A majority of right-wing prime ministers have made decisions contrary to the right-wing path they campaigned on.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The late Prime Minister Menachem Begin withdrew from the entire Sinai Peninsula and evicted the Sinai communities. He signed a document recognizing the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and proposed a plan for their autonomy.

His successor, the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, did more to adhere to his party's diplomatic path than others. Nevertheless, he attended the 1991 Madrid Conference after years in which he had opposed it being held. In the Gulf War that year, he let rockets fired at Israel slide.

The late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was the patron of the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria. He came to power on the basis of the principle that the "fate of Netzarim [a kibbutz in the Gaza Strip periphery region] is the same as that of Tel Aviv. Yet he led the plan to disengage from Gaza and evict the Gush Katif communities. As a bonus, he also evicted the communities in northern Samaria.

Netanyahu, who led the opposition effort to the 1992 Oslo Accords, signed the 1997 Hebron Protocol and withdrew from a majority of the city as well as additional territory in Judea and Samaria following the 1998 Wye accord. In a speech at Bar-Ilan University, he expressed support for the establishment of a Palestinian state. He conducted negotiations with both Syrian Presidents Hafez and Bashar Assad on Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights to the 1967 borders and the eviction of settlements.

Although he has raised the banner of remaining steadfast in the face of terror and the opposition to prisoner-exchange deals with terrorist organizations and served as a sort of international symbol of leaders standing up to terror, Netanyahu signed the Gilad Schalit prisoner-exchange agreement that saw the release of over 1,000 terrorists, including many murderers, some of whom murdered Jews upon their release. He responded with restraint to arson terror on the Gaza border, and in the final days of his government, prevented the flag march from passing through Damascus Gate in Jerusalem's Old City. As a minister in Sharon's government, he voted for the eviction of communities in Gush Katif.

The only prime minister who does not appear on this list is Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. In the first year of his government, he did not deviate in any way from his diplomatic-security path. Unlike his predecessors, one cannot point to a series of "left-wing" decisions he made. Yet he is the one targeted by an unprecedented incitement campaign, slandered as a "left-wing traitor" and "crook," and forced to contend with threats on his and family members' lives.

Why do they persecute him? For one simple reason: He now occupies the seat registered in the name of the man who withdrew from Hebron, freed terrorists and murderers, agreed to withdraw from the Golan, responded to terror with restraint, and supported the disengagement.

Bennett's opponents, who cannot point to actions taken or decisions made by his government in opposition to the Right's worldview and policies, point to the fact that he established a government with the Meretz and the "terror-supporting" Ra'am parties.

Yet how is a prime minister assessed? Is it on the basis of their policies, decisions, and actions, or the composition of their government? The coalition formed with Meretz and Ra'am is the first since the Madrid Conference to not engage in negotiations with the Palestinians. Bennett is the only prime minister after the Oslo Accords to openly oppose a Palestinian state. The government with Meretz and Ra'am decided to promote the settlement of the Golan through a national plan the likes of which has not been since the first settlement was established there some 55 years ago, and Meretz supported the move. It was this government of all governments that decided on the establishment of 14 new communities in the Negev Region following decades of stagnation. This government changed the policy for responding to provocations from Gaza, and now every violation of Israeli sovereignty, including the launch of incendiary balloons and kites is met with a harsh response.

Israel has intensified the campaign between the wars, according to foreign reports, striking inside Iran for the first time. It restored the military option against Iran's nuclear program, and under this government, the flag march through Damascus Gate. The fact that all these actions were carried out under a government that counts Meretz as a member and Ra'am as a partner bolsters the public legitimacy for this path.

Today, we mark one year to the establishment of the Bennett government. Based on the facts, it would appear Bennett's detractors and opponents on the Right should recalculate their course.

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

The post Right-wingers, stop slandering Bennett appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The nation-state law should have been widely accepted by all the Zionist political parties. The initiative by the Institute for Zionist Strategies over a decade ago was intended to anchor the foundations shared by all streams of Zionism, precisely because of their deep disagreement over the question of borders. The initiative was aimed at declaring to ourselves and the world that even if we disagree on the territorial question, we are united in agreement on what the State of Israel stands for in essence, regardless of the country's borders. It is not for nothing that the person who was supposed to introduce the bill was then-Opposition leader and Zionist Union party leader Tzipi Livni, under the assumption that both the coalition and opposition would support it. It's a shame she got cold feet, possibly when she understood that a Jewish state was not fashionable among her core constituents.

