that an American assurance is open to interpretation.”

As noted, Ettinger bases his com-ments on past experience: “Any-one who thinks that an assurance is etched in stone should examine a very important and binding agree-ment, the NATO treaty, which states that an armed attack against any member shall be deemed an attack against them all and that members “shall consider” such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force. In other words, it’s something to be considered, and there is always the option of decid-ing that it’s not the right time for military intervention or that events don’t justify it.

The wording is no accident, un-derscores Ettinger, but rather an entirely deliberate intent aimed at preserving American interests and p r even t i ng

Phot

o: H

adas

Zin

del F

lash

90

US assurances are open ended to preserve American interestsAre the commitments made by an American president binding on his successor? The test of history shows that they don’t even bind the president who himself signed them. Everything depends on American interests at the time of implementation. An interview with Amb.(ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Continued on page 15Continued on page 14

" Every assurance is subject to American interests at the time

designated for its implementation, and the interests are determined by the president sitting

at that time in the White House. All of this means that an American

assurance is open to interpretation.”

Yossi Dagan, Samaria Regional Council Head

Phot

o: Y

onat

an Z

inde

l Fla

sh 9

0

Yoram Ettinger, former Israeli ambassador in the US












Contents



4















20




22





























Contents



4















20




22



















The American President’s Deal of the Century relates, in part, to the future of Jerusalem. The public’s attention has been diverted a bit from this is-sue but when Aryeh King, Deputy Mayor of the City of Jerusalem, ex-amines the outlines that the Trump plan proposes for the capital of Israel, he shudders. According to the plan, the neighborhoods of Shuafat, Kfar Aqab, Anata as well as part of Atarot are designated to be the capital of the Palestinian state that the plan strives to establish. King sees the idea of transferring these neighborhoods as the beginning of the collapse of val-ues and principles. He rejects out of hand, the argument that we are not there anyway. “We are not in Umm al-Fahm either”, he reminds us, adding: “When we want to be, we are there too, and besides that, anyone who touches the borders of Jerusalem in these places starts talking about con-ceding more and more territory”.Aryeh King stresses that in this case, it would be transferring sovereign parts of the State of Israel and the political significance of this is open-ing the door to negotiations over any other place in the Land, whether it be in the Galilee or in the Negev.“We must remember that the Likud and Netanyahu were elected the first time with the slogan “Peres will divide Jerusalem”, so it should be clear that just as the Likud conceded Sinai and supported and took part in the ex-pulsion of Jews from Gush Katif and northern Samaria, the Likud is now dividing Jerusalem”.King has severe criticism for the Prime Minister’s conduct, but we will return to this later in the discussion with him. He also explains in detail, the security ramifications of the deci-sion to transfer these neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem to Arab sover-eignty: “While, in the Gaza envelope, the distance between the houses in Gaza to the Jewish houses is a ki-lometer or a kilometer and a half to Nahal Oz, Erez and Kisufim, here we are talking about a situation where the distance between Neve Ya’akov, a neighborhood of 25,000 residents, and the first Arab house in what

would, Heaven forbid, be the Pales-tinian state, is fifty meters. The dis-tance between Eliahu Meridor Street in Pisgat Ze’ev to nearby Arab houses is 120 meters. This is a neighborhood of 150,000 people and this is the dis-tance to what they designate for the Palestinian state. No need for tunnels and missiles. Just sit on the balcony and shoot”.“It’s not like today, when if there is shooting in the air or fireworks, the police go in and take care of it. When this becomes an independent state the police and the army will not be able to enter, because any entry would actually be an act of war”, says King, and adds that in discussions that he has held with politicians from various parties, he discovered that they are totally unaware of these simple facts. “I spoke with 12 politicians who sup-port the plan, politicians from various parties, and not even one was familiar with these facts. They refused to be-lieve it. They called me a demagogue.

I told them that they should open the maps and they would see, that they should check. They did check, and un-derstood that I am right, but what do they do? Either they are quiet or, at the most, they say that we will never get to that phase, just as they said about Oslo, that we would not come to the phase of Jericho or Abu Dis, but in the end, we got there”.Can it be that the people who de-signed and determined the maps are not familiar with the reality on the ground? King presents examples that he himself was involved in, that prove that this is indeed the case. Sometimes the agenda obscures the reality:“In 2000, when Barak was talking about dividing Jerusalem in Camp David, they called Davidale, Mati Dan

