In fact, last month, Donald Trump's team went berserk when some Knesset members gave preliminary approval to bills annexing territory in Judea and Samaria, just as US Vice President JD Vance was visiting Israel. Trump's reasoning behind his firm opposition to annexation is that he promised the Arab states that he wouldn't allow it. Thus, Trump chose to appease Arab dictators rather than do what's right and allow Israel to proclaim its sovereignty over territory that rightfully belongs to the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

Trump even threatened to cut off all US support if Israel annexed territory. Inasmuch as Israel is a sovereign country, it cannot afford to lose the support of its most valuable ally. So, how can Israel stake its rightful claim to Judea and Samaria without risking US support?

The solution lies in President Trump's agenda to expand the Abraham Accords, persuading more Arab and Muslim countries to normalize relations with Israel. It's widely believed that the key to convincing other Arab and Muslim states to normalize relations with Israel is Saudi Arabia. Many, if not mos,t experts believe that once Saudi Arabia normalizes relations with Israel, most other Arab and Muslim countries will follow suit.

But one major roadblock stands in the way of Saudi-Israeli normalization: The Saudis' insistence on Palestinian statehood, which Israel cannot and must not agree to under current circumstances. Besides, the Palestinians have had plenty of opportunities for statehood – the 1947 UN partition plan, the 2000 Camp David Summit, the 2001 Taba Summit, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer of statehood in 2008, and what President Trump labelled the "Deal of the Century" in 2020 – all of which the Palestinians rejected. Indeed, the Palestinians have always rejected statehood because their ultimate goal has never been the establishment of a Palestinian state coexisting in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel. Their ultimate goal has always been the complete destruction of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state.

Moreover, there already was a two-state solution. When Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the coastal enclave became a de facto Palestinian state. The Palestinians could have used their newfound autonomy to build the institutions and economy necessary for a prosperous, sovereign country. In fact, they probably could have turned Gaza into the Singapore of the Mediterranean. But instead, the Palestinians turned Gaza into a terrorist base from which to attack Israel. They launched several wars against Israel, ultimately culminating in the October 7 massacre – the worst mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. Hence, Saudi Arabia's demand for Palestinian statehood is a deal-breaker for Israel.

Nevertheless, there is still room for a deal that can satisfy both Israel and Saudi Arabia, and almost guarantee Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. In a nutshell, Israel can provisionally accept a Palestinian state in exchange for normalization, provided that the Palestinians fulfil three basic conditions within a specified time period. These conditions are: 1) The Palestinians must prove they can effectively and democratically govern a country. 2) They must prove they can operate a self-sufficient economy. And 3) They must prove their commitment to peace by demilitarizing and reforming their media and education system to eliminate the incitement of hatred and terrorism against Israel and the Jewish people.

The deal would be that if the Palestinians fulfil these three basic conditions within the specified time period, they will be granted statehood. However, if the Palestinians fail to fulfil these conditions within the specified time period, Israel will have the right to annex Judea and Samaria in its entirety. Since the Palestinians will almost certainly fail to keep their part of the bargain, just as they failed to fulfil their commitments under the Oslo Accords and other subsequent pacts, this agreement would guarantee Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. At the same time, the Saudis will have secured Israel's promise to accept a Palestinian state. Later on, when the Palestinians fail to fulfil the conditions for statehood, the Saudis and everyone else who have passionately advocated for the Palestinian cause until now can simply explain that they did all they could to ensure statehood for the Palestinians, but the Palestinians blew it. After the Palestinians fail, once again, for the last time, to seize the opportunity for statehood, no country will have any legitimate reason not to normalize relations with Israel.

The post How Israel can annex Judea and Samaria appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Nevertheless, Trump wants to be remembered as the man who brought peace to the Middle East, and he knows that if he wants the Arab countries to normalize relations with Israel, he must acquiesce to their demand for a pathway towards a Palestinian state. The Arab states would be wise to drop this condition, however, because it doesn't make sense for them to continue supporting the Palestinians any longer if they are truly interested in peace.

Why do the Arab states still insist on Palestinian statehood anyway? What have the Palestinians ever done for them? Indeed, everywhere the Palestinians go, trouble always seems to follow. In 1970, they tried to overthrow the Jordanian government. In 1982, they caused Israel to invade Lebanon by attacking the Jewish state from Lebanese territory. In 1991, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat backed Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, prompting the Kuwaiti government to expel 200,000 Palestinians after the country was liberated. And let's not forget the billions of dollars in aid the Arab states have given the Palestinians – aid that could have turned the Gaza Strip into the Middle East's Singapore, but instead, was used to build tunnels and buy weapons for attacking Israel. To make a long story short, the Palestinians have caused their Arab brethren nothing but headaches.