Basic Law: Israel – the Nation-State of the Jewish Nation is a very important basic law. That it was not widely accepted by the public and was instead the focus of contention is a major problem that is largely the fault of the law's opponents. While some of the responsibility falls on supporters of the legislation, who did not do enough to unite the ranks and agree upon a version of the law.

Those who oppose the essence of the law and see a Jewish nation-state as "racist," "ethnocentric" and "nationalist" were never meant to support it. But a majority of the law's opponents believe in its ideas, and that is why the right thing at the time would have been to try to reach an agreement with them on the wording of the law before it was passed. This can still be done. Opposition to the legislation was based on concerns it would infringe on the civic equality of Israel's minorities. This is a false fear. The law does not harm equality in the least. In fact, it doesn't even touch on the subject. But had they added a sentence to clarify this in the law, even though there was no real need to do so, this would have been beneficial because it would have ensured wide support for the legislation.

In 2014, I proposed adding a clause to the law that states that the nation-state of the Jewish people will maintain full civic equality for all its citizens, regardless of religion, race or gender. It's not too late to rectify this, but it will need to be carried through in another law. It is important to include the concept of civic equality in the state's constitution, but the proper place is not the nation-state law but Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. That is where we should add a clause in this spirit. To the nation-state law, which anchors the country's national symbols, flag, anthem, and the state symbol, we must add a sentence that expresses a commitment to the Declaration of Independence and its principles.

The post Increase support for the nation-state law appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Eshkol was a champion of settling the Golan Heights. One-third of the communities that have been established on the Golan in the 52 years since its liberation were founded in the first year and a half between the war's end and Eshkol's death, and he was the main driving force behind them. He believed settlement was the correct path to true annexation and worried that just discussing the issue of declaring Israeli sovereignty would turn the United States and the world against us and hurt the settlement effort. The people who went to live on the Golan also believed in this approach. They didn't waste energy over questions about sovereignty; they believed in practical Zionism, in one acre at a time, one plowed furrow after another.

The Camp David Accords served as a wake-up call, when for the first time in Zionist history Israel's leaders decided to uproot and give back part of the land – the Sinai Peninsula. The new reality hit them in the face. This crisis of ideology impelled the Golan Heights Law of 1981, which applies Israel's government and laws to the territory. Residents of the Golan understood that practical Zionism was not enough and that it needed to be complemented by diplomatic Zionism. Zionism, after all, from its inception, stood on these two pillars.

They launched a public campaign to apply Israeli sovereignty on the Golan; a national campaign culminating in hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens signing a petition calling for annexation. The two-and-a-half-year struggle bore fruit. On December 14, 1981, then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin presented the Golan Heights Law to the Knesset for approval. From that moment, the Golan Heights became an inseparable part of Israel, for all intents and purposes.

Despite all this, however, five Israeli prime ministers have since negotiated withdrawing from the Golan. The public campaign spearheaded by the communities and supported by the Israeli masses on one hand, and Assad's refusal on the other hand, helped us avert this national calamity. And while the Golan Heights Law wasn't able to prevent negotiations, it did lead to Basic Law: Referendum, which requires popular approval for any withdrawal from Israeli territory.

The U.S. response to the Golan Heights Law was harsh. Then-President Ronald Reagan strongly condemned it and froze the Strategic Cooperation Agreement between the two countries – which Begin, in retaliation, completely annulled. The U.S. initiated a condemnation of Israel in the United Nations Security Council. No country in the world recognized Israeli law on the matter.

In all the years since, Israel has never asked the United States to recognize its sovereignty on the Golan, because such a request never had a chance. The disintegration of Syria changed the picture. In Israel, despite a tiny handful of rejectionists, consensus over the Golan has never been stronger, and even the world has started to understand that an Israeli withdrawal would invite Iran or Islamic State to the shores of the Sea of Galilee. U.S. President Donald Trump, untethered by the dogmas of the Washington establishment, is open to innovative diplomatic initiatives. For the first time, a window of opportunity has opened for American recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights.