and me, for a meeting with the head of Shabak at the Intercontinental Ho-tel in Tel Aviv. We went up to a suite, while Barak was in Camp David talk-ing about Jerusalem. The Command-ing General was also there. I asked him whether he knew what it was all about. He rebuked me for the question because he was Division Commander there and he understood everything. I asked him how to get to the Knesset from Abu Dis, which they were talk-ing about at the time. Forget it. He did not know anything. The Right’s sickness is that they treat everything coming from the military as if it is holy and irrefutable, but these mili-tary people are politicians who have been brainwashed throughout the

entire process of their advancement, because if it were not so, they would not have advanced. With few excep-tions, they have an agenda, and if it weren’t for the land-transfer agenda they would have gone nowhere, and these are the people that we depend upon to know what they are talking about, but they do not know”.Rightwingers tend to believe ev-erything army people say- but very often these are politicians in uniformWhen they say that there will be a Palestinian state fifty meters from the neighborhood of Neve Ya’akov, they know what this means, because they know what happens in Gaza and the Gaza envelope, but they don’t say it to the politicians because it doesn’t suit the “land for peace” agenda, says

King, adding: “Think about the fact that in Shuafat Refugee camp and in Anata, there are visible weapons; they shoot each other and shoot vol-leys of shots in the air. This is how it is today, in Jerusalem, under Israeli control, so what would happen when the Palestinian police is in control there, when it is acting with the au-thority of the state…”.“I know what would happen. All of Pis-gat Ze’ev would empty out, and the same thing would happen in French Hill and Neve Ya’akov. The neighbor-hoods would empty out because peo-ple would not remain there”, he says, reminding us of the days when there was shooting at Gilo from Beit Jala, and the shooting was from a distance of 500-800 meters, and there was no state. In contrast, if there is an actual state, the rules are totally different, “If it is a state you can’t send in Du-vdevan or the police”.As stated, King, who has been fight-ing for Jewish settlement in all parts of the city for many years, has a fair amount of criticism for Prime minis-ter Netanyahu, and as is his way, he says it directly and resolutely: “This is Bibi. Netanyahu is the most danger-ous person for Jerusalem and its resi-dents in the past half century. I have been saying it about Bibi since 1997, since his first days he was against the Jewish presence in eastern Jerusalem and everything that he did was either because there was no choice or he lied. On Yom Yerushalayim I was at the Merkaz HaRav (Kook) Yeshiva and there, Bibi said that we have begun building in Givat Hamatos. This is a lie. One and a half weeks before the elections he announced had issued tenders for building in Givat Hama-tos. What tenders? There is nothing, but the public swallows this and he is the head of the Right camp. There are many politicians on the Right far bet-ter than he is.

Palestinian Capital 50 Meters from a Jewish Neighborhood?Deputy Mayor of the City of Jerusalem, Aryeh King, reads the paragraphs on Jerusalem in the Trump plan and discovers the tragedy that no one is talking about

"Just as the Likud conceded Sinai and supported and took part in the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif and northern Samaria, the Likud is now dividing

Jerusalem”

Phot

o: H

aker

en le

Adm

ot Y

isra

elArieh King, Jerusalem Deputy Mayor












Contents



4















20




22






























Contents



4















20




22



















Sometimes the Cost is too High“The maps of the Trump plan are still hidden, even from most of the ministers. What does this secrecy tell us? Regavim’s activity coordinator Yachin Zik presents the red lines which, if crossed, would turn a good thing into something bad, an opportunity into a disaster.

The fate of the Trump plan will be determined, it seems, according to the lines of the maps that are yet to be determined or perhaps have already been determined. The Regavim movement sees these preliminary maps, which were presented by the YESHA Council, and understands that several dramatic changes must be made in order to turn it into a map that indeed would advance sovereignty and not the division of the Land and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its heart.

Yachin Zik, the movement’s activity manager, explains how they are now coping with the fog over the issue of the maps, stating that red lines should be presented even before a final map is issued, and the Right must clarify that if those red lines are

crossed, it will give up the entire deal. Sovereignty is important but not at all costs.

“We have still not seen the map, and this is one of the problems when we want to form an opinion of support or opposition. As long as there is no map, it is difficult to talk about the enclaves, about the future of the outposts and about other things that not yet clear”, says Zik. There are many rumors and half-truths. We

expect our Prime Minister not to wait for the last moment and clarify things as they are, so that we will be able to make a decision as to whether we support it or oppose it”.

We demand clarifications from NetanyahuAs of now, as mentioned, the plan’s maps are confidential and only a few people within the Israeli government know the details. One of those individuals is Knesset Speaker Yariv Levin, a member of the Map Committee. Can’t we trust the ideological stability of a person like Yariv Levin? Zik answers that while Levin is indeed a man of the Right, who has proven his ideological position, on the other hand, there are many temptations to go with the plan even if it is not good, and it entails risks. It is okay to take risks but we must think carefully and draw red lines that we still do not see clearly”.

