Messianic Hopes of Different Kinds

by Dr. Geulah Paran, Professors for a Strong Israel, translated by Hillel Fendel.

"Messianics, zealots, delusionals" – these have become the derogatory nicknames of choice to term the members of the Religious Zionist party and, sometimes, the camp in general. Journalists, politicians, former military officers of the "conception" mindset that proved to be so catastrophic – all of them have taken to accept as a given that "extremist right-wing Messianism" is one of the main dangers facing the State of Israel. 

The left has lost its way. It used to have a Golden Calf before which it bowed down, in the form of imaginary "peace in the Middle East." However, it came crashing down with a great thud on the 7th of October, and the left now has no place to hang its sorrow and disappointment. Nothing remains of its weltanschauung, and in its bitterness and anger (at itself?), it has turned on those who were actually correct. As Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich said this week, "Isn't it time you listened to us, given that we have been right for 30 years now?" 

The nationalist/religious/right in Israel has been proven correct in its warnings against the Oslo agreements, and when it cried out, "Don't give them guns!" It was similarly on the mark when it objected to leaving Lebanon and turning our backs on the soldiers of the Southern Lebanese Army, and most certainly when we begged the government not to disengage and quit Gush Katif (Gaza) and the northern Shomron.

Truth be told, it is not easy to admit a mistake, and especially when its consequences were so grave. The integrity needed to acknowledge an error is a rare commodity within the progressive-liberal left camp. Instead, they often replace it with something known as "projection." This is a defense mechanism that protects those who use it from dealing with emotional matters that are simply unbearable. The process is to take the "threatening content" and "project it" upon, or attribute it to, the other side. Thus, the offending party – the left, in this case – avoids confronting the issue and can relate to it as something of total irrelevance.

Some of those in the so-called "peace camp" have actually taken stock of their views and have admitted the error of their ways. Some of them have even gone so far as to say they now recognize there is no one on the other side with whom to make peace.

However, much too many of them, in their bitterness, direct their arrows to those who were right in the first place. They "project" their Messianism – their unshakeable belief in "peace in our time" – on those who believe that the State of Israel is truly destined for greatness. Many, as stated, do not suffice with calling them Messianists, and add in "extremist" and "delusional' to boot.

My heart goes out to them. It is hard to live in the State of Israel without faith and belief. In every dispute between right and left, the latter will always chime in with a challenging, "What, shall we have war forever?!" The answer from the believer is invariably, "We have no choice in the matter, but we have faith in the Eternity of Israel and in the coming of the Messiah." In response the left would smirk and scoff, taking their own "Messianism" back to their imaginary, longed-for "peace." But now, to where can they take it? The left-wingers can only lash out at those whose faith continues to strengthen them. 

For some, the breaking of their faith weakens them on all fronts, and they can't even fight their enemies, while those whose faith is renewed daily are able to continue fighting for the sublime cause, knowing that they can, must, and will continue until victory.

It could be that even more former peaceniks than we think have allowed the events to affect their thinking and have made a careful accounting of their convictions. But a small and very vocal minority is still holed up in its anger and disappointment, and is seeking – successfully, to an extent – to revive the protest movement that took over our country until last October 6th. They have a different excuse each time: "The government must be toppled! The hareidim must be drafted! The captives must be freed at any price! We will never cooperate with the dangerous Messianists!"

And who are these Messianits that they are referring to? Parents and families of fallen soldiers, true heroes who went out on Oct. 7th to save Jews with practically their bare hands, and who continue to fight – and die – in battle today to protect those who scorn them.

The recent funeral of fallen IDF soldier Elon Veiss, a 49-year-old reservist commander who insisted on serving in combat even at his advanced age, was a lesson for all sides. After the singing of Hatikvah, the participants continued soulfully with the words of Maimonides: "Ani Maamin – I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even if he tarries, I will still await his arrival every day." 

