Must all our residents be citizens?

Someone asked me a question on Facebook. Social media demands that all answers be given while standing on one foot, and since I’m not Hillel, I’m going to present my answer here, using both feet.

So here is the question (I’m paraphrasing): Isn’t the only just and practical solution to your conflict with the Palestinians to create one state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean and give everybody equal rights? Make all the Arabs in the region citizens. The fellow added something about a right of return for “refugees” living elsewhere; I’ll get back to that later.

There could be an acceptable one-state solution. But it could not be created by simply making all the inhabitants citizens with equal rights in every respect.

First, there is an assumption here that every country must be like Canada or the United States, a state of its citizens. But Israel is not that. It is the nation-state of the Jewish people. That implies that there must be a difference between the status of Jews and other citizens. We go to great lengths to insist that Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel have exactly equal rights, and that is true – up to a point. But in some important respects it is not. I can call my Jewish cousin in America and invite him to come and live in Israel, and the government will allow him to do so and even give him special benefits. An Arab citizen cannot do this. This is a fundamental point, an explication of what it means to say that the state belongs to the Jewish people and not merely to everyone who lives here, even if everyone has the right to be represented in the Knesset.

The nation-state of the Jewish people, if it allows all of its citizens to vote must have a Jewish – no, a Zionist – majority. If it did not, then the Knesset could vote to remove the special status of the Jewish people. There is a dispute about the how many Arabs there actually are in the region, although it is relatively certain that Jews would still be a majority, especially if Gaza weren’t included. But the Arabs would have the support of left-wing Jews and maybe political opportunists a well. There would be massive campaigns (paid for by European governments and the New Israel Fund, no doubt) to promote reducing the Jewish majority, changing the symbols of the state, or even weakening or repealing the Law of Return. It could happen.

The Jewish state is a refuge for Diaspora Jews who are persecuted, but it is also a reservoir and an incubator of Jewish culture. Today, given the degree of assimilation in the Diaspora, it is possible to imagine the Jewish people disappearing from history if there were not a Jewish state to nurture and nourish it. The Jewish character of the state is, even today, under attack, and it is imperative to protect it.

Does this mean that Israel must never consider annexing Judea and Samaria, land that arguably (and there are many arguments) belongs to Israel and must remain under our control for strategic reasons, out of fear of losing its Zionist majority? Not necessarily.

In some countries, the great majority of the inhabitants are citizens. But this is not true in general, especially in the Middle East. In Jordan and Saudi Arabia, only about 70% are citizens, in Lebanon 75%, and in Bahrain, 48%. An extreme example is Qatar, where less than 15% of the residents are citizens.

But, you say, most of these countries aren’t democratic. Well, in ancient Athens, where the word ‘democracy’ originated, only 10-20% were citizens. But I get the point. It is more democratic when a greater percentage of the population shares the rights and duties of citizenship. Nevertheless, in the fractious Middle East, where ethnic conflicts are the rule rather than the exception, real democracy is often theoretical rather than real. Both Lebanon and Iraq are theoretically democratic republics, but their elections play out along strict ethnic lines, and it would be hard to say that “democracy” greatly benefits their inhabitants.

Democracy is not an absolute. What it means and how it is implemented varies from place to place and from time to time. Even the most democratic of countries place limitations on immigration, on suffrage (consider that in most states of the US, convicted felons have restrictions placed on their right to vote, some of them permanent), and on eligibility for naturalization of non-citizens. In my opinion, given the stresses placed on Israel by the hostility of its neighbors – indeed, the hostility of much of the world – it is miraculous that it is as democratic as it is, particularly in respect to the full civil rights enjoyed by its 1.5 million Arab citizens.

One of the most liberal policies associated with citizenship is the practice of automatically granting it to any child born on national soil. Interestingly, even in the developed world, citizenship by birthright is uncommon: only 30 countries (out of 194 UN member nations) automatically grant citizenship to children born on their soil, with the most prominent among them being the US and Canada. None are in the Middle East. Pakistan is the only country in Asia which grants this right (but there is an exception if the father is considered an “enemy of the state”).

