The long and extraordinary statement issued by the US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller this week to condemn Israel had three parts: It had harsh criticism over National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir's visit to the Temple Mount; it also claimed Israel was undermining the prospect of a two-state solution by repealing the parts of the Disengagement Law that prohibited the presence of Jews in former settlements in Samaria; and finally, it accused Israel of breaking promises.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Let's parse that statement. If the lifting of restrictions on returning to Homesh means Israel was reneging on promises Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made to President Joe Bide, then this would have indeed been problematic. Being true to your word, just like in relations between people, is a basic norm in relations between countries.
But maintaining credibility is a two-way street: It must apply equally to the US. Now that six months have passed since Netanyahu's government was sworn in, it is clear that the US has not been living up to this standard.
Freedom of religion is a basic right in our world, including in non-democratic states, and most certainly in the US. Why is the Biden administration denying the right of an Israeli cabinet minister to visit the most sacred place for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel? You would expect that an administration that champions human rights would be in favor of Ben-Gvir and every other Jew being allowed to go up to the site and perform the religious commands of their faith. This is what freedom of worship is all about; this is how you maintain principles.
As for Homesh, in 2005 then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon heeded President George W. Bush's requests to pull out of northern Samaria. What happened to the Bush letter, issued in exchange for that move, that promised to recognize the "new realities on the ground"? Does the Biden administration still accept it and acknowledge the settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria or is it only Israel that has to keep old promises it has come to regret?
Israel has learned the lessons of the ill-fated 2005 pullout. The return to Homesh is not without context: It comes from a clear conviction that the Jewish people have the right to all of the Land of Israel and that realizing these rights bolsters security, curtails terrorism, and thwarts future scenarios involving rocket fire from northern Samaria like Israel has been experiencing from Gaza.
The 2005 Disengagement Plan that the US is now harking back on created Hamastan in Gaza. While this toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube, shouldn't we at the very least right the wrong in northern Samaria? In fact, the US should support this if – as US Ambassador Thomas Nides said on Monday – its commitment to Israel's security is ironclad. This is how to maintain credibility.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