Ani Maamin much is more than just a song. It was originally composed during the Holocaust, and provided the Jews with a glimmer of hope in a devastated world that appeared to be all but Jew-free. These words were a spark of Jewish faith – faith in the justness of our path, in the eternity of the Jewish People, and in a blessed future for Am Yisrael in its Land. And in many other funerals, as well, this song was borne on the lips of the mourners – strengthening, comforting, and uniting.

With the strength of this faith, the Nation of Israel fights its enemies until their total defeat, settles the entire Land of Israel with a sense of historic and national mission, and believes that the price it is paying is not in vain. And even when they continue to be mocked as Messianists, they need only remember Menachem Begin's classic words. Addressing himself to those who protested Israel's right to protect itself and bomb the Iraqi reactor, he said: "If there are some bleeding-hearts who want to turn up their noses at our actions – they can remain with crooked noses!"

Hostage Deal Endangers not Netanyahu's Government, but the State of Israel

by Haggai Huberman, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The deal currently being negotiated, according to reports, would turn Israel into a washrag state – acutely endangering our standing in the Middle East.

Former Education Minister and long-time Likud member Limor Livnat, in an interview a few days ago, officially joined the ranks of those who attack Netanyahu for not reaching a deal to free the hostages held by Hamas. She said that his motives for nixing a deal are simply to ensure his government's survival.

Let's ignore, for now, the fact that so far the one nixing the deal has been Hamas. I also don't feel any great need to defend Netanyahu in general, for I really don't know what his motivations are for many of his positions. I can, however, express my opinion on the deal being negotiated, based on the details currently available. And so, my humble opinion is this: 

A deal with Hamas wherein we enable Hamas to continue to rule over Gaza and we withdraw our forces and agree to cease our fire – endangers not only the survival of the current coalition government, but is liable to endanger the survival of the State of Israel altogether. This is not an exaggeration. 

The "photo of the year" that would crown such a deal will include Sinwar walking confidently and heroically among the adulating crowds of Gazans, smiling and flashing V signs in all directions. It will be a constant reminder to the international community, our foes and friends alike, that the powerful Israel was defeated soundly by a terrorist group. Why would this be a defeat? Because not one of the objectives Israel set for itself will have been achieved – not the release of all the hostages (for the current deal stipulates only that some of them will be freed for now), and not the destruction or replacement of Hamas.

The photos of Israeli hostages being welcomed happily by their families will simply not have the power of the shots of Sinwar and his thousands of cheering terrorists and supporters greeting him throughout Gaza. If anything, they will further symbolize the beating that Israel suffered.

If it is thus solidified throughout the world that Israel was vanquished by Hamas, Israel will become a washrag state, which no country in the world will respect or relate to seriously. This would be a fatal blow precisely to our peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and of course to the Abraham Accords with the UAE and Bahrain – those which the Israeli left so highly regards.

Both Egypt and Jordan agreed to make peace with Israel only after their leaders became convinced that the State of Israel was the most stable and powerful force in the Middle East, and that it would be worth their while to be on its good side.

Egyptian President Sadat reached this conclusion after his country's military failure in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. That war, as the current one, saw Egypt achieve total surprise against Israel and conquer territories – yet it ended with the IDF threatening to enter both Cairo and Damascus. For Jordan, the understanding came even earlier; after it lost critical territories in the Six Day War, it refused to join the attack against Israel in the Yom Kippur War. 

The Abraham Accords with the Gulf states also stemmed from latter's realization that the State of Israel must be reckoned with, not fought against. And Saudi Arabia's desire to be included in the treaty is based on its growing concern at the domination that Iran and its proxies are exercising in the region. The Saudis understand that they must join forces with the primary regional power – the State of Israel – in fighting off the Iranian danger.

But now, if Israel is defeated by a stateless terrorist organization, everything will change. All the above countries will certainly sit down to recalculate their steps and decide if Israel is still on the winning side – or one of the losers.

The State of Israel, with its new washrag image, will receive no sympathy or assistance from anyone. Already today we are under attack by non-countries, such as Hamas, Hizbullah, the Houthis, and other terrorists – and if we release hundreds of terrorists and withdraw from Gaza, this will only increase. When wolves smell weakness, they don't hesitate to pounce.