The post A window of opportunity appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

But this is not the case. In Israel, the real new Right can be found in the Likud party. This is a radical Right that has turned its back on the ideology of the Revisionist Zionist movement and the Likud of late Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir and that embodies values that are in opposition to the traditional Israeli Right.

I am not referring to foreign and security issues. Here, the Likud is now more moderate than it was under the leadership of Begin and Shamir. But the Revisionist movement – the Herut party, the Israeli Liberal party and the Likud – were always statesmanlike and liberal. The movement raised the flag of a state predicated on the rule of law, statesmanship, equality before the law, public service, the supremacy of law, political integrity and the fight against corruption and leadership based on public service and personal example.

The Likud of today has lost its way thanks to ethical and moral bankruptcy and now encompasses the opposite of these values.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wont to say that those who want to understand the path he took in his last term should read Erez Tadmor's book "Why You Vote Right and Get Left." This is a theory that disparages Begin – who as prime minister made historic and far-reaching and, yes, controversial decisions that were carried out entirely by the civil service – as a weak figure who did not lead but was instead led by the baseless "deep state" that is purportedly really in charge here. This conspiracy theory is the justification and excuse for the revolt Netanyahu is leading against a state predicated on the rule of law. It is aimed at allowing him to do as he sees fit because, as he claims, his election means he embodies the will of the people. This path is the opposite of the one taken by Begin, who considered himself a public servant subject to the law.

And so Coalition Chairman Likud MK David Amsalem has threatened that millions of people would not accept a decision by Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit to file an indictment against Netanyahu. And so, as evidenced by a headline in this very paper, the Likud is now threatening the attorney general. And the height of this revolt against the rule of law is the so-called "French Law," which, if passed, would prevent a sitting prime minister from being subjected to criminal proceedings.

Netanyahu is trying to implement the most problematic clause that can be found in a democratic constitution – France's law that puts the president above the law. But in France, this drastic law is balanced by limiting the presidency to two terms, while Netanyahu is now running for his fifth.

The incitement against the Israel Police and the chief of police, along with the conspiracy theories about the police, the State Attorney's Office and as the process progresses, the attorney general and the courts, all accompanied by the leader's cult of personality, are the opposite of a democratic and stately attitude. That was never the way of the Likud.

The post The real new Right appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Israel Defense Forces would certainly overcome such a horrific scenario, pushing the enemy out of Israeli territory and dealing it a powerful blow. But for this victory, we would pay an unbearably bloody price. In such a nightmare scenario, Israel would be forced to contend with the greatest threat it has faced since the 1948 War of Independence. Hezbollah's operative plan was, in fact, a viable scenario until the IDF embarked on Operation Northern Shield with the aim of thwarting the Shiite terrorist group's goals.

For some reason, many of us downplay the achievement, even opposing the use of the term "operation." This is an engineering operation, they explain, that is being carried out inside our territory and tractors and bulldozers do not an operation make!

Do we need to send our troops into enemy territory for this activity to deserve the title of operation? What are the preconditions – an aerial attack or daring raid by an elite IDF unit deep into enemy territory? Israel's combat theory prioritizes the avoidance of war. It is only when that goal is not met and war breaks out, then and only then, do we aim for a decisive victory. The greatest victory in war is avoiding one altogether. Can there be any greater achievement than winning without losing soldiers or even shooting a single bullet?

That is the aim of Operation Northern Shield, and it is not at all simple. It relies on intelligence collected over a span of four years. This impressive intelligence operation was carried out under a fog of denial in order to ensure we would catch the enemy by surprise. The fact that IDF commanders and members of the political echelon succeeded in keeping the existence of the tunnels a secret for four years, up until the day of the operation, is a notable achievement. This is also an impressive technological achievement.

This mission is complex and dangerous and it could quickly deteriorate, so much so that we could find ourselves at war. That is why the most stringent operational discipline is required to avoid such an escalation. At the same time, there is also a need for a mass deployment of forces to ensure we can respond as necessary should the enemy react.

Operation Northern Shield is also of political significance in that it proves Lebanon violated U.N. Security Council resolutions and exposes Iran's activities against Israel through its operational arm, otherwise known as Hezbollah.

