The “two-state” model has brought Israel to a dead end: despair of ending the conflict and turning to its “management” as a cruel and eternal destiny. The alternative depends on the willingness of Israeli society to reach a decision instead of managing the conflict, a decision based on the understanding that there is no place in the Land of Israel for two contradictory national movements
By Bezalel Smotrich
For over a century of Zionism, the Jewish people had to wage a struggle over its very existence as sovereign in its renewed state in the Land of Israel.
This existential struggle takes shape and takes shape, consists of many systems, and, thank God, victories. But to this day it has not yet been decided. To this day, there are those among the inhabitants of this country who refuse to recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist as the state of the Jewish people, and continue to undermine its very existence and its Jewish identity. In recent decades, this struggle has been going on mainly in the so-called “Palestinian arena” with the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, who are striving to establish an Arab state within the 1967 borders, but have never concealed that this is only a stop on the way to the real goal: the return to Haifa, Jaffa, Israel. That is why they educate their children at home, in schools, in summer camps and summer camps, and no one denies that this is the founding ethos of “Palestinian nationalism” wherever it is.
The program before you seeks to deal with this issue itself: the existence of two contradictory national aspirations in the Land of Israel, which reality shows that can not be held together. Fantasy can sustain two ambitions together accompanied the Zionist movement from its beginning: even before the establishment of the state, in the thirties and forties, when it was possible to reach an understanding with the Arabs living in Israel, rejected the Israeli Arabs backed by Arab states all partition plans various Zionist leadership was ready to accept any Even though they involved concessions on parts of the Land of Israel. Even after the establishment of the state, throughout the years of its existence, the State of Israel agreed to compromises and disputes that might have led to the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian state in the Land of Israel, but the Arab side rejected them time after time.
The ongoing Arab position proves that the “two-state solution,” beyond being mistaken in terms of values and Zionism, is also clearly unrealistic: the maximum that the Israeli left is willing to give is far less than the minimum that the moderate leader among the Arabs of Judea and Samaria can receive and survive. Therefore, in the moments of truth, beginning with the partition plan and the continuation of Camp David and the negotiations with Olmert, the Palestinian leaders always refused to sign a peace agreement that would include the end of the claims.
The contradiction is built-in, and lies in the development of the concept of the “Palestinian people.” In essence, the “Palestinian people” is nothing but a movement against the Zionist movement, its essence and the right to exist. Supporters of Palestinian self-determination also know that such a “people” was not available before the Zionist enterprise, and that “Palestine” was the geographical name of this part of the land and nothing else – a name given to him by the Romans and not the Arabs. After the suppression of the Jewish revolts, Jerusalem was rebuilt as a pagan Roman city and was called “Aelia Capitolina”, while the name of the Judaea Province was changed to “Syria Palestina” to obliterate the memory of the Jews. It is derived from the name “Philist” – the land of the Philistines. Thus, symbolically, these were the days of our destruction, the same destruction that we weep for on Tisha B’Av, which gave birth to the word “Palestine.”
When the Arabs conquered the Land of Israel in the seventh century they adopted the Roman name “Palestine”, while the northern region remained “Syria”. After 1,500 years, this name was adopted by the Arabs of Palestine when they embarked on their struggle in the Zionist movement, which came to return the land to the Jews – the ones the Romans wanted to erase.
In Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine, there were Palestinian Jews who immigrated to Israel in the early days of Zionism and Palestinian Arabs, some of whom had been in the past and most of whom emigrated to it from neighboring countries in the modern era for various reasons.
The Palestinian national movement is a negation of Zionism, and as such it can not make peace with it. This is why the Palestinians refuse the minimal demand of the State of Israel to recognize its right to exist as a Jewish state. In this the Palestinian issue is different from the conflict with the Arab states. Egypt and Jordan are independent states whose existence is not connected to the State of Israel. Their war against the State of Israel with the aim of destroying it may have been important to them, as part of a Muslim or Arab ethos, but did not touch upon their very definition as states. It was therefore possible to reach a peace agreement with them. Not so in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Without the “conflict,” without the struggle against Israel, there is no Palestinian nationalism. In any case, the chances that it will be possible to maintain Zionism and Palestinian nationalism in the Land of Israel at the same time, in one territorial division or another, do not exist. The reality of the past decades shows how simple this distinction is.
The continuation of the two conflicting national aspirations in our little piece of land will assure us many more years of blood and life on the sword. Only when one of the parties willingly or unwillingly agrees to realize its national aspiration in the Land of Israel will the desired peace come and a life of civic coexistence will be possible here.
A map showing the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as of 2007. It is difficult and impossible to achieve agreement on borders in order to implement the two-state solution.
I hope that all readers agree with me that we, the Jews, will not give up our national aspiration for an independent state in the Land of Israel, the only Jewish state in the world. Therefore, those who will have to give up the desire to realize their national identity here in the Land of Israel is the Arab side. This is the statement that so far no one seems to dare say – and for this reason we are doomed to continue the cycle of bloodshed; But this statement is the only key to real peace.
