There is something I want to say to my government and it is this: you cannot blame the world for labeling products from Judea and Samaria with the equivalent of a big yellow star, if you will not exercise sovereignty over the territories.
How could you possibly expect Europe or America to think of Judea and Samaria as part of Israel, if you yourself do not declare them so, loudly and proudly? How can we blame John Kirby for calling Tekoa, “the West Bank,” as though it were in Jordan?
The Likud is supposed to stand for Greater Israel and for building homes for our people in our nation, wherever they live. Yet, the Israeli government, headed by a prime minister associated with the ideals of Likud and Jabotinsky, will not implement the steps suggested by the Edmond Levy Report, a report the Prime Minister himself, commissioned. Instead, he accuses the EU of double standards in discriminating “only against Israel.”
But actually, the double standard is Bibi’s own, for omitting to exercise sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, which effectively tells the world a lie: that Judea and Samaria are not part of Israel. It is the Israeli government that persists in perpetuating this mythical concept of Judea and Samaria as somehow separate from, and outside of the State of Israel. It is the Israeli government that refuses to end the state of martial law in Judea and Samaria. It is the Israeli government that refuses to make the declaration that must be made: Judea and Samaria are as much a part of Israel as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Now we do know why Bibi won’t implement the findings of the Levy Commission. We know he’s afraid to poke a hornet’s nest and further isolate Israel from the international community. But Dafna Meir’s murder teaches all of us that we must put the truth above our fear. At Dafna’s funeral, her husband Natan said,
“Dafna had a large crown: the crown of truth. She was very honest, as accurate as a razor. Not everyone liked that but everyone was able to appreciate it, and this truth has now been thrown to the ground, it has burst into smithereens.
“I request that everyone who came out here, pick up something from the light that was spilled on the ground, so that truth may spring from the earth.”
Here, therefore, is my smithereen of light, the one I pick up from the ground that covers Dafna’s still cold body: Dear Mr. Prime Minister, fear no one but God and proudly proclaim us the sole owner of the title to all our land: the land He gave us. Show the world you are not afraid. Show the world might and do not hesitate to take ownership of Judea and Samaria.
Tell the world there can be no negotiations over the gift God gave us, the gift of the land. For we are not only the owners of the land, but the stewards of it, too. We hold the land safely close to us and protect it for our descendants, too. It is not ours alone, and therefore, we cannot possibly give it away, now or ever, for any reason at all.
The world must accept this truth, and we must not have it any other way, but that they will accept this truth.
It is on our shoulders to say this out loud and proud. All the land is ours. And we can only say this by declaring an end to martial law in Judea and Samaria.
It is by showing our might, and by speaking our truth, that we will win this war, and put an end to this situation in which mothers of children can be murdered in their homes. This is the mantle you wear, Prime Minister Netanyahu, the one you’ve assumed in order to protect us, the people who voted you into office. The time to apply sovereignty is now. Because more of us are dying every day.
And the clock is ticking loudly.
Powerful stuff.
Thank you, Arthur. I feel very strongly about this.
Unfortunately, Bibi boxed himself into the “two-state solution” and he is stuck with it, at least until Obama leaves office. If a Republican wins the election, he could wriggle out of it. If Max Blumenthal’s fairy godmother wins, there will be a crisis.
I think it’s time to stop worrying about how it looks and what will be done to us. I understand that realpolitik dictates against this, but I think our problem is we aren’t forceful enough in asserting ourselves as a sovereign nation, period. We need to change the dynamic.
The land is yours but portraying it as a gift from god only ensures it will never be Israel’s. It is a ‘gift’ of the international community via the San Remo resolution which recognized it as the ancestral home of the Jewish people. That is its political legitimacy, not some mystical appeal to god.
Whatever works for you. All this fixation on the fact that I believe in God is beside the point. What matters is Bibi being angry at Europe for labeling goods from the territories when it is HIS fault for not clearly stating that the territories are part of Israel.
