Everyone is talking about the pros and cons of annexation and applying Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria while ignoring the fact that there are two options, very different in their meaning and impact on Israel's future: One is relatively modest, the other revolutionary in its implications. Trump's "deal of the century" significantly facilitates both. This support should be used as a bargaining chip, but in that use we should focus on one option while recognizing the intolerable historical price of the other.
The revolutionary option involves applying Israeli sovereignty in all of the legal settlements built by Israel in Judea and Samaria, as opposed to the illegal outposts. The plan raises the possibility that all of these settlements, including those located in the very heart of the territory to be placed under Palestinian control, will be designated sovereign Israeli enclaves. The practical implication of applying sovereignty in this format is the absorption of two-and-a-half million Palestinians, endangering Israel's Jewish and democratic character. Even if legal excuses and sophisticated arguments are found for denying the West Bank's Palestinian residents Israeli citizenship and the right to elect their own Knesset members, these arguments will fail to convince the only truly significant factor – the Israeli public.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
The sanctimonious core of the European elites and so-called progressive circles (including their Israeli representatives) in any case accuse Israel of maintaining an apartheid regime, regardless of the circumstances. Although Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip 15 years ago, they continue to argue that it is responsible for the fate of Gaza's residents, claiming that Israel's policing of the Strip's borders – for obvious security reasons –constitutes a "siege."
These arguments cannot be countered, since they are intended to satisfy their holders' psychological needs, and should be ignored by any life-affirming state. The true question is how the incorporation of millions of Palestinians will be seen by the mainstream Israeli public: Not the Right, which is willing to take responsibility for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank in the name of the ancestral rights of the Jewish people in Greater Israel and thereby, in their view, improve the state's security status; nor the Left, which rejects any arrangement that is unpalatable to the Palestinians and discriminates between the two political entities west of the Jordan Valley. The latter public seems to derive emotional satisfaction from their guilt feelings regarding the "occupation."
Those who will decide in the matter are the majority of Israelis. The citizens unwilling to take responsibility for millions of Palestinians, despite their healthy attachment to the land of Israel and its settlement in guarded towns; those Israelis prepared for a historic compromise, though fully aware of the security risks inherent in leaving most of the Judea and Samaria, and although they utterly lack trust in the Palestinians.
These Israelis support strong security arrangements that will deny full sovereignty to the violent and uncompromising Palestinian factions This public – pillars of that part of Israel that bears the burden of preserving the state – will quickly realize that annexation, i.e. applying Israeli law to the large settlement blocks, welcomes millions of Palestinians into their home.
Sooner or later they will turn their backs on this policy. In such a scenario Israel will cease to function both internally and in the face of the expected pressure from the international community. Those familiar with Israeli society know that such a policy is unsustainable. The skeptics should learn from the long-term consequences of the 1982 Lebanon War, and imagine a similar outcome "on steroids."
Applying Israeli sovereignty in the Jordan Valley, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Its advantages, political costs, and characteristics should be examined in detail elsewhere, but its principle can be stated in brief.
The valley is a strip along the Jordan River, the Palestinian population of which is small. It separates the Palestinian residents of the West Bank from Israel's Arab and Iranian enemies, in such a way as to prevent the Palestinians from turning the territory under their control into an extension of those enemies' power. For this reason, any possible Israeli government will in any case demand Israeli control of the Valley, to ensure that "Israel's security border is the Jordan River." A debate may ensue regarding the timing of this step, in light of the political necessity of Jordan's king to convincingly protest it before Jordan's radical public opinion. However, in the broader context, and considering the other options, its benefits are clear and its damage can be contained.