This is the purpose of the decision-making program before you – no longer managing an ongoing conflict with varying intensity, but deciding. No more shuffling and cosmetic solutions to the pursuit of mosquitoes, but the drying of the swamp and the treatment of the roots of the problem to the end. Throughout its existence, Israel has fled to touch these roots, and it will not be easy to change this paradigm. However, the State of Israel can not allow itself to continue to wade through the Sisyphean war against terror, and no less serious – by de-legitimizing this conduct in the world. Continued conflict management erodes Israel’s status and interests, causing irreparable damage. The decision plan may be difficult to digest at the first moment, but its great logic, as well as its inevitability and inevitability, will eventually be adopted by Israeli society and by the international community.
Summary
The resolution of the conflict means a conscious determination – practical and political – to the west of the Jordan, there is room for only one national definition: the Jewish one. In any case, there is no Arab state in the heart of the Land of Israel that will allow the realization of Arab national aspirations in it. The shelving of this dream will reduce the motivation to realize it, and in any case the terror.
This decision is also achieved in declarations – in an unequivocal Israeli statement to the Arabs and the entire world that no Palestinian state will be established, but mainly in the implementation of full Israeli sovereignty over the territories of the homeland in Judea and Samaria and a settlement decision that means the establishment of new towns and settlements deep in the area and bringing hundreds of thousands more in them. This will make it clear to the Arabs and to the entire world that the reality in Judea and Samaria is irreversible, that the State of Israel is here to stay, and that the Arab dream of establishing a state in Judea and Samaria has vanished once and for all. The settlement decision is therefore intended to burn the consciousness of the Arabs and the entire world that there is no chance of establishing an Arab state in the Land of Israel.
On this unequivocal starting point, two alternatives (three) will be opened to the Arabs of the Land of Israel:
Those who wish and can not give up their national aspirations can stay here and live as an individual in the Jewish state, and of course enjoy all the abundance, good and progress that the Jewish people brought and bring to the Land of Israel. On the status of those who choose this option, and on the management of their lives, we will elaborate later on.
Those who do not want or can not hide their national aspirations will receive assistance from us to emigrate to one of the many Arab countries where the Arabs can realize their national aspirations or any other goal in the world.
It is reasonable to assume, of course, that not all will adopt these two elections and that those who insist on choosing the third option will continue to use violence against the IDF, the State of Israel and the Jewish population. Today and under more favorable conditions for us.
For those Arabs who choose to stay here as individuals and enjoy all that the State of Israel has to offer, we will have to define a model of residency that includes self-sustaining community life alongside private rights and obligations. The Arabs of Judea and Samaria will first conduct their daily lives themselves through regional municipal administrations – devoid of national characteristics – to which they will be able to vote, administrations that will maintain economic and other relations between themselves and between them and the various authorities in the State of Israel. Later, as the process progresses and internalizes, and on the basis of standards of loyalty and military or national service, it will be possible to combine models of residency, and even citizenship.
This program is the most just and moral in any measure – historical, Zionist and Jewish – and it is the only one that will bring peace, peace and coexistence. Attempts to reconcile the two national aspirations and allow them to coexist on the same piece of land, even though they seem more moral at first sight (by taking into account the wishes of both sides and refusing to allow the just side to decide the power of right and power) That they perpetuate the war and the bloodshed. On the other hand, a decision based on the right of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel – even though it appears to be aggressive and unilateral at first glance – will lead to the moral and best result: it will end the bloodshed and enable true coexistence between the Jews and those of the Arabs who choose to do so.
All attempts to reach an understanding regarding two states for two peoples have failed. It is time to give up the idea of Arab nationalism.
This is the essence of the program. We will immediately turn to more detail and explanation. But since this plan is very different from the usual discourse on resolving the conflict, it is important to reiterate its basic moral and moral assumptions before going into details:
The two-state solution is not realistic, and it has never been. “Two states for two peoples” is an empty slogan that has become an axiomatic solution to the conflict, mainly because of the illusion that the Arab side is ready for a territorial compromise and is ready to accept the State of Israel as a Jewish state. This basic assumption turns out to be wrong once and for all. In the current reality, the establishment of an Arab terrorist state in Judea and Samaria, a state that is twenty times the size of Hamas’ terrorist state in the Gaza Strip, would be a dangerous security suicide. The collapse of several old Arab states in recent years has made the state model even more problematic – it is difficult to view it as sustainable. The two-state solution is not feasible, and therefore the time has come to put on the table a solution based on a completely different approach.