My Facebook acquaintance mentioned a “right of return for ‘refugees’ living elsewhere.” This demand, repeated ad infinitum by anti-Zionists, is legally indefensible and practically unacceptable. It is not supported in international law. In addition, the unsustainable definition of Palestinian refugee status as a hereditary property is not applied to any other refugee population. It was invented – along with policies of preventing the resettlement of the refugees or their descendants anywhere but Israel, encouraging the growth of this population (today more than 5 million), and indoctrinating them with the idea that some day they would “return to their homes,” as a cruel exploitation of innocent people as weapons in the continuing war against the Jews.

At this point, what is supposed to be “just and practical” becomes the elimination of the Jewish state and its replacement by yet another Arab-dominated state added to the 22 already existing in the region. It seems reasonable to assume that the Jews of Israel would not sit still for this, and so it should be clear that this plan, supposedly a peaceful solution, would actually lead to war.

While an argument can be made that the Arab population of Judea and Samaria has some kind of right of self-determination that is not actualized – although it can also be said that today the rule of the autonomous Palestinian Authority does constitute self-determination – a full actualization of what Palestinians see as their rights would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. That is, self-determination for the newly-created “Palestinian people” would come at the expense of Jewish self-determination, and possibly of the survival of the Jewish people.

And I admit that I’m biased. I admit that I care more for my people than for the Palestinians. A lot more, and not just for the obvious reason that the Palestinian Arabs have been particularly unkind to us for the past 100 years or so. There is a human drive for cultural self-preservation just as there is for individual self-preservation, although it may be suppressed in unhealthy cultures – just as unhealthy individuals sometimes lose the will to survive, or even commit suicide.

So let’s assume that at some point in the future Israel were to annex Judea and Samaria. I can find no legal, moral or practical reason for automatically granting citizenship to all the Arab residents, as my interlocutor suggests, and plenty of reasons not to. Indeed, it only seems reasonable in view of the extreme and violent hostility of much of the Arab population of the area to Israel and Jews, that Israel should follow Pakistan’s example and exclude “enemies of the state” from citizenship.

The Left argues that either we accept a partition of our country according to the 1949 armistice lines or something close to them – and lose our ability to defend the country – or we will get their disastrous version of a one-state solution. But there are numerous other possibilities, and one of the keys to developing them is the understanding that not every resident must be a citizen.

Originally Published on Abu Yehuda.

Israeli Security Forces Uncover an Arms Smuggling Cell Connected to French National

(Communicated by the ISA)

The following has been cleared for publication:

The Israel Security Agency (ISA), in conjunction with the Israel Police, has uncovered a cell of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem that – in recent months – smuggled weapons from the Gaza Strip to Judea and Samaria via a French national, Romain Franck, who worked at the French Consulate in Jerusalem.

Roman Franck (ISA)

Franck smuggled weapons five times in recent months in a vehicle belonging to the French Consulate, which received lighter treatment at the border crossing security check, as is customary for such vehicles. Franck thus smuggled approximately 70 pistols and two assault rifles.

Franck received the weapons from a Palestinian resident of the Gaza Strip who was employed by the French Cultural Center in the Strip. The smuggled weapons were delivered to a Palestinian in Judea and Samaria who sold them to arms dealers.

Among those arrested for their involvement in the smuggling are a resident of eastern Jerusalem who works as a security guard at the French Consulate in Jerusalem and Palestinians from the Gaza Strip who were present in Judea and Samaria without permits. Nine suspects have been arrested so far, six of whom have been indicted by the State Attorney’s Office (Southern District).

The investigation clearly shows that Franck acted for financial gain, of his own accord and unbeknownst to his superiors. It was also learned that several of the suspects were involved in smuggling funds from the Gaza Strip to Judea and Samaria.

A senior ISA officer states, “This is a very grave incident in which the immunity and privileges granted to foreign missions in Israel was cynically exploited in order to smuggle dozens of weapons which could have been used in terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and members of the security forces.”

The foregoing investigation was conducted in coordination with the Foreign Ministry; the French authorities were updated regularly.