About those red lines, he says: “One red line is that there not be a Palestinian state in any way, even under strict conditions. It is another red line to assure that in all communities there is a possibility to live and not as balloons with a thin string leading to it, which would not allow for a normal fabric of life. To see that the outposts are not uprooted. In the map, there are many more outposts that are not included in the areas of sovereignty. Another question is what happens with area C where sovereignty will not be applied. How can Arab building be prevented in those areas, after Regavim exposed the enormous, wild Palestinian investment of resources for construction in the open areas of Area C. Last year, the Defense Department woke up and began to act against it, but in the Trump plan, is there some way to enforce a massive prevention of Palestinian takeover of around Area C when the status of this area is undermined? ”.

To get an idea of the extent of illegal Arab construction that already exists in area C, Zik refers us to a detailed brochure produced by the Regavim movement, which raises quite a few worrying data that give rise to far more worrying thoughts about what might happen if Israel chooses to give up enforcement in these areas altogether. The booklet states that, according to the Ministry of Defense’s

2018 estimate in Area C, there are about 800 illegal Palestinian outposts; most of them were established after 2009 with foreign funding. The common denominator of the Palestinian outposts in Area C (the most famous of which is Khan Al Ahmar, adjacent to Ma’aleh Adumim) is the expansion of land grab by the Palestinian Authority in Area C.

The Regavim Movement emphasizes that Palestinian and European Union building projects in area C are contrary

to both Israeli and international law, as well as the Oslo Accords, which the EU itself signed, and against the rules of diplomatic conduct. “The widespread claim that the high-cost ventures implemented in Area C are a “humanitarian” aid does not obviate the legal need to obtain a building permit from the sovereign on the ground,” the booklet’s authors emphasize. Comparative data from aerial photographs revealed that over the past decade, since the beginning of Salam Fayyad’s plan, the former PM’s prime minister, for deliberate takeover of land in Area C, the Arabs have doubled the built-up area and the number of illegal buildings in Area C.

The number of illegal buildings built by Arabs in area C before the Fayyad Declaration was 29,754. Ten years later, 58,435 buildings were counted in this area. This means that within a decade, the Arabs built 28,651 illegal buildings in Area C, ie the number of illegal buildings in the area in 2009 doubled. The extent of the built-up area captured through illegal Arab construction was also measured and

compared to the built-up area before the plan was implemented. This index has grown by about 77 percent within a decade: in 2009, the built-up area stood at 44,538 acres, and by 2019 the number had risen to 78,626 acres.

Compared to these numbers, the extent of Jewish settlement growth over the past decade has also been examined. In 2009, the area of Israeli built-up area stood at 47,327 dunams, while a decade later it stood at 56,700 dunam, which is a growth

of only 20 percent - about a quarter of the growth of the Arab-built area in Area C.

These figures and many others indicate the Israeli helplessness against the accelerated Arab investment in taking over more and more territories in area C and establishing facts whose purpose is the establishment of a Palestinian state even regardless of political moves. One can only imagine what things would look like with Israel pulling out of the territory altogether.

Zik emphasizes the importance of presenting red lines now, in this phase, since this preparation would allow for an immediate response as soon as the full plan is published, “we will be able to state immediately whether we support it or oppose it. If red lines are crossed then, with a heavy heart, we will say that the cost is too high”.

One red line is that there not

be a Palestinian state in any way, even under strict conditions. It is

another red line to assure that in all

communities there is a possibility to live and not as

balloons with a thin string leading to it,

which would not allow for a normal

fabric of life. To see that the outposts are not uprooted

Yachin Zik, Regavim field coordinator

Phot

o: R

egav

im

The Regavim Movement

emphasizes that Palestinian and European Union

building projects in area C are contrary to both Israeli and international law

One can only imagine what things

would look like with Israel pulling out of the territory

altogether.












Contents



4















20




22





























Contents



4















20




22



















Yachin Zik, Regavim field coordinator

Erez Tzadok, economist, CEO of "Aviv" Investment Fund

Phot

o: R

onen

Top

pleb

erg

Sovereignty? Our heart’s desire. We all want it. All the people of the Right. If the government of Israel decided tomorrow to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, without an agreement, without any preconditions, everyone would be in favor. But this is not the situation. The longed-for sovereignty has a heavy price attached and the question is: Is the proposed sovereignty worth at least the price that would be paid.First of all, we must begin with the strong and clear statement – the Land of Israel is entirely ours!Now, we can talk about the proposed sovereignty and its cost.

