"Occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing – are detached from their context and directed specifically against the Jewish state," Natasha Hausdorff, an expert in international law, stated. "The issue of Judea and Samaria goes beyond any question of political opinion. It's time to stop the rewriting of history and confront the cynical use of international law against the State of Israel. Israel is repeatedly accused of violating international law, but in practice, it doesn't violate even a single resolution of the UN Charter or Security Council under Chapter 7, which are the only legally binding ones. We cannot afford to abandon this arena. What I'm trying to do is simply return the legal discussion to real law."
Across from her sits Israel Ganz, head of the Binyamin Regional Council. The legal arguments are familiar to him, but when asked to speak about the right of Israelis to live in Judea and Samaria and Israel's right to apply sovereignty in this area, he uses different language.
"Those who live here know these are the roots of our identity," Ganz said. "What the world tries to place outside the boundaries of legitimacy is, in my eyes, the beating heart of Jewish-Israeli identity. Every hill here tells our story. We're sitting near Maaleh Michmash, a settlement with a biblical name. Not far from my home is an ancient mikveh where people immersed themselves on their way to the Temple. After 2,000 years of exile, even the international community recognized our right to return and establish a state here. Visitors from around the world – researchers, tourists, diplomats – stand amazed before the archaeological remains. They see pottery, sites, and tangible traces of Jewish presence. This moves them no less than it moves us. That's the critical point in my view."
Israel Ganz (47) is married and a father of seven. Since 2007, he has been a member of the Binyamin Council, and six years ago was elected council head. He will soon complete his first year as chairman of the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization of all the local authorities in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. These roles have positioned him as one of the prominent voices in the discussion about applying sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.
Attorney Natasha Hausdorff, a London resident, was born in Britain to an Israeli father and German mother. She studied law at Oxford and Tel Aviv, interned at Israel's Supreme Court, and for the past decade has volunteered with "UK Lawyers for Israel." Her name isn't particularly well-known to the Israeli public, but around the world, the articulate lawyer with the refined British accent is one of the most sought-after speakers in discussions about our region's conflict.
In interviews with the BBC, in parliamentary discussions, high-profile academic debates, and popular podcasts, she repeatedly stands up to defend Israel. When I asked if her wave of media appearances since the war began has made her a celebrity, she became embarrassed. "I try to concentrate on my 'mission,'" she emphasized the word in Hebrew. "To defend the State of Israel against the lies and distortions hurled at it."
She recently arrived for a brief visit to Israel to participate in the International Conference on Combating Antisemitism held in Jerusalem. Her schedule is tight: before our conversation, she met in Tel Aviv with representatives of the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and immediately afterward was invited to Channel 7. Despite the busy schedule, she willingly accepted our invitation to come to Sha'ar Binyamin for a joint interview with the head of the Yesha Council – a collaboration that isn't taken for granted, even among staunch pro-Israel speakers.
In recent years, both have been working, each from their position, with decision-makers, diplomats, and influential figures in the international arena, in an effort to convince them that the State of Israel is not an "occupier" anywhere between the river and the sea. Ganz does this in his capacity as a public figure. He recently met in Washington with senior Trump administration officials and even made a historic visit to the United Arab Emirates. Hausdorff operates in the legal and media arenas, speaking about norms, conventions, and precedents.
In our conversation with them together, we sought to understand whether it's possible to change the global discourse on Judea and Samaria, which often slides into denying Israel's right to exist. "Right now, Israel needs not only to defend its presence in Judea and Samaria but to create a historic turning point," Ganz said. "We are in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the status of Judea and Samaria in the international arena, and to initiate a move toward applying Israeli sovereignty. We must not miss this moment; otherwise, we are likely to pay a diplomatic price for generations," he determined.
The realization of the vision of applying sovereignty largely depends on Washington's position, and there, attitudes toward Ganz and what he represents have changed dramatically since Donald Trump's return to the White House. The head of the Binyamin Council, who was previously considered persona non grata in the corridors of the administration, has become a welcome guest. The sharp change can also be seen in a new bill in Congress that seeks to enshrine the term "Judea and Samaria" as the official name for the region in federal documents, as well as in public statements by key figures such as Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who spoke at a congressional hearing about "Israel's biblical right to Judea and Samaria," and openly identifies with the positions of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
Alongside these developments, we should note the personal connections Ganz has cultivated over the years. During tours he conducted for foreign visitors, he met many Republican officials who now hold key positions, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, and the designated Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. The current composition of the administration in Washington sounds like a dream come true for the Yesha Council.
