It is either sovereignty now or wait for the Messiah

Within Israel there is division and debate if it is politically and diplomatically advisable to implement any extension of sovereignty at this time.

High on the list of topics in Israel and one of the most discussed subjects in diplomatic circles of the world is Israel’s proposed and imminent extension of sovereignty over additional parts of our country. This is perceived by most of the international community as depriving the Palestinian Arabs of their land, illegal under international law and making it impossible to establish a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank. The date for its implementation published by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is July 1.

There is, however, a great deal of confusion as to the precise extent of this proposed sovereignty. A variety of options have been suggested, depending on the political affiliation of the proposer. First and foremost after a prolonged period of hype there is US President Donald Trump’s “Deal of the Century,” promising Israel sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Besides the so-called major settlement blocs, the map that has been published shows a confusing array of dots representing a number of isolated Jewish villages to be included in the plan, while an estimated 25 smaller communities are doomed to be destroyed. This adds up to just 30% and is effectively severing 70% of Judea and Samaria to become a Palestinian state – not the deal that the Israeli public was led to believe, but a scheme aimed to appease Palestinian demands.

Further, it merely serves to fulfill the aspirations of Trump to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, a feat that no one before him could accomplish. In the end, his plan for Middle East peace will, like all others before him, also end up in the dustbin of history.

It was surprisingly naive to believe the Palestinian Authority leadership would freely accept a plan that places Israeli towns and villages as islands under Israeli sovereignty, dotted within what is earmarked for a Palestinian state.

Our interlocutors have already condemned this plan because firstly, they claim that it prevents contiguity and free movement within their state and secondly, that they will never tolerate Israelis within their sovereign area. That is a condition often repeated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas; yet Arabs reside and move freely inside Israel. In any case, the PA’s demands are much wider.

Within Israel there is division and debate if it is politically and diplomatically advisable to implement any extension of sovereignty at this time, in light of strong international opposition and warnings by even the ‘warm’ Arab states that such action will severely harm the relationship.

Therefore, as neither the PA nor the Arab countries in the region will accept that kind of Palestinian state, the Trump plan is effectively dead.