The Fallacy of Israeli Intransigence
It is a fallacy that Israeli intransigence is the key stumbling block in Arab-Israeli relations, and that, therefore, Israeli concessions are the key factor that will create the conditions for a solution. The Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005 should have dispelled this idea forever. Rather than having a calming effect, however, those withdrawals only served to increase the bloodlust of Hizbullah and Hamas.Caroline Glick: The PLO's IDF lobbyists
Any withdrawal from territory on the West Bank, therefore, must come with ironclad guarantees of Israeli security. Given the unsettled state of the region in general, the advances of the Iranian alliance in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, the persistence of al-Qaeda and ISIS, and the split among the Palestinians between Hamas and Fatah, no Israeli government could take severe risks with respect to Israeli security on the West Bank and still hope to remain in power.
Israelis are already intensely aware that in a very short period of time they might find themselves peering across the Golan Heights at Iranian soldiers ensconced in Syria. How can the world ask them to take steps that could potentially lead to the Iranian penetration of the West Bank as well?
The writer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, was a senior director at the National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration. These remarks are from his address at the UN Security Council on June 20, 2017. (Hudson Institute)
In contrast, and again against the wishes of the government, the Civil Administration has repeatedly acted to block Israeli construction in Area C. For instance, the IDF insists that no land deal between Israel and Palestinians is final until the IDF approves it. The policy harms Israeli construction in two ways.'Breaking the Silence has been forced to look in the mirror'
First, it gives the Civil Administration the power – which it uses – to delay Israeli construction indefinitely.
Second, by forcing parties to land deals to come forward publicly, the Civil Administration intimidates Palestinian land sellers. They know that if their land deals with Israelis become public they will face execution by the PA.
Returning to Abbas for a moment, the PLO chief may have overplayed his hand by insulting Trump and his senior envoys. All the politicized retired and currently serving Israeli generals together cannot convince Trump to send US tax dollars to a terrorism supporting leader who trashes him and his senior officials. Consequently, there is every reason to believe that the Taylor Force Act will soon be signed into law and the US will end its financing of Palestinian terrorism.
But even if Washington cuts off funding to the PA, Israel is still left to deal with its radicalized generals who exploit their rank to undermine the government.
The best way to end this situation is for the government to shut down the Civil Administration and get the IDF out of the governing business in Judea and Samaria. So long as the government continues to empower unaccountable generals to administer civilian areas instead of its accountable, civilian bureaucracy, we will continue to be confronted with the surreal spectacle of Israeli generals lobbying for Palestinian terrorists.
If the government applies Israeli law to Area C, it can still negotiate with the PLO, just as it has negotiated about the Golan Heights and Jerusalem. But in the meantime, it will remove one of the most corrupting and corrosive forces preying on our generals and our democracy for the benefit of the Israeli and Palestinian residents of Area C alike and indeed for Israel as a whole.
Avichai Shorshan, founder of “Ha’emet Sheli” (“My Truth”), an organization of combat reserves soldiers that has taken upon itself the task of telling the real story of IDF soldiers, told Arutz Sheva that the investigation against “Breaking the Silence” Spokesman Dean Issacharoff and the voices of protest against the investigation raise questions about the the sincerity of the radical left organization.
“[Breaking the Silence], since its founding, has tried to create an image for itself as the guardian of morality in the IDF, and now [that image] is exploding in its face. A soldier [in the organization] testifies about himself, admitting that he beat a Palestinian and as a result, the authorities want to investigate him. Suddenly they say there’s no need to investigate him - it’s the fault of the ‘occupation.’ To shake off responsibility is the most disgusting thing you can do.”
Shorshan called on Breaking the Silence and all the leftist organizations to focus on facts rather than invent them. “As far as we’re concerned, every soldier who acted against protocol needs to be investigated and, if he is guilty, needs to pay the penalty. Woe upon us if we know of soldiers who use force in an unauthorized way. Every one of us is obligated to report to his commander and check if he sees something not acceptable.”
He said that the incident concerning Dean Issacharoff places a mirror in front of Breaking the Silence. “From this incident, they can see themselves as they really are. They don’t really want the IDF to be more moral - they are politically motivated. They tell all sorts of tall tales about the' war crimes' of the IDF; some of these stories are taken out of context, and some of them never happened at all.”