Netanyahu deposed: What next for the Muslim world? (Part 2 – final)
The Prime Minister for now, under a power sharing agreement in the new coalition, is none other than the ultra-nationalist, Naftali Bennet. The 49-years-old politician was a former tech entrepreneur turned millionaire when he sold his company to an American private military contractor, and was senior aide to Netanyahu from 2006 to 2008, but left when the relationship between the two soured. When he entered politics, he aligned himself with right-wing nationalist and religious party Jewish Home Party, and became their representative in 2013. He was a former head of the Yesha Council; a political group representing Jewish settlers; and is a strong advocate of a Jewish nation state while insisting on Jewish historic and religious claims to the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, though he was said to have “Never advocated claims on Gaza”. Labelled an ultra-nationalist, he claimed to not “use hate or polarisation as a tool to promote myself politically”, as was reported by Times of Israel.
However, his strong advocacy of anti-Palestinian sentiments, reflected in his statements in 2018 when asked about Gaza, as reported by the Guardian in a recent article, which quoted that “Israeli troops should have a shoot to kill policy including for minors” and “I would not allow terrorists to cross the border from Gaza everyday”. When asked about the army targeting children, he replied: “They are not children. They are terrorists. We are fooling ourselves.” He also does not empathise with groups critical of the armed forces or the state, even supporting a law banning them from entering schools and speaking to students when he was education minister. “Anyone who wanders around the world attacking soldiers will not enter a school,” Bennett said when the bill passed.
He was also known for his ‘Israel Stability Initiative’, an initiative first circulated in late February 2012 among military and political elites of the Jewish entity, and was reportedly (Jerusalem post, 23/02) given high praise. It was even made a political proposition in video form and posted on his Youtube channel, as well as being posted on the One Israel website (www.onestateisrael.com). The initiative was a proposition designed to provide with an alternate solution with Jewish current dilemma with Palestine. The document begins by first explaining what are the solutions currently in Jewish marketplace of ideas to resolve the Jewish-Palestinian conflict, and they are:
- The establishment of a Palestinian state on the majority of the territory of Judea and Samaria, or
- The full annexation of Judea and Samaria including its two million Arab residents.
Then the document proceeds to detail how this initiative is far modest in its aims, but yields for the regime three distinct advantages:
a. “Israel” will receive vital territories and assets.
b. It will strengthen the state’s standing in the international community by completely neutralizing the “apartheid” argument.
c. And, it will create stability on the ground, and amongst the people, for decades to come.
As such, it can be assumed that this initiative is first of all, one that favours the regime, and it will inevitably strengthen its credibility in the international community, and create stability in the region itself. However, since there is no mention of Palestine, or a peace deal, it can be assumed that this is a unilateral solution, in lieu of a bilateral solution as sought by the international community, and the following details of the initiative supports this assumption. They are the Seven-Points Plan for managing the Arab-Jewish conflict in Judea and Samaria, and they are as follows:
i. ‘Israel’ unilaterally extending sovereignty over Area C.
ii. Full naturalization of the 50,000 Arabs living in Area C.
iii. Full PA [Palestinian Authority] autonomy in Areas A and B with the free flow of people and goods between all PA-controlled territories.
iv. Palestinian refugees from Arab countries will not enter into Judea and Samaria.
v. A full Jewish security umbrella for all of Judea and Samaria.
vi. The separation of Gaza from Judea and Samaria.
vii. Massive economic investment in coexistence on the ground.
The seven points are pretty vague to say the least, and the document provides with an explanation after each point explaining how each may be achieved, and why. The first point, that of to unilaterally extend sovereignty over Area C, is a move achieved by providing security to Jerusalem and the Gush Dan region, to protect both Jewish communities and sovereignty of Israeli National Heritage Sites. The document stresses that even though the international community may not recognise Jewish sovereignty over the aforementioned areas, as much as they do not recognise the regimes sovereignty over the Western Wall, the Ramot and Gilo neighborhoods of Jerusalem (East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights, they would have “adjust to the de facto reality”.
Furthermore, the areas coming under Jewish sovereignty (going to be annexed) will also include multiple geographical features; such as the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, Ariel, Maale Adumim (Jewish settlement), the mountains above Ben Gurion Airport; and the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), to shield the whole of Jewish entity from any threats to the east. Area C constitutes more than 60% of the entire West Bank, according to B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories and has been under Jewish occupation for some time as an administrative division made as a part of the Interim Agreement of the Oslo Accords, which was temporary and was arranged to enable an incremental transfer of authority to the Palestinian Authority. However, the arrangement has lasted for more than twenty years since the Oslo Accords, and the status quo is still that of occupation.
The second point, which was the full naturalisation of the 50,000 Arabs living in Area C, is achieved by granting citizenship to all the inhabitants of Area C, in which case are about 350,000 Jews and 50,000 Arabs. By the basis of this outline, no citizen, Arab or Jew, will be evicted or expelled from their properties. However, according to newspaper company Haaretz in an article dated the 17th of January 2013, titled ‘Bennet’s West Bank Plan Ignores Existence of About 100,000 Palestinians’ by Chaim Levinson, it was revealed that the numbers that was presented in the document did not tally with the actual numbers. In the appendix, Bennet explained that the figures were accurate as of 2007, and that “in our estimation there was no change to that number”. However, the annual estimated population growth of 4% adds around 60,000 more to the estimated number; and the estimation did not factor in the expansion of certain Palestinian cities in Area B into Area C, which would add about 100,000 people to the 47,360 people cited in the document. These figures were all, of course, estimated by Haaretz in 2013. Though it was argued that this point would counter any allegations of apartheid from the international community, the inconsistency in the population figures raises uncertainty as to that counter-argument.