The first price that we are asked to pay with the Deal of the Century is that our right-wing government, led by a right-wing prime minister, must confirm that Judea and Samaria are not ours and apart from the limited territory proposed to us for the application of sovereignty, it is all theirs. We hear the argument that the Arabs will reject the American proposal anyway and we will just remain with the sovereignty. Well, I do not trade in the Land of Israel and I do not tell the world that the Land of Israel is not mine and that I am here only because the Arabs refused what was proposed to them.Incidentally, the claim that the PLO would refuse the agreement and therefore there is no danger, is not correct. The agreement proposed now is not with the PA, but with the U.S. At the moment, with a

Republican administration, but after November, it would perhaps be with a Democratic administration. And even if some future Democratic administration honors the agreement, it would monitor our adherence to every detail of the agreement with exaggerated attention.The second price that we are demanded to pay is a building freeze in the half of Area C that would not be under our control. Who would actually build there? The PA, of course, funded by Europe. That is, we abandon, in advance and in practice, half of Area C to the PA. It would no longer be ours.The third price that we would pay is Jared Kushner’s demand that the borders of sovereignty would be the permanent borders of the State of Israel. To this, of course, we cannot agree. Again, even here, the agreement is not with the PA, but with the U.S.The fourth price is the abandonment of 15 communities in the area where the building would be frozen and which would become enclaves in the heart of hostile Arab territory. It is not clear to me whether the control of the territory would be transferred to the PA only if the agreement is executed, or whether some control would be transferred to the PA even at the beginning of the implementation or during the process of implementation. In this case, it would be a death blow for those communities, that would lead to their being evacuated. But no wonder no one is saying that the price of sovereignty is the evacuation of 15 Jewish communities. If they said it, there would probably be many more who would object.The fifth price is our holy sites. The Cave of the Patriarchs, Kever Rahel, Joshua’s Altar and more, would be under the control of the PA. Would we have to sneak into the Cave of the Patriarchs once a month, two buses only, like thieves in the night, under military guard, as happens in Kever Yosef in Nablus? Can you imagine that we might not have access to these places at all? Do you think that under control of the

PA or Hamas, one stone of Joshua’s Altar would remain in its place? Are you prepared to see the historic site representing the only testimony in our time of Joshua’s entry to the Land of Israel to be destroyed when we hand it over to our enemies?

Unconditional Sovereignty. We have done it in the past What to do? First of all, apply sovereignty unconditionally. As we did with the Golan Heights. It is possible, in the first phase, to apply sovereignty only over the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria, without limiting them to boundaries. So that they can breathe and develop.The number of Jews in the area of the “Nablus envelope” – Yitzhar, Elon Moreh, Itamar and Har Bracha – is similar to the number of Jews that settled Gush Katif. Meaning, it is psychologically possible to evacuate them. But if tens of thousands of Jews lived in these four communities it would not be possible to evacuate them. The same is true for northern Samaria, Gush Shiloh, the Jerusalem envelope, Gush Etzion and Har Hevron. Strategic settlement is the most powerful means of securing our control in Judea and Samaria.Besides this, we must fight the incitement and payment to terrorists, we must develop the industry in Judea and Samaria and encourage voluntary emigration. After a few years of developed industry, when there is an opportunity for anyone who wants to emigrate to do so, we might be able, with financial support of the superpowers, to reach a regional agreement with Jordan and Egypt, with Jordan granting citizenship to the remaining Arabs of Judea and Samaria, Egypt granting citizenship to the remaining Arabs of the Gaza Strip, and Israel would apply her sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria and the strip of the western Negev coast known as Gaza Strip.This is the solution that I propose, that will begin with sovereignty over the Israeli communities and end with sovereignty over all of the

Land of Israel, without the Arabs of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip becoming citizens, without “Apartheid”, without surrendering the Land of Israel on the assumption that the other side will not agree to the terms, and without paying the hidden prices in the agreement with our friends the Americans.I will take this opportunity also to relate to the publications by the organization Commanders for Israel’s Security, which seeks to alarm the Israeli public by stating that the economic cost of annexation would be 52 billion shekels per year. The media, of course, made a big deal of this sum, but it was an exaggerated amount. What is the truth? The government is talking about an annexation that would maximum include tens of thousands of Arabs of Judea and Samaria. The “Commanders” ignore this and relate in its calculations to the annexation of 2.6 million Arabs of Judea and Samaria. 2.6 million? This is the number that the PA publishes, and the Commanders organization unfortunately adopts their false narrative, which counts the citizens of eastern Jerusalem twice, does not reduce the dead from their number, does not count those who leave Judea and Samaria and don’t return and other factors.This is not the organization’s only exaggeration. The truth is that there are 1.8 million Arabs in all of Judea and Samaria. To annex the entirety of Area C would cost no more than about 2 billion shekels per year. This sum would be offset by the huge economic benefits, including the liberation of lands for building close to the center, lowering of the cost of housing, economic development and more. That is, the annexation of Area C is worthwhile financially as well. By the way, Areas A and B also have solutions, but we can relate to this later.The bottom line: don’t believe the lies and especially remember that after all of the financial calculations, our Land of Israel has no price!