The bottom line is that if this deal goes through, in exchange for the lives of a few Israelis now and then some more over the course of the next few months of negotiations - and we don't know how many of the 120 hostages are alive; estimates are around 50 - the price we will be forced to pay in the future will be hundreds of other Israeli lives, in a very difficult war, without international aid.

This does not mean that we may not agree to any hostage deal at all. There could possibly be an arrangement whose details might be acceptable. When "freeing the captives" was set as an objective of the war, the intention was not that the IDF would physically rescue each of them from their captivity, which is all but impossible. Rather, it was to create military and other pressures upon Hamas, so that they would agree to release the hostages on terms acceptable to Israel – terms that would not frame Israel as a vanquished country.

This cannot be achieved by periodic forays into Gaza, such as this week's raid on a UNRWA headquarters used as a terrorist base, and not even by air strikes. It certainly cannot happen if we stop the war. We can only achieve the captives' release by taking over more and more Gaza territory, such that Sinwar will truly shake in fear at the sound of Israeli tanks rumbling above his head in his tunnel hideout – as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant boasted at the beginning of the war, though he never attempted to actually execute it. 

If and when the State of Israel begins to use these pressure tactics, when it truly rules over most of the Gaza Strip, when the IDF resumes systematically destroying each and every Hamas tunnel and all the rocket launchers and the rocket manufacturing lines – then and only then will we be able to negotiate the terms of a deal for the captives' release from a position of strength.

Anyone who claims that there is another way not only lives in illusions, but is also deceiving the public.

Can We Still Win the War?

by Emanuel Shilo, Editor of Besheva, translated by Hillel Fendel.

There is no way to achieve the declared goals of destroying Hamas and freeing the hostages without occupying the entire Gaza Strip and establishing a military government. The Israeli public that sacrificed so much should demand from the weakened military and political leadership the victory they promised.

1. It appears, from the interview Prime Minister Netanyahu granted Israel's Channel 14 last week – his first public interview in months – that it will not be more than a few weeks at most before the IDF announces that it has all but completed its mission in Gaza. Our forces will then remain on the Philadelphi route in Rafah and in other strategic locations in Gaza, from where it will occasionally set out to attack specific Hamas targets.

If this is in fact the case, most unfortunately, the war will have essentially ended without the achievement of its goals. Hamas will not have been destroyed; it is already on its way to rejuvenation, at least partially. If Hamas continues to rule in Gaza, it is doubtful whether the exiled Jews of the Gaza Envelope will agree to return to their kibbutzim and communities, even if they are physically rebuilt.

In addition, the hostages – those who are alive – will continue to suffer in captivity, if they survive. Though the IDF might be able to rescue a few more of them here and there, we can assume that Hamas will not agree to any comprehensive release deal, because the hostages serve an important purpose for Hamas: They protect, physically and otherwise, the Hamas leaders from Israeli strikes. The only way Hamas will agree to release them is if Israel withdraws all its forces from Gaza, with international guarantees that the IDF will not attack again. This would be a pure victory for Yahye Sinwar and Hamas, dealing a death blow to Israel's deterrence capabilities vis-à-vis Hizbullah and others. The present government will not agree to such a scenario – but it is not presenting an alternative strategy leading to victory.

2. The alternative that even some on the left-wing agree to is simply this: We must conquer the entire Gaza Strip, pursue every single terrorist, confiscate every weapon and piece of ammunition, and destroy every tunnel and weapons-manufacturing plant. We must not conquer and leave and conquer and leave, but conquer and remain.

Hamas will continue to rule in Gaza unless it is totally dismantled, and this cannot happen if we encourage local militias to take its place. The only body that can neutralize Hamas from the very foundations is an Israeli military government. It will also help Israel in terms of our intelligence gathering. We will be able to receive information from the local populace that will help us locate Hamas leaders, as well as the hostages. When Sinwar realizes that our forces are closing in on him and that his organization is on the verge of total eradication, it is more likely that he will finally agree to release our hostages in a deal that Israel can live with – just as he did in November, when more than 100 hostages were freed.