The territories (excluding East Jerusalem and Golan, and even they were not annexed de jure) are not actually part of Israel as Israel has not claimed sovereignty over them and, indeed, pays at least lip service to the prospect of negotiating away its right to such sovereignty in the form of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria — which is not to say Israel lacks the right to extend its sovereignty over the whole of Judea or Samaria. It could do so, legally. But the point I was making (which you unwisely dismissed as ‘Whatever works for you’) is that you fatally weaken your case by grounding its legitimacy in an appeal to a godly promise that no one really recognizes as valid or relevant. Instead, the same thing can be rephrased in secular terms that carry weight with the international community and, more importantly, is grounded in international law. Thus, you need to frame Israel’s claim to such rights in the language of San Remo, which grounds them in the Jewish people’s ancestral claim to the land, or as what we in Canada call aboriginal rights. Failing to do so only ensures you never get to first base.
Apart from that, you are right that Israel must begin to make the case that it has sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria, and that that they supersede any other such claims. The world has largely forgotten or ignored that, in the wake of Resolution 242, and a generation has grown up believing the exact opposite, with support from hostile international resolutions and court rulings.
I’ve heard that argument before. Really don’t care. My belief doesn’t weaken my point, because the truth is the truth. And anyway, how you feel about how I make my case has nothing to do with the main point of this piece. My main point is that the government cannot take umbrage when the EU and the US don’t consider the territories part of Israel, when THEY do not unequivocally state that the territories are part of Israel.
It’s a good point but it has a grave weakness. The EU (and the rest of the sympathetic international community) go back to resolution 242, which states the status of the territories (Judea and Samaria) are to be negotiated, and thus no nation exercises sovereignty over them. That, btw, does not deny the fact that Israel has the greatest claim to such sovereignty, just that barring some reasonable answer as to what to do with the Palestinians themselves, it is extremely unlikely to ever achieve such sovereignty. However, Israel’s case against EU over labelling is strongly supported in existing international trade law which the EU is violating with this policy, and there is no need to try to ground it in sovereignty claims that are, at best, years from resolution.
Actually, the language of 242 was left deliberately vague (and applies only to territories captured during an offensive war, so clearly not about Judea and Samaria), and it is believed that (even if you ignore the fact that it only relates to land captured during an offensive) giving away Sinai more than fulfilled world expectations.
Considering that no one, to my knowledge, considers 242 as not applying to Judea/Samaria or that ‘giving away’ Sinai (it was returned to Egypt as part of a treaty), perhaps you could enlighten us as to the authority of your rather extraordinary claims. Your claim about offensive war does not mean the West Bank is excluded from 242. It means that a nation cannot acquire territory via an offensive war. Resolution 242 is not one of general application, as you suggest, but was specificallly about the territories involved in the Six-Day War.
Who is no one? The left? Arabs?
What you need to know is this: there were torturous negotiations over the wording of 242. Some wanted “all” to be included as in “all the territory.” In the end, the word was NOT included and the wording was left open. Part of the reason for this was that the world recognized that Israel was indefensible WITHOUT these territories.
According to international law, one does need to give up any land taken during a defensive war. Judea and Samaria were taken back during a defensive war. They are ancient indigenous Jewish territories. Israel perhaps hoped to use the territories to negotiate and make peace, but the Arabs never agreed. Now it’s time to clarify that they are ours, having been taken during a defensive war, and never having been given away during negotiations all these many years later.
BTW, do you know what Sadat said when we gave back the Sinai? He said, “I got the Sinai, Israel got a piece of paper.”
You have certainly added nothing I haven’t known for a long time. But you are wrong about international law. It is most definitely not true that “one doesn’t (typo in your version) need to give up any land taken during a defensive war”. What law actually states is that the disposition of land taken from a sovereign entity in a defensive war is subject to peace negotiations. Since the West Bank has never, since Ottoman times, been part of any state, it is true that Israel has the stronger claim to it. Whether it can at this point make that claim and make it stick is questionable, to put the best fact on it. Israel can try, but under Resolution 242, the status of the West Bank is subject to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. I am well aware of the debates about the words “the” and “all”. Compounding this is that Israel’s case for sovereignty over Palestine was, in San Remo, subject to its attaining a majority of the population, which was expected to happen in relatively short order. It didn’t, mainly because Britain didn’t let it. But since the the establishment of the state of Israel, population considerations are complicated. Could Israel at this point claim sovereignty over additional territory, additional to what it accepted in 1948, in which Jews are a small minority? That’s doubtful and it very much weakens Israel’s claim to sovereignty over the West Bank, because no country can arbitrarily change its mind about its borders, especially when it is claiming something that doens’t meet the terms under which it could be entitled to that land.