The Zionist enterprise of the return of the people of Israel to its land after 2,000 years of exile, migration and persecution is the most just and moral enterprise that has taken place in the world over the past centuries in a historical, international and religious perspective. We believe in the justness of our path, which gives us moral validity forever and to defeat the contradictory Arab aspiration, and indeed, in a world where they have stopped talking about justice and have gone through a discourse of narratives, The State of Israel was established by virtue of the belief in the righteousness of the biblical story and by the consent of the nations of the world – at a rare historical moment – to help realize the vision and restore the land to the Jewish people. The creeping erosion in the decision to designate the entire Land of Israel to the people of Israel stemmed not from considerations of justice, but from surrendering to Arab violence. Thus, in the first stage, the territory of the eastern side of the Jordan River was removed from the area designated for the return of the Jewish people to the establishment of the Kingdom of Jordan.
This belief in the justice of the road is vital, and those who lack it will indeed find it difficult to defend the demand from the Arabs of Judea and Samaria to abandon their national aspirations in order to fulfill our national aspirations. We have already explained above that the “Palestinian people” that demands the right to self-determination is indistinguishable from the Arab nation, but rather in its quest to destroy the Zionist enterprise. This, of course, is not new – it was obvious to Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and, in fact, to the entire Israeli leadership until recently.
Moreover, Jewish nationalism brought this country to prosperity – which hundreds of years of Ottoman rule did not cause. It is enough to skim through Mark Twain’s journey book to find out the size of the wilderness that existed here before the Jewish people returned to its land. The return of the people of Israel to its land blossomed the wilderness and turned this land into what it is now. It is doubtful whether the eyes of the whole world would have been asked by the question of who this country would be if it had stood in its desolation as it was before Zionism.
The challenges that the State of Israel is required to contend with are unprecedented, and therefore the solution and the reality that will follow will allow them to be original and unprecedented. Attempts to compare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to conflicts taking place elsewhere in the world and to examine the present, as well as future arrangements, in accordance with accepted standards of conflict resolution elsewhere, are wrong. It is doubtful whether there is a country that is dealing with an existential threat of the kind that the State of Israel has had to contend with since its inception. There is certainly no other country in the world that has been established after attempts to annihilate a nation, surrounded by a host of nations with a desire to destroy it, and constantly dealing with threats from within and without. There is no other nation-state in the world where the roots of the struggle and the desire to destroy it derive from opposition to its very existence and to the very existence of the nation that is its national home.
Coping with an unprecedented reality justifies unprecedented solutions and arrangements that may be difficult to defend in other situations, but can certainly stand behind them and justify them in the context of the State of Israel. Within this complex and unprecedented complexity, the State of Israel must continue to exist as the national home of the Jewish people, and to ensure that new civil, democratic and legal structures must be created, one should not be alarmed. In terms of the accepted constitutional discourse in Israel, the purpose is a proper purpose that justifies a disproportionate deviation from the accepted principles.
The statement “terrorism stems from despair” is a lie. Terror stems from hope – hope to weaken us. Terrorism rests on the hope of achieving achievements – weakening Israeli society and forcing it to agree to the establishment of an Arab state in the Land of Israel. Even suicide bombers do not operate in a vacuum, but rather for a “noble cause.” When there is no such goal, or when it will be futile, the motivations that drive terrorism will diminish, and with God’s help, terrorism itself.
The national aspirations of the Jewish people and the Arabs of the Land of Israel are contradictory. They can not be reconciled and allowed to coexist. An artificial geographical division of the territory will not last. Security and demographic threats can not be pushed behind virtual fences and lines drawn artificially. The area between the sea and the Jordan is one geographic and topographic area, and it can not be divided in a sustainable manner. If the territory is divided in any way and the Arabs receive their share in order to realize their national aspirations alongside the State of Israel, they will not abandon their national aspiration for the destruction of the State of Israel and will continue to strive for its realization. Therefore, any solution must be based on cutting off the aspiration to realize the Arab national hope between the Jordan River and the sea.
The statement that it is impossible to “suppress” the Arab aspiration for national expression in the Land of Israel is incorrect. It worked very well with the Arabs of the Land of Israel with the establishment of the State of Israel, and it can and should work the same way in Judea and Samaria.
For the Arabs of the Land of Israel, the great catastrophe, which they call the Nakba, is the War of Independence in 1948, and not the “occupation” of the Six-Day War in 1967. The War of Independence included the expulsion of refugees, the destruction of dozens of Arab villages and the establishment of Jewish settlements on their ruins, and for many years afterwards lived under a discriminatory military government. Despite all this, Israeli Arabs lived for decades in peace under Jewish rule, and were hardly involved in terror and activity against the State of Israel. The reason for this is simple – from 1948 to the early 1990s they simply did not have hope, or rather, the hope of getting rid of the Zionist project was cut off sharply.
The Arabs of Israel who lived in that generation knew very well that if they had won in the War of Independence, they would brutally exterminate the Jews, as is common in the Middle East between winners and losers, as is happening today. For this reason they appreciated the Israeli compassion and generosity shown to them and lived here in peace, even before they had equal rights and without them. They had civil protests about the discrimination involved in the military government. There were demonstrations against expropriation of land, but there were no national streams and no national vision was sought.