3. This approach certainly has its shortcomings. However, it is the only way to achieve our war objectives and the victory we so sorely need to rehabilitate our deterrence capabilities. Sadly, there are those amongst us who have despaired of achieving this victory. For instance, the IDF Spokesman actually told the world, in an apparent reflection of the opinion of the Chief of Staff and other top military figures, that Hamas is an "idea that cannot be defeated." Even if it is true that an idea cannot be defeated, certainly the number of its believers can be reduced and its implementation can be prevented. Communism and Nazism might still exist as ideas, but are nowhere near a position to bring about the terrible calamities they did in the past. It is very regrettable that the impression left by the Spokesman's remark is that our General Staff, which is responsible for the Oct. 7th travesty, has simply given up in despair.

4. This defeatist spirit must be opposed on and from all levels, and the movement of opposition must begin at the bottom: The soldiers and their families, those who have been paying the highest price of this war in every sphere, must publicly demand the victory that the government and army promised us, and for which we sacrificed so very much. In the face of the despair and helplessness, the voice demanding victory and the full achievement of our objectives must be heard strongly - from the political echelons, from the public, from the media, and from the battalions, brigades and divisions. 

The government leaders must then demand this from themselves and from the IDF, and internalize that the only path available to us is the complete occupation of the Gaza Strip and the establishment of a military government there.

After all, what is the point of the survival of this government if it doesn't lead us to victory? True, every other possible governmental constellation – other than a unity government – would be much worse. This does not mean, however, that we can accept a right-wing, nationalist government that cannot win the war! If Defense Minister Gallant continues to dream of local Gazan forces that will replace Hamas, he must either be re-educated, or replaced. Binyamin Netanyahu, Yisrael Katz, Yariv Levine, Betzalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Orit Strook, Yuli Edelstein – it's up to you!!

And it's also up to Avigdor Lieberman and Gideon Saar – two opposition party leaders who understand the importance of fighting the war to it successful conclusion. Instead of providing fuel to the fires of the protestors who continue to demand, at almost literally all costs, the toppling of the present government – which will almost certainly lead to a premature end to the war – they must show responsibility and join the government. 

A unity government is the call of the hour, and will show our enemies that we are still united and still believe in "Together We Will Win."

Netanyahu and the Submarines: A View From His Side

by Yoni Rotenberg, Besheva, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Every once in a while, ever since it first burst into the public consciousness in 2017, the story of the "purchase of the German submarines" returns to the headlines. The general impression appears to be that, though important security figures always have what to say about it on the news programs – just enough to fill the allotted air-time – the public doesn't really know what all the fuss is about, or what it has to do with our everyday lives. 

But this time, when the rumors and suspicions abruptly became official "warning letters" to Prime Minister Netanyahu and others, it appears that the drapes of apathy have been drawn open. The feeling is that there must be fire under the smoke. 

Let us therefore disperse some of the smoke so that we can see how our leaders, some of whom are still in positions of major influence, behaved regarding the security of the State of Israel. 

The commission of inquiry that sent the letters was decided upon by the short-lived Bennett-Lapid government. Its mandate was to look exclusively into how the decision to purchase the submarines was made; the accusations of bribery against Netanyahu have long been debunked. The most interesting of the five recipients of the warnings are by far Netanyahu and his then-Defense Minister, and now his bitter rival, Moshe Bugi Yaalon. 

If the average citizen of Israel, one who knows even just a bit about the news, would read the warning letter to the Prime Minister and the clauses of which he is "accused," he would probably respond with four words: "Of course, that's Netanyahu!" That is, Netanyahu is described in the letter as acting in his classic style, just as he has throughout his political career, for better or for worse. He is described as having "made decisions bearing great ramifications in a non-regulated manner," as having "come to conclusions… while bypassing the government," and even having "turned the National Security Committee into an executive committee of the Prime Minister." These are all classic Netanyahu! The are just like the "War Cabinet" that he invented during the current war, by which he surrounds himself with those he trusts and keeps others out of the decision-making process. Nothing new here. 

