Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar are Co-Chairs of the Sovereignty Movement
Recent reports indicate that the Sovereignty Law, approved by the Knesset plenum two months ago, has been effectively blocked. Coalition Chairman Ofir Katz transferred the bill from the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to the Knesset Committee, which he chairs- reportedly following instruction from the Prime Minister. The law is now frozen without debate or formal decision. This is not a minor procedural matter; it represents a significant national opportunity that has been lost, unless it is overturned.
For nearly sixty years, the extension of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria has been delayed under the pretexts of “process," international pressure, or “timing." The message this sends to our opponents is clear: there is room to wait; there is still hope. As long as Israel refrains from a de jure decision, the prospect of a Palestinian Arab state remains alive.
The Arab world and the Palestinian Authority are not concerned by the creation of new Jewish communities, a few farms or the expansion of a neighborhood. Without formal sovereignty, every measure is perceived as reversible. Communities can be evacuated, realities altered, and the hope for a future Palestinian state in the heart of the land remains. The absence of sovereignty sustains that aspiration.
Judea and Samaria are not peripheral-they are a strategic front comparable in importance to Iran. Control of the high ground impacts the coastal plain, Tel Aviv, and Ben Gurion Airport. Sovereignty is not only an ideological statement; it serves as a security anchor.
Here lies the core concern: if the reports are accurate, the Prime Minister has effectively blocked the law. Some describe this as “caution"; others call it “hesitation." A law that passed the Knesset has been frozen through procedural measures, not because of substantive disagreement, but due to a decision to avoid a formal de jure move.
This hesitation is further reflected in Phase B of the “20‑Point Plan," implemented without the return of Ran Gvili and without clear red lines. Many view this as a response to pressures from Witkoff-pressures that are unlikely to disappear. Flexibility demanded in one area can lead to concessions in others, including the question of a “technocratic" Palestinian leadership in Gaza. Clause 19, outlining a phased path to Palestinian statehood under the guise of rehabilitation and reform, highlights the potential consequences: freezing sovereignty here may create openings for a Palestinian state elsewhere.
If concerns about American reactions are guiding this decision, history offers reassurance. Israel’s most formative decisions-from the Declaration of Independence, reunification of Jerusalem, and application of Israeli law to the Golan Heights, to decisive security operations including the bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor-were taken without U.S. consent. A state unwilling to take necessary steps for its sovereignty risks paying a far higher security price.
As elections approach, the public seeks leadership that makes decisions. The people recognize determination and understand how to reward it. The choice is still open: continue hesitation or take a clear national decision. Israel’s long-term future demands the latter.