“A commitment to a resolution of the conflict that ensures both Israel’s security and future as a Jewish and democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens, as well as Palestinian rights, including self-determination, security and freedom,” reads the document just released by 30 former Democratic foreign policy officials including former top advisers Ben Rhodes, Phil Gordon and Rob Malley, and peace negotiators Ilan Goldenberg, Frank Lowenstein and Martin Indyk. They urge Dems to oppose Israel’s annexation of Judea and Samaria.
The same nice but empty words, the same old liberal abracadabra. But their arguments made a breach in the Israeli consensus, which should have annexed all the areas under its control long time ago.
Everybody knows that on these Biblical lands Israel has only two alternatives: withdrawal or annexation. If you don’t annex it and claim it, it is not yours. And if it is not yours, you have no right to stay there. You really are “the occupier”. And you have to plan a mass expulsion of tens of thousands of loyal citizens and Jews.
Even those phony liberal Jews who pontificate about Israel, should know that without the strategic terrace of Samaria, Tel Aviv is undefendable. It is just a Jewish ghetto under an Islamist target.
Even those US liberals, from their Jewish ivory tower, know that without Gush Etzion, then Hevron and the second most important Jewish historical and religious site are lost (about that, liberals could sleep very well at night).
Even they know that all the arguments against keeping these lands have been proven false. There won’t be any “peace” after withdrawal, more and more soldiers and military will be needed, as was the case after Gush Katif to protect Gush Dan. The Arabs will not accept stopping at the legendary non existent “Green Line”.
The conflict with the Palestinian Arabs about these post-1967 lands has always been one of identity. The Arabs have one, they claim not only Nablus and Jericho, but also Jaffa and Nazareth. They have memory, they nourish it. For them, it is the sacred land of "Palestine" and it only belongs to Islam. Only “dhimmis” can live there, as defeated second class subjects. The majority of Jews do not understand that, yet.
They believe these lands are bargaining chips in some hypothetical “agreement” or, at the best, they see the region as a strategic buffer against terrorism. But even this last view of the post-1967 areas is very weak. What if, one day, all the Palestinian Arabs give up violence, Jihad and terror? Would the Jews give them these lands because are not a “security issue”?
The Palestinian Arabs already have three states: Gaza, the so called “Palestinian Authority” in half of Judea and Samaria and Jordan. Why do the Jews want to add one more by renouncing their religious, historical and strategic heritage, the heritage they took back from their enemies in wars of self-defense that almost destroyed their tiny Jewish enclave?
Make peace with your own identity and history and claim what is yours.
Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter and of "J'Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel" published by Mantua Books in addition to books in Italian.. His writing has also appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Gatestone, Frontpage and Commentary.