Though we have gotten used to it, it is of course unacceptable. The opinions of Cabinet ministers must be sought and seriously considered, as must be those of professionals in the field. Netanyahu is not justified in believing that only he can be trusted with the security of the State of Israel. However, even though the criticism of his modus-operandi is justified, it must come with an asterisk: When we talk of the "professionals" whom Netanyahu bypassed when he decided to purchase the submarines, we are referring to none other than Israel's security establishment, and primarily the IDF – and there's the rub.

As we have known for many years, and as was empirically proven over the past nine months, the security establishment suffers from dogmatic and narrow thinking, a sense of self-importance, complacency, and too many intrigues and ego-considerations. It is expected of Netanyahu, as the Prime minister, to use his own personal judgement when dealing with this network. (This should also be kept in mind by the anti-Netanyahu protestors who on the one hand marched with giant balloon submarines to protest his independent thinking, yet now demand that he take responsibility for all the mistakes made by the army and security apparatus before and after October 7th!)

It is very hard to disagree with the security establishment. These are not easygoing people, they see their opinions as absolute truth, and have little interest in bowing before the elected leadership. This is evident today as well. This is why Netanyahu built himself the National Security Council – a body that existed before him, but without great influence – as a professional security body that will provide recommendations that do not necessarily conform with those of the army and defense establishment and that are more in line with his own conceptions. Yes, this deviates from the accepted practice of how decisions are made, but it could be that in some cases it is necessary. 

The Two Sides

Let us boil down the dispute between Netanyahu and the establishment so that we can understand what it is about, and not simply reject one side or the other out of hand. In a nutshell, Netanyahu wants to enhance our naval power even if it costs more, and the security establishment feels that this is wasteful and unnecessary. The Prime Minister's position is not surprising at all. He is in general an alarmist-type, and specifically regarding Iran and what he feels is the existential threat it presents for the State of Israel. This, and the need to guarantee Israel's gas reserves, are the two main issues for Netanyahu, and it is only natural that he wishes to ensure that they are budgeted generously. 

The security establishment also recognizes the Iranian threat, of course. It acknowledges that Israel must have submarines that can carry nuclear bombs (according to foreign reports) for second-strike capabilities that form deterrence and a balance of power. However, they feel that a fleet of five such ships, so that one can be on constant alert at any given moment, is sufficient. Netanyahu, however, sees the worst-calamity scenario in which Iran takes out two of the subs and heaves an atomic bomb on Israel. He therefore says, "Let's go not for the minimum, but for the maximum." 

Faced with the official objections, Netanyahu has no choice but to make decisions in a less-than-acceptable manner, and "turn the National Security Council into his own executive branch."

*** Translator's note: The author notes that though there is much more to write regarding this complex issue, he can only elaborate on a few points. Let us sum them up:

1. The operative assumption of the commission is that the security establishment is the epitome of professionalism, and that Netanyahu's deviation from its recommendations actually "harms national security." However, this is not necessarily true, as can be seen from the small example of Netanyahu's desire to privatize the job of maintaining Israel's existing submarines. The idea was scrapped so that there should not appear to be a conflict of interest, but even the "professional" IDF itself did not succeed in carrying out its own plan to privatize the maintenance, and was criticized by the State Comptroller for this back in 2022.
2. Then-Defense Minister Yaalon's version of the events seeks to portray Netanyahu as having been motivated by personal considerations. Keep in mind that ever since Yaalon was fired by Netanyahu in 2016, he has barely missed a chance to bitterly criticize Netanyahu. But in fact, in several ways, his version actually bolsters Netanyahu's case.
3. Netanyahu felt that it was important at the time to augment the navy's submarine fleet, and wished to take advantage of Germany's offer to sell advanced submarines even if they would not be ready for years. Let's consider: If Israel, in the current state of international affairs in which it finds itself, would now try to make the same deal with Germany from scratch, would Germany agree? And if so, what would Biden have said? And even if the deal would pass, what about in a year or two from now, given a possible major war with Lebanon and clashes with Iran – would the West also then be interested in our acquisition of submarines that could aid us in an apparently-nearing nuclear war? When looked at from this angle, Netanyahu's efforts to spend money for German submarines take on a very different color.

