Thomas Jefferson and the end of the occupation

Given time, patience, and good faith, we will see a peace resolution that is beneficial to all.

By JAY SHAPIRO
IDF soldiers celebrate at the Western Wall in 1967_370 (photo credit: Courtesy Werner Braun/Jerusalem Post Archives)
IDF soldiers celebrate at the Western Wall in 1967_370
(photo credit: Courtesy Werner Braun/Jerusalem Post Archives)
The occupation – the name used to describe the liberation of the historic homeland of the Jewish people in the Six Day War – came to an abrupt end when a blue ribbon committee appointed by the government established that Jews have every right under international law to settle in Judea and Samaria.
The response to this finding has, to say the least, been interesting. The Left (or the "peace camp"), which put all its money on the Oslo horse – a total failure at the cost of thousands of Jewish and Arab lives – bereft of alternative ideas, has been stunned into silence, at least temporarily.
Typically, Hirsh Goodman writes: “The proponents of a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestinian conundrum are in deep hibernation…As for me I feel like throwing in the towel. I don’t want to live in a country where a third of the people can’t vote and have no rights. I just don’t know what to do about it.” Within a week of the announcement of the committee’s findings, a group of prominent American Jewish leaders sent a letter to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu urging him to ignore the committee’s conclusions in the name of “preserving Israel’s Jewish and democratic” character. The idea of appealing, in the name of democracy, to a democratically elected government to ignore the conclusions reached by a duly appointed committee of recognized legal experts is a paradigmatic demonstration of intellectual inconsistency and moral dishonesty.
The Right (or the national camp) – which has been rendered irrelevant by twenty years of political correctness supported by academia, the media, and the legal establishment – now has an opportunity to propose realistic ideas for alternative resolutions to the burning issues or at least for conflict management.
Ideas are already being discussed and put forward regarding the establishment of Israeli sovereignty over some or all of the area west of the Jordan River – as has already been done with respect to Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. These ideas are being attacked as prejudicial, undemocratic, discriminatory, reminiscent of apartheid, and un-Jewish – whatever that may mean. These deleterious terms awaken the anger and passion in those who want Israel to be Jewish, democratic and a “light unto the nations.”
In order to put the proposals of the national camp into proper perspective, it is necessary to understand the character of a free society. Every truly free society is a work in progress, continuously correcting and improving itself. The US is arguably one of the freest societies in human history. A brief analysis of the evolutionary American experience can serve as an illustration of how problems, initially considered insurmountable, can be resolved over the course of time – with minimal cost if approached reasonably.
Four prominent examples are the status of blacks, women, the age requirement for voting rights, and the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II.
The issue of slavery and the status of non-white Americans has the longest history which can be summarized as follows:
• The Declaration of Independence (1776):  “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal” was signed by fifty-six men of whom one third were slave owners including Thomas Jefferson, one of the drafters of the declaration. John Hancock, president of the Second Continental Congress that adopted the Declaration, was a shipping magnate whose financial empire was built on importation of slaves from Africa under terrible conditions.
• US Constitution (1787): Blacks considered for purposes of representation in the US Congress as two-fifths of a person with no voting rights.

Stay updated with the latest news!

Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter

Subscribe Now
• US Supreme Court Dred Scott decision (1857): Chief Justice Roger Taney writing for the majority stated, inter alia, “blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…it is clear that the enslaved African race was not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration [of independence]."
• US Constitution 14th amendment (1868): Citizenship granted to blacks.
• US Constitution 15th amendment (1870): Blacks entitled to vote.
• US Supreme Court Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896): Separate but equal accommodations (including schools) for whites and blacks.
• US Supreme Court Brown vs. Board of Education (1964): Separate is inherently not equal.
• Barack Obama, an African-American, is elected president of the United States (2008).
Thus, it took 232 years for the blacks in the US to make the transition from being considered property to achieving the highest position in the nation.
Regarding women and eighteen-year-olds, it required 132 years for women (20th amendment -1920) and 184 years for eighteen-year olds (26th Amendment - 1971) to obtain the right to vote. Interestingly, black males acquired the vote fifty years before white women.
One other subject particularly relevant to the issue of continuous development and improvement of a free society’s attitude toward and legal treatment of minority groups is the relocation and internment of innocent Japanese American citizens in detention camps during World War II for the sole crime of looking like the enemy. The incarceration of 110,000 Japanese Americans in 1942 by executive order was upheld by the Supreme Court. It was not until 1988 that then-president Ronald Reagan signed legislation apologizing for the internment. The legislation said that government actions were based on racial prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership. It took forty years for the US government to eventually disburse more than $1.6 billion in reparations.
The American experience should be internalized by those wishing to establish Israeli sovereignty over parts or all of the land west of the Jordan River in a manner that will be beneficial to all the inhabitants. It will be a long and difficult process that will be condemned by those in all camps who are impatient, those who are unaware of the reality in which we in Israel live, those who do not understand the developmental character of democracies, those who hide behind slogans, and those who do not act in the best interests of the people, both Jew and Arab, who are destined to live together in this small plot of land.
As far as the international community is concerned, it still has not recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights or Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. Yet, Israel has excellent commercial, diplomatic, and even military relations with dozens of countries whose embassies are in Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan. Visiting dignitaries and politicians seem to have no difficulty finding the Knesset, the prime minister’s office and the Western Wall in their well-publicized visits to Israel. There will certainly be public condemnation and even antagonistic UN resolutions, but each country will continue to treat Israel according to its own best interests. As President Shimon Peres was wont to say about his ill-fated Oslo adventure: “the dogs howl but the caravan moves on.”
Israel must move forward in limited stages and build each new phase on the success of its predecessor.  The initial framework could be, for example, granting voting rights to Palestinian Arabs at the level of local government and, importantly, with the revamping of the Palestinian educational system to eliminate all incitement against Israel and Jews. Without the latter, no plan to bring peace to the Mideast can possibly succeed.
In the final analysis, given time, patience, good will, and, above all, good faith, a resolution beneficial to all will be achieved – hopefully in less time than it took a black American to become president.