The home stretch of the 2019 election campaign finally gave Israeli voters the opportunity to base their votes on the fundamental policies put forth by the respective rival camps. The Gantz-Lapid alternative promotes a return to the idea of a Palestinian state, presented this time around under the banner of "separation," while the Likud alternative strives to impose Israeli sovereignty over Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. A gigantic chasm divides these two viewpoints, and to avoid plummeting inside it is imperative to examine where each viewpoint leads. This isn't a complicated task, because we've already tried both.
On March 25, in a symbolic coincidence, two almost completely opposite events occurred. The United States recognized Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights, and a Hamas missile struck Moshav Mishmeret in the Sharon region. Each of these events was the direct result of the two alternatives Israeli voters are faced with, a final station of sorts for the two different paths.
The nationalist camp's path led to the most important superpower in the world affirming that the Golan would forever remain in Israeli hands. The Likud government applied Israeli law on the Golan Heights in 1981; ensuing Likud governments strengthened the Jewish presence and the region's development. Even while sitting in the opposition, the Likud spearheaded strident opposition to attempts by Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak to hand the Golan to the Assad regime in Syria. It was only natural, therefore, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu completed the process with a diplomatic campaign that convinced the Trump administration to adopt the Likud's position.
The Left has always maintained that a refusal to cede land would be disastrous for Israel. Indeed, the exact opposite emerged as true. Insisting on keeping the Golan under our control spared Israel a true calamity, which would have surely befallen us had we allowed the Syrians to retake their old positions on the banks of the Sea of Galilee. The obvious conclusion is that the Likud's path leads to security, to defensible borders, and to international recognition.
On the other hand, the doctrine of retreat espoused by the Left axiomatically leads to the opposite result, as expressed both literally and figuratively by the missile fired from Gaza at central Israel. As proven at least twice before – the first time with the Oslo Accords and the second time with the disengagement from Gaza – handing over swathes of territory to the enemy not only fails to foster peace and security, it inescapably breeds new forms of aggression (missiles over the entire country, suicide bombings, underground terror tunnels) and weakens Israel in the international arena.
The Left pledges that territorial compromises will improve Israel's standing in the world? Reality has taught us differently. The withdrawal from Gaza didn't contribute one iota to our standing in the world. We were left without control over the territory and without the ability to ensure our own security. In the eyes of the world, we are still "occupying" Gaza and are responsible for the people who live there.
Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid are trying to erase the fact that the Gaza problem didn't come out of the blue; it was created because we ceded control over it to the worst of our enemies. Do we honestly want to go down the same path and dig ourselves another hole, even deeper, darker and more dangerous, in Judea and Samaria?