"Shock" at the Smotrich Plan – as if Judea and Samaria are not Jewish!

by Haggai Huberman, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Journalist Ronen Bergman's "shock" at the idea that Israel, and not the IDF, should actually administer Judea and Samaria reveals Israel's terrible PR failure of the past 57 years.

Revealed: Israeli Cabinet Minister Betzalel Smotrich has made dramatic progress in ensuring that Yesha (Judea and Samaria) not turn into a Palestinian state. Smotrich is not only the Finance Minister, but he also serves as a Minister in the Defense Ministry for Yesha affairs. 

Essentially, ever since the Six Day War, Yesha has been governed by the IDF – and Smotrich has made significant moves to transfer the IDF's authorities in Yesha to civilian bodies. Smotrich himself explained to an audience of "hilltop outpost" leaders earlier this month – in a speech that was leaked to journalists – that the body in charge of civilian affairs in Yesha will no longer be the Civil Administration run by IDF officers with a left-wing agenda, but rather a civil administration run by civilians who are in touch with day-to-day Jewish life in Yesha.

Bergman wrote in Yediot Acharonot what scares him so much about the Smotrich program: "It undermines everything that the State of Israel has always claimed in justifying its continued possession of the West Bank and the entire settlement enterprise there. Israel has always explained that the settlements are legal because the Geneva Convention allows the occupying power to make temporary use of the land in question until an agreement is reached to terminate the occupation. The Supreme Court has similarly ruled that as long as the settlement enterprise is under the wings of the army, the claim of 'temporary use' still stands."

Bergman added that the International Court of Justice is currently writing a studied brief to the UN General Assembly on "the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank," and he warns that it will cite Smotrich's moves to bolster its case against Israel. 

IDF Gen. (res.) Shlomo Gazit, the first head of the IDF Civil Administration in Yesha, wrote in his autobiographical book "At Decisive Junctures" the following: "It is hard to grasp this today, but the assumption that shaped our policy in those early days was that Israeli rule in the conquered territories would not last long… At least at first, we tried to refrain from taking steps that would contradict this assumption."

Even the annexation of eastern Jerusalem and its official incorporation into the State of Israel was to be seen in this light, according to Gazit: It showed that Israel was annexing only Jerusalem, and not the other 70,000 square kilometers of the Sinai, Golan, Gaza and Yesha.

Stop, Just Stop!

In short, the government of Israel over the years acted as if we were in fact occupiers - and the world responded in kind: "If you yourselves admit that you're occupying the land, and that you support a two-state solution [as Netanyahu announced more than once], then stop building settlements [Jewish communities] and get out of there as soon as possible!" 

This is a logical claim, and it demands a clear Israeli response: We must stop, once and for all, talking about a two-state vision! 

The Three-Word Triple Lie

In his shock, Ronen Bergman reveals Israel's great PR failure of the past 57 years, i.e., its own attitude towards Yesha as area that must be temporarily occupied for Israel's security needs. And there were even those who went further and referred to Yesha as the "occupied Palestinian territories" – each word of which is a lie: These are not just "territories," they are not "Palestinian," and they are not "occupied." 

Before I elaborate, let me just note that a nation cannot be an occupier in its own land. Unfortunately, we have not sufficiently remembered the exchange between Syrian-Greek King Antiochus and Simon the Maccabee (Maccabees I 15). The former accused the Jews of taking over "Jaffa, Gezer, and Jerusalem, the cities of my kingdom," and demanded that they "give them back now!" Simon famously responded: "We have not taken a foreign land… This is rather the inheritance of our forefathers which was unlawfully taken over by our enemies…"

Let us now state the facts: 

• Judea and Samaria are not "territories," for in the Land of Israel every land area has a name: Golan, Galilee, Jezreel Valley, Samaria, the Coastal Plane, Sh'felah, Judea, Gaza.