Yet, most Arab states still demand that the Palestinians be given a state in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel. In reality, the Arab states have only cared about the Palestinians to the extent that they could use them against Israel, to pressure Israel into agreeing to the "right of return" by which millions of Palestinians would flood the Jewish state, negating the country's Jewish majority, and therefore, the Jewish state itself. This is why the Arab states have kept 1.5 million Palestinians in squalid refugee camps to this day, and refused to give the Palestinians citizenship or any other basic rights. It's also why, despite the mass casualties and relentless suffering that have plagued the Palestinians of Gaza for the last two years, not one Arab country has offered them refuge.

Inasmuch as Arab leaders don't care about the Palestinians, however, they know that many of their people do care. Indeed, the Palestinian cause still resonates with multitudes of ordinary Arab citizens. And although tyrants and dictators govern the entire Arab world, even tyrants and dictators sometimes have to be cognizant of the mood on the street, lest their people rise up against them.

That being said, no Arab government has ever been overthrown for making peace with Israel, despite the issue of the Palestinians not being resolved. And if any Arab dictator in power now is overthrown in the near future, it almost certainly won't be because of their negation of the Palestinian cause. Thus, the Arab states really have no rationale to continue demanding statehood for the Palestinians as a condition for peace with Israel – unless, of course, they haven't given up using the Palestinians to attack Israel's existence, in which case they are not really interested in peace.

The post Drop the Palestinian state demand appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Hence, President Trump has embraced Syria's new leader, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, an Islamist terrorist, who, until December last year, had a $10 million bounty on his head. Al-Sharaa has promised that under his rule, "The Syrian state is committed to protecting all minorities and communities in the country." But his actions and those of his regime say otherwise. In March of this year, forces linked to Al-Sharaa's regime ruthlessly massacred over 1,000 Alawite Muslims in the Syrian coastal region of Latakia. A few months later, in July, Bedouin tribesmen and other forces loyal to Al-Sharaa brutally murdered hundreds of Druze in Syria's Sweida province. And just recently, Alawite Muslims were forced from their homes in Damascus.

Despite these atrocities, however, all of Syria's minorities have expressed their willingness to remain part of the country. All they ask is that they have some autonomy to govern their own communities and not be subject to tyranny at the hands of Syria's Sunni Arab majority. But Al-Sharaa refuses to discuss any possibility of regional autonomy for Syria's minority communities, and insists on a unitary Syrian state. So does the Trump Administration, whose special envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, declared that there must be "One nation, one people, one army, one Syria." Why does the US ridiculously insist on maintaining the territorial integrity of a country that should never have been created in the first place?

After the First World War, the victorious Allied Powers decided to divide the spoils of the defeated Ottoman Empire in the Middle East amongst themselves, drawing up arbitrary borders with no regard for the aspirations of the different peoples living in the region. This is how Syria and much of today's Middle East was created. The result: A century of long and bloody conflict between competing ethnic and religious groups.

Putting an end to this vicious cycle of conflict means correcting the injustice committed against the peoples of the Middle East by Western colonial powers a hundred years ago. In the case of Syria, it means allowing the various groups in the country the right to self-determination – deconstructing the Syrian state in its entirety and replacing it with separate states for the Alawites, Druze, Sunni Arabs, Christians, and Kurds. This is the only option for Syria's minorities to gain or maintain autonomy, since Al-Sharaa refuses to consider any form of decentralization.

Fortunately, all of these groups are geographically concentrated – the Alawites in Latakia, the Kurds in Rojava (north and northeastern Syria), the Druze in Sweida, the Christians in Wadi Al-Nasara (Valley of the Christians), and the Sunni Arabs in the rest of present-day Syria. Thus, creating borders for these new states should not be too difficult.

What will be difficult, however, is ensuring the viability of the newly-independent states. Latakia, Wadi Al-Nasara and Sweida have few natural resources, and the latter two have small populations. Rojava has significant natural resources and a sizeable population, but is landlocked and faces a powerful enemy in Turkey, which detests the idea of any part of Kurdistan obtaining independence. Wadi Al-Nasara and Sweida are also landlocked, as will the new Sunni Arab state be.  All of these new states will need help from abroad to secure their independence.

