Retired IDF general raises concerns over West Bank annexation
Amidror compared the "Deal of the Century" to previous deals signed by Israel and expressed his opinion of the planned annexation from a security point of view.
By TOBIAS SIEGALAmidror(photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Former head of the National Security Council Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror was interviewed by Ben Caspit and Yinon Magal on the 103FM radio station on Sunday. Amidror talked about the "Deal of the Century," expressing his concerns about the planned annexation of the West Bank and the implications that the plan in its current form may have. Amidror compared the "Deal of the Century" to previous deals signed by Israel and expressed his opinion regarding the areas that he thinks Israel should annex from a security point of view.US President Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century" includes several stages for applying Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank and acknowledging a Palestinian state. According to Amidror, the question of annexation is not a practical one, but a political one. According to him, "those who believe in the concept of Greater Israel are in favor of annexation, and those who oppose the concept and support a two-state solution are against annexation. It's not a practical discussion, it's about two opposing sides that don't meet."Greater Israel is an expression that refers to the desired borders of Israel by people who believe that the biblical borders of the Land of Israel are the rightful and true borders of the State of Israel. As is implied, they refuse to accept the idea of a Palestinian state. Amidror emphasized the importance of distinguishing between a practical opposition, voiced by experts, that would include discussions about the risks involved and between a political opposition that would voice clashing principles. He continued and said that "the toughest decisions in modern times were made without experts."He continued, "[former prime minister Menachem] Begin didn't ask anyone before signing an agreement with Egypt and [former prime minister Yitzhak] Rabin didn't consult with any expert before signing the Oslo Accords, two major agreements with major risk factors. It worked in the case of Egypt but not in the case of the Oslo Accords." Unlike those examples, Amidror mentioned that in the case of the agreement with Jordan, experts were involved, and that former prime minister Ehud Barak retreated from Lebanon after having consulted experts, who opposed the idea.Caspit mentioned that some settlers believe Trump's plan is not a good one, challenging Amidror's assumption that supporters of the idea of Greater Israel necessarily support annexation. Amidror replied by saying "they are for annexation – don't be confused. They are actually saying 'we oppose it because it requires us to acknowledge a Palestinian state, and that's a price we don't think we should pay.' It's an argument about which form of annexation is right and which one is wrong."Amidror believes that annexation won't benefit Israel in any practical way. "It won't make life easier for the IDF and not for the settlers either, as they'll become part of the Israeli bureaucracy system, which is worse than the bureaucratic system they have today." Magal wondered what Amidror's personal stance on the deal was, to which he replied that "practically speaking, there are three problems with the plan: how Arab countries will react, how will it affect the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and how the IDF plans to deal with a completely new area of responsibility. These are practical issues that we should prepare for."Amidror went on to explain that he believes that "if we want to seize the opportunity we were given here, I would go after the area with the largest consensus, the Jordan Rift Valley, which has a bigger local legitimacy and a strong justification regarding security."As happened with the Oslo Accords, Amidror explained, "it's wrong to implement a plan that tears apart the Israeli society" and that he would "reduce the opportunity to an area that is barely controversial in Israeli eyes," because eventually, "it expresses what we care about most – preserving Israeli society as a whole and not making people feel like a coincidental majority is leading us to places that many Israelis don't feel comfortable with."