• Yesha is not "Palestinian" – for there was never anything under something called "Palestinian sovereignty." Nor is there any international legal document that states that these areas are one day to come under such sovereignty. The Oslo Accords certainly say no such thing; they say only that within five years the "permanent status" of Yesha will be determined based on negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That's it. 

• Finally, Yesha is not "occupied," because legally, area can only take on that status if it is taken over from another country. The Palestinians, as stated, never had a country and were certainly never sovereign in Yesha. At most, it was Jordan that was sovereign there – but only by its own decision; the world never recognized this sovereignty. And in any event, King Hussein ceded this sovereignty back in 1988.  

Not only that, but Israeli rule in Area C of Yesha – where the Jews live, broadly speaking – has nothing to do with Israel's conquest in 1967. It is rather rooted in an international agreement known as the Second Oslo Agreement. 

Even according to those who believe Israel was an "occupier," the "occupation" ended on Sept. 13, 1995 with the signing of the above agreement. It stipulated that Yesha would be divided into three parts: Area A, under PA control; Area C, under Israeli control; and Area B, under Israeli security control and PA administrative control. This state of affairs is to last until the "final arrangement" is agreed upon, while along the way the PA would receive additional areas, which in fact happened. 

Under the Oslo Agreement, 90% of the Arabs in Yesha are residents of the Palestinian Authority autonomy, with no Israeli control at all [except for security control in Area B]. Thus, the residents of the Palestinian Authority have independence, without a state.  

This same agreement also stipulates that Israel rules over Area C – and was signed by none other than Yasser Arafat himself. The settlements, too, have the same status, ratified by the signature of arch-terrorist Arafat and that of former US President Bill Clinton. With this, I can rest easy in my home in Elkanah, just east of the Green Line, and so can another half-million-plus Jews all over Yesha, knowing that we are "legal" by virtue of an international agreement. 

True, the PA area is not contiguous, but is rather divided into various pieces, of different sizes. This is for the sake of Israel's security. The lack of Palestinian contiguity is precisely that which stops Yesha from turning into Hamastan, Gaza-style. It is exactly what prevents the firing of rockets from Jenin into Afula and mortar shells from Kalkilye to Kfar Saba.

As such, it must be repeated again and again until the world begins to understand: There is no occupation! The agreement by which the PA runs Area A is the same one by which Israel runs Area C. If Israel's control over Area C is not recognized, then the PA itself is not legitimate! 

But here is precisely the rub: Why doesn't the world understand this simple truth? Because the State of Israel, in its official PR, barely ever states it! Israel does not tell the world the facts, nor does it focus on our historic rights. 

Ever since Israel liberated Yesha during the Six Day War, it has placed its PR emphasis on "security," totally ignoring our historic rights. The Arabs have prattled on and on about "Palestinian rights" and "holy earth" and even their supposed "3,000 year history – and these lies have actually seeped into the international consciousness. Israel, however, spoke about "security," which translates to "occupation" – and certainly not "rights" and "justice."

Arik Sharon, the great general who abruptly switched his colors from right to left and handed Gush Katif to Fatah/Hamas on a silver platter, said it clearly: "To hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is terrible, for Israel as well." [Current estimates of Gaza's population are much, much lower.] If so, said the world, "you're only there for your security – so we'll find you other ways to protect your security; meanwhile, get out!"

Israel is now trying to play catch-up in this PR campaign, but it is not yet too late: Now is the time to change our PR from a defensive approach to one that takes the offensive. 

In every international debate, especially in The Hague, our historical rights must be presented before any other Israeli arguments. This must be the focus of any political discussion for the next 50 years: Who was here first, the Jews or the Arabs? To whom does the Land belong to altogether, the Jews or the Arabs? 

Only after this discussion is over, and the obvious answer is made plain, will it be possible to start discussing essential questions of what type of political solution, if any, might be found.