The “Commanders” are playing with the numbers. It would not be 52 billion, but only 2, which would beoffset by the benefits of sovereigntyErez Tzadok. Economist. CEO of the investment fund of Aviv Management Funds about the heavy price that Israel is required to pay in the Trump deal. It is possible and necessary to attain sovereignty without paying such an impossible price.

The third price that we would pay is Jared Kushner’s

demand that the borders of

sovereignty would be the permanent

borders of the State of Israel












Contents



4















20




22






























Contents



4















20




22



















Continued from page 4 Continued from page 6 Continued from page 7

Continued from page 10



differently, perhaps it was true then; but then Kushner prevailed and his position was adopted. Bottom line, it is no longer the situation. The plan was marketed as something good for Israel; sovereignty that Israel would receive without paying a price; however, now, it is the diametric opposite. The Americans are striving for a plan with two components. The Trump plan is, for all intents and purposes, a copy of the Bar Ilan speech, a demilitarized state with military restrictions, which Netanyahu brandished, and there is a high probability that it will be realized. This is a risk that we must not take.”At present, Smotrich and the members of his party promise a determined struggle if, in fact, it is a road map leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state and not a map of Israeli sovereignty. “It is possible to exert pressure on the Right in order to advance the good section of the plan, the sovereignty section, and if not, we will need to stop it at any price. If they say to us: ‘Take it or leave it,’ then certainly leave it; if it is all or nothing, then certainly nothing. We will do everything necessary to create a public and political protest. We will take action among supporters of Israel in the United States and we will explain to them that they are going to partition the land of the Bible, so they will influence Trump to halt it. There are many steps that we will take to ensure that it will not happen.”

residents and the implication is to leave them in conditions of uncertainty or to uproot them from their homes. It is impossible.”“Were we to dare to do something similar to the Palestinians, the High Court would take a resolute stand against it, the Left would raise a ruckus about the crime and injustice that we are perpetrating against them, and the world would mobilize to their aid. The High Court decision is a crime against the Jews who live there,” she states. In any way that I can democratically express my anger over the decision, to prevent, to delay, and to raise consciousness, that is what I will do, and that is the reason that I submitted the revised legislation.”

Smotrich: The Trump Plan is, for all Intents and Purposes,a Copy of the Bar Ilan Speech

Yes to Sovereignty, Regardless of the Americansand the Arabs

We Will Not Agree, neither in Principle nor in Practice, to a ForeignEntity in Our LandPalestinian distortion and falsehood as though the territory in question is occupied. On the other hand, if we establish the fact of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, it will be a clear statement by the State of Israel that this is not occupied territory, but rather, our ancestral heritage.”This is the sanctification of God’s name. This is a clear statement of our continued faith and our fulfillment of mitzvot that stems from that faith that the Holy One blessed be He liberated these areas so that we will restore Jewish life there. We returned to our land, to our homeland, we returned to our ancestral heritage and there is no occupation here. This is the historical reality of the Jewish people in its land.”Rav Tzvi Yehuda issued proclamation after proclamation in which he declared: ‘There are no Palestinian territories. This is a falsehood. This is the land of our ancestral heritage and we are commanded to settle it and cause it to bloom.’”

Don’t eat poisoned candyprepare a new plan that will start from Israel’s last line of concessions, i.e. 70 percent of the territory plus another 30 percent in the Negev, or 100 percent of the territory. We will not be able to refuse because the government has accepted the maps. That’s poison or an illusion.The problem lies in the Palestinians’ control over the roads and the entire territory. They will be getting a real state with all the catastrophic consequences for Israel, and with a little Arab pressure, they’ll agree. Not everyone knows, but back in the day, Shimon Peres concluded a deal with Arafat to leave the Israeli communities standing but to create a reality in which it would be impossible for the residents to remain, so that ultimately, the residents would abandon the communities on their own without having to be forced out. That is exactly where this plan is leading.However, beyond the security and other difficulties for the communities, Katsover emphasizes that the essential problem is one of principles and the “most serious damage to values,” he says, adding, “There is a hierarchy here: The most important is the matter of values and principles. This is the land of the Jewish people and we must not hand it over to anyone. No country gives away its homeland unless it’s forced to. The second level in the hierarchy is the security problem. The third is the ability of the communities to continue to exist and the problem of the roads leading to them. All these levels need to be taken into account, but the most serious one is the matter of values.”

