Orit Struk
Orit Struk Flash 90

Former Knesset Member Orit Struk spoke at the Sovereignty Tent Vigil of the Sovereignty Movement with the motto ‘Yes to sovereignty over the Land of Israel, no to Palestine’.

Struk began by mentioning the most primary and fundamental aspiration of sovereignty, which is to put a stop to the process of withdrawals, but now, the Trump-Netanyahu plan seeks to do both things - sovereignty along with withdrawals. “This is a cynical use of the term ‘sovereignty’”, she says, noting that the goal of sovereignty is not human rights or equality under the law for the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, which are also important matters, but they are not the primary matter. “The communities are for the Land, and not the other way around. The goal of sovereignty is to make progress with our hold on the Land and if we are talking about withdrawal, this is just another Leftist plan, from those who created other plans to divide the Land.”

Struk notes the dispute among the Right between those who totally reject dividing the Land and establishing an alien state in its heart on the one hand, and on the other hand, those who believe the same thing but nevertheless support the process promoted by Netanyahu and Trump. During her remarks, she related to this dispute among those who reject dividing the Land in any way. “The argument is over where this plan leads. Proponents of the plan say that there is no chance that the Arabs will meet the terms written in the plan. We made these preconditions so that we would never get to that point, and now the American President comes and takes part in this trick, so what do you care what is written on paper…”.
Struk also mentions the claim that there have been different compromises all along in the development of the settlement enterprise, which ultimately flourished and progressed. “What is the answer to this question?”, asks Struk, stating that this is the main point of the matter and that this issue must be discussed in depth.

Because it is important to understand the details of the plan, Orit Struk presented the section relating to the negotiation phase, after noting that the plan is defined originally as one that is intended to bring about the establishment of a Palestinian state. The relevant section in the “plan of the century” is section 22, where it is written that in territory where sovereignty is not applied, Israel will be prohibited from building new communities or expanding existing communities or promoting building plans, i.e., it is a compulsory freeze on Israel in these areas. “From the point of view of Israeli building and planning, this area is on the other side of the fence”, says Struk, who continues by quoting from the plan:

Israel is prohibited from expanding the enclaves to the area that is not included within the borders of sovereignty, i.e., if the line of sovereignty passes the line of building, there will be no further building and a community will only be permitted to build upwards, and in this context, Struk suggests becoming familiar with the complexity of changing Municipal Building Plan from rural style building to high-rise building…

Israel is also prohibited from destroying illegal Arab buildings in the area where sovereignty has not been applied. Along with this, it is written that it will be permitted to destroy buildings that were built after the beginning of negotiations and buildings used for terror. This means that hundreds of outposts such as Han al-Ahmar cannot be destroyed despite rulings by the court.

Another obligation for Israel in the zone of sovereignty is to permit Palestinian enclaves such as the hundreds of illegal Arab buildings within the jurisdiction of Ma’ale Adumim or the Jordan Valley to remain. Israel will be obligated to normalize this building. “In Palestinian enclaves referred to in Section 4, the legal status quo will prevail and the State of Israel will enable the development of those Palestinian communities within their current footprint”.

Struk notes that the Arab obligations include stopping the fighting against Israel, the petitions in the Hague, payments to terrorists and more, conditions that will indeed be difficult to meet, but the plan does not specify when all of those commitments will be applied or who determines when these obligations will be applied or who determines whether the Arabs are meeting the conditions that were imposed upon them. None of these things is written and they are only stated orally. “Nowhere is it written that if the Arabs do not uphold these conditions, we do not have to commit to our conditions”, says Struk, stating that if the Prime Minister would declare that the Israeli commitments would not apply if the Arabs do not uphold their commitment, then the plan would never begin at all.

However, notes Struk, these questions are asked again and again but remain unanswered. “It’s like getting into a car with no brakes. Israel must carry out all of her commitments with no end date and entrust the territory without sovereignty to the Americans. Today it is Trump and tomorrow it may be Biden, and here, we would be parted from this area that is flesh of our flesh, part of the Land of Israel”.

Struk continues by reading from the “Deal of the century” about what relates more to what the Arabs would get from the United States in this period, which includes re-opening “the Office of the General Delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization; the opening of a liaison mission to the Palestinian Authority at an appropriate location within the territory designated for the State of Palestine, as determined by the United States”, which could be Shuafat as well, the area of Jerusalem which the Americans have designated to be the capital of the Palestinian state.

Also, the American economic support for the PLO will be restored and Struk makes clear that with the fifty million dollars that the plan designates for this matter, it is possible to turn the Fayyad plan into the Trump plan. Since the plan has no time limit for checking Arab conduct vis a vis the plan or their meeting the conditions, this chapter, Chapter 22 of the Trump plan, is a “black hole”, as Struk defined it. “I don’t know of any serious person who would sign for such a black hole if these matters affected him or his family”.

Struk continues by mentioning the publications saying that the Prime Minister is planning to pass the plan with the support of Yoav Hendel, and that this means that every one of the Likud ministers can quash the majority. “It would only take one minister to tell the Prime Minister that he wants to have sovereignty very much, I just want to understand the black hole. Tell me what the exit plan is, who determines whether the Arabs have met their conditions, when this will be determined. It is enough that one minister says that this is his condition for voting in favor; that he demands an official, binding clarification such that, a month and a half after the plan, they will check whether the Arabs are in compliance, and if not, we will not enter into the matter”.