The new Sunni Arab state can probably expect ample support from other Sunni Arab states and Turkey. Latakia can expect support from Russia as it still hosts vital Russian air and naval bases.

Israel will surely help the Druze of Sweida maintain their security and develop their economy. It has already taken action against Al-Sharaa's forces to protect the Druze from further atrocities. It would also be advantageous for the Jewish state to secure new allies by aiding the new states of Wadi Al-Nasara, Latakia, and particularly Rojava, as Israel and the Kurds have a long history of friendship.

In fact, Israeli support for Rojava may be a necessity as Turkey will almost certainly use military force to prevent the now semi-autonomous region from achieving independence – unless another major power, such as Israel, promises to defend it. Indeed, Turkey and its proxy, the Syrian National Army, already occupy large parts of northern and northeastern Syria, where they have massacred and displaced thousands of Kurds. Moreover, there is no guarantee that US troops now stationed in Rojava will remain there. President Trump has already reduced their numbers, and eventually, wants all US troops to leave the area. Israel can secure a very strategically advantageous alliance with Rojava by arming its forces and guaranteeing its security from Turkey and the Islamic State group (ISIS).

But neither Rojava nor any part of present-day Syria stands a chance of achieving prosperity if they are all forced to remain part of the same country. By insisting that Syria remain united, the US and its allies will be condemning its people to many more years of tyranny and bloodshed. President Trump has consistently stated that he aims to see a new, more prosperous Middle East. He can start by allowing and encouraging the peoples of the present-day Syrian Arab Republic to seek self-determination in their own independent states.

The post Partition Syria to save it appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

There will never be a better time than now for Israel to annex Judea and Samaria. The Trump Administration has indicated that it is not opposed to annexation and is not committed to the abundantly discredited two-state solution. No other US administration, Democrat or Republican, has been more receptive to the idea of Israel extending its sovereignty to Judea and Samaria, so annexation must happen as soon as possible.

Furthermore, annexing all of Judea and Samaria is the strongest response Israel can give to the outrageous decision by some Western leaders to reward Palestinian terrorism by recognizing "Palestine." Israel will be telling the world that it will not cede even one inch of the ancestral Jewish homeland for a Palestinian state that will no doubt be a bastion of terrorism, determined to wipe the Jewish state off the map.

There will inevitably be diplomatic backlash. Ambassadors may be recalled, trade agreements may be cancelled, and country after country will line up to condemn Israel. But it will hardly be a doomsday scenario. Recall that when Israel passed the Basic Law: Jerusalem in 1980, declaring Jerusalem to be its united capital, there was no major diplomatic blowback, nor were there any significant diplomatic consequences when Israel annexed the Golan Heights a year later. Recall also that many predicted the sky would fall when the first Trump Administration moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. They were obviously wrong. Whatever diplomatic consequences come as a result of Israel annexing Judea and Samaria will most likely be minor and temporary.

But what about the other consequences of annexation? For instance, formally annexing Judea and Samaria would mean giving 3 million Palestinians in the territory citizenship and dramatically reducing Israel's Jewish majority, right? Wrong. For starters, the Palestinian population of Judea and Samaria is not 3 million. This is an overestimate by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). It includes about 500,000 Palestinian residents who live overseas. It also includes hundreds of thousands who are residents of Jerusalem and those married to Israeli Arabs, both of whom are included in Isreal's population figures. The actual Palestinian population of Judea and Samaria is closer to 1.85 million. And even if Israel did decide to grant citizenship to every Palestinian in Judea and Samaria, it would still have a solid Jewish majority of 65.5%.

Israel can also reduce the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria by encouraging Palestinians to leave voluntarily. Indeed, it's long been suggested by some Israeli leaders that Palestinians in Judea and Samaria be given financial incentives to leave the territory. This idea is also being considered to facilitate the voluntary emigration of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip once Israel finishes vanquishing Hamas.

Furthermore, Israel is under no obligation to grant the Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria citizenship. After all, why should Israel give citizenship to a hostile population determined to destroy it? Besides, no Arab country except Jordan has given the Palestinians citizenship, so why must Israel? Israel should, however, consider offering citizenship to Palestinians who have demonstrated their willingness to live in peace with their Jewish neighbours, but I doubt there are many.

Annexing Judea and Samaria would also give Israel the opportunity to rid itself of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is nothing but a corrupt, tyrannical regime that promotes and funds terrorism. In fact, the only difference between the PA and Hamas is that the former pays lip service to the two-state solution, but in reality, it seeks the total destruction of Israel just as Hamas does.