The great pitfalls ofthe Trump planrecognize Israel as Jewish. Again and again, the naieve on our side quote Abba Eban that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but the fact is that there were times when they didn’t miss an opportunity. Arafat signed and the show went on, but it was all a sham. Everyone laughs about it but everything they managed to obtain has remained in their hands. Sadat also signed and received all of Sinai.”Attorney Haetzni blames Israeli naievete in face of the Arab deceit. “We brought Arafat back here together with his gang and its weapons. When they claimed they didn’t have enough weapons, we gave them more. We transferred them money and created an international status for them. In doing so, we created the basis for their demand for a Palestinian state. And now, Netanyahu is going to complete the act. It is in fact the completion of the Oslo process. Haetzni quotes a speech given by US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, which “explains that Netanyahu gave a pledge on behalf of the State of Israel at that ceremony when he and Trump appeared on the White House lawn and made the declaration concerning the plan. Netanyahu declared there that he accepts the plan. While it’s true that if it were just that, without going through the cabinet, Knesset or government, it wouldn’t suffice to bind the State of Israel. However, if we accept annexation as any part of the plan, by doing so we are officially stating that it is an Israeli assurance not just a statement by Netanyahu.” “The US ambassador says that a declaration on the part of the prime minister followed by an act of annexation will be interpreted as just as binding as a signature. When you bite into the sugar frosting of annexation, you release the poison of the Palestinian state. The moment you take three meters for yourself and give away seven meters for a Palestinian state, you’ve recognized and also founded it. When you draw the line of partial annexation, the same hand is drawing the borders of the Palestinian state. That closes the circle of commitment.”Haetzni is convinced that in view of the reality in which Israel finds itself, it must either take no steps whatsoever towards annexation defined as part of the plan, or apply sovereignty as part of a clear and explicit declaration that such an act should in no way be implied as a commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state. “A few words are enough to remove the significant danger of commitment, but they won’t say them for fear of angering Trump.“That’s the main point. They must not delude themselves that if they pass a diluted resolution it will remain diluted. It will activate a mechanism that binds Israel. That’s what Friedman is saying. I don’t care if the Arabs come to the table or not and it doesn’t matter what they do. Israel’s commitment will be towards the Americans.”

Netanyahu must insist on applying sovereigntywithout recognizing a terrorist statethe prime minister inform the president that he does not accept the plan as it stands, Dagan ex-plains, “It’s important to remember that the US elections are less than six months away. A large

proportion of Trump’s evangelical base will not go out to vote if Trump opposes the Israeli position. Even Trump himself, as someone who loves Israel, will respect Israel’s decision, and even if he doesn’t

accept it, he won’t enter into a head-on clash with Israel while his base is dancing with joy over the application of sovereignty.












Contents



4















20




22





























Contents



4















20




22



















Mahmud Abbas. They were powerful advocates who argued that Arafat and Abbas were meeting their commitments and thus were worthy of receiving annual aid to the tune of $400 million, and all Is-rael’s prime ministers since Rabin and Peres stood at their side as defenders.” Assurances are not etched in stoneIn view of all this, Ettinger says, “The assumption needs to be that the assurance, even if it comes from a place of good will towards Israel, is not etched in stone. I don’t mean to say that it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, but it’s definitely not carved in stone. This is because of the American system, which is different from the Israeli or European ones. It’s important to understand how the Ameri-can system works. In the US, the president may make commitments, but there's a powerful legisla-ture; and if the president wants his commitments to be ratified – in other words binding – he must receive the ratification of two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators. An example of this occurred in 1999 and 2000, when President Clinton signed a series of agreements with the international community, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, prohibit-ing nuclear testing, and the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Okay, he signed, but he didn’t submit the Rome Statute for Senate ratification (realizing that there was no support for ratification), while the Test-Ban Treaty was not ratified, but defeated 48:51 in the Senate. Consequently, whether or not the US upholds the agreements or not, the fact is that if it wants to, the US can withdraw from any article of the agreements because they were never ratified by its legislature.” As noted, the historical examples Ettinger pro-vides relate to Israel too: “In 2000, Clinton pledged emergency aid to the tune of $800 million to cover Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. That amount did not arrive and the reason is clear. According to the American system, Congress, it is not the president who holds the purse strings; Congress does and it did not agree to pass an amendment to the law that would enable Israel to receive the money.“Regarding Israel and its history in the context of presidential assurances, we can go back to 1957, when Ben-Gurion agreed to withdraw from the entire Sinai Peninsula after receiving a written guarantee from President Eisenhower that if Egypt violated the agreements or the demilitarization of Sinai and blocked passage to Eilat, the US would