The third point, which was of full Palestinian Authority (PA) autonomy of the Areas A and B, with free flow of people and goods between all PA-controlled territories, is basically giving the Palestinians enough autonomy to move freely without roadblocks or military checkpoints, but not enough for them to control their own security, as will be explained when we discuss the fifth point. This contiguity can be achieved with a one-time investment of hundreds of millions of dollars and will not create separate roads for Jews and Arabs; in fact, they will continue the same roads they use now in Judea and Samaria. The document emphasises that since “this will also improve the lives of the Palestinians, it will deflect unnecessary international and humanitarian pressure off the Jewish regime. However, as mentioned, this only provides to the Palestinian Authority autonomy over administration, but not over the security of Judea and Samaria, as will be explained later.
The fourth point to restrict the immigration of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to Judea and Samaria, is in strict contrast to the framework being discussed at that time (2012), which was to allow the return of Palestinian refugees from the surrounding countries. This, Bennett believes to be dangerous, as the refugees may flood the entirety of Area A and B and may lead to what was termed as ‘an irreversible demographic disaster’. It was even suggested that the ‘descendants of the refugees should be absorbed into the countries where they currently reside, and will not be allowed to move west of the Jordan River.’ Understandably, if the refugees are allowed to return, the demographic inflation in Areas A and B would force Palestine to demand territory for their ballooning population, which will clash with the regime’s immigration process.
Of course, the four points above would never have worked without the fifth point, that of the necessity of a Jewish security umbrella (i.e., military presence) for all of Judea and Samaria, and this includes the PA-controlled Areas of A and B. It was made an impression that for this initiative to be successful, it is essential to keep the territories ‘peaceful and quiet’. And what better way to do it than by having the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) maintain a presence in the entirety of Judea and Samaria, as well as complete security control of the locality. The need was accentuated by the possibility that Hamas, regime’s largest threat for the moment, might infiltrate the area if the IDF leaves, the same way they infiltrated Gaza, and the same way Hezbollah established control over southern Lebanon. However, the document did not specify whether PA will be liable for their own security, or the IDF’s security umbrella will extend to include Palestine, or what remains of Palestine.
The sixth point of the Israeli Stability Initiative carries the same theme of security, and this regards the issue of Gaza. Gaza has been the home ground of Hamas, which the Jewish regime recognises as a significant enough of a threat that they confined Gaza and isolated it from the West Bank and the rest of the world to contain the threat. However, Bennet refuses to link the West Bank and Gaza, for fear that a geographical connection might bring the violence, instability and chaos of Gaza into Judea and Samaria. Bennett also recognises (in 2012) that Gaza is growing closer to Egypt, and it will no longer become part of the regime’s responsibilities in due time. As Gaza has always been trouble for the regime, it is only natural for them to pass the burden to another country.
The final point, that of massive economic investment in coexistence on the ground, spells for the Jewish entity the need to invest in improving public infrastructure, building interchanges, and supporting joint industrial zones in Judea and Samaria. The document punctuates that peace is a ‘bottom-up process’, and that ‘instead of money going to the fruitless diplomatic cocktails of Oslo, Geneva, and Camp David, it could be used to produce substantial change and improvements on the ground’. It basically supports the preceding points before, and points out the need for infrastructural improvements in the area.
All in all, the document presents a very convincing argument for the Initiative and deems it the most realistic and pragmatic approach to the Jewish-Palestinian conflict. Though Bennett understands that there is ‘no great love’ between the Arabs and Jews in Judea and Samaria, he believes that either side knows that neither is going away. Thus, the initiative offers practical steps that will improve people’s lives, and stabilise the situation; while shying away from solutions that will only lead to ‘frustration and violence’. As the document suggests, this time it is the Jewish entity who must take the initiative, and start afresh with ideas for conflict management, not conflict resolution.
To conclude, the new government is unpredictable, and is currently avoiding affairs that might affect the coalition negatively. It is unknown whether Bennett will be allowed to put his Initiative into motion, and whether Lapid, in his capacity as Foreign Minister, will return the Jewish entity back to the negotiating table with Palestine. However, it must be remembered that whoever the new government might be, this does not change the fact that the Jewish States is an enemy of Islam, and must be fought against. What matters now is how the Muslim world should respond, to save the people of Palestine and to resolve the conflict. What must the Muslims aware is, the recent initiative does not justify nor validate the illegal occupation of the Muslim land, and it must therefore be rejected.
The Muslim should, first and foremost, defend the Blessed Land with the utmost effort, through any means, especially war (Jihad) against Jewish entity. Regardless of Hamas’ political intentions and agenda, the war they wage upon the Jews entity is justified, for Jihad must be declared upon the Jewish state, and the Blessed Land retaken. Thus, leaders of the Muslim world must declare Jihad and launch a military operation upon the Jewish regime, not sit idly by waiting for the conflict to be resolved; for a peace agreement is not possible under current status quo. Secondly, the Muslim world must desist turning to the United Nations to resolve this issue; for it is forbidden to do so. We cannot and do not turn to the Kuffar to solve the problems of the Muslim world. The only solution to this is the formation of an Islamic Caliphate, which will then declare Jihad upon the Jewish illegal entity. It is time, for the Muslim world to take the initiative, in lieu of waiting, declaring neutrality, and spectate as fellow brothers are ripped apart.