Dissolving the PA will give Israel the opportunity to end pay-for-slay, the PA practice of paying Palestinians who murder Jews generous monthly salaries. It will also allow Israel to purge Palestinian media and education of vicious antisemitic, pro-terrorist content. No longer will Palestinians be taught to hate and slaughter Jews, nor will they be taught that martyrdom is the highest honour that they can aspire to. Instead, Palestinians in Judea and Samaria will learn to be productive members of society and live in peace with their Jewish neighbours.

Yes, annexing Judea and Samaria does carry risks and burdens, but it is the best response to Western countries determined to impose a Palestinian terrorist state on Israel. Therefore, I implore the leaders of the Jewish state to do what must be done. Annex all of Judea and Samaria. Close the door on the two-state delusion for good. Declare Israel's sovereignty over what rightfully belongs to the Jewish people. And do it now.

The post Now is the best time to annex Judea and Samaria appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Last month, the Druze of Syria experienced their own October 7^th massacre—hundreds of them were brutally massacred by terrorists backed by Syria's Islamist President, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, also known as Al-Julani. Like Hamas, these terrorists took hostages, including more than one hundred women and girls. The province of Sweida, which has a Druze majority, is now under siege by Al-Sharaa's forces. Only Israel stands between Syria's Druze and the Islamist forces determined to annihilate them.

Israel responded to last month's massacre by launching airstrikes against Al-Sharaa's forces, even hitting targets in the Syrian capital, Damascus. But if Israel is to prevent the slaughter of more innocent Druze, it must go further in its military efforts. Israel needs to establish a permanent military presence in southern Syria, particularly in Sweida province. Doing so will create a safe buffer zone on Israel's northern border, preventing attacks from Islamists aligned with Al-Sharaa's regime or Iran. At the same time, it will protect the vulnerable Druze population of Sweida, as it is doubtful that Al-Sharaa's forces, or anyone else, will attack them knowing that they are protected by the IDF.

In addition, having IDF troops on the ground between Israel's northern border and Sweida will create a humanitarian corridor that can be used to bring vital aid to the Druze, as the siege of Sweida by Al-Sharaa's forces has created a humanitarian crisis. At present, very little humanitarian aid is getting through.

With IDF protection, the Druze of Sweida will be able to exercise their right to self-determination. They can choose to remain part of Syria or seek independence. Regardless of what they choose, Israel should continue to protect them, but also arm them so that they can eventually protect themselves. Israel should also afford them economic aid, especially if they choose independence, as natural resources in Sweida are scarce, and the Druze will need to develop economic self-sufficiency if their new Druze state is to succeed.

This model can also be applied to other parts of Syria with large concentrations of ethnic or religious minorities – particularly Rojava, the semi-autonomous Kurdish-led region of northeastern Syria, and Latakia, Syria's coastal region where Alawites form a majority. Both of these regions are under threat from Al-Sharaa's forces and their supporters.

Rojava is strategically located on the border with Turkey, Al-Sharaa's primary ally. Both Al-Sharaa and Turkey's Islamist President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, would like nothing better than to slaughter the region's Kurdish population. Indeed, thousands of Kurds have already been murdered and forcibly displaced by Turkish forces and their Syrian proxies.

While the Kurds have their own military forces and are allied with the US, they stand little chance if Turkey throws its full military might into destroying them. After all, Turkey has the second-largest army in NATO, and possesses much of the advanced military hardware that other NATO countries have. However, they are unlikely to attack the Kurds if the Kurds have Israeli protection. Furthermore, having Rojava as an ally would mean having an ally on Turkey's border. Right now, Turkey has an ally on Israel's border in the form of Al-Sharaa's Syrian regime. But two can play at this game.

Israel might also be able to cultivate an alliance with the Alawites of Latakia, who also border Turkey, though this is probably unlikely since many of the Alawites supported the former Assad regime in Syria, and Assad was no friend of Israel. Then again, having no allies to protect them from the kind of massacres they have already suffered from may change their minds.

As you read this, you might be thinking that the Jewish state cannot seriously be expected to protect all of Syria's vulnerable minorities, especially now, when the IDF is busy fighting in Gaza, and Israel still faces threats from Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran. But truly, the recent war with Iran proved that there isn't anywhere in the Middle East that Israel can't reach. Besides, protecting Syria's minorities isn't just the moral thing to do. It's also very strategically beneficial, since it allows Israel to cultivate new allies in a region where it has very few. And in a time when Israel faces almost unparalleled ostracization for simply defending itself, the Jew amongst nations needs all the friends it can get.