PACKER’S CORNER: Building in Israel Continues and There is Nothing the Left Can Do

The drama in Syria just gets better and better.  At least 2 major developments this week. President Assad and his government forces are agressively massacring sunni muslim rebel supporters (maybe) just outside of Damascus in an area called Eastern Gueta. The area has been under siege for a few years and now Assad is attempting to clean it out completely, ie. kill every man, woman, and alot of children. You’ll excuse my language, but the world doesn’t seem to give a flying…. He’s killed at least 250 civilians (a good number of them children) over the last two days. #arablivesmatter? Not even close.
Meanwhile, Turkey continues their bloody cross-border attack into Syria in the northwest and have begun to make observable progress against the Kurdish defenders. Consequently, the Kurds have apparently made a deal with the Syrian Government to have them send in reinforcements to theoretically defend the “sovereign borders” of Syria. This has thrown all the alliances up in the air with Syria/Hezbollah/Iran/Russia now allied with American supported Kurds against NATO member Turkey and sometimes America supported Sunni rebels. Quite a masterpiece here. Much more exciting than that new movie about Black superheroes.
Two important developments happened in Israel just today – and we’ll get to Prime Minster Netanyahu’s legal troubles soon, but first something that is quite real and not fabricated. Significant progress was made in the establishment of 2 new LEGAL communities in the “West Bank” – Amichai in the Binyamin region (just north of Jerusalem) and Netiv Avot in Gush Etzion  (just south of Jerusalem). Amichai is intended for those Jewish residents who were expelled from Amona a year ago and the new area of Netiv Avot is meant for those Jewish residents whose houses are scheduled to be destroyed in the current community of Netiv Avot by Supreme Court order at some point in the next 3 months.
We aren’t talking about that many people here – just a few hundred. Why is this so important? It’s important because it shows how incredibly worthless the efforts of the extreme left in Israel have been. Every time they succeed in getting their fellow ultra-leftist self-hating friends at the Supreme Court to knock down a few Jewish houses in the “west bank” for dubious “legal” reasons, the Government responds with large-scale development in a nearby location. Both Amichai and the future Netiv Avot will be exponentially larger than their predecessors and unlike them – WILL BE TOTALLY LEGAL!!! While Netiv Avot’s existence strengthens the Jewish presence in Gush Etzion, Amichai’s very strategic location is a much more serious victory for the overall settlement enterprise. The still-not-legal neighboring communities of Achia, Adei Ad, Yishuv HaDaat and Eish Kodesh must be ecstatic at the establishment of a legal community that physically links them back to the also legal communities of Shvut Rachel and Shiloh (see map pic). The Shiloh Bloc is a crucial area, for historical and religious reasons as well, for preventing the expulsion of the Jewish presence in the area between the cities of Ramallah and Shechem (Nablus). BIG BOOST for them right here. HUGE LOSS for the left. Wait for the pics of the families moving in and dedicating the synagogues. Alot of #winning.

We had to get here eventually. Things appear to have gone south for Prime Minister Netanyahu on the legal front. More of his close associates have turned into state witnesses against him – at least according to the press. There is now a fourth official investigation and many are saying this is the most serious. Yes, even more serious than cigars. Objectively, all these accusations appear pathetic and irrelevant, however, legally (Israeli legally) things aren’t looking good for Netanyahu’s political future. Its hard to understand why the Israeli police would make deals with witnesses who themselves appear guilty of crimes without good reason. But as we’ve said before numerous times, the Israeli police has a solid reputation for a special kind of stupid. With that said, Bibi may finally actually be in trouble, but its the lucky Jewish month of Adar so anything good for the Jews is possible!

Trump, Netanyahu and the Post-Oslo era

If the peace process ends, Netanyahu will present his own plan.

You wouldn’t know it from the news, but this week, the probability that Israel will apply its law to areas of Judea and Samaria rose significantly.

This week was first time that either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or the Trump administration ever addressed the possibility of Israel applying its law to areas of Judea and Samaria.

Lawmakers from Bayit Yehudi and the Likud have prepared separate bills on the issue. MK Bezalel Smotrich’s Bayit Yehudi party bill calls for Israel to apply its law to Area C – the parts of Judea and Samaria located outside Palestinian population centers.

The second bill, proposed by Likud MK Yoav Kisch, calls for Israel to apply its law to the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. The Likud’s central committee unanimously passed a resolution in December calling for the government to implement such a policy.

On Monday, Netanyahu met with the Likud Knesset faction to convince the lawmakers to postpone consideration of Kisch’s bill. Netanyahu gave two justifications for his position.

First, he said that he wants to discuss the issue with the Trump administration. Netanyahu explained, “On the topic of applying sovereignty [in Judea and Samaria], I can tell you that for some time now I have been discussing the issue with the Americans.”

Netanyahu continued, “Our relationship with them is a strategic asset to the State of Israel and the settlement enterprise.”