The nationalist extremism among Israeli Arabs and their support for terrorism and the use of violence by the Arabs of Judea and Samaria against the State of Israel began sometime in the early 1990s, when the State of Israel foolishly brought the PLO terrorists from Tunisia to Judea and Samaria and began to cultivate national hope among the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. To the Arabs of Judea and Samaria rekindled the national feelings and aspirations of Israeli Arabs and led to a dangerous nationalistic radicalization among them, the results of which we are experiencing today.
Palestinian riots in the Nablus casbah, 1988. Photo: Zvika Yisraeli. Courtesy of GPO
It is possible and possible to return to the days after 1948, both with the Arabs of Israel and with the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, and it can work very well today, but we do not have the ambition to erase or change it. It is possible and necessary to put an end to the Arab hope of realizing national aspirations in the Land of Israel, and to open the door to a new hope based on a far better private life than the Arabs in all the countries of the Middle East around us.
Morality of action is measured in the test of results, not at first sight. Reality teaches that when we take responsibility and manage the territory, the best moral reality is achieved for both sides, and when we leave the territory, the opposite result is achieved. Because of our desire to be “moral” and not “to rule a foreign people,” we left the Gaza Strip, and since then the life of the Arabs there has undoubtedly improved dramatically. Instead of regular electricity, they enjoy electricity for only six hours a day; Instead of a regular flow of water in the taps, they face a major water crisis that will cause a humanitarian crisis. Instead of employment and livelihood, the citizens of Gaza enjoy a good life, with more than 50 percent of them unemployed and on compulsory leave all year round. Tens of thousands of them are homeless and without a glimmer of hope.
Simply put, since we left the Gaza Strip, the residents there enjoy much less rights and freedoms. Neither democracy nor the right to vote do. What they have is a depressing Hamas regime that takes most of its inputs into Gaza and uses them for arming and tunneling instead of rebuilding the Gaza Strip. Much less well and much less morally and humanly than the reality in the Gaza Strip when the IDF controlled it, there is no reason to assume that it would be different if an Arab state is established in Judea and Samaria.
The resolution of the conflict is cheaper and far more economic than its continued management. Some argue that applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria will cost a lot of money and make it difficult for the Israeli economy. First, this is a very weak argument. Throughout the world, developing countries are producing the largest engines of growth and the economy in which they grow. The need to bridge the gaps between the Israeli economy and the Palestinian economy has the potential for great economic growth for the Israeli economy. Improving the quality of life, technology, infrastructure and other components of life in Judea and Samaria will increase consumption and, in any case, growth in both economies. Second, and even more important, whatever the cost of applying sovereignty to the Israeli economy, it will still be significantly lower than the defense expenditure and the indirect costs to the economy that will be involved in the continuation of conflict management, fighting rounds, and the costs of expelling tens of thousands of settlers and resettling them within the Green Line.
Stage 1: Settlement decision
The first and most important decision is settlement. At this stage, the basic fact is clearly clarified: We are here to stay. The realization of our national aspiration for a Jewish state from the sea to the Jordan, we wish to clarify, is an absolute fact that is not open to discussion and is not negotiable.
This stage is realized by means of a political-legal action – the application of sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria, and through settlement activity – the establishment of settlements and cities, the deployment of infrastructures as is customary in “small” Israel and the encouragement of tens and hundreds of thousands of additional residents to move to and live in Judea and Samaria. In a few years, it is possible to produce a clear and irreversible reality on the ground.
Nothing will work better on the minds of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, will help them sober up the illusion of the Palestinian state and will tell them that there is no chance that another Arab state will be established west of the Jordan River. Facts on the ground, as we know, change consciousness and decide consciousness – and the settlement blocs will prove.
The development of Israeli settlement in Judea and Samaria in a sovereign and institutional manner will also help solve the housing shortage in the State of Israel. In Judea and Samaria, there are many state lands in the center of the country, which can be made available for housing at prices much lower than what is customary within the Green Line, thereby increasing the supply of affordable housing in Israel by hundreds of thousands of units.
This unequivocal decision of the conflict will reduce the motivations of terrorism.
This of course will not happen in one day. It will take time, especially because in the last three decades we foolishly nurtured the illusion that they could build a state here in the Arabs’ stupidity. After so many years in which we have set the world on the paradigm of a natural two-state solution, it will take time to convince everyone that it is not going to happen. It will take time to convince everyone that we are serious, that we have redesigned our path and that there will be no Palestinian state, and therefore there is no purpose for terrorism.
In the first stage it is reasonable to assume that the efforts of Arab terrorism will increase. The frustration of the inability to realize the hope – an illusion that, as we have said, we nurtured, will increase, as do the motivations and efforts to carry out terrorist acts in a last desperate attempt to realize it nonetheless. But at some point, the stage of frustration crossing the threshold of despair will come to the realization that there is no chance. It just is not going to happen. When this consciousness will seep into consciousness and terror will become futile, its motivations will diminish and, as a result, its practical manifestations will be reduced.
In the interim period, I am certain that in a resolute and unequivocal political directive, the IDF knew how to deal with this temporary threat, to defeat terror and to complete the settlement decision in a decisive military decision.