The post Protecting Syria's minorities isn't just the moral thing to do appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

On July 5th, the Wall Street Journal published an article that quoted Hebron Sheikh Wadee' al-Jaabari saying, "We want cooperation with Israel. We want coexistence." Sheikh al-Jaabari reportedly leads the most influential clan in Hebron. He and four other leading Hebron sheikhs have expressed their desire to break away from the Palestinian Authority and sign the Abraham Accords, making peace with Israel and recognizing it as a Jewish state. This is nothing less than a bombshell, because no Palestinian leadership has ever agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state – not the Palestinian Authority, not the Palestine Liberation Organization, and certainly not Islamist terrorist groups like Hamas.

Since the signing of the first Oslo Accords in 1993, the PA and the PLO have paid lip service to the two-state solution, but have never agreed to an actual arrangement that would have Israel and a Palestinian state live side-by-side in peace and security. This is because they never intended to agree to a two-state solution, as their ultimate goal remains the same as it always has – the complete destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state "From the River to the Sea," as the genocidal slogan goes.

By contrast, the sheikhs of Hebron are not even calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state. In fact, Sheikh al-Jaabari has gone on record saying, "There will be no Palestinian state – not even in 1,000 years." Instead, al-Jaabari and his fellow sheikhs propose that Israel recognize an Emirate of Hebron, which would, in exchange, recognize the State of Israel.

The consensus in Israel is that agreeing to a Palestinian state would be committing national suicide. Moreover, we've already had a taste of what a two-state solution would be like. The Gaza Strip was a de facto Palestinian state after Israel withdrew completely from the coastal enclave in 2005, leaving the Palestinians complete autonomy to do whatever they wanted with the territory. But instead of creating a prosperous state living alongside Israel in peace, they turned Gaza into a terrorist base from which to attack the Jewish state. For eighteen years, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations launched attacks into Israel from Gaza, firing thousands of rockets, conducting numerous cross-border raids, and breaking one ceasefire after another. The ultimate culmination of this de facto two-state solution was the October 7th massacre – the worst mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

Thus, Israel can never agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Besides, recent polls show that neither Israelis nor Palestinians want a two-state solution. Yet, many Arab and Western leaders, as well as some far-left Israelis, continue to cling to this abundantly discredited arrangement. The proposal by the sheikhs of Hebron represents a fresh alternative. But of course, it does have its critics.

Last week, for example, Nafez al-Jaabari, another local Hebron leader and member of the al-Jaabari clan, issued a statement saying, "We, as the al-Jaabari tribe, declare our complete disapproval and denunciation of what was done by a family member unknown to the tribe and not a resident of Hebron," referring to Sheikh Wadee' al-Jaabari. There is also speculation that the reported torching of Sheikh al-Jaabari's car by Arab rioters from eastern Jerusalem was connected to his proposal.

Others have argued the plan is not much different than other previous schemes devised by Israel to squelch hopes for a Palestinian state. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, for example, international affairs analyst Mahmoud Jabari said of the proposal, "This isn't new thinking – it's the colonial playbook. It's divide and conquer dressed up for a modern audience."

Last week, an article appeared in the Jerusalem Post written by former Associated Press editor Dan Perry, who likened Sheikh al-Jaabari's plan to the failed "Village Leagues" of the late 1970s and early 1980s, which were designed to create an alternative Palestinian leadership to that of the PLO.

In truth, the proposal to create a Hebron emirate is very unlikely to succeed. It certainly won't end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, having the Hebron sheikhs sign on to the Abraham Accords could still represent the beginning of the end of the conflict, because making peace with some Palestinians can be a stepping stone to making peace with the rest of them, especially if Palestinians outside of Hebron see the city's residents receiving tangible benefits from signing the Accords. Furthermore, why should Palestinians who are willing to sign the Abraham Accords and make peace with Israel sit around and wait until the rest of the Palestinians come to their senses?

In fact, I would contend that no group of people, in any given country, who want to sign the Abraham Accords should have to wait for their national leadership to sign them. Let Iraqi Kurdistan sign on to the Accords and reap the benefits of doing so if Iraq's national leadership doesn't want to. Let the Druze in southern Syria and the Kurds in northeastern Syria join the Accords if Syria's national leadership isn't yet ready. In short, allow the leaderships of subnational jurisdictions – such as Sheikh al-Jaabari's community in Hebron – to sign the Abraham Accords, even if doing so is purely symbolic. After all, one not need be a country to commit to peace.

