Annexation might be right, but Netanyahu’s process is flawed
Is this how a unity government makes a decision of such strategic proportions?
By YAAKOV KATZIsraeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem on June 30, 2020. (photo credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/FLASH90)
Whether you support annexation or not, here is one thing everyone can agree on – applying Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria is a historic move, one that has the potential to change Israel for decades to come.While the coronavirus is here and now, annexation is more vague. Does it change anything right away? Probably not. Israelis who live in annexed areas remain Israelis, and Palestinians who live nearby remain Palestinian. In the long term, though, this will change.COVID-19 will one day (hopefully soon) become something the world will either cure or learn to live with, while annexation will be something whose consequences will remain unclear.Will the European Union impose sanctions on Israel and downgrade relations? Will Jordan rip up the peace treaty? Will Palestinians launch a new intifada? Will the Democrats take the Oval Office, the Senate and the House in November and penalize Israel? And will apartheid become an accusation Israelis will have to get more used to hearing?With so much at stake, it would be natural to expect our government to take this issue seriously, to hold a round of cabinet meetings, to convene panels of experts from different disciplines (security, economic, legal and more) and to then present its plans to the Knesset or even the public for discussion and debate.Sadly, this is far from being the case. Instead, what we have is a classic example in how not to formulate policy and how not to make decisions of strategic and historic ramifications.Just look at the past week. The animosity between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Alternate Prime Minister Benny Gantz is no secret. The disgust they show one another was on display for the world to see at Sunday’s cabinet meeting when Gantz threw his hands up in the air after Netanyahu refused to let him make some opening remarks..Gantz got his revenge on Monday when he met with US Ambassador David Friedman and Special Envoy Avi Berkowitz and said that annexation was not important for Israel and could wait. Netanyahu responded that afternoon, saying that Gantz has no influence over annexation, “not one way or another.”Is this how a unity government makes a decision of such strategic proportions?
The truth is that the writing had been on the wall since January, ahead of the unveiling of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan. Then, Netanyahu – facing a third election– announced his intention to annex parts of the West Bank immediately after the rollout of the plan.When that didn’t happen – at the time, the White House hit the brakes and said it first wanted a stable government in Jerusalem – Netanyahu waited. He made annexation one of the centerpieces of his campaign in the March election but also when it was over, using it to explain to the public why he needed to remain prime minister.When the Netanyahu-Gantz government was formed in May, the prime minister again spoke about how annexation would come soon, putting July 1 in the coalition agreement as the date for it to begin.The problem is that in the five months since the plan was rolled out in Washington, and the two months since the coalition was formed, the government has yet to hold even one serious in-depth discussion about what is going to happen.Gantz and Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi are said to have seen a number of maps without being told which one Netanyahu is planning to adopt, not to mention members of the Likud Party, who have no idea what is happening behind closed doors.Is this the way a government is meant to function? Is this the way we want our leaders determining issues that strike at the core of the country’s existence?Of course not. This criticism has nothing to do with the legitimacy of applying Israeli law to parts of the Jewish people’s homeland. It has to do with proper governance and how a prime minister and his ministers are meant to make decisions with historic ramifications.People can argue about annexation, but at least have a process that does it justice.