Stage B: Both alternatives and military decision
On the settlement decision of the first stage, which includes the reduction of Arab hope for the establishment of a state west of the Jordan River, the two tracks will be opened to the Arabs of Judea and Samaria.
Peace and local identity
To those of Judea and Samaria who wish to do so, a new hope for a good future and a good private life will emerge under the wings of the Jewish state. The Jewish people has brought this country a great favor – abundance, progress, development and technology – and will be happy to allow anyone who wants to live here to enjoy them. Anyone who chooses to remain here as a private person can enjoy a much better life than his relatives and friends in the various Arab countries around him, and those who would expect him under the corrupt authority of the Palestinian Authority.
This will be a life that will include most of the democratic rights – life, liberty and property, a life that will include freedom of movement, religion and expression, and so on. They will also have the right to vote for a system that will conduct daily life.
The self-rule of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will be divided into six regional municipal governments that will be elected in democratic elections – Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jericho, Nablus and Jenin. These administrations are suitable for the cultural and compassionate structure of Arab society, and thus will ensure internal peace and economic prosperity. The failure of the idea of ??a “nation-state” in the Arab space – an idea brought from Europe by the colonial powers – we see before our eyes; Many believe this failure is the result of ignoring the tribal structure of Arab society. The Arab states that flourish are the Gulf emirates, which are built according to a traditional tribal structure.
The Hebron Arabs are not like the Arabs of Ramallah, they are not like the Arabs of Nablus, and the latter are not like the Arabs of Jericho. Even the dialect of the Arabic language differs from region to region. A division into regional municipal governments will dismantle the Palestinian national collective and aspire to realize it, but at the same time preserve the clan-clan division and thus enable a stable system to manage daily life without tensions and internal struggles. These regional municipal administrations will maintain reciprocal relations between themselves and between them and the State of Israel, thereby enabling stable and sustainable regional economic development.
In the absence of terror and security threats, residents of the regional municipal administrations will be able to enjoy freedom of movement and the ability to enter – for work and humanitarian needs – into Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria and within the borders of the State of Israel.
As stated, the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will be able to conduct their daily lives, but will not be able to vote for the Knesset in the first stage. In this way, the Jewish majority will be preserved in decision-making in the State of Israel. As will be explained at length below, even though this is an imperfect reality in terms of civil rights, this is certainly a reasonable and even the best possible reality in the complex circumstances of the State of Israel in the Middle East. In the long run, it will be possible to improve the democratic component of the plan by means of a broad regional arrangement with Jordan, in which the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will be able to vote for the Jordanian parliament, thereby exercising their right to vote for a sovereign parliament. Another improvement that will be possible to examine, with the passing of time, and after it is possible to verify the sincerity of the acquiescence of those who choose to remain here, is the participation of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria who will remain here in the civilian decisions in the State of Israel. This requires constitutional changes that should be discussed later on. It would be possible to consider as a third option the granting of full citizenship,
No, this gradual arrangement does not turn the State of Israel into an “apartheid state”. A regime of freedom does not begin and end with the right to vote and be elected. There is no doubt that this right is one of the basic democratic rights, but it is certainly not its only definition. Today it is customary to include under the title “democracy” a complete system of freedoms and rights – the right to life, dignity and property, freedom of religion, expression and movement, and more. The bulk of these rights and liberties will be given to the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, including the right to vote for municipal managers who run daily life. Even in the absence of the right to vote for a full sovereign parliament, this is not an apartheid regime – at most, a missing component in the basket of liberties, or, if we wish, a deficit in democratic significance.
The axiom that states that “democracy without a full and equal right for everyone to vote and be elected is not a democracy” serves the foolish followers of the “two-state solution,” allowing them to intimidate the Israeli public and claim that without the establishment of an Arab terror state in the heart of the Land of Israel, To be a democratic state. It simply is not true. Israeli sovereignty can be applied to all areas of Judea and Samaria without granting the Arabs living there the right to vote for the Knesset as early as the first day, and still remain a democracy. Not perfect, but democracy. Not perfect – simply because reality is not perfect. As we wrote at the opening, the State of Israel is facing an unprecedented existential challenge, and if the model that will allow this challenge to be met, including a certain deficit on the democratic level, it is certainly a tolerable price. The Israeli situation is unique, and therefore should not be alarmed that the confrontation with it will be unique.
By the way, experience shows that when Western democracies were required to deal with much simpler security challenges, they left the values ??of democracy far behind. This is what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even its own citizens after the attack on the World Trade Center, and the Western countries are still behaving in the face of terrorism in their territory. Which should not detract from it.
It is important to remember that the alternatives are much worse: the establishment of a Palestinian state will endanger the existence of the State of Israel, and the granting of full and immediate voting rights to the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will create a significant deficit in the Jewish component of the State of Israel. When I have to choose where to cast the consequences of the complex and imperfect reality of the State of Israel – whether to the existential plane, the Jewish plane or the democratic plane – my choice is simple. Moreover, this situation has existed in the State of Israel for fifty years in relation to the Arabs of East Jerusalem: they enjoy the status of residency but not citizenship, and the State of Israel has not ceased to be a democratic state because of this.