The commanders, planners and executors of the operation, both political and military, deserve praise. Not only is there no justification for mocking or deriding the operation but the criticism that the IDF and the government did not take local residents' claims of hearing digging underground seriously is unjustified.

Had the nightmare scenario played out, commissions of inquiries would have called for heads to roll. In reality, the opposite has happened. It turns out the supposedly dismissive treatment of the problem stemmed from operational considerations of field security.

The post Give credit where credit is due appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The commentator explained that this statement should be seen as psychological warfare. Surprisingly though, it seems the Israeli cabinet got the message loud and clear when it agreed to a cease-fire.

This insolence is the direct result of the last eight months, in which Israeli deterrence eroded in a shocking manner. For four and a half years following Operation Protective Edge, residents of the western Negev enjoyed a kind of quiet they had not known since 2000. The deterrence worked.

But on March 30, the Palestinians announced the "March of Return," an ongoing operation that entails daily attacks on the border fence, the throwing of explosives, Molotov cocktails and grenades toward Israel, incursions into Israeli territory, and the culmination of all these activities: the arson terrorism that has burned Israeli farmlands and forests on an enormous scale.

The Israeli government has chosen to respond to all of this with restraint.

No normal country would allow such an assault on its sovereign territory. Israel should have made it clear from the outset that incendiary kites would be treated like rockets and that the terrorist cells launching them would be destroyed exactly like those that fire rockets at Israel.

But the Israeli government decided to act with restraint, and this restraint has eroded deterrence. The rockets returned. Israel responded to the onslaught and then agreed to a cease-fire – not a comprehensive cease-fire, but one that puts an end to the rocket launches and IDF attacks on Gaza. It is through this response that Israel has sent a clear message to the terrorist organizations: Arson is permissible. Terrorists can set fire to the western Negev as long as they do not shoot rockets at Israel.

Israel's deterrent value continues to erode. Time after time, we agree to a quasi-cease-fire that is followed by yet another round of fighting. This time, 460 rockets and mortar shells were fired toward communities in Israel's south over two days last week.

One would have expected the government to act to put an end to this erosion of deterrence. We should have dealt the terrorist organizations a blow that would have delivered loss and destruction on a massive scale and that would have made Hamas beg for a real, comprehensive, long-term cease-fire.

Instead, Hamas set the rules. We were sucked into the fighting, just as we have been in the past.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken of his honest desire to avoid a war. Indeed, leaders are expected to do everything in their ability to avoid a war, or at least delay it as much as possible.

But the means to that end is deterrence.

The erosion of deterrence encourages and emboldens the enemy and brings us closer to war. Had we responded to the first incendiary kites as if they were a barrage of rockets, the phenomenon would have been nipped in the bud. The restraint brought us around a thousand rockets in recent months. Hezbollah recognizes this failure, as does Iran. Our restraint in the south could set the north alight too.

Should Israel agree to a cease-fire or reach an agreement with Hamas? Absolutely, but only from a position of strength. And in order to restore deterrence, we should have hit them hard.

The post The price of restraint appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

According to the myth Zandberg is diligently cultivating, had it not been for his murder, Yitzhak Rabin would have assuredly won the elections and completed the Oslo process; culminating in a final peace contract between Israel and the Palestinians to end the conflict.

Utter nonsense. On the eve of the murder, the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu was beating Rabin in the polls. In the wake of the murder, the polls drastically turned and Shimon Peres emerged with a 40% lead over Netanyahu. Those who pushed public opinion and Israeli voters to the right, toward Netanyahu, were the Palestinians, following a chain of deadly terrorist bombings in the winter of 1996. Had it not been for the murder, Netanyahu would have had the momentum and the result would have been similar to Ariel Sharon's landslide victory after the Camp David summit between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak and the campaign of terror in its wake.

And even if Rabin would have won the elections, he wouldn't have reached a final-status agreement. In contrast to his image as a diplomatic dove, which the Left insists on marketing, Rabin was hawkish in his views. On the eve of the murder he laid out his diplomatic legacy in a Knesset speech, in which he presented the red lines for a final-status deal: We won't return to the pre-1967 borders. … A united Jerusalem, including Maaleh Adumim and Givat Ze'ev as the capital of Israel, under Israeli rule. … Israel's security border will be in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest sense of the geographical term. … Gush Etzion, Efrat and Beitar will be under Israeli rule. … Israeli settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza will remain under Israeli rule without any change in their status.