The post One need not be a country to commit to peace appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The dictators of the Arab world sure have a lot of chutzpah claiming that we Jews don't respect their holy sites when they clearly have no respect for ours.

For example, Qatar, the world's leading sponsor of Islamist terrorism aside from Iran, reacted angrily when a group called the Temple Mount Activists posted an AI-generated video on the internet that envisioned the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple, replacing the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque now situated on the Temple Mount. The country's rulers issued a statement calling the video "a dangerous provocation that could significantly escalate violence in the region, especially amid the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip."

Similarly, after Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir visited the Temple Mount earlier this month, Jordan issued a statement calling his visit, "a dangerous escalation, an unacceptable provocation, a violation of the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, and a breach of its historical and legal status quo."

For those of you who are wondering, the status quo that Jordan's Hashemite tyrants are referring to is the arrangement by which Jews are forbidden from praying on the Temple Mount – the holiest site in Judaism – and can only visit it at certain times. Praying on the Mount is a privilege reserved exclusively for Muslims. This is what Israel agreed to following the reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 war and reaffirmed its commitment to in the 1994 Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty. And despite the fact that this arrangement is outrageous and antisemitic to the core, Israel has adhered to it for nearly sixty years.

Yet, we are still accused by Arab dictators of engaging in "provocations." May I remind these tyrants that their forefathers built the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque on the site where our First and Second Temples once stood. I'd call that a provocation.

May I also remind them that for the better part of the last century, they have shown nothing but disrespect for our holy sites. For example, when the Jordanians controlled East Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Temple Mount, between 1949 and 1967, they destroyed several Old City synagogues, while using others to house animals or refuse. Not one Jew was allowed to pray at the Western Wall for 19 years. They also vandalized Jewish cemeteries and burned Jewish Torah scrolls and holy books. I'd call these actions provocations, to say the least.

Today, our Arab neighbors' disrespect of our holy sites continues. The Waqf, the Islamic body responsible for administering the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as Haram Al-Sharif, has frequently engaged in illegal digging at the site. In 1999, for instance, it disposed of more than 9,000 tons of dirt mixed with invaluable archaeological artifacts, which are now being salvaged by the Temple Mount Sifting Project.

In the region of Samaria (the northern West Bank), illegal Palestinian construction has caused significant damage to the site of Shomron, the ancient capital of the northern Kingdom of Israel in Biblical times. In Shechem (Nablus), Joseph's Tomb has become the frequent target of Palestinian vandals and attacks on Jewish worshippers. After Palestinians attacked the site in the year 2000, Israel withdrew, and the Palestinian Authority promised to protect the site. Not surprisingly, they didn't keep that promise, prompting Israel to reassert some control over the site. Today, Jewish worshippers can only pray at Joseph's Tomb under heavy armed escort by the IDF.

I'd say it's time for Israel to stop listening to the hypocritical accusations of Arab dictators and start reasserting its control of Judaism's holiest sites. For starters, we should tear up the "status quo" on the Temple Mount. A Jewish state should not be in the business of preventing Jews from worshipping at their holiest site. Jews should have the same right to pray on the Mount as Muslims. And if Arab dictators and their followers don't like it, too bad.

The post End the status quo on the Temple Mount appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Recently, Egypt and Qatar made a new proposal for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Under the terms, Hamas would release a handful of hostages in exchange for a ceasefire that would last until after Passover, the resumption of humanitarian aid, and predictably, the release of yet more Palestinian terrorists. Hamas has reportedly agreed to the proposal, while Israel has conveyed a counter-proposal in response.

As IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir recently said, Hamas is simply stalling for time. Indeed, the only kind of ceasefire Israel should accept is one in which Hamas frees all the remaining hostages, living and dead, and surrenders unconditionally. Until then, Israel should use maximum military pressure along with other robust measures to send a clear message to the genocidal terrorist group – your time is up. Israel is through playing your games. Surrender, release all the hostages, or suffer unprecedented consequences.

But what should those unprecedented consequences be? Maximum military pressure alone will not persuade Hamas to surrender and free the hostages. Israel has also cut off aid and electricity to Gaza, but that still won't be enough. There needs to be more.

