In these complex times, as we oscillate between pride and anxiety, it is crucial to remember: Israeli control of Iranian airspace and America’s action against its nuclear capabilities do not alter the demographic reality in Greater Israel; between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the number of Arabs now equals the number of Jews.
Likewise, unprecedented operational success thousands of kilometers away will not transform those living under Israeli military rule for 58 years into Zionists, nor will ignoring the issue make it disappear.
Some may argue, not without justification: “We withdrew from Gaza, and look what happened.” However, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza was unilateral. That is fundamentally different from the situation in Judea and Samaria, where bilateral agreements, albeit fragile, still function.
And to those who say this is not the right time to raise the issue, I respond: precisely because Israel has demonstrated its capabilities and is in a position of proven strength, now is the time to explore paths that will secure our future.
If we do not, geopolitical shifts following the war with Iran may lead the international community to impose a settlement on Israel. Alternatively, self-assurance stemming from military success might reinforce a separatist mindset, one that insists no one can tell us what to do.
Only Israel and its ruling coalition, unpartnered and uncompromising, will chart our course. Such an attitude is dangerous.
Consequences of annexation
In the face of government decisions to build new settlements and expand existing ones, of growing calls to annex the territories, and of increasing demands to resettle Gaza, we must consider the consequences of disregarding political reality.
It must be remembered: international law prohibits the expansion of a state’s territory through conquest; such a step may carry heavy consequences. It also raises an unavoidable question: what will be the status of the people living in the annexed areas?
As long as they remain under military rule, their status is defined by occupation law. However, if the area is annexed, two options remain, and both will have far-reaching implications for Israel’s future.
The first is to grant full citizenship, including voting rights. Given the equal number of Jews and Arabs, one electoral cycle would end Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. Even if Gaza is excluded from the calculation, the Zionist vision would rest on a tenuous demographic edge.
The second option is to deny voting rights.
The accepted term for disenfranchisement based on nationality is apartheid. White-ruled South Africa until 1994 demonstrates the cost of global sanctions imposed for institutional racism. This, in addition to the massive security and financial resources that will be required to maintain control and the impact on Palestinian lives.
It is futile to argue with those who believe annexation is divinely mandated. But of others I ask: what do you think will happen if we continue along this path?
Will the Palestinians simply leave? Will they welcome expanding Jewish settlement? Will they convert to Judaism? Barring those, Israel is walking, eyes open, into a trap from which there is no escape.
Conversely, a sincere effort to address the Palestinian issue could ease Israel’s growing international isolation, help expand the Abraham Accords, solidify regional security, and benefit all peoples of the Middle East, while weakening jihadists and their narratives.
We should therefore ask ourselves if Israel is seeking new strategies that are not grounded primarily in force (while obviously preserving military strength) and if we are exploring alternatives that could eventually replace an exhausting, endless conflict with a more sustainable, equitable outcome.
Having proven to the world – and to ourselves – our operational excellence in a distant arena, we should soon confront the challenge closer to home.
Not through fantasies of cost-free annexation, but through the same rational tools that proved effective abroad: data-driven analysis, risk-benefit assessments, and realistic judgment about what can and cannot be achieved. The choice is ours.
The writer was Israel’s first ambassador to the Baltic states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and a congressional liaison officer at the embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israel’s National Defense College.