"With all due respect for American support, the responsibility to embark on a historic move of applying Israeli sovereignty lies first and foremost with us," Ganz tempered the enthusiasm. "This move must come from Jerusalem, not Washington. That's why my demands are directed primarily at Netanyahu."
"I agree with Mr. Ganz: this is indeed a historic opportunity to change direction," Hausdorff said. "I remember how Obama, during his presidency, called the settlements 'an obstacle to peace.' That was a foolish move that created a destructive effect. Of course, Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] declared, 'How can I be less Palestinian than the American president?' The result was paralysis in the discourse. By contrast, Trump's people learned from the experience of previous administrations and understood that this line only strengthens the real obstacles to peace, like Abu Mazen himself. This should be a message both to the administration in Washington and to the international community: when you automatically embrace Palestinian positions, you set a bar that the Palestinians themselves cannot lower."
"From my conversations with Trump's people, it's clear to me that this time there are level-headed people in Washington," Ganz said. "They understand what many in Israel didn't internalize until October 7: there's a deep religious conflict here, between a culture of life and a culture of death. Today, the White House knows very well who is on the right side of history, who chose a path of peace and building, and who chose terrorism and cruelty."
When microphones are off
Behind Ganz's phrasing lies criticism of the Biden administration, especially regarding the gap between the "pure evil" speech, in which the then-president referred to the massacre in the Gaza border region, and steps taken in the following months: imposing personal sanctions on settlers from Judea and Samaria, and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's official declaration that the settlements are illegal.
"I tried repeatedly to meet with the previous American ambassador, Jack Lew," Gantz recounted. "He kept telling me: 'Washington forbids me from meeting with you.' I asked him: How will you provide an accurate report if you're not even willing to listen? You travel to Ramallah, I'm on your way! At one point, I even suggested a cover story: say your car broke down and I happened to stop to help you," he smiled. "But nothing helped – the previous administration simply boycotted us."
Hausdorff can hardly hide her astonishment at hearing this: "A political directive that prevented US representatives from meeting with the head of the Yesha Council, while they were meeting with senior officials of the Palestinian Authority? That's incomprehensible," she said. "Exactly," Ganz replied. "The ambassador was allowed to meet with terrorists in Jenin and Bethlehem, but not with me."
The same diplomatic resistance that Ganz faced during the Biden administration is what Hausdorff encounters today in other settings, though often disguised behind polite diplomatic language when meeting with officials behind closed doors. "In my meetings with government officials or members of parliament, I clarify that there is no situation of 'occupation' in Judea and Samaria. Many times, once the microphones are turned off, they admit to me: 'We use this term for political reasons.' And that's exactly the point. These are legal terms whose cynical use has serious consequences for Israel."
Q: How do you deal with claims of illegal occupation?
"The first thing to know is that this claim doesn't stand up to the most basic test of international law," Hausdorff explained. "Contrary to common assumptions in the discussion, the issue of the status of the West Bank doesn't begin in '67, but in '48: a fundamental principle in international law, called 'uti possidetis juris' (the principle of possession in law), determines that at the moment of declaration of independence, a state automatically 'adopts' the borders of the entity that preceded it. In Israel's case, these are the borders of the British Mandate, which therefore included Judea, Samaria, and east Jerusalem. When the State of Israel was established, this territory legally belonged to it; it never belonged to the Kingdom of Jordan, which responded to the establishment of the state with a declaration of war. The implication is that in '67, Israel didn't conquer foreign territory, but returned to territory that had been hers from her first day. The partition plan, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly, has no legal significance; it's a recommendation that wasn't implemented because it was rejected by the Arabs."
"Take Ukraine as an example. If it were to recapture the Crimean Peninsula from Russia, no one would claim that the territory is 'occupied.' And Ukraine's borders were determined by exactly the same principle. For years, I've been asking my colleagues in the legal academy why this principle doesn't apply in the Israeli case, and to this day, I haven't received a single serious answer," Hausdorff said. "I argue that there's a political use of legal terms that are taken out of context and applied in reverse, directed specifically against the victim. And so, instead of international law being a tool for stability, it becomes a propaganda battlefield. This is, in my opinion, one of the deepest sources of perpetuating the conflict."
