At the Besheva and Arutz Sheva conference Tuesday evening, there was a special women’s session, organized and led by the Sovereignty Movement, dedicated to the matter of Israel’s diplomatic future, with a special emphasis on the future of Judea and Samaria, the settlement enterprise and sovereignty.
The session began with remarks by the co-chairwomen of the Sovereignty Movement, Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar who, for the past decade, have been leading the great revolution in Israel’s approach in policy, from the discourse of withdrawals and uprooting to the discourse of sovereignty and strengthening the settlement enterprise.
“To be relevant these days, you must have a long-range vision and plans for the future with a long-range view”, said Katsover, relating to the claim that the vision of sovereignty has been dropped from the agenda with the end of the Trump era.
“We are here to say that sovereignty is more relevant today than ever”, she said, calling on the leaders of the right-wing parties to restore sovereignty to the public political discourse and establish it as part of their platforms.
“Although the change of leadership in the U.S. is significant, the true resolutions for the future of Israel will be made in Jerusalem”.
Her partner in leading the movement, Nadia Matar, commented regarding the female aspect of the session that it is not a feminist approach, but a concept that is aware of a woman’s deep commitment to the future of the People, as is recorded in the writings of the sages.
She mentioned the outrageous fact that until now, there has not been a governmental national outline plan that includes Judea and Samaria, and that in fact, these areas have remained empty on official maps. As a response to this situation, the Sovereignty Movement began some years ago the preparation of an outline plan that erases, de facto, the Green Line and views Judea and Samaria as an integral part of the sovereign State of Israel with the view toward the centennial year, 2048.
The panel itself, moderated by journalist Emily Amroussi, began with the dramatic words of Prof. Talia Einhorn, an expert in international law, on the significance of the decision taken by the International Criminal Court in the Hague that it is possible to investigate “crimes” committed by Israel in Judea and Samaria and Gaza.
According to her, it was the Oslo Accords that led to this ruling, by granting the Palestinians status of an observer state. This status, Einhorn explained, is indeed not recognized equivalent to a real state that could be a member of the Hague court, but it was the basis for the decision that was taken. “If we hadn’t had the Oslo Accords, we would not have come to this decision by the court”, she stated.
During her remarks, Prof. Einhorn reiterated and emphasized that Israel is not occupying Judea and Samaria, since according the international law, these territories were designated as the national home for the Jewish People. In her opinion, Israel must denounce the decision taken in the Hague, but beyond this, “the next and more important step is to roll things back as one who has entered a minefield and wants to turn back”.
Prof. Einhorn defined the Abraham Accords as the most successful step taken by Prime Minister Netanyahu together with President Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a step that has changed the paradigm that says that the only basis for a peace agreement is an agreement with the Palestinians. The Abraham Accords proved that the reality is completely the opposite.
She also stated that rumors of a silent agreement by Netanyahu to cancel the process to apply sovereignty are not binding because in international law, a declaration made by a leader is only binding if it is given publicly, and in detail and moreover, if a matter requires agreement between two sides, a leader’s declaration is of no significance.
Former member of Knesset Orit Struk stated that the question of sovereignty depends solely on the composition of the next coalition. She mentioned that Israel came to the Oslo Accords after the elections of ’92, when the “nationalist person, Raful [Rafael Eitan], brought with him anonymous people who were not committed to values and ideology and had “jumped” from the opposition into the coalition. This is how we ended up with Oslo”.
In her opinion, in the present elections as well, there are many candidates with ideological positions that no one is familiar with “and this is the great danger that we face”.
Struk has defined a number of steps to demonstrate progress, in contrast to retreat, which she defined as “the sovereignty index”, and these steps, she said, can be taken even now. In this context, she mentioned the normalization of the fledging settlement, an upswing of building momentum, the battle for Area C under state management, “all of this depends very much on the composition of the coalition.
Every day, we see what Benny Gantz is doing in the coalition, what happens in government meetings, how he thwarted the normalization of the fledgling settlement, which he had initially supported.
This is how it is when there is a left-wing person in the coalition. I do not understand how nationalist people, people whom I very much respect, are willing to sit in a coalition with left-wing people. We have Biden, who can bring us back to the Obama days”, Struk warned, “so should we say that they should sit with Yair Lapid and Meretz? Where is the sense of national responsibility?”
This question, which Struk posed, was addressed to former member of Knesset Michal Shir, a member of New Hope, who wondered about the very essence of the question “as if the Netanyahu government has promoted sovereignty. After all, during ten years nothing at all was done to advance it, and when we came to the historic moment when we could have applied sovereignty, Netanyahu chose to sell sovereignty in exchange for peace accords”.
“New Hope is for sovereignty, Sa’ar and Elkin are for sovereignty. The battle to normalize the fledgling settlement began with my actions in the Knesset”, said Shir, adding that in her opinion, “even before sovereignty, there are a few essential steps to take: strengthening the settlement enterprise, strengthening the borders in the Jordan Valley, something that is not being done during the Netanyahu governments, determining facts on the ground.
In addition, the general public in Israel does not really know where Judea and Samaria are. We must make the subject of sovereignty more accessible to the public”.
On whether it would be possible for her to form an alliance with Yair Lapid, Shir says that everyone who would agree to come into the coalition under Gideon Sa’ar, who agrees with the party’s clear principles, including the subject of sovereignty, “is invited to come”.
She also claimed that her party does not reject the Likud as a party and that she would be willing to accept the Likud under Sa’ar’s leadership, but in light of the present government’s failures, it would not be possible to agree to sit under the Likud. “We also invite Bennett to join. We will strive to have as right-wing a coalition as possible”.
Former member of Knesset Idit Silman from Yamina asked Shir how it is possible to criticize the government and remain inside, as MK Hauser, a person in Shir’s party, has done.
She also asked how it is possible to claim that sovereignty is a goal, declare that they will not sit with the Likud and hope that a leftist government will not be formed. “We do not engage in this discourse of boycotting, but in the discourse of action”, she said, referring to the declaration by the head of her party, Member of Knesset Naftali Bennett, that “If it’s not Corona, it’s not interesting”, which means that the vision of sovereignty would be shelved for this or some other period: “Our state of public health and the economy is very difficult and the issues that Bennett raises are not an exchange of issues but together with other issues.
Yamina has not given up on sovereignty and the Land of Israel. These banners must stand together, side by side”.
Dr. Anat Roth, a member of the Shiloh Forum, which deals with long-term planning for Judea and Samaria, explained that “the State of Israel’s unclear position in the matter of Judea and Samaria, building and settlement along with military administration, the claim of historic rights along with the remnants of Ottoman and British law, all of this creates confusion with ramifications for the lives of the residents, who need the signature of the General Command for every civilian step and for Israel’s international position”.
She remarked that while vain internal discourse takes place in Israel, in practice, Palestinian vandalism is uprooting the Jewish heritage sites from the territory and is constantly and proactively engaging in taking over Area C.
“They are already occupying a quarter of Area C. Since the Oslo Accords, their number in this area has increased three-fold. There are about a quarter million Palestinians in these areas”. On the other hand, the State of Israel’s lack of action regarding the future of Judea and Samaria is accepted.
“There is no planning for the future regarding this area. Last year, a draft master plan was submitted for transportation but it still has not been approved”.