Moreover; In recent decades, and especially in light of the constitutional revolution and as part of it, the State of Israel shifts the emphasis of democracy from the simple meaning of “majority rule” – that the right to vote and to be elected is its derivative and the means to realize it – a system of values ??and rights, To harm even by means of a majority selection mechanism. The center of gravity of democracy goes from the mechanism of choice to values ??and basic rights. For some reason, in the Palestinian context, those who always advocate fundamental democracy seek to cling suddenly to the mechanism of technical choice of formal democracy and ignore all the rest, with emphasis on the daily and difficult violation of rights on the Palestinian side. In the program before you, the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will enjoy the whole range of values, rights and democratic freedoms that have become so important in recent decades.
There is no basis for the assessment that the rule of the Palestinian state, if God forbid it will be established, will be different from the practice in the Middle Eastern countries around us and the Palestinian Authority as of today (for over a decade there have been no free elections). In the test of results, under Israeli rule, the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will have much more rights than they now have, and as they would be under any form of Arab rule, even without the right to vote in the first stage. Anyone who ignores the violation of democratic rights in the Arab regimes and wants to establish a national entity for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria proves in fact that he does not really care about the status of the rights of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria the day after. What interests him is that he will not be accused by the world of “apartheid”. I am convinced that under Israeli rule, the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will have much more democratic rights and freedoms than any other regime. Therefore, in the overall view – which does not take into account only the question of what we are being accused of or not – the “decision plan”
To conclude this point, it is important to note that democratically there is no difference between the political plan of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the plan before you. Netanyahu defines the Arab national entity he strives to establish in Judea and Samaria as a “minus state,” reflecting the fact that he does not intend, and rightly so, to allow that political entity to maintain an army and control its airspace and airspace. As long as we control the definition of the sovereign borders of that Arab entity, this is not a true sovereign state, and in any case, the right of vote for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will not be complete. This is a “price” that Netanyahu also understands is necessary to pay on the democratic level in order to preserve the security and existence of the State of Israel. In this respect, there is no difference between the situation at the time and the current situation in which the Arabs of Judea and Samaria have the right to vote for the non-sovereign Palestinian parliament and the situation that will be created according to this plan in which the Arabs of Judea and Samaria vote for municipal councils. In all the alternatives, they have the right to vote for a system that conducts their lives in a practical manner, but not an ideological right to vote for a sovereign parliament. If Netanyahu’s plan crosses the democratic test, then this plan also does so. The difference is that Netanyahu maintains a collective national entity of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria, an entity with national aspirations that contradict ours, and our plan does not. And that, as we have already explained, is a strategic advantage for this plan – which guarantees that it will bring peace instead of perpetuating the conflict.
Immigration
The second alternative is intended for those Arabs of Judea and Samaria who will find it difficult to relinquish the realization of national aspirations. Anyone who can not remain here as a private person who is stealing the dream of realizing his national aspirations is invited to go and implement them in one of the many Arab countries around the world, or to seek for himself, like so many Arabs around us, a better future in Europe, South America or other countries. In the Jewish state.
The Israeli left, who for many years has been waving the flag of separation and the Jewish majority – systematically preaching that a high percentage of Jews should be guaranteed in the State of Israel and prefers separation over life with the Arabs – is somehow reluctant to improve the demographic reality. “Arabs are not immigrants, they are close to their land,” or “immigration is a cruel expulsion,” and “no one wants to absorb Arab immigrants.” These arguments, in forgiveness, are refuted one by one.
Let’s start with the first: It seems to me that today there is no need to elaborate on the arguments to prove that immigration is definitely an option in the eyes of the Arabs, an option that many choose today from Judea and Samaria and the Arab countries. In a reality that will facilitate migration in an easy and convenient way, and will even provide logistic and financial assistance to those interested in seeking their luck in other countries, migration will become a much larger phenomenon.
No, this does not mean cruel expulsion or the flooding of countries with destitute refugees; The immigration we are talking about is one that is done in the first place, willingly and in search of a better future – by people with the right skills to be absorbed in the new country and financially able to do so. This is not about the migration of rickety boats, but about the modern phenomenon of boarding a plane to an orderly future, relocation to countries that provide opportunities for a better future, and absorption in an environment where there is usually a community of immigrants of similar backgrounds.
As for the third claim – who would want to absorb – this is a baseless claim. The world is finding it difficult to cope with waves of refugees of destitute immigrants, but at the same time, many countries in the world are welcoming immigrants with vocational training and funding for many different reasons – and so will the Arab migration from Judea and Samaria.