Ganz added, "I encountered the hypocrisy in international law accidentally last week. I was driving through the heart of Area C, and to my surprise, I saw a new row of Palestinian buildings, each displaying a sign: 'Donated by Belgium,' 'Donated by Britain,' 'Donation of the European Union.' This is an area under full Israeli control according to the Oslo Accords, yet illegal buildings are being erected there, funded by foreign governments. You can't talk seriously about 'international law' when countries openly violate it and create new facts on the ground, without permission and without agreement. Where's the respect for the rule of law?"
Hausdorff responded, "I'm very familiar with this phenomenon. The European Union proudly declares its contribution to buildings, even though each such project violates the Oslo understandings and is a unilateral attempt to establish facts on the ground. Those who support a diplomatic process cannot promote such steps."
Q: If international law has become a cover for political interests, what's the point of Israel continuing to play by its rules?
"I don't accept this approach," Hausdorff said. "Most countries obey most rules, most of the time. International law creates a framework that allows diplomacy to exist, and therefore, it has value. The problem isn't with the law itself, but with how it's used."
"It's not a 'bank'"
Q: Even without legal arguments, the world sees the transfer of this territory to Palestinian control as the key to peace and stability in the region. How can one explain that the result could be disastrous?
"October 7 shuffled the cards, and level-headed people around the world now understand that Israel relinquishing this territory would be national suicide," Ganz responded. "I spoke this week with the commander of the IDF's Central Command, and heard from him that since the beginning of the war, 1,300 terrorists have been eliminated here, and over 15,000 have been arrested. These inconceivable numbers reflect Hamas' hold on the Palestinian population. According to the polls I'm familiar with, 86% of Palestinians express support for the organization.
"In conversations with diplomats, I emphasize not only our historical right, but also the strategic importance of the territory," Ganz added. "When they talk to me about the 'West Bank,' I always ask them to draw the border. They immediately understand that it's impossible: it's not a 'bank.' We're talking about a quarter of Israel's territory, a ridge that overlooks both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the populations here are intertwined, and the distance to the sea is 10 kilometers (6.2 miles). I explain to diplomats that you can run this in an hour and a half. Abba Eban was right when he spoke of the Auschwitz borders. These are borders that cannot be defended."
Hausdorff said, "When Israel is required to evacuate settlements, it's usually a means to continue the war against it. When settlements are defined as 'obstacles to peace,' it means cleansing Judea and Samaria of Jews, as happened in 1948, and also in today's Areas A and B. We've seen this before: Jordan cleansed these areas of Jews. On our way here, we saw a red sign warning Israelis not to enter Area A, but everyone knows it refers to Jews, because it's less likely that an Arab Israeli would be harmed there. We need to expose the double standard of international institutions, and the immediate danger this poses to Israel."
Q: How do you explain this double standard?
"Throughout history, antisemitism has often operated through projection. That is, attributing to the Jewish people the sins of others," Hausdorff explained. "What we see today is a modern incarnation of the same pattern: accusing Jews of crimes committed against them. What the Jordanians did in Judea, Samaria, and east Jerusalem – occupation and ethnic cleansing of Jews – is presented as Israeli behavior toward Palestinians. The expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries has also been erased from the discourse. Terms like 'colonialism,' 'apartheid,' and 'ethnic cleansing,' which were born to describe other injustices, are detached from their context and directed specifically against the Jewish state."
Sometimes, she added, this reversal crosses the boundaries of even the cruelest imagination. "I recently encountered the delusional claim of 'Israeli cannibalism.' This is especially absurd when we remember the lynch in Ramallah in 2000, when two reserve soldiers mistakenly entered the city, and the Palestinian mob not only murdered them brutally but also desecrated their bodies in a shocking manner. There were reports then of acts of cannibalism on the bodies. And now, it's Israel that's being accused of such acts. This isn't just a distortion of facts; it's propaganda based on a complete rewriting of reality."
Q: When looking at the demonstrations against Israel in the Western world, there's an impression that the attempt to stop this murky wave is almost hopeless.
"That's why I take care to emphasize to decision-makers and audiences around the world: if you're indifferent to what's happening here, it won't stop within Israel's borders. History proves that persecution of Jews never ends there. When international law is cynically and distortedly used to attack Israel – which is truly the front line of defense for the West, not just as a slogan – it's a real and tangible danger to the fundamental principles of the entire free world."
