The recent terrorist attacks have brought the Left and Right together as we all mourn our brothers and sisters who have been killed. But although the pain of the Left and Right is the same, the lessons they conclude from the events are not.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The ideological Right says it is further proof that peace between Israelis and Palestinians, or even a temporary agreement, is impossible. The ideological left insists on the exact opposite: that terrorist attacks will continue as long as Israel does not return to the negotiating table and reaches an agreement with Palestinians that will put an end to the occupation.

Personally, I agree that the Right, and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "conflict management" concept, in particular, has failed miserably in its approach to the conflict, and is leading us toward doom with the illusion of annexation.

Moreover, I still believe in the two-state solution, which includes painful concessions on our part, although we are not headed in the right direction, for which both sides are responsible. I believe that in the long run, if there is willingness of both Israelis and Palestinians and through continued gradual processes, we can reach such a solution. That is the right thing for us Israelis and, I believe, for them as well.

But those who are writing and saying today that such an agreement will stop Palestinian terrorism, please stop. Please do not deceive us and yourselves. History has shown that every concession, agreement, or significant negotiation brought with it a wave of terrorist attacks, the deadliest of which occurred during the Rabin era and in the wake of the Oslo Accords.

We are not the only ones who do not know what to do with this conflict to bring it to an end. Palestinians are also unsure of what they want – one or two states, Israeli or Palestinian citizenship, destroy Israel or receive Israeli IDs – because there is no consensus among them on the matter.
Do not think that the terror wave we are experiencing is a nationalistic-focused campaign to end the occupation and reach a reality of two states. It is not that terrorism will continue because the occupation continues. Terrorism continues regardless and must be fought mercilessly.

Already in 2002, author Amos Oz, who famously held leftist views, wrote that in reality, there are two wars being waged: the justified fight by the Palestinian people against the occupation and the criminal war of extremist Islamists who wish to destroy the Jewish state and exile the Jewish people from their homeland. These two are not the same and shouldn't be confused.

The terrorist attacks are part of the fundamentalist war and no peace agreement will stop them, and as such, they must be fought unapologetically. But when it comes to peace with the Palestinians, we must strive toward it without despair or cynicism, out of a Jewish, moral and humane ideal.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Peace negotiations will not put an end to terrorism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Most of us have surely heard about the Amnesty International report that accused Israel of apartheid policies within and outside the Green Line, but many of us have probably missed the response of MK Mansour Abbas – head of the Islamist Ra'am party – who rejected the label.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

"I would not call it apartheid," he said in response to a question at an online event organized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a DC-based think tank. "I prefer to describe the reality in objective ways. If there is discrimination in a certain field, then we will say that there is discrimination in that specific field."

His remarks were not reported by any major media outlet, and neither was the statement of Arab-Israeli lawmaker Issawi Frej, who said, "Israel has many problems that must be resolved, within the Green Line, and especially in the occupied territories, but Israel is not an apartheid state."

Breaking with the traditional stance of Israel's Arab parties, Abbas also declared in December that Israel would always be a Jewish state.

"Israel was born a Jewish state, that was the decision of the people, and the question is not: What is the identity of the state? It was born this way, and it will remain this way," he said in an interview.

Muhammad Majadele, who interviewed Abbas, declared the Ra'am chief brought about a rare unity between Palestinians in Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority, in direct opposition to the lawmaker's remark. Abbas' statement was deemed dangerous and harsh criticism was leveled against him.

The Ra'am chief, who is assigned round-the-clock protection, is a brave Arab leader. Whether you agree with his views or not, one thing is clear: he is determined to pave a path different from that of his predecessors. He believes that he can bring about groundbreaking achievements for Arab Israelis, improve their lives and create a genuine Jewish-Arab partnership.

Frej is an equally courageous Arab leader. During last year's 12-day conflict between Israel and Hamas, he was among the few Arab Israeli leaders who urged coexistence and bravely condemned riots in mixed cities, calling on Arab protesters to cease violence.

Their historic bravery should be met with no less historic cooperation. Arab coalition members are paying a heavy price in their public, and their allies must help them prove that being part of the government enables them to achieve unprecedented goals.

The public and the media should recognize them and commend their willingness to seek an equal Jewish-Arab coexistence in the democratic and Jewish State of Israel. The opposition must stop inciting and trying to delegitimize the brave Arab political leaders that have emerged.

The government should allow them to achieve true goals – and not just social and economic ones – such as identity, and thereby show that the current coalition is also one of coexistence. It must ensure that the precedent it has set is perceived as positive and encouraging by Jewish and Arab Israelis.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Abbas paving new path in Arab Israeli politics appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Liberalism, for example, aspires to a world based on freedom and equality, in which individual freedoms and rights are given precedence over other rights. These are lofty values. Nevertheless, liberalism in its purest form could serve to destabilize the state. Alongside human rights, a country needs values that subordinate the individual to the good of the community. Israel cannot exist without an army that relies on the willingness of its citizens to make sacrifices for their country, without the willingness of certain groups to compromise their values in order to live alongside other groups or without a founding ethos that is based largely upon Zionism and Jewish heritage. It is only by balancing a philosophy that puts the state at the center with one that puts the individual at the center that Israel's strength can be ensured for all its citizens.

There are those who would like to see Israel's territory expanded to the historic borders of the land of Israel. This belief that the land is ours in its entirety is not just legitimate but well-founded. Judea and Samaria are the lands of our Bible and the site of historical Jewish nationalism. But the attempt to forcefully implement this ideology in our modern-day reality could lead to the destruction of the Zionist enterprise. For 2,000 years, Jews longed for Zion and this desire to return to Jerusalem is what helped the Jewish community survive for generations. At a certain moment in time, and under a particular set of circumstances, it became possible to realize this ideological return to Zion, but that does not necessarily mean the annexation of Judea and Samaria is now also a possibility.

Were the state to act to implement such a messianic ideology, when in reality, millions of Palestinians live in the West Bank, it would be committing suicide. It would also be acting in contrast to another ideology, one that believes in the Palestinian people's right to freedom and self-determination. It would be best if nationalist Zionism preserved this Greater Israel ideology as an exalted value, while in practice attempted to implement it in a pragmatic way.

There are those who aspire to the ideal of establishing a halachic state that would see the Jewish religion exist in its most pure form. These people dream of a way of life in which the national space is based on Jewish law and the commandments of the Bible. Aspiring to a halachic state is one thing – providing it is clear this ideal cannot be realized in the reality of our time, promoting it via practical means is quite another. A halachic state, impractical from an economic, social, security and even ethical perspective, would spell nothing but disaster.

Ideologies in their purest form are destined to remain just that, something to aspire to, a marker of transcendent values, but not practice. In Israel today, there is too much ideology and not enough pragmatism. If ideology and practice are to meet, there must be compromise. In Israel, competing ideologies exist, and every attempt to implement one ideology necessarily harms another. Successful political leaders are those who translate ideology into practice and are able to negotiate between the different worldviews. Such leaders do not succumb to pressure from extremists who believe pure ideology can be adopted as policy. The Israeli public should also value and compensate moderate leaders, because it is only compromise that will allow for differing ideologies to exist side by side.

The post Ideology is no substitute for policy appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.