The UN General Assembly recently adopted a resolution endorsing the “New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution.” This adoption came on the heels of France and other countries promising to recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly.
The developments at the United Nations follow recent reports out of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that suggest that if Israel advances some of its ministers’ plans to annex Judea and Samaria/the West Bank, expansion of the Abraham Accords, if not the accords themselves, could be at risk. This has caused a flurry of handwringing and worry from many corners of the Pro-Israel world.
If UN resolutions, pro-Palestinian pledges by European countries supposedly friendly to Israel, and Arab nations’ threats weren’t supportive enough for Palestinians and their advocates, the pro-Israel Democratic Majority for Israel, an organization that aims to encourage support of Israel in America’s Democratic Party, recently criticized Israel’s latest development plans:
“We oppose the signed agreement to construct 3,000 housing units in the E1 settlement, effectively bisecting the West Bank, and are deeply concerned by Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s comment that ‘there will be no Palestinian state...’ Expanding settlements and dismissing the Palestinian people’s future aspirations for statehood will only inflame tensions and make our goal of bringing home the hostages, eliminating Hamas, and bringing the conflict to an end much more difficult to foresee.”
Based on the declarations of Israel’s enemies and friends, an outside observer with little familiarity with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be confident of Israel’s withdrawal from lands and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the near future.
Of course, anyone with even the most superficial understanding of the conflict, its history, and its current condition knows that a Palestinian state has never been further from coming to fruition than today.
When Israel first captured the West Bank
IN THE 1967 Six Day War, Israel captured a region historically known by its biblical name, Judea and Samaria, from Jordan. While it was illegally occupied by Jordan, the name was changed to the West Bank. Israel immediately offered the land in return to Jordan in exchange for peace, but Jordan turned down the offer. Along with the other Arab states, it pledged to neither recognize nor negotiate with Israel.
Israel held on to Judea and Samaria and offered it to the Jordanians, and then the Palestinians, in exchange for peace. In the ensuing years, Israeli citizens moved on to the land, began communities, and improved the infrastructure of the land. Israel offered the land back in various different plans, made peace with other Arab nations, and eventually even made peace with Jordan.
All the while, Israeli communities grew and Palestinians watched as more and more of the land they were once offered as a state by the United Nations in 1947 was settled and developed by Israeli Jews.
As Israel closes in on 60 years of controlling Judea and Samaria, Israeli ministers and many Israelis are demanding that Israel put an end to the charade of a Palestinian state and annex the heartland of Israel’s homeland. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich just advanced a plan for the annexation of 82% of Judea and Samaria. Israel has begun building on lands, like the aforementioned area of E1, that it had never dared to develop before.
After the UAE and Saudi threats to suspend the Abraham Accords, there are some in the pro-Israel community asking those who support Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria whether they are willing to end the peace agreements with Arab states in exchange for annexation.
The question is essentially a strawman argument that incorrectly assumes there is an “either/or” quandary being presented to Israel. This is a false dichotomy set up by a lack of imagination borne of decades of failed diplomacy, combined with a misunderstanding of Palestinians and their objectives.
This decades-old lack of imagination expresses itself in the claims that annexing Judea and Samaria would create one of three untenable situations: (1) the ethnic cleansing of 3.4 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria; (2) absorbing Palestinians as Israeli citizens; (3) ruling over Palestinians as non-citizens in a close-to-apartheid situation.
These people assume that annexing Judea and Samaria leaves Israel with an essentially binary choice – be a democracy with a minority Jewish population, or, at best, set up Bantustans that make the Palestinian population separate and unequal. And at worst, forcibly expel them, which, they incorrectly claim, borders on genocide.
They incorrectly concluded that this recent war made one thing clear: Israel will never be able to integrate itself fully into the region and enjoy a true peace until there is some type of Palestinian independence – whether it be a country, a confederation with other Arab states, or some other arrangement.
These archaic notions are reminiscent of former US secretary of state John Kerry’s dismissing the notion of normalization with Arab countries without a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only to watch President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner establish the Abraham Accords.
Palestinians have demonstrated an incapability to forge peace
EVEN IN their one-dimensional thinking, these people admit most Palestinians’ hate towards Israel and the Jews, as expressed by wars, terrorism, and, of course, the October 7 massacre. They acknowledge that the war demonstrates that Israel must maintain a military force that dominates the Middle East and is capable of quickly defeating any combination of terrorist groups and armies.
These people refuse to consider that the facts that the Palestinians have demonstrated an incapability to forge peace, are corrupt, and don’t deserve a state. These factors preclude any sort of accommodation with the Palestinians until those factors change. They misunderstand Palestinians as anti-Zionists and refuse to recognize that they are antisemites who hate Jews.
Israel should annex Judea and Samaria because it is the historic heartland of the Jewish people. Israel can be confident that the history of Arab Gulf countries, having taken no steps to demonstrate care for Palestinian statehood, demonstrates their support of Palestinians as performative, at best.
Israel can’t give land or grant sovereignty to a people whose population is overwhelmingly hell bent on killing them. Unfortunately, while all Israel has ever wanted is a lasting peace, the Palestinians prefer to try to destroy Israel rather than live alongside it in peace. The refusal of other Arab countries to accept Palestinians in their midst should be a red light for the world.
Israel should, but doesn’t need to, annex Judea and Samaria. Over the past 60 years, Israel has ensured it will forever control its historic homeland, and a Palestinian state will never be established. By acting strategically and having an enemy as foolish, shortsighted, and violent as the Palestinians, Israel has ensured it will never need to give up its land.
Whether it annexes Judea and Samaria today, next year, or in a decade, it has already established the land as its own. If the UN, European and Arab countries, and pro-Israel organizations want to do more than issue performative statements, they should recognize this reality.
The writer is a certified interfaith hospice chaplain in Jerusalem and the mayor of Mitzpe Yericho, where she enjoys spending time with her family.