Q: Israel's main friends today – India, American evangelicals, and even the Abraham Accords countries – have a common denominator: these are fundamentally religious populations, which often look suspiciously at international institutions. Perhaps Israel should adopt a more religious line of argument, even at the cost of distancing itself from the liberal West?
"I'm not a religious person, but in my eyes, these are perspectives that don't contradict each other," Hausdorff said. "When you properly study international law, you understand that it doesn't negate Israel's right to this region, but strengthens it."
Q: On the other hand, is it possible that the warm embrace Israel receives from evangelical communities in the US is just another form of missionary activity?
Ganz responded, "I don't see a reason for such concern. We know how to distinguish between those who act out of respect for the people of Israel and their right to this land, and those who try to impose their faith on us. I can say with certainty: the people I meet, especially from evangelical circles in the US, have no missionary agenda. They believe we belong here, that it's written in the Bible, and that the establishment of the State of Israel is part of the fulfillment of prophecies. In my eyes, this is a partnership that strengthens us."
"As long as you hesitate, everything is stuck"
Last month, Ganz participated in an unprecedented event in Middle Eastern history: he, the chairman of the Yesha Council, walked in the heart of Abu Dhabi as an official guest of senior government officials in the United Arab Emirates, along with the head of the Har Hebron Regional Council Eliram Azoulay and Yesha Council CEO Omer Rahami. The three settlement representatives were invited by Dr. Ali Rashid Al Nuaimi, one of the leading figures behind the Abraham Accords, and they were hosted in government corridors and at a festive Iftar meal during the month of Ramadan. The symbolism of the gesture was clear – the settlement leaders do not represent a geopolitical "problem"; they are potential partners for a promising regional future.
Q: How does the issue of Judea and Samaria look from the perspective of Abu Dhabi's palaces?
Ganz said, "I was surprised by the strength of support we received there. They approach these discussions with seriousness and openness, viewing Israel as an ally. In their eyes, the Abraham Accords are not just a diplomatic move, but a new beginning. There is a genuine desire for change, for partnership. During the visit, I addressed government officials, entrepreneurs, and businesspeople, and when I spoke about Judea and Samaria, I saw that they don't view the issue as a threat, but as potential. I told them: if you truly want stability, invest here. Let's establish an area of innovation and hope. And they listened, asked questions, and wanted to understand. I believe that, as with the Abraham Accords, here too the way forward is through dialogue, openness, and partnership. This is the future."
Q: According to several reports, the continuation of the Abraham Accords process will come at the expense of applying sovereignty in the West Bank. This is apparently a demand being made by the Saudis.
"Not necessarily. It's important to understand that the Gulf states aren't looking for slogans; they're asking what the future of the territory will be tomorrow morning. They've poured billions into Gaza and seen exactly where that went. If there's stability and clarity in Israel, and if they see that we're taking responsibility, applying sovereignty to the territory, and standing behind the move, they'll ask how the situation in the West Bank can be improved. They told me explicitly: 'Say it's yours – and we'll adapt. But as long as you hesitate, everything is stuck.' Their reluctance stems mainly from the fact that they don't identify political clarity in Israel. If we apply the law and invest in infrastructure – everyone will benefit, Jews and Arabs. This is a condition for any real solution. It's important to understand, others won't fight our battles."
Hausdorff added, "I've previously visited Ramallah with a delegation of legal experts from around the world and met Palestinian entrepreneurs who are establishing startups and trying to build a future. That's a direction that gives hope. But instead of supporting such initiatives, there are those in the West who continue to channel funds to mechanisms that reward terrorism. Look at what's happening in Britain: the Labour government led by Keir Starmer has restored funding to UNRWA, despite this organization's direct involvement in the October 7 massacre and in holding hostages, including Emily Damari, who is a British citizen. This isn't just blindness – it's a moral injustice. We must emphasize that Palestinian society will only progress through civic partnership and the development of a middle class that is fed up with the path of terrorism."
When I ask Ganz to dispel the fog surrounding the term "annexation" in the context of Judea and Samaria, Hausdorff is quick to correct me: "The use of this concept has already caused enormous damage to Israel. Area C is under full Israeli control, as established in the Oslo Accords. Applying Israeli law here is not an 'annexation' of foreign territory, but an administrative step aimed at regulating an existing reality. Annexation is an action that applies to occupied territory, while Judea and Samaria were never conquered by a sovereign state. Nevertheless, every time Israel has raised the possibility of applying the law, there has been an unnecessary uproar based on incorrect terms and creating artificial drama. This distorted discourse harms first and foremost the people who live here, Jews and Arabs alike."