Netanyahu’s statement was very general. The media chose to interpret it to mean that Netanyahu was lobbying the Trump administration to support the application of Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria.

But that is not at all what he said. He said that he is discussing the issue with the Americans and that he wants to maintain the good relations Israel now enjoys with the Trump administration because those relations are a strategic asset for Israel.

The second guiding principle Netanyahu said inform his position on applying Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria contradicts the notion that he wants the Trump administration to adopt the cause of applying Israeli law in Judea and Samaria as an American position.

Netanyahu said he opposes Kisch’s bill because he believes that applying Israeli law to the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria is “an historic undertaking.”

Netanyahu said, “This has to be a government initiative and not a private one, because this is a historic undertaking.”

Before considering the implications of Netanyahu’s second guiding principle, we need to examine carefully consider the US position on the issue.




Netanyahu’s general statement to the Likud Knesset faction provoked a media maelstrom. The outcry compelled the Trump administration to respond. The manner it responded to the media storm was instructive.

The administration’s first response came at the conclusion of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry in Cairo. Tillerson was in Egypt on the first leg of his regional tour to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Given his hosts’ opposition to President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital last December, the State Department was certainly not interested in having the US embroiled in Israeli discussions about applying Israel law to areas in Judea and Samaria.

And yet, in his media appearance, Tillerson ignored the issue. He told reporters, “The Trump administration remains committed to achieving a lasting peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

As the media storm in Israel and the region over Netanyahu’s remarks expanded with Palestinian condemnations of his statement, a senior diplomatic source in Jerusalem clarified Netanyahu’s remarks to reporters.

The senior diplomatic source explained that Netanyahu “has not presented the United States specific proposals for annexation, and the US has not expressed its agreement with any such proposal. Israel updated the US on the varying proposals that have been raised that the Knesset. The US expressed its clear position that it wishes to advance President Trump’s peace plan. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s position is that if the Palestinians maintain their refusal to negotiate, Israel will present its own alternative.”

This statement is the most revealing statement any senior official has made on the issue of applying Israeli law to areas of Judea and Samaria. The senior official told us several things we didn’t know.

First, Netanyahu plans to wait to present any new Israeli position on Judea and Samaria until after Trump presents his peace plan.
Second, Netanyahu will postpone consideration of any plan to present an independent Israeli initiative if the Palestinians agree to return to the negotiating table.

Finally, like Tillerson, the senior Israeli official did not say that the US opposes Israeli plans to apply Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria.

Later on Monday, in response to virulent criticisms of the US following Netanyahu’s remarks, the Trump administration stiffened its tone.

White House spokesman Josh Raffel issued what the media presented as a harsh rebuke of Netanyahu’s statement before the Likud Knesset faction members.

“Reports that the United States discussed with Israel an annexation plan for the West Bank are false, Raffel said.

“The United States and Israel have never discussed such a proposal, and the president’s focus remains squarely on his Israeli-Palestinian initiative.”

Did Raffel’s statement tell us anything new? Not really.

The senior diplomatic source said Netanyahu has updated the administration on the various proposals for applying Israeli law to areas of Judea and Samaria. He didn’t say Netanyahu held discussions with administration officials about the various proposals. And the senior diplomatic source said that the US remains committed to advancing Trump’s peace plan.

In other words, there is no inherent contradiction between Netanyahu’s statement at the Likud faction meeting, the statement by the Israeli senior diplomatic source, Tillerson’s statement and Raffel’s statement. None of them said that Israel is interested in having the US support applying Israeli law to Judea and Samaria. None of them said the Trump administration opposes applying Israeli law to Judea and Samaria.

They all said the Trump administration is committed to advancing its own peace plan.

The sense that the dispute between Netanyahu and the White House was more apparent than real was reinforced on Tuesday at the State Department press briefing.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Neuert had no response to the news that the Knesset passed legislation placing Ariel University under the auspices of the Council of Higher Education, instead of a designated special council that deals specifically with higher education institutions in Area C. Like everyone else, she restated the administration’s commitment to advancing its own peace plan.

And this brings us to the peace plan the administration is now preparing.

Diplomatic sources in Jerusalem say that Netanyahu has presented two positions that he believes must be incorporated in any peace plan to ensure that the plan, if implemented will produce peace rather than war.

First, Netanyahu insists that the Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Second, Netanyahu insists that Israel must maintain permanent control over the eastern border with Jordan.