According to international law, Judea and Samaria are part of Israel because the agreement at San Remo still stands.
San Remo stands but it doesn’t automatically make Judea and Samaria part of Israel. You are simply wrong about that. It means Jews have a right to sovereignty over them when numbers warrant. That’s not the current or projected situation.
That is the current and projected situation according to many jurists and according to many Jews. That you disagree is not my problem. That Ban Ki Moon disagrees is not my problem.
I have to say that while I believe international law favors Israel as the sovereign nation to whom Judea and Samaria belong, it really doesn’t matter to me how it is argued out or what the international community says. What matters to me is what is right and true, and that is that Judea and Samaria are the indigenous territory of the Jews and it is traditionally meant to be held by Jews in order to protect Jerusalem. What is right and true is that Judea and Samaria belong to the Jews and that no one else is the rightful owner.
What is right to you is up to you but not really relevant to this conversation or to what eventually happens in those lands.
The conversation is also not relevant to the blog post. The point of the blog post: Bibi expects the world to think of Judea and Samaria as indivisible from the rest of Israel. But he himself has not implemented the conclusions of the Edmond Levy report he commissioned. He is imposing a standard on the world that he himself has not adhered to. That is the entire point of the blog post.
You know, I could quote you Schwebel:
“(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
“(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
“(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
“… as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt.”
and I could quote Julius Stone:
“Territorial Rights Under International Law…. By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel’s territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article.”
And I could quote you Howard Grief who said that the 1920 San Remo resolution supersedes later U.N. resolutions.
“There is a doctrine in international law,” Grief said. “Once you recognize a certain situation, the matter is executed. You can’t change it.
“The U.N. General Assembly exceeded its authority, exceeded its jurisdiction. It did not have the power to divide the country.”
And we could look into all the varied contortions of international law, and then, if I have superior knowledge, we could say I win. Or if you have superior knowledge, we could say YOU win.
But the bottom line is that the Jews are the indigenous people of the territory. Everything points to that: history, archaeology, religion.
You can best me here in the comments and it will not change that.
The fact is, the refugee problem should be solved by Israel’s neighboring Arab states. The Arabs should stop being belligerent. The UN should stop propping them up. Jews lost their homes and property in Arab nations, and Arabs lost their homes in Palestine. There should have been a population exchange, there still SHOULD be a population exchange.
Just as Germany should not be absorbing Syrians, who would better be absorbed by their Arab brethren who share their language, culture, and climate.
Thanks for the quotes from Schwebel. They confirm precisely what I said to you. Similarly, Stone echoes what I have said. Odd that you thought they supported your contention. They don’t. And I never claimed that Resolution 242 supersedes San Remo. It doesn’t simply because San Remo is irrevocable by any such body or organization. And the principle that Grief describes as supporting that is called res judica. You see, I know my law.
What I did state was two things: 1. Israel accepted the Partition boundaries as its own, even if Partition itself was rejected by the Arabs and, as a creature of the General Assembly, therefore became unenforceable. But, as per res judica, Israel’s decision to accept what was offered by Partition greatly weakens (though doesn’t necessarily extinguish) its claim to further lands, in the absence of negotiations by other claimants; 2. San Remo stipulates that Israel required a majority to claim its sovereign rights. This was the case in the area under Partition, which is why Israel’s claim to those lands was valid even after Partition failed. But there is no Jewish majority still in Judea and Samaria. Unfortuately, while Israel has a fairly strong claim, for reasons we both agree upon, it is not cut and dried for the simple reason that the land is majority occupied by several million non-Jews who have no legal status.
I just looked at the text of the resolution made at San Remo. I do not see any such stipulation.