Defence Minister Israel Katz has already threatened to annex territory in Gaza if Hamas does not free the hostages. But he issued this threat over a week ago and still hasn't made good on it. That has to change. The Israeli government should immediately submit legislation to the Knesset calling for the annexation of Gazan territory.

In fact, Israel shouldn't limit itself to annexing territory in Gaza. If Hamas continues refusing to release the hostages and surrender, the Israeli government should begin annexing parts of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). The more time Hamas refuses to surrender and release the remaining hostages, the more territory Israel would annex. But even this may not be enough.

So, what else? President Donald Trump has wisely recommended that Gazans who want to leave the coastal enclave and seek better lives elsewhere should be allowed to do so. Contrary to what critics have said about his plan for Gaza, Trump has never suggested forcibly displacing the Gazan population. In fact, last month, he told reporters, "Nobody is expelling any Palestinians (from Gaza)."

But why not? Many of the Gazans deserve to be forcibly removed. Polls show that most of them, along with their fellow Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, supported the October 7 massacre, in which Hamas methodically murdered, raped, tortured, incinerated, decapitated, and kidnapped roughly 1,500 innocent people, mostly Jewish civilians. Some Gazans even directly participated in it. For these bloodthirsty savages, relocation shouldn't be a choice. It should be mandatory. Israelis should no longer have to live next to people who want to murder them.

Thus, if Hamas refuses to surrender and free the remaining hostages, Israel should begin deporting Palestinians from both Gaza and Judea and Samaria. I would suggest that Israel do this, not just in response to Hamas' intransigence, but also in response to continued terrorist attacks on Israelis. Every time an Israeli is murdered by a Palestinian terrorist, Israel should deport a number of Palestinians, though I would caution that Palestinians selected for deportation should be selected based on their hostility towards Israel, not just chosen at random. Palestinians who have never shown hostility towards the Jewish state should not be deported, although I think it would be hard to find Palestinians who haven't.

Ultimately, the only thing that ruthless murderers like Hamas understand is strength. Freeing hundreds of terrorists, many of whom slaughtered innocent Israelis, in exchange for what President Donald Trump called "dribs and drabs" of hostages shows weakness. It encourages Hamas and other terrorists to take more hostages in the future. I would remind everyone that Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the October 7 massacre, was among the hundreds of terrorists released in the deal to free IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in 2011. This should make you wonder, how many more Israelis will be slaughtered by terrorists who were freed in the last hostage deal?

It's time Israel put its foot down. No more releasing terrorist murderers. No more allowing aid into Gaza for Hamas to steal. No more concessions of any kind. Instead, Israel should use maximum military pressure coupled with other strong measures to persuade Hamas that keeping the hostages and remaining in Gaza will lead to the defeat of the Palestinian cause.

The post All Hamas understands is strength appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Steven Witkoff recently made a great case for why he should be fired as President Donald Trump's special envoy for the Middle East. In a recent interview with political commentator Tucker Carlson, he praised Qatar's leaders and said that Hamas can be involved in Gaza's future.

Qatar is a major sponsor of Islamist terrorist groups, including Hamas. In fact, over the last decade, the small, gas-rich Arab emirate has subsidized Hamas's regime in Gaza to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Qatari leadership shares the same Islamist ideology as Hamas and other offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. And they've used their vast wealth to promote this ideology all over the world – including the US.

Indeed, Qatar has spent billions of dollars promoting its Islamist agenda at colleges and universities all over America, to the extent that it is now the largest foreign donor to American universities. This money has translated into antisemitism and anti-Americanism on university campuses throughout the country, often accompanied by unlawful, violent demonstrations by far-left, anti-American mobs out to destroy Israel, the US and Western civilization as we know it.

At the same time, Qatar pretends to be an ally of the US. The country has played a key role in ceasefire and hostage negotiations between Israel and Hamas, not to mention the fact that it now hosts America's largest military base in the region. But if Trump is serious about creating a new order in the Middle East and stamping out antisemitism and anti-Americanism at home, he ought to consider closing that base. In fact, the administration would be well-advised to treat Qatar just as it treats Iran. Thus, the US should cut all ties to the emirate and impose harsh sanctions on it.

As long as Qatar continues to promote and fund Islamist terrorism, it cannot be part of the new Middle East that Trump wants to create. It certainly cannot be part of Gaza's future, nor can its beneficiary, Hamas. Witkoff has asserted that Hamas can be part of Gaza's future politics so long as it disarms. This suggestion is preposterous. Hamas can never be part of Gaza's future in any way, shape or form.

