The shooting attack on IDF soldiers on Sunday near the Jordan Valley reinforces the security establishment's assessment that terrorist organizations in Judea and Samaria are getting stronger and may reach a strategic tipping point. The Palestinian Authority has long lost its control over its cities and it is only thanks to the pro-active posture of the IDF and Shin Bet that Jenin and Nablus have not become another Gaza.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The new terrorist threat should have Israel rethink its overall rationale guiding its policies since the Oslo Accords have come into effect in 1990s. Almost 30 years since they were supposed to usher in a new era of peace, it is incumbent upon us to undergo a paradigm shift by scrutinizing the flawed assumptions on which they were based.
The first rationale was that a separation from the Palestinians was a prerequisite for any resolution of the conflict. The fact of the matter is that in northern Samaria the IDF pulled back from Jenin in 1996. In 2005, several Jewish settlements were uprooted in northern Samaria. In both cases, this only turned the area into terrorist hotbeds that only drew Israel back time and again in order to protect Israelis on the coastal plains.
It is also hard to deny that the IDF withdrawal only strengthened the terrorist elements there, much like the Gaza disengagement turned that enclave into an even greater threat to Israel. Thus, terrorist hotbeds are the direct results of the void created by the lack of Israeli troops and civilians in the area, and one must wonder: Perhaps separation is anything but a solution?
The second assumption: Any risk that is entailed in pursuing the path of the Oslo Accords was calculated and reversible. Then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin explained that Israel will retain effective control over areas that are handed over, making it possible to reverse course should the need arise. What has unfolded in the Gaza Strip over the past few decades – along with the new trends in Judea and Samaria – has been a rude awakening. Just look at how the efforts to reestablish the Jewish settlement in northern Samaria have been met with opposition by Israeli security officials (who are taking their cues from their US counterparts). This shows that as far as the international community is concerned, Israeli withdrawals are irreversible.
The third assumption: "Ending the occupation" will grant Israel international legitimacy. The international criticism directed at Israel any time the IDF launches incursions into Palestinian cities ignores the fact that this is defensive action aimed at curtailing the murderous terrorism in Israel. Accusations such as "it is none of Israel's business to be there" undermine the very idea that Israel has the right to defend itself as it sees fit by taking the initiative in Palestinian areas.
The fourth assumption: A Palestinian state will be demilitarized. The proliferation of standardized weapons in the Jenin areas is not in line with the fundamentals on which the Oslo Accords were based. The Israeli expectation that a Palestinian entity of state would not challenge Israel's security failed the test of reality. To understand the potential threat, it would suffice to look at what has unfolded in the Gaza Strip. It is clear that had Rabin knew that Gaza would become what it is now, he would not have signed off on the Oslo Accords. The underlying premises on which the two-state solution has been based appear to have failed miserably. In light of this situation, Israel must chart a new path forward when it comes to the future of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan valley.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