Quite the gap from the offers made by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, which the Palestinians predictably rejected with bullets, bombs and terror. Around the time of his death, Rabin had frozen the withdrawal from Palestinian cities in Judea and Samaria because of terrorist incidents. His successor, Shimon Peres, changed the policy, pulled back from the cities, and the result is a matter of historical record.

The waves of terror that trailed these concessions in Judea and Samaria, and again following the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, are evidence that the conflict doesn't stem from "occupation." Therefore, no withdrawal will lead to peace. The conflict is rooted in the Palestinians' refusal to accept the presence of Jews in this land and Israel's right to exist. Peace isn't on the docket today and wasn't on the docket when Rabin was alive, either.

Amir didn't influence diplomatic processes. No one affected them more than Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, who misled Rabin. Arguing that his murder torpedoed the peace process absolves the Palestinians of responsibility for their belligerence and helps the Left evade the historical truth: It wasn't the murder that destroyed the chance for peace; it was our "partners" in Ramallah.

The post Rabin's murder didn't kill peace appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Without violating the privacy of a loving couple who made the decision to marry, it seems there is room here to discuss the issue in principle.

Everyone needs to relax. A Jew cannot assimilate in Israel. Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli society is Jewish, and its culture is also Jewish. Our year revolves around the Jewish holidays, and the weekly day of rest is Shabbat. The language is Hebrew, and the population is overwhelmingly Jewish. Nearly all Jews in Israel marry other Jews, and even when a Jew marries a non-Jew in Israel, their children and their grandchildren continue to be an inseparable part of the Jewish collective for as long as they live in the country.

This is not the case in the Diaspora, where Jews are a minority and assimilation continues to pose a real threat. Purely from a statistical perspective, a majority of Jews there will likely fall in love with non-Jews, because that is simply whom they are most likely to meet at school, at work and elsewhere. The rate of intermarriage overseas is very high and on the rise. The existence of Conservative and Reform streams of Judaism significantly slows the rate of assimilation and delays the spiritual annihilation for a generation or two, but not forever. There can be no real Jewish future in the Diaspora over time.

For this reason, I refuse to be concerned about a young intermarried couple in Israel. I am more concerned by emigration from Israel. While the emigration rate is now the lowest it has been since the state's founding, it is still high, and worse, it enjoys social and cultural legitimacy. Many Israelis treat emigration from Israel as a reasonable and natural choice. "One mustn't judge" those who decide to leave the country, they say.

For an Israeli who left the country and settled in the Diaspora, the chances are high that their children, and if not their children then their grandchildren, will no longer be Jews or a part of the Jewish people. That is why those who so greatly fear assimilation should not concern themselves with a wedding that is nothing more than sensational tabloid news. It is more urgent for Israel to make aliyah a top priority. As the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel's commitment is to the future of the Jewish people; this commitment should be expressed in efforts to bring Jews to Israel and to discourage them from emigrating overseas.

Like many others, I totally reject assimilation, and I am sorry for every Jew who abandons our people. But I believe there is only one barrier to assimilation and that is life in Israel. Zionism is the answer to assimilation; it ensures the future of the Jewish people, not only its security and material concerns but also its spiritual resilience.

The post Zionism is the answer to assimilation appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

To ignore that fact is to ignore the reality. So Hamas is where we should set our sights, just as the PLO – also a terrorist organization – is the ruling entity in the Palestinian Authority, and as such Israel maintains ties with it and coordinates with it on matters of security.

Hamas is a governing body; it rules the state of Gaza. As a governing body, we demand that it demonstrate responsibility; attack it when terrorist attacks are carried out against us (even if they are perpetrated by other groups); and exchange prisoners. Why? Because we need to conduct ourselves pragmatically. Ignoring reality does not policy make. The question of a deal with Hamas isn't "whom we talk to," it's whether or not making the deal serves Israel's interests. If the answer is yes, there is nothing wrong with talking to Hamas.