These goals are eminently reasonable. Israel cannot share sovereignty west of the Jordan River with an entity that rejects its right to exist. So any peace deal must involve Palestinian acceptance of the Jewish state’s right to exist.

By the same token, even in an era of peace, Israel cannot surrender its ability to defend itself. Since Israel cannot defend itself without perpetual control over the Jordan Valley, Israel cannot sacrifice its control over the Jordan Valley. Any deal Israel strikes with the Palestinians that does not include perpetual Israeli control over the Jordan Valley is a recipe for war.

If Trump accepts Netanyahu’s position and incorporates it into his peace plan, then as far as Netanyahu is reportedly concerned, the negotiations can begin in earnest.

On the other hand, if the Palestinians refuse to accept these conditions, then the peace process will be over.

And if the peace process ends, Netanyahu will present his own plan. That plan, apparently will look a lot like the Likud central committee’s plan to apply Israeli law over the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

Rather than supporting someone else’s bill, Netanyahu will present the plan to the cabinet for approval and then introduce it as a bill to the Knesset, just as then prime minister Menachem Begin applied Israeli law to the Golan Heights in 1981.

While all of these developments may appear odd, we have been here before.

In many ways, the situation today recalls the situation in 1992. In 1992, the US was sponsoring peace talks between Israel and its Arab neighbors in Washington. Without informing the Americans, after taking office in 1992, the government of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres began carrying out secret talks with the PLO under the auspices of the Norwegian government in Oslo.

After the first Oslo deal was concluded in August 1993, Rabin sent Peres and then-Foreign Ministry legal adviser Joel Singer to the US to brief then-secretary of state Warren Christopher on the agreement. Rabin hoped Christopher would agree to present the deal as an American peace plan. Rabin believed that the Israeli public would be more supportive of a deal with an American imprimatur.

In a 1997 interview with Middle East Quarterly, Singer described the meeting with Christopher. Singer recalled that as Christopher read the agreement for the first time, a shocked look came over his face. “His lower jaw dropped, and for the first and last time in my life, I saw Warren Christopher smile.”

But Christopher rejected Rabin’s request, all the same.

“Secretaries of state are not supposed to lie,” he told Peres and Singer.

Just as the Clinton administration was not willing to take the lead on a new strategic trajectory that placed Israel and the PLO on equal footing, so the Trump administration is not willing to initiate a new post-Oslo Middle East.

That is Israel’s job today just as it was Israel’s job in 1993.

A close reading of Netanyahu’s statement to the Likud Knesset faction makes clear that he understands this basic truth. And a close reading of the statements and counter-statements from Jerusalem and Washington following his briefing to the Likud Knesset faction indicates that if and when Netanyahu embarks on a new course, like Bill Clinton and Warren Christopher in 1993, Trump and his advisers will not stand in his way.

Likud Votes to Extend Sovereignty to Judea and Samaria

The Likud Central committee voted unanimously this evening to extend Israel’s sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.

“Fifty years ago we liberated our ancestral homeland, Judea and Samaria, greater Jerusalem, the Tomb of the Patriarchs [in Hevron], Rachel’s Tomb [in Bethlehem], and the Western Wall,” said Minister Haim Katz ahead of the vote.

“But today, unfortunately, after 50 years, when half a million Israeli citizens… are discriminated against when it comes to construction and security.”

“The time has come to end the [requirement] that the army approve the [construction] of every kindergarten, road, or even repair work for [public] lighting.”

Although many Likud ministers including the Prime Minister were not in attendance, the vote is significant as the Central Committee wields tremendous power behind the scenes.  Many observers have noted that Prime Minister Netanyahu has given a tacit nod, but just remaining silent about the event.

MK Yoav Kisch said the following to Arutz 7 before the event “if the Prime Minister were opposed he would have expressed it though his channels. I don’t think his position is against. Far from it. The Likud is a democratic party and there’s great importance to what the members of the Center and the rank-and-file members think. We grant freedom of action in the matter and not everything that comes up conforms to what each senior party official thinks. It’s clear the party head’s position has special status, but the fact that we’re conducting the discussion, and that every discussion must be approved by the Chairman of the Central Committee and by the Movement Chairman, shows we’re not in conflict.”

“I don’t think his position is against. Far from it.” 

So will the vote push the government to institute sovereignty? Perhaps not tomorrow, but it lays the ground work for such a move far faster than most people have believed.