The State of Israel can, and should, be generous to Arabs who prefer to live in other countries – and to grant them a grant that will enable them to make the transition in a dignified and successful way – a grant that, to Israel, is a farewell grant. Zionism was built from a population exchange: the mass immigration of Jews from Arab and European lands to Palestine, either voluntarily or by force, and the exodus of masses of Arabs who lived here, whether voluntarily or by force, into the surrounding Arab space. This historic move seems to still require completion, which promises more than anything else a future of peace.
A military decision
There will be – at least in the beginning – those who will find it difficult to accept the decision of the conflict; Who will choose to continue the struggle against the State of Israel. In war, as in war, it is possible and necessary to win. Anyone who thinks that he will remain here and constantly strive for violence under the right of the State of Israel to exist as the state of the Jewish people will find the IDF determined to decide it with the help of God in the military decision. He will certainly know how to defeat the terrorists within a short time. Kill those who have to kill, collect weapons until the last bullet, and restore security to the citizens of Israel.
The IDF is strong and ready, Photo by Avi Ohayon, courtesy of GPO
Arabs who do not give up their national aspirations but refrain from subversive actions will not be harmed. This plan does not expect everyone to love the State of Israel, salute the flag or sing the anthem. It is sufficient to make a practical decision not to fight against the IDF and the State of Israel in order to teach about acceptance of the new reality, and that loyalty should and should be a condition for obtaining various rights and progress in the models of residency and citizenship.
By placing the various possibilities before the Arabs, we are actually referring to the entire reasonable expanse of human reactions to a new reality. People act out of personal comfort – but also because of religious and national identity; Act according to what is possible – or according to an ideology that does not take reality into account. The new reality of an Israeli decision that will make it clear that there is no room for two national movements in the Land of Israel will bring the real people, working within the borders of the possible, to choose one of the two options that will be presented to them. Some will prefer the comfort and security of life under the auspices of the Jewish state, knowing that their national aspirations will not be expressed in the state in which they chose to live; Some will find it difficult to give up the Palestinian national narrative, which views Zionism as a cruel enemy, preferring to seek their luck elsewhere – in an Arab state where they can realize their national-religious identity or even a Western state. And as stated above, there will also be those who choose to continue fighting – and will be quickly and determinedly determined by our forces. so, The decision plan relates to all the possible reactions of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria to the new reality. One thing the plan does not allow: the continued existence of two concrete national aspirations for this region; An existence that perpetuates the conflict and calls for “conflict management” instead of its decision.
It can be estimated that this process will take several years. The process of deep internal conviction of the Arabs in the loss of national hope, the digestion of the new reality and the choice of one of the alternatives it gives them will take some time, and during this time we will need patience and patience. As we have said, I am confident that the IDF will be able, with the help of God, to help us through this interim period safely, and the price we will pay in the interim period will undoubtedly prove to be worthwhile when we reach peace and coexistence with those who choose to stay here in our good and reasonable conditions.
In my estimation, most of the work will be done in the early years of the settlement decision. The cessation of the obsessive preoccupation of the Israeli leadership in the conflict and the attempt to “solve” it and focus on the development of the region while establishing clear Israeli symbols of sovereignty will dry up the Arabs and effectively remove the sting from the continued violent management of the conflict by the Arab side. It will soon become clear that terror is futile and that it harms mainly, and almost exclusively, its perpetrators and supportive environment. On the other side will be the hope of accepting the new situation and the good life that awaits those who choose – here or overseas.
Coping with challenges
The reaction of the international system
Let’s face it: to date it’s hard to complain to the international community. For decades, official Israel has been supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state, and has even presented this idea as just and moral. Throughout these years, the Israeli leadership has been saying, “Yes, but not now.” “Yes” – a Palestinian state is a just solution to which we must strive, “but not now” – for a variety of reasons and excuses. In the face of this position, the world presents a just demand for it – if you also admit that it is the just and moral solution, then it will be implemented, and in particular it has stopped taking measures that distance it, such as building in Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria. Israel’s just security concerns have international solutions, such as international guarantees, aid packages, defense systems, and so on, and they can not justify refraining from promoting this “solution” for so many years. This is a logical and even logical position, and it explains the complex international situation in which Israel is located.
The decision plan presents a new paradigm for the international community – and even if it takes some time, the world will get used to it and accept it. First, this is a program based on justice. The world is largely a religious world, and it is supposed to recognize the connection of the Land of Israel to the people of Israel. So far the Arabs have talked about justice and we are on security and the world has preferred justice, justifiably … henceforth we are also talking about justice, and such arguments can be persuaded.
Second, we will have to strengthen the understanding that is beginning to be established in the world regarding the unrealism of the “two-state solution,” whose attempts to implement it have only led to waves of terror and violence. We will have to explain to the world that the resolution of the conflict and the denunciation of the Arab hope to establish a state west of the Jordan River are the only way to ensure the existence and prosperity of the State of Israel and the existence of peace and coexistence.