Ganz said, "Why is applying sovereignty necessary? Here's a simple example: Jordanian law stipulates that only Jordanian citizens can purchase land here. This means there's no real real-estate market, and this also affects government investments. When I talk to the prime minister and ministers about road or electricity infrastructure in the West Bank, they ask: 'Why should we invest if it's not legally regulated at all?' As long as the State of Israel doesn't apply its sovereignty, it has no real commitment to this place. If we implement Israeli law here, we can invest in infrastructure, healthcare, and education, develop industrial zones, and everyone will benefit. It's not a matter of ideology, but of normal life. Everyone who lives here, Jewish or Arab, should live with dignity. The current situation only weakens us all. Applying sovereignty is the only way to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would be a huge security threat to the entire State of Israel."
"I want to clarify the legal 'mish-mash' that's happening here today," Hausdorff said, incorporating Hebrew slang into her English sentence. "Since 1967, the territories of Judea and Samaria have been managed based on a chaotic legal mosaic of Ottoman, Jordanian, Mandatory, and Israeli laws. This is an impossible situation. Applying Israeli sovereignty will finally allow for a clear legal order, for the benefit of everyone who lives here. And regarding the two-state idea," she added, "not only is it unrealistic, but it also blocks any discourse on alternatives. The issue is typically presented as if there are only two options: one state or two states. But today, there already exists a Palestinian autonomy, with de facto self-government, which also negates the false claims of 'apartheid' supposedly existing here.
"Even if one recognizes Palestinian identity, it's important to understand that the right to self-determination doesn't automatically grant the right to a state. If that were the case, we would have hundreds of additional states in the world. There's a very well-known ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which dealt with the question of Quebec's separation. The judges there clearly determined: peoples have the right to self-determination within existing frameworks, while maintaining their territorial integrity. In our case, the territorial integrity of the State of Israel is critical. When taking all this into account, and when seeing how much damage has been caused by the fixation and blind devotion to the illusion of two states, we understand that we need to focus now on what truly matters: improving the quality of life – both for Palestinians and Israelis. Partnership based on civic life and stopping funding for supporters of terrorism is the right way."
Since his renewed entry into the White House, Trump has managed to create another turning point in regional discourse: his plan for the Gaza Strip has put on the table the possibility of encouraging Palestinian emigration. In the Arab world, sharp criticism was heard, but according to reports from recent days, Egypt is considering absorbing hundreds of thousands of residents from the Gaza Strip. I asked Ganz if a similar solution might be put on the table regarding Judea and Samaria.
"Definitely," he answered. "Since the beginning of the war, I've been talking about the need to present an alternative horizon for Judea and Samaria as well. The reality is that most Palestinians here support Hamas. Those who don't want to be part of this culture, and want a different future for themselves and their children – we need to open this possibility for them. In my view, putting this idea on the table is already progress. Today, except for North Korea, Gaza is the only place in the world you can't leave. Hamas doesn't allow people to leave."
"What's amazing is that not only is Hamas responsible for this, the international community also prevents exit from Gaza," Hausdorff said. "Egypt regularly closes the border, contrary to its obligations under international law and the African Union's Refugee Convention. Until today, almost no criticism has been directed at this. I've been saying these things almost alone since October 2023, and only now are we finally beginning to see initial reports on the subject. International pressure should be directed there as well."
Q: The world defines the idea raised by the US president as "ethnic cleansing."
"I've carefully followed Trump's wording, and saw that from the first moment, his plan was misrepresented to the public. Trump never spoke about expulsion or forced departure. The proposal was to allow Palestinians to voluntarily leave an area of severe and prolonged war. The stubborn opposition to this, as mentioned, not only from Hamas but also from international actors, stems from the desire to use the civilian population as political hostages. In my view, offering a humane and moral exit to people who want it is our duty. This is true for Gaza, and it could also be true for Judea and Samaria."