view this as a casus belli and act accordingly. In 1967, Egypt indeed violated the agreement and Es-hkol was under pressure because Ben-Gurion was urging him not to launch a pre-emptive war. Many in the Labor party and the government opposed a pre-emptive strike by Israel, demanding that Is-rael stick to the diplomatic path. Eshkol personally appealed to President Johnson and sent Israel’s foreign minister Abba Eban and Mossad chief Meir Amit to Washington. They showed President John-son President Eisenhower’s written guarantee but Johnson proceeded to lecture the Israeli leaders on the need to understand the US system they were working with. Johnson said, ‘I may be a tall Texan, but I’m a short president when facing a Congress that doesn’t want to send US troops overseas.’“He further told Eshkol, Eban and Amit that Eisen-hower’s letter was a presidential order that barely bound Eisenhower himself. He explained, ‘Eisen-hower’s commitment wasn’t worth even a solitary dime’ and that if Eshkol acted alone, he would find himself alone in the international arena as well.”And this is not Ettinger’s only example. “In 1975, President Ford exerted pressure on Rabin to with-draw from the Gulf of Suez west of the Mitla Pass in Sinai. Rabin agreed. In return for the withdrawal, Ford agreed to give Rabin an American assurance that when the subject of the Golan Heights came up, the US would give great weight to Israel’s po-sition that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights. Four years went by and in 1979 during the talks on the peace agreements with Egypt, Jimmy Carter wanted to expand the talks beyond the agreement with Egypt and tried to include men-tion of future negotiations over the Golan Heights. The legal advisor to the Israeli delegation, the late Meir Rosenne, pulled out Ford’s letter, showed it to Carter and argued that you, the Americans, have recognized the importance of the Golan to Israel. Carter said that that was Ford’s assurance and that it didn’t bind him as the president that succeeded Ford.” In fact, the US doesn’t even have to wait for new president to be elected in order to ignore the de-cisions of a previous one. There are examples of agreements being abrogated by the very same president that signed them. “In January 1991, the Americans made a supreme effort to keep Israel from responding to the Scud missiles Iraq fired on it. In order to convince Prime Minister Shamir to remain passive, they explained that they under-

stood Israel’s predicament, but the Gulf War was an American theater and consequently, it requested that Israel hold back, and that if it did so, the US would devote 30 percent of its aerial bombings to the destruction of Scud launching sites aimed at Is-rael. They repeated that they would consider giving Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees to help Israel absorb the one million Jews immigrating to Israel at that time from the former Soviet Union. What actu-ally happened was that they dedicated only three percent of the bombings, not thirty, and they did not conduct low-altitude flights to ensure hits, but rather flew at a high altitude in order to protect their own planes, and consequently, did not hit the missile batteries. The US, of course, withheld the loan guarantees from Shamir, only to give them to Rabin, his successor.The phenomenon of open-ended agreements that are always subject to American interests and in-terpretation, dictated by a future president who decides whether or not to carry out the agree-ment, is typical of the United States’ attitude to the countries of the world in general. This was the case with the US defense treaty signed with New Zealand in 1951, which was suspended in 1986 due to American considerations, and also the 1955 de-fense treaty signed with Taiwan. In 1979, Jimmy Carter considered China much more important and decided to end the treaty with Taiwan. The power of the President to suspend international treaties was reaffirmed in 2001 by the US Justice Department: “The President has broad constitu-tional powers with respect to treaties, including the powers to terminate and suspend them…”Yoram Ettinger explains that his remarks are not aimed at criticizing American actions, but rather those of Israel, because it is “either mistaken or misleading the Israeli public. This is a very sad tra-dition on the part of Israeli prime ministers, ad-visors and Mossad and military intelligence chiefs, who don’t bother engaging in an in-depth study of the American system before they decide whether an agreement is good or bad for Israel.” In summing up his position in the context of current events, he says, “The writing is on the wall,” add-ing, “Perhaps the best-case scenario will turn out to be true, but the opposite option also exists and good statesmanship must take not only the best-case scenario into account, but also the worst-case scenario, certainly in the Middle East where best-case scenarios rarely happen.”