I understand your confusion. The text of the Resolution doesn’t mention populations. But the Resolution as accepted by the League of Nations (which gave it is legal force in the form of the Mandate, the actual trust agreement) came with additional baggage. On 3 June 1922 the Colonial Office, placed a restrictive construction upon the Balfour Declaration, “(making) it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home. The Committee noted that the construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization. … Evidence of the intention of the settlors of the trust shows it was their intent to permit the Jews to settle immediately but not to rule until the defined territory contained a Jewish population majority and the capability to exercise sovereignty. Such evidence is the lodestar of the interpretation of the trust. ” https:/ …/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_for_the_Jewish_people
While the Resolution looks pretty clear, the Mandate is the source of Israel’s legitimacy, and the Mandate does not present and open and shut case for Israeli sovereignty over the entire territory. Personally, I agree Israel has the strongest claim, but that claim has to be made and cannot be arbitrarily asserted because the source of that claim is not Israel’s to interpret as it wishes.
Well, we know that San Remo established the three Middle East mandates. And we know that by definition the Mandates were to be democratic countries. I guess you could therefore understand that the Mandate for Palestine could not be fulfilled until there was a Jewish majority. But it was realized from the start that the Mandate for Palestine would be a different type of mandate from the others. Non-Jewish residents were to have their INDIVIDUAL rights protected and were not meant to have collective rights (the right to a separate independent country).
Moreover, the Land of Israel is one chunk of land under international law. Judea and Samaria are as part of Israel as Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beer Sheva. The International Community recognized and became obligated to protect our rights to everything within the Dec 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention.
Actually, it didn’t refer to Arab rights as INDIVIDUAL rights (upper or lower case) but as civil and religious rights, but otherwise you are correct. Your contention that Judea and Samaria are as part of Israel as is Jerusalem et al sounds plausible but is not spelled out in the Mandate.
The convention you refer to was essentially a treaty or agreement that they would set out the boundaries between their respective Mandates. It had nothing to do with protecting Jewish rights within the British Mandate.
As for the numbers issues, I’ve written about the demographic issue in the past, but this was in the news yesterday, both in the Jewish Press and in Israel National News: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/207068#.VqfWPyp97IU
This is not new, as you know, and supports Caroline Glicks’ idea of paying them to leave as the numbers are not as great as commonly believed.
Great stuff Brian – Now you’re talking.
I’m not Brian, but thanks for liking my blog piece 🙂
And what do we do with the Arab “Palestinians”?
And what do we do when they exhibit attitudes of, er, ahh.. “non-compliance”?
Well, the same god that gave the Jews the Holy Land will probably make them disappear, right? He is, after all, allegedly omnipotent.
Either that, or force it on them, and become exactly what Israel, and every sane advocate of Israel, have spent vast amounts of time and resources proving Israel isn’t. But who cares?! As long as we can foam at the mouth while loudly proclaiming victory over the leftist, secular scum and the evil, antisemitic goyim.
Or…we could stop dreaming of unrealistic fantasies fueled by self-delusion and religious zealotry, and just get on with life? Well, who am I kidding?
lol. Precisely my point. But we DO have an issue that needs solving. And we apparently have NO partner in peacemaking on the other side. And we have done an absolutely AWFUL job getting the entirety of the planet to see that.
At some point we are going to have to “take the bull by the horns” and make some very serious decisions.
I’d prefer to wait until the entire MENA is no longer on fire.
You mean, “Get on with being murdered in our homes,” don’t you? Because we have yet to make the enemy understand that we are not going away.
So, instead of having people murdered by sporadic violence, you’re all for basically start an all-out race war in Israel (with the other side being the one receiving international support), just to get your point of “sovereignty” across. Wow.
In case you haven’t noticed, the status quo is, over time, getting considerably quieter. In Israel, in 1948, 1967, and 1973 there was an existential threat. A real one, not an imaginary one like there is now. Then came the intifadas. Suicide bombers, mass shootings, civil life disrupted.
Now, what you have is a few brainwashed young Palestinians going out and murdering Israelis, a large amount of the time getting shot before they can do more than wound anybody. Don’t get me wrong, it’s hardly an idyllic state of affairs. But there is no pressing “need” to establish sovereignty over disputed territory (which is occupied in the eyes of the world), and doing it would be far more counterproductive than anything else.
You’re making assignations that have nothing to do with anything I expressed, think, or feel. I believe that exercising sovereignty will do the exact opposite of what you suggest. The “status quo” is not, as you suggest, getting quieter. I know. I live in walking distance of the Gush Etzion junction. I hear the sirens and the bad news every day.
It is not a FEW Arabs going out and murdering Israelis but a significantly large number of them
You are spreading out and out lies.