What kind of deal are we talking about? Not conceding territory or uprooting Israeli communities, or doing anything that would damage Israeli sovereignty. It would be a deal that would fix the security situation along the Gaza border and restore calm. If that's feasible (doubtful) it would be irresponsible on Israel's part not to do so. But in order to know whether it's feasible, Israel needs to try for an agreement.

The alternative to that is war, and we see war as the last option. A war would end with a cease-fire. We have an obligation to skip the bloodshed, destruction, and suffering war entails and move directly to a cease-fire, if possible.

Israel should insist on a total cease-fire, which includes an absolute stop to arson terrorism, attacks to the border fence and the "marches of return." In exchange, Israel will be generous and open-handed when it comes to economic issues, developing Gaza, and anything else that can make life easier for the population there.

The main person behind the escalation and pushing for war between Hamas and Israel is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. He is starving out the people of Gaza, cutting off their electricity, doing everything he can to make them suffer, and using every possible tactic to stave off discussion about his stepping down as PA leader. His strategy is designed to lead to war in the hope that if Gaza is damaged enough, he will be able to retake power there.

There are some Israeli politicians and analysts who reject the idea of negotiating with Hamas, arguing that if we strengthen Hamas by recognizing it, we will weaken Abbas. Is holding up Abbas, a radical hater of Israel, a bona fide Holocaust denier, who consistently spurns even the most far-reaching peace proposals, worth risking the lives of IDF soldiers and the residents of Gaza-adjacent communities? In my opinion, this is a ridiculous approach.

Only from a position of strength can Israel reach an agreement with Hamas. The policy of ignoring and containing arson terrorism has seriously hurt Israel's deterrence and will make it harder for us to negotiate a deal. It could be that there is no alternative other than a military strike against Hamas. But it would be appropriate if we tried to avoid that by making a valiant effort to work things out. It's in the interests of Zionism. Years of quiet along the Gaza border will give Israel a chance to develop and bolster Jewish communities in the western Negev.

The post Don't fight Abbas' battles appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The only good thing about the "two-state solution" is the fact that the Palestinians reject it time and again, thereby saving us from ourselves.

But why do they reject the two-state solution?

First and foremost because it does not relate to their central ethos: The "right" of return – in other words, the right to drown Israel in millions of Palestinians. As long as they insist on this demand, there is no chance of finding a solution to the conflict.

But the truth is the Palestinians have better reasons to reject this framework. They know that a state divided between Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip in which, according to the framework, the "right of return" will be realized, will need to absorb and provide for the descendants of the descendants of "refugees" and, as such, is unsustainable. Such a country would be incapable of supporting itself and its residents and will be unable to defend itself. Such a country would be a pressure-cooker society that the Palestinians would divert to marches of return and attempts to cross the border. Such a state would mean inevitable war.

This is clearly a lose-lose situation and a bad framework for both sides involved.  From our perspective, the significance of such a framework would be the loss of our defensible borders, the transformation of the Tel Aviv metropolitan area of Gush Dan and Jerusalem into the Judea and Samaria periphery area, the relinquishment of national assets including territory that is not so densely populated, the division of Jerusalem and the mass eviction of Israeli citizens from Judea and Samaria.

We must look for another two-state solution, one that lies outside the tiny strip of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. If we look outside the box and expand the search to include all of the territory from the desert to the sea, this could allow for an appropriate solution that would see the State of Israel with defensible borders and sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, greater Jerusalem, the settlement blocs, the Judean Desert and areas not densely populated by Palestinians and a Palestinian-Jordanian state situated in the majority of the historical land of Israel; all of Jordan, territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority and other populated territories in Judea and Samaria and maybe even the Gaza Strip. From the Jordan River eastward, this Palestinian-Jordanian state would have full sovereignty and a strong military. In the territory to the west of the Jordan River, the state would be demilitarized.

An excellent solution, I am told. But the problem is, they argue, there is no "partner." The funny thing is that the same people who cite the lack of a partner as a reason this plan cannot work are the ones who continue to adhere to the two-state solution, for which we already know there is no partner. Instead of pushing a dangerous "solution" for which we know there is no partner, Israel would be wise to try and create a partner for an appropriate solution.

The post A different two-state solution appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.