US assurances are open ended to preserveAmerican interests

A Strange American Norm Shimon Cohen

A strange norm has developed in the U.S. The death of George Floyd was a tragic homicide, but what happened afterward is a somewhat strange sce-nario. Masses of people poured into the streets, violently attacked inno-cent passersby , shattered storefront windows, looted stores, burned cars, terrorized the streets and cities and won sympathy from the media in the U.S. and across the world. Human Rights advocates seem to have for-gotten that store-owners, innocent

citizens and even police officers have rights too.And if that was not enough, the re-sponse by those who were attacked was no less strange. Countless vid-eos are circulating throughout the on-line world, where people bend down on one knee and kneel before the looters. Sometimes they are ac-tually demanded to do so with vio-lence and threats in the middle of a morning jog. More than once, the ri-oters demanded that their shoes also

be kissed by the terrified victims. This phenomenon of kneeling before the masses that have decided that looting, destruction and violence is a legitimate response to the killing of a black citizen is indeed strange, but for some reason, it has won positive resonance in the American media and has become the new norm in the United States of America.It seems to me that now is the time to make a small request from the Americans: that your norms, of kneeling and submitting to violent, rioting and looting people, remain with you. It is too similar to the vari-ous political plans that have been issued to us, to cower, to kneel, to

give in and bend our heads before the Arab rioter, the murderer and the looter. Enough. So don’t try to edu-cate us according to this distorted norm, and especially, don’t recom-mend that we share our small Land with murderers and looters. Thank you!

Phot

o: y

outu

be

For more info: Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar - 050-5500834, 050-7161818www.ribonut.co.il | [email protected]

THREE DAYS OF RESERVE DUTY ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL

YES TO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE LAND OF ISRAEL,NO TO PALESTINE!

Starting Sunday June 21st until Tuesday June 23rd, 2020From 10:00 am till 8:00pm

Across the Prime Minister’s Office, Rose Garden, Kaplan Street, Jerusalem

With the approach of the momentous decision regarding the future of the State of Israel and the Land of Israel, the Sovereignty Movement

and Sovereignty Youth will proclaim:

IT'STIME TO

MOBILIZE! שלושה ימי מילואים למען ארץ ישראל!

השעהצו

לקראת הכרעה גורלית לעתיד מדינת ישראל וארץ ישראלתנועת הריבונות ונוער ריבונות יתייצבו בקריאה:

050-5500834 לפרטים יהודית קצובר ונדיה מטר 050-7161818www.ribonut.co.il | [email protected]

נאמני ארץ ישראל מוזמנים להצטרףבאישור המשטרה. עקבו אחר הפרטים בעמוד הפייסבוק ובאתר של תנועת הריבונות | יתכנו שינויים בתוכנית

כן לריבונות על ארץ ישראל , לא לפלסטין!יום א׳, כ"ט בסיון 21.6.20 ועד יום ג׳, א' תמוז 23.6.20

10:00-20:00, מול משרדי רוה"מ (רחוב קפלן, בכניסה לגן הורדים)

תוכנית ימי המילואים:

שון כ"ט סיוון 21.6רא

שני ל׳ סיוון 22.6שי א׳ תמוז 23.6

שלי








IT'STIME TO

MOBILIZE!








IT'STIME TO

MOBILIZE!








IT'STIME TO

MOBILIZE!

Sunday June 21st Monday June 22nd Tuesday June 23rd

5:00pm

Official opening with

Arieh King,deputy mayor of Jerusalem,

Atty Nili Naouri, Israel Forever,

Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, co-chairs Sovereignty Movement

11:00am Boaz Haetzni11:30 am Orit Struck, former MK

1:00pm Yishai Fleisher, International Spokesman for the Jewish community of Hebron (in English)

3:00pm Dr. Hagi Ben Artzi5:00pm MK Bezalel Smotrich, former mini�ter of Transport

6:00pm MK Ayelet Shaked, former mini�ter of Justice

7:00pm Prof. Arieh Eldad, former MK

11:00 am Amb. Yoram Ettinger12:00 Rabbi Baruch Efrati, Derech Emuna Rabbis

1:00pm Jacques Kupfer, chair Israel is Forever, Likud Olami

2:00pm Noam Arnon, Hebron spokesman

5:00pm David Elchiani, Yesha Council and Jordan valley Head

Shlomo Neeman, Gush Etsion Regional Council Head

Yigal Dilmoni, CEO Yesha Council

In Hebrew unless mentioned otherwise | There might be changes in the program | We have a police permit | Details on our website and FB page

Documents

ribonut.co.ilribonut.co.il/images/ribonut eng.pdf · 2 / /SOVEREIGNTY2 // Political Journal / SOVEREIGNTY/ / /33 In recent months there has been a change in the people’s frame of