There is absolutely a pressing need for Israel to stop being the abused foster child that everyone hates and kicks. It is time to be David again, like we were in 1967. That you do not understand this, is apparent. But that’s YOUR problem, not mine.
The territory does indeed belong to the Jews and I have no problem saying so loudly and proudly and asserting MY rights and the rights of MY people. This is how it needs to be. Weakness generates the spilling of Jewish blood every day.Martal law is killing us. Arabs are killing us.
Belief in fairy tales doesn’t make them real, no matter how proud you are.
You only call them that because I’m not Muslim. If I stated my beliefs as a proud Muslim who believes in Allah, you’d fight to the death my right to believe as I wish.
And of course, your fixation on this point shows that you have completely missed MY point, which is Bibi blaming the EU and the US for not recognizing the territories as part of Israel when he refuses to implement the conclusions of the Levy Report.
LMFAO.
When did you hear me say that you’re not entitled to your beliefs?
My only claim was that believing fantasies doesn’t make them true. This claim applies to all beliefs equally.
This was the one and only claim I made so your entire second paragraph is a strawman.
P.S It’s funny how opposing extremists think alike: just the other day some guy on Mondoweiss told me almost the same thing except he swapped the words “Judaism” and “Islam”.
Yes, it is getting quieter. Anecdotal evidence of your “living in walking distance of the Gush Etzion junction” does not mean anything. Look at the numbers of the Israeli casualties of the Second Intifada compared to the Third “Intifada”. By the way, I live in a settlement too. Only difference is, I don’t use it as political ammunition to somehow justify my pseudonationalistic delusions.
Math 101: Size is relative. There’s no such thing as an objectively large number.How many Palestinians committed stabbing attacks, compared to how many Palestinians are out there? Relatively, the number is miniscule.
“There is absolutely a pressing need…”. Only in your head. And while it may seem very real, I hope you understand that the Prime Minister of Israel has to deal with actual considerations, based on facts, not childish, simplistic fantasies with no evidence to back them up.
“It is time to be David again…”. Understand this, you do not. Apparent, this is. (Yoda much?). David is a classic story of the underdog beating the odds. Israel isn’t the underdog any more, and as such doesn’t benefit from the improved public image that comes along with it. The shoe is now on the other foot, and Israelis must adapt to this new reality. Or, of course, they can throw a hissy fit. That’s always an option, as you prove quite adeptly.
Cheers! Feel free to keep on missing the point and insulting me. 🙂
On the upside, you started a very important discussion and they’re (me too) are all participating. That’s actually progress. Even with all the yelling and disagreements. And the insults which are both uncalled for and unnecessary.
Preaching to the choir is always easier. But it’s also pointless. ;-)) They already have a hymnal.
True dat. (I used to be sensitive about comments. Not so much now.)
Good for you. I’m not nearly as thick skinned.
Off topic… I came across this in another publication and it made my day (something I sorely needed).
A dad is trying to explain to his daughter where snow comes from… and she ain’t buying it! Thought I’d share. ~Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKL8YbKVrbY
Thank you! It’s wonderful to laugh. Here’s one for you.
https://www.facebook.com/JaanAryaa/videos/vb.197889145681/10153598689135682/?type=2&theater
I’m only seeing a black rectangle? Which is kinda funny in itself.
It’s a facebook video. Perhaps you don’t have a facebook account.
Here’s a youtube link: https://youtu.be/8iQkAKaS-5w
We offer them citizenship–if they are willing to sign an oath of loyalty to the Jewish State. And if they don’t wish to accept this offer, we give them a handsome financial package to help them resettle elsewhere.
That makes sense.
But we’re still going to run into millions of non-compliant “Palestinians”.
They’re going to call in Nakba 2.
With a 20% Arab/Palestinian population IN Israel, and a few million in the West Bank and Hamastahn I think the result will be a civil war. Not to mention international outrage, the tearing up of treaties by Egypt and Jordan, Hezzbollah rockets and incursions…
I just don’t see that as an improvement.
Screw that, who cares?! As long as we have SOVEREIGNTY! Then we can do a tribal dance, while beating our chests in pride at sticking it to them darned goyim. Kahn-say-kwen-sez? Never heard of them. I’m proud of who my ancestors were and of my belief in my personal, bearded sky fairy, and that’s what matters!