The greatest challenge in this context will be the democratic challenge – the need to convince the world that among the various alternatives, the alternative of democratic rights without the right to vote for the Knesset, at least temporarily, is the least bad alternative. It would be a challenge, but it could be achieved. Especially by clarifying that the other alternatives are worse – the establishment of an Arab terrorist state that will endanger Israel and that it will continue to aspire to eliminate it, or to grant a vote that will harm Israel’s Jewish majority and thereby endanger it again.
Third, it is already said that the important thing is not what the Gentiles say, but what the Jews will do. We do not ignore the world. We need to conduct a professional and wise diplomatic campaign, and as I said, I believe in its power to persuade, or at least moderate, the criticism. But we can not afford to behave according to the demands of the world. We must act according to what is good and right for us, and what is good and right for us is to decide and end once and for all this conflict and bring peace, peace and security to the State of Israel. And if, as the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin said, there is someone in the world who “noses his nose” – so he will have a crooked nose …
2. What if we are wrong?
After twenty years of unsuccessful attempts to advance the “two-state solution” from the Left’s school, it is time to try a plan based on a right-wing, Zionist and faith-based worldview. For twenty years the left has been dragging us into dangerous adventures that have already cost us thousands of dead and wounded in an attempt to realize a dream that is unrealistic and disconnected from reality. If, heaven forbid, we continue to march in this way, we will ensure the continued existence of the conflict and the precious price of blood it collects from both sides. The “two-state solution” was and remains a slogan that the left has so skillfully succeeded in branding as a realistic and even unique solution, even though it has never been so. Regarding our program there may be doubt; As for the plan of the left – the failure has been clear and proven. What else needs to happen in order for a community that is hopeless, that these are two contradictory national aspirations that simply can not coexist, that the entire right of existence of the “Palestinian people” is the negation of the existence of the State of Israel ?!
We must try another direction, completely different; Direction that recognizes reality and does not try to be clever with it. I call upon all readers to adopt the plan and join me in an effort to finally bring peace to Israel and the region as a whole.
Political feasibility
The “decision plan” is, in my view, just and correct, and in fact has no viable alternative in the field. However, being different from everything we have been accustomed to thinking about, adopting it in the public arena will not be easy. A great conceptual change is so challenging, but far from impossible. When Uri Avnery began negotiating with the PLO and talking about a Palestinian state almost forty years ago, he was almost alone: ??contacts with the PLO, which was defined as a terrorist organization, were a criminal offense, Rabin opposed a Palestinian state and Peres had not dreamed of dividing Jerusalem . It took Avneri a little more than a decade to instill his absurd plan into the mainstream heart of the Israeli left and turn it into a single program. It will be much easier for us: the decision-making program is based on the natural feeling of faith in the justice of the road, on patriotism and natural national pride, and on the sense of justice and the right to realize it, which are characterized by growing parts of Israeli society. It also comes at the right time: the sense of public despair over the failure of the ”
I believe that within a few months many fundamental principles will come into the discourse from within the plan and become the cornerstone of renewed thinking. Basic facts such as the understanding that these are two contradictory national aspirations that can not be solved by artificial geographical division of the territory, that terrorism stems from hope rather than despair, that imperfect democracy is not apartheid, that the morality of action is measured in the test of outcome, and more and more – In different directions of thought from the thought patterns that we have become accustomed to in recent decades. It is possible to adopt this plan, or similar programs based on the resolution of the conflict, and on the understanding that in order to achieve peace and coexistence, it is impossible to leave in the Land of Israel an Arab collective with national aspirations, regardless of its definition and borders.
The demographic challenge
With or without the right to vote for the Knesset, the decision plan and the arrangements that will be formulated at the end create a demographic challenge. The truth is that the demographic challenge is also – and perhaps mainly – the development of the “two states” advocates, since the claim that the “two-state solution” bypasses the demographic problem is an illusion, just like the solution itself. The space between the sea and the Jordan is one geographic and topographic space, and the Arabs will not go anywhere – especially if their national aspirations are encouraged. A border fence does not conceal people, nor their hostility.
However, I am not a fan of the school of demographic intimidation. The demographic trend in the last two decades is in our favor: The birth rate among the Jewish people is very high in all parts of the population, while the Arab birthrate is drastically declining on both sides of the Green Line. Under the real assumption that this trend will continue, no Arab majority is expected in the Land of Israel in the visible decades. On the contrary. However, this should be helped. We have not expanded on this here, but the decision plan should be accompanied by a variety of plans to improve the demographic balance. Israel’s strengthening and the resolution of the conflict will make it easier to absorb immigrants, strengthen Jewish demographic growth, and encourage some of the Arab population to emigrate to other countries.
Summary
The decision plan is the only plan based on the Greater Israel vision. Is the only plan that has not given up on what was until recently the vision of the entire right, and does not include the definition of any Arab national entity in the Land of Israel. Is the only program that is not based on leaving an Arab collective with national aspirations, and therefore is the only program based on the resolution of the conflict rather than on its preservation with varying intensity. And especially, is the only one who believes in the possibility of realizing the dream of peace and coexistence and is not based on despair from this dream and its conversion in an impossible separation.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.