If we are only for ourselves, what are we?
The different ways that annexation would court disaster and how they interrelate
Iam a longtime US member of AIPAC who supports a safe and secure Israel. I’ve waited for Israeli leaders to listen to the growing chorus of opposition to annexation among supporters of Israel. Unfortunately, they appear poised to proceed with this blunder. I have not seen anyone provide a survey of all the different ways that annexation would court disaster and how they interrelate, so I will do so.
Let’s start out with the ethical issues. It is very reasonable to insist upon a Jewish state within the Levant, given Jews’ historical ties to the land, and the inferior and often precarious previous state of Jews generally and of non-Arabs and non-Muslims in the Middle East. But the only entity? No, the area has been split up among many peoples since time immemorial.
To Israel’s great credit, the Yishuv’s leaders agreed to such a split in the United Nations partition plan, which was far better than the norm for how these matters are generally decided. And, yes, it’s frankly probably for the best that the Arabs decided not to accept it and fight and that, yes, Israel gained more territory that helped yield a more viable and less vulnerable state.
So even more land is better, right? And the Jordan Valley land, it’s just sitting there, right? Why not settle it? And what about the Torah; aren’t we instructed to exercise dominion over the land?
No, we should not. As Hillel said, if we are only for ourselves, what are we? Annexing the Jordan Valley land would hobble the Palestinian Arab population of the West Bank, who are increasingly hemmed into an archipelago of towns and villages in the West Bank, into an unenviable future deprived of resources and growth, while Jewish residents get the choicest pieces of land and zip through specially built highways tailored to their needs. It will create more checkpoints, more flashpoints, and horrible optics. Not annexing allows the possibility of steering the situation to a relatively better and more just outcome for the Palestinians.
As for the religious arguments, trying to live as our ancestors did 3,000 years ago, including by implementing a mandate of conquest seeking utter annihilation and/or subjugation of adversaries and cohabitants alike, will doom the state. The Orthodox population in Israel finds innumerable workarounds to implement the injunctions in the Torah in a way that makes modern life possible. They can do so when it comes to land, too.
Let’s move on to defense considerations. The idea that Israel needs to annex the Jordan Valley land for Israel’s protection is manifestly false. The IDF can do whatever it needs to do in the West Bank right now. A large Jewish residential presence in the Jordan Valley will create a large new security challenge of a new populace to both police and defend.
WITH ANNEXATION we can expect a cold peace with Jordan to get colder, if it continues at all. It adds another destabilizing force to the many that have afflicted that country and could unseat King Abdullah. Any alternative to him is likely to be a great deal worse for Israel. We know the current talk has already reduced the Palestinian Authority’s policing of its residents. We can expect more violence and more danger and that such violence will escalate into major conflicts.
Annexation also is bad for efforts to exert pressure against Iran and Hezbollah, because there is a linkage between the two issues. That is because to many observers Israel’s concerns about what Iran and Hezbollah might do to Israel are overridden by concerns about what Israel is actually doing right now to the Palestinians on a daily basis. Getting back to a reasonable approach on the West Bank will enable Israel to better focus international efforts on the very real threats of Iran and Hezbollah.
Annexation is also very dangerous with respect to larger strategic concerns. Israel has enjoyed an extended run of good luck in recent years. The Arab Spring and havoc of the Islamic State could have turned out very badly for Israel. It’s been Israel’s great good fortune that the general despair and chaos in the region has been just enough to occupy its discontented masses.
But annexation would destroy that dynamic by creating an act so egregious and persistent in its impact that it will dominate the consciousnesses of Israel’s opponents and help unite them, maintain their focus, and spur them on to action. Annexation risks unifying Israel’s many disparate opponents under a new, would-be Nasser, Mahdi or Saladin.
The most dangerous immediate effect of annexation would be to weaken American’s relationship with Israel. One remarkable attribute of that relationship has been bipartisan US support for Israel. Annexation will rupture that support. Eighteen Democratic senators – there are only 100 senators in total – have already expressed strong opposition to annexation. This is not just lefties like The Squad. This is a potentially major fissure.
And Israel without strong, consistent US support would be a much more vulnerable entity. Notably, all this comes at a time when Russia is solidifying its position miles from
Israel’s border with Syria. Israel had long enjoyed regional dominance. That is over. Israel is militarily outmatched by Russia.
While relations have been relatively cordial to date, the Russians are just getting started. Despite some trade sales, China’s growing involvement in the region is generally in the same direction and will not ultimately be in Israel’s favor. Look at how they vote on Israel in the UN Security Council. Israel risks jeopardizing its long-term relationships with the United States and the European Union through annexation at its peril.
BUT WORST of all is the damage that annexation will do to Israel’s image and place in the world. With any territorially large annexation on the West Bank, Israel will brand itself with the apartheid and Bantustan label because its policies will veer dangerously close to those of the former South Africa regime. No one cares about how many start-ups you create, how many desalination plants your build, or how many probes you (almost) land on the moon when you have a scarlet A on your forehead. All they pay attention to is the scarlet A.
After annexation, no amount of hasbara (public diplomacy) by Israel and its supporters will make a difference. Notably, at present, in most cases, when a student body governance board at a US university passes an anti-Israel resolution, the university’s board of directors disowns it and reaffirms ties with Israel. That has proven to be an extremely important firewall limiting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) efforts. If annexation proceeds, there is a good chance university leaderships and their government and association equivalents in the US and Europe will stop doing that. They will likely go silent. And BDS will spread and deepen and become very harmful, particularly for a tech and research-dependent country like Israel.
That and related developments will pose a long-term danger to Israel’s security through out-migration. Israel’s tech elite can work in a number of other countries without that negative branding and without much antisemitism: Canada, Australia, and the United States, to name just a few. If BDS progresses, fewer companies will start in Israel because any Israeli company will start with a negative PR and marketing drag. Those that do start there and are successful will move out when they are of a size where they are vulnerable to boycott pressures.
You also will see fewer infusions of capital, research, and jobs through investments in Israel by tech giants like Intel, Dell and Google.
Eventually, emigration of the technological and business elite may dumb down the country as a whole and weaken it economically and militarily. You can expect that effect because the atavism and greed of the settlement enterprise do not mix well with the freewheeling and tolerant culture of the Start-Up Nation Israel.
With moves like annexation, you are changing the pH of the soil so that the latter will no longer grow well in Israel. And with economic decline, the existing challenges for the average Israeli to make ends meet in Israel, will multiply and many will leave. Israel eventually could join the contingent of ancient peoples with homelands whose most successful progeny live elsewhere. Lebanon and much of the Middle East, Armenia, and Greece come to mind.
If it survives at all, that is.
The writer is a freelance reporter based in the Washington, DC, area, covering international higher education, legal, technology and business issues for numerous publications.