"No Arab village is surrounded by a fence"
The international opposition to Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria is often based on the words of Israeli journalists and academics. Historian Yuval Noah Harari, for example, said in a November 2022 interview that Jewish society in Israel aspires to a state of "Jewish supremacy," where Arabs would have no rights. The statements received countless citations worldwide, especially on anti-Israeli channels. The same happened after The New York Times published an extensive investigation by Ronen Bergman and Mark Mazzetti, who claimed that "extremists took over the state through fifty years of Jewish violence in the West Bank," and that the problem lies not only with "hilltop rioters," but with the legitimacy that the establishment system grants them. The article won the prestigious George Polk Award, given for reports with global impact.
My previous interview with Hausdorff took place just before her confrontation with the Israeli left: a few days later, she flew to Toronto, Canada, to participate in a publicized debate titled "Is Antisemitism Anti-Zionism?" Standing beside her was pro-Israel British author Douglas Murray, and opposing them were British-Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan from Al Jazeera and Gideon Levy from Haaretz newspaper. At the end of that evening, a vote was held among the audience, and Hausdorff and Murray were declared the winners by a significant margin.
"Douglas told Gideon Levy there that all his supporters in Israel could fit into a public phone booth," Hausdorff now recounted. "Levy, to his credit, didn't deny it. He knows he represents an extreme part of Israeli society, but the world media and international legal bodies treat him as a legitimate Israeli voice. In such a situation, it's very difficult to convince the world of the truth."
Q: How do you see the role of the Israeli left in promoting the occupation narrative and the delegitimization of settlements in the West Bank?
"When Israelis promote the idea of 'occupation' abroad, they create misinformation and make it difficult to present the truth to the international community. In lectures around the world, I often hear responses like 'but there are Jews who say otherwise, there are Israelis who say otherwise.' Unfortunately, to those who don't know the facts on the ground or international law, this can sound convincing."
Q: Another term that has returned to prominence in Israeli public and media discourse is "settler violence." Does this affect our standing in the world?
Ganz responded, "I was waiting for this question. This is a false, antisemitic, and fabricated propaganda campaign designed to blacken the settlements and pressure the American administration and the European Union to impose sanctions on us. It's no different from blood libels about matzah soaked in the blood of Christian children. Our public has been living under murderous terrorism for fifty years; none of us can count anymore the funerals of friends murdered in attacks."
Q: Yet, the images of masked people attacking Palestinian villages are increasing.
"One needs to understand the proportions. We experience between 5,000 and 6,000 Palestinian attacks against Jews living here annually – shootings, Molotov cocktails, explosives. On the other side, they take a few cases of violence and talk about 'extremists on both sides.' This is fraud. The reports of 'settler violence' are often based on false reports by Palestinians, or on cases of graffiti spraying. The simple truth is that there's actually a decrease in incidents from our side.
"On October 7, even before we understood what was happening in the south, I ordered emergency fences to be erected around the settlements. We feared an Arab mob would break through. I always emphasize to our guests that no Arab village is surrounded by a fence. That says it all."
According to Ganz, in a comprehensive study by Dr. Michael Wolfowicz from the Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University, it was revealed that UN data on "settler violence" is partly based on incorrect and misleading reports: he stated that about 30% of the events defined as such actually occurred in Jerusalem, and many refer to Jews and tourists entering the Temple Mount – an act classified as trespassing and even "Jewish terrorism."
"For me, these aren't just numbers," Ganz adds. "I've seen severe cases with my own eyes. At a gas station near Eli, there was an attack in which four Israelis were murdered, and eight months later, there was another attack at the same place, in which two were murdered. I was the first to arrive at the scene and saw a friend from the settlement, a person who bought a house from me, bleeding on the ground. So don't present us with false campaigns."
"Critics both inside and outside Israel have mischaracterized the judicial reform debate," Hausdorff said, noting that this misrepresentation has damaged Israel's international standing. "There's no doubt that this harms Israel's image. It's especially painful because before the elections, there was a fairly broad political consensus regarding the need for reforms in the judicial system. This issue was hijacked to delegitimize the government, and this served Israel's defamers around the world. But I'm optimistic, and hope that perhaps from the difficulties and divisions, a new hope will grow in the people of Israel."
Q: Is there also room for optimism regarding the status of Judea and Samaria?
Gantz responded, "We're working hard to create an opportunity to apply Israeli sovereignty here. I truly believe that this is achievable, and we have real partners in the world who support it. Yes, we're living in an ongoing war – I say this also as a father to a combat soldier – and there are quite a few challenges. But I'm a believer, and I see the light in all of this. I wish that next year we'll sit here again, with Natasha, and be able to say: this is behind us."