When the Allies defeated Nazi Germany in World War II, they ensured that neither the Nazis nor their genocidal ideology would have any role in the country's future. Hamas is very much the Nazis of the present. Allowing them to play a role in Gaza's future would be as if the Allies allowed the Nazis to play a role in Germany's future after WWII.

By singing the praises of Qatar's dictators and asserting that Hamas can continue to play a role in post-war Gaza, Witkoff undermines the Trump Administration's agenda to create a new order in the Middle East – one that doesn't include purveyors of murderous Islamist ideology like Qatar and Hamas. Therefore, President Trump would be wise to dismiss him.

The post US needs to sanction Qatar, they are not our friends appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

But here's the kicker. The destruction of Israel wouldn't just be apocalyptic for Jews. It would be terrible for the Palestinians, who have spent decades believing that they would have the opportunity to prosper once Israel is destroyed and they could return to "Palestine," even though in reality, most Palestinian "refugees" are not actually refugees, and millions of them have never set foot in "Palestine."

Imagine this scenario: After slaughtering all of Israel's estimated 7.7 million Jews – 1.7 million more than were murdered in the Holocaust – destroying Israel's political institutions, and laying waste to most of Israel's social and economic infrastructure, a new Arab "State of Palestine" is created, "From the River to the Sea," as the genocidal slogan goes. Palestinian "refugees" from throughout the Middle East and other parts of the world pour into the new Palestinian state to fulfil their "Right of Return."

Shortly after arriving in the new, Jew-free Palestine, however, they discover that there are no jobs, no economy and no educational opportunities, because the Jews that provided those things are gone. The new Palestine quickly becomes an economic basket case, in the same place that there was once an economic miracle called the State of Israel.

It gets worse. The new rulers of Palestine are corrupt tyrants, just like the present-day rulers of the Palestinian Authority and Gaza. Whereas Israel was a bastion of freedom and democracy in a region full of despotism, the new Palestine emerges as a brutal dictatorship, just like most other countries in the Middle East. There is no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press and no democratic elections. Arbitrary arrest, torture and forced disappearances become commonplace, as they are in the Arab world today.

There are no rights for women. At best, they will be treated as second-class citizens. In the worst-case scenario, women in the new State of Palestine will be treated as little more than chattel, as they now are in Afghanistan, with no access to education or jobs. They will be confined to their homes and only allowed to travel if escorted by a male relative and covered from head-to-toe in traditional Islamic garb.

Rights for members of the LGBTQ+ community? Dream on. In fact, anyone even suspected of being gay in the new Palestine will be summarily murdered or at best given a lengthy prison sentence, as is presently the case in much of the Arab and Muslim world.

There is also no freedom of religion. Jews abroad are not allowed to visit the new Palestine and are cut off from their holy sites, many of which will be neglected or repurposed. Some may even become animal stalls, landfills or excrement dumping grounds, as many Jewish holy places in Jerusalem were under Muslim rule before the 1967 war.

As for the remaining non-Muslims living in the new Palestine – Christians, Druze, Bahais – they become second-class citizens, severely limited in their ability to worship and sometimes violently persecuted, even murdered, for their beliefs, similar to how other non-Muslims are now treated in the Muslim world. Tired of their inferior status, many non-Muslims will leave the new Palestine, and the population of non-Muslims in the country will nosedive, just as the number of non-Muslims in other Arab and Muslim countries has dropped considerably over the better part of a century.

Under the boot of their tyrannical rulers, those who once called themselves Israeli Arabs, quietly tell the Palestinians who have "returned" to Palestine what it was like when Israel still existed, when they enjoyed civil and political liberties, when women's rights were respected, when there were vast economic and educational opportunities in what used to be known as "Startup Nation," and when they were allowed to vote in free and fair elections.

Eventually, high unemployment, poverty, and lack of freedom cause frustration in the new Palestine to boil over and lead to an armed uprising that morphs into a brutal civil war, similar to the recent conflict in Syria. Millions of Palestinians find themselves refugees once again, having to flee their homes due to the fighting. Some end up fleeing the country. Those who stay are forced to endure the horrors of war – bloodshed, famine, destitution – in a country where Arabs once enjoyed a higher standard of living than most of their kinsmen in the Middle East.

This is likely the future the Palestinians face if they and their supporters ever succeed in destroying Israel. In this scenario, many if not most of them will wish they had never destroyed the Jewish state and annihilated its Jewish population. So goes the old adage, "Careful what you wish for. You just might get it."

The post What if Israel was defeated? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.