I can’t see that happening. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Their population figures aren’t as represented on their censuses, BTW.
As for improvement, I live in Gush Etzion. There are near daily attacks within walking distance of my home. I see showing strength as crucial to ending these attacks.
Don’t get me wrong. When I heard about Dafna Meir I was ready to drop bombs. Literally. A LOT of them.
Good consistent policing is what’s needed. And an absolute zero tolerance policy on incitement. If someone is spreading incitement they need to be taken down, locked up and removed from the picture. That goes for idiots on the airwaves, Teachers, be they Arab or Israeli, Haaretz, B’tselem, the P.A. & NGOs and M.K.s. I have no patience for any of it.
There also need to be cameras on the Temple Mount that run 24/7 even if they need to be guarded by the IDF. The Waqf can go F` itself.
That’s policing against violence, hate and incitement and sedition. If there are complaints as we know there WILL BE; then too bad.
Those steps should address the problem and leave us some wiggle room for “negotiations” with either the Arabs or the EU or the UN or the US. Anything more severe will result in civil war.
Just a lot of bandaids.
IMO, I think the best course of action is here:
http://www.israellycool.com/2016/01/19/the-trouble-with-israel-not-enough-occupation/
Frankly, I don’t see any difference between what Brian suggests and what I suggest: saying the land is ours, showing some might.
There’s a difference between meting out law and order in the territories and Arab areas and neighborhoods in order that they can live without the threat of Jihadi hooligans and we can earn a degree of trust as opposed to looking like we’re “stealing” (in their eyes) their sought after State.
One thing at a time.
We don’t trust them. Nor should we. But they don’t trust us either. We only show up when it’s time to hunt someone down or punish somebody and their leadership depicts us as… well, as less than human beasts out to kill them and steal their land etc. They’ve been fed it for so long I can’t imagine anything other than a generation of positive interaction will make a dent.
Look at the Arab/Druze town that voted a higher percentage for Likud and Bibi in the last election. Why? Because we helped them. We were there for the. We invested in them.
I am placing everyone’s Pikuach Nefesh over anything else. Or at least that’s my aim. I think some trust is a necessary step to getting to a population that won’t start a civil war when we declare Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
Like Anne Frank… I’m still naively of the belief that most people, and this includes Arabs/Muslims/”Palestinians”, really just want to get on with living a good life, being present at their children’s weddings, bounce their grandchildren upon their knee and die peacefully content.
So I don’t see this the way you do, at all. To me, the terror is the direct result of weakness and of not asserting our claims.
I don’t care if they trust us. I don’t care how they feel about us and our land. Just as I wouldn’t have sympathy for a stranger who decides to squat in my living room.
The truth is that living room, this land, belongs to me. The rest is irrelevant. And the more Jews who feel this way, the better the chances that we can lick this status quo of constant attacks. Might and strength is what Arabs respect.
If you really care about Pikuach Nefesh, you’ll see that this, the truth, is the way to saving lives.
To me, the terror is the result of Palestinianism, because that’s what Palestinianism is. It’s a bloody genocidal movement with it’s roots in Pan-Arabism, Nazism, Jihad, and Communist propaganda.
An ideological mass hysteria, which takes form as a celebration of human sacrifice.
I don’t think it’s the result of our not asserting our rights to sovereignty. I do agree that the Pals only respect strength.
Palestinianism respects nothing but Tribal loyalty to the cause. “Palestinians” have different levels of devotion to this. Some are selfish, like the Abbas kleptocracy, and some are true believer like Hamas and Hezbolla. Many are somewhere in-between.
I think asserting the rule of law on their ideological leadership and instigators will free the baby from the bathwater. I think it will make us safer. I think we have been FAR too nice in many respects. Those are what you think of as bandaids.
I think declaring Sovereignty (at this time) over Judea and Samaria will only give their ideologues a forever stream of “moral” ammunition to use against us. I think the only result will be total violence. I think we end up with a civil war and worse. And I don’t see any end in sight to it at that point.
It is us not asserting our rights that created this situation and it is us reclaiming our rights by which we will bring order and peace. I remember a different time, when things were much more peaceful, before Oslo, because we’d trounced them in ’67 and asserted our (partial) rights.