Featured Post

Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!

(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...

Dec 25, 2016

Unilateral for Unilateral

I am not quite sure what the ramifications of the most recent United Nations vote against Israel are. I have read different things, but don't know what is accurate and what is hyperbole.

Perhaps this resolution is against Israel and the "settlements" in the same way that previous resolutions were - they are a basis for pushing Israel to broker peace but practically no ramifications personally on any given Israeli.

Or perhaps as some have written this makes all "settlers" engaged in criminal international activity and liable to be arrested when stepping on foreign soil - especially in most European countries. And, for this purpose, "settlers" would include anyone living in Gush Etzion, East Jerusalem including the Old City of Jerusalem, and many other parts of the country. Perhaps even people going to the Kotel to pray would be subject to such risks.

Either way, I would like to see some unilateral action in response. I would like to see Israel push Trump to make good on his promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem. I would like to see Israel annex the rest of Judea and Samaria, and I am not sure about tearing up the Oslo Accords, but I would definitely not be upset if that was done.

If the world will move unilaterally against us, it is time the right-wing government does what it was elected to do and ignore the world.

Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel


  1. Did you say annex Judea and Samaria. That is the end of the state of Israel. How long would it take to vote Civil Marriage legal ? Include Palestinians in the law of return ?. Tha Palestinians and the left could well form a coalition, then see what happens. I am relatively Right, but annexation is irrational, and for many other reasons.

  2. good strategy, go against the whole world. think ahead 10-20 years and see how that might play out.

  3. going with the world, as much or little as we have, hasnt helped. Whatever we do they oppose Israel.

  4. Reading these comments, I have a few things to say:

    Rafi: This is different. Obama deliberately did this, against the advice of many people. He wanted to do this and Kerry might make things worse before it's over. It would not surprise me if the world did try to make "criminals" of the Israelis; I don't like to say this, but it's clear that a lot of the world is anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, we must stand up to the world; after all, didn't we declare the State of Israel because we didn't want to live concerned all the time what the world thought of the Jews?

    Thomas: I don't think that this will be the end of the State. Consider that we are trying to divide 23% of the original Palestine Mandate. The pre-1967 lines are a nonstarter. So just where do we divide the line between that and all Judea and Samaria? Since the world doesn't seem to want us to have anything, we may have nothing to lose by keeping all of the 23%. (As for the Palestinians, they may have a choice to make. Either live in Israel as a certainly well-treated minority, move to Jordan [a de facto Arab Palestinian state], or move somewhere else. They can't seem to agree to end the conflict in a state that is viable.)

    Anonymous: I think that this is trying to intimidate Israel into again "considering what the rest of the world thinks." Frankly, we gave that a chance. A little over 20 years ago, we signed the Oslo Accords. How well did that turn out? A little over 10 years ago, Israel withdrew from Gaza. What happened there? We could keep going with what we did or didn't do after the Six-Day War. Yes, I sound reckless, but again do you have a better plan that does not capitulate to the rest of the world--just so we can say we behaved like they wanted us to?

    1. 23% is the land but the population is significant. What leads you to believe they will move to Jordan ? The Arab population on the West Bank and Israel proper might well be able to form a coalition govt. with the left. And then what ? Can you not give them the right to vote ?

    2. My point is that the world cannot accept a Jewish state even on the 23% of the land. Since the land cannot be divided in a way that will satisfy the Palestinians, if they are going to continue to be part of Israel, they will have to be treated like the other Israeli Arabs.

      I don't think they will become a demographic threat. That is a scare tactic that some tried to use to intimidate us to give in to the Palestinians. So I don't fear a coalition with the Left, because the Left is in no position to challenge the Right.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. I also just saw a commentary by Mark Goldfeder entitled "From an International Law Perspective, This is Not an Occupation" on CNN. The Palestinian Mandate was not repealed. Israel inherited title to the land in 1948. It could be interpreted that Jordan and Egypt were the real occupiers prior to the Six-Day War.

    It's not fashionable, but maybe those who claim to know international law should know just what the international law is with respect to this issue.


Related Posts

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...