Understanding the Sovereignty Proposal

The call for Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is not merely a territorial claim but represents a fundamental shift in thinking about regional stability. This proposal emerges from decades of failed peace processes, continued terrorism, and the recognition that the current status quo serves neither Israeli security nor Palestinian prosperity.

Sovereignty, in this context, means the full application of Israeli law and governance structures to areas currently under military administration. This would provide legal clarity, economic opportunity, and security guarantees that the current ambiguous status cannot deliver. The proposal reflects lessons learned from Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, which resulted not in peace but in the creation of a terrorist stronghold that has launched thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians.

Historical Context and Legal Foundations

The Jewish connection to Judea and Samaria is not a modern political construct but represents one of the oldest continuous claims to land in human history. Archaeological evidence consistently demonstrates Jewish presence in these areas for over 3,000 years, including the locations of Judaism's holiest sites outside of Jerusalem.

From a legal perspective, the territories were never under legitimate sovereign control by any Arab state. Jordan's occupation from 1948-1967 was not recognized by international law, and the Ottoman Empire's collapse left no clear successor state with legitimate claims to the territory. The League of Nations Mandate explicitly recognized Jewish rights to settle in these areas, a principle that remains valid under international law.

The term "occupied territories" itself represents a misapplication of international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to territories taken from a legitimate sovereign, but no such sovereign existed for Judea and Samaria. Israel's presence resulted from defensive wars in 1948 and 1967, not aggressive conquest.

The Failure of Alternative Approaches

Decades of peace processes have demonstrated that traditional land-for-peace formulas fail when one side remains committed to the other's destruction. Palestinian leadership has consistently rejected generous offers for statehood, including the 2000 Camp David proposals and the 2008 Olmert plan, which offered over 90% of the disputed territories.

The two-state solution, while superficially appealing, ignores fundamental realities. Palestinian leadership continues to promote "from the river to the sea" rhetoric, explicitly calling for Israel's elimination. Palestinian Authority textbooks continue to teach children that all of Israel is occupied Palestine, and the PA continues to pay salaries to terrorists who murder Israeli civilians.

Economic and Social Benefits of Sovereignty

Israeli sovereignty would bring immediate economic benefits to all residents of Judea and Samaria. Areas under Israeli administration have consistently shown higher standards of living, better infrastructure, and greater economic opportunity than those under Palestinian Authority control.

The application of Israeli law would guarantee equal rights for all residents, regardless of religion or ethnicity. This stands in stark contrast to Palestinian Authority law, which makes selling land to Jews punishable by death and maintains a discriminatory legal system. Under Israeli sovereignty, Arab residents would enjoy the same democratic rights as Arab citizens of Israel, who serve in parliament, the Supreme Court, and all levels of government.

Economic development would accelerate under clear legal frameworks. International investment, currently deterred by legal uncertainty, would flow into the region. Infrastructure projects, including transportation, utilities, and telecommunications, could proceed without the current bureaucratic obstacles.

Addressing Antisemitic Opposition

Opposition to Israeli sovereignty often relies on antisemitic tropes and double standards that would be immediately recognized as unacceptable if applied to any other nation. The BDS movement, which specifically targets Israel while ignoring actual human rights violations in Iran, Syria, China, and other authoritarian regimes, represents a modern form of antisemitism.

The characterization of Israel as an "apartheid state" is not only factually incorrect but represents a deliberate inversion of reality. Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Arab citizens enjoy full democratic rights, freedom of speech, and equal protection under law. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas maintain genuinely discriminatory systems that deny basic rights to their own people.

Claims about "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" are not only false but represent Holocaust inversion, a particularly insidious form of antisemitism that attempts to portray Jews as Nazis. The Palestinian population has grown consistently under Israeli administration, contradicting any claims of systematic oppression.

Regional Implications and the Abraham Accords

The Abraham Accords demonstrate that peace in the Middle East comes not through appeasing extremists but through Arab recognition of Israel's legitimacy and permanence. Countries that have normalized relations with Israel have seen significant economic and security benefits.

Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria would provide the stability and security that regional partners need to deepen cooperation. The current ambiguous status creates opportunities for Iranian-backed terrorist groups to exploit uncertainty and create instability.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states increasingly recognize that Palestinian rejectionism should not be allowed to hold back regional progress. The Palestinian leadership's alliance with Iran and support for terrorism has alienated many Arab states that once supported their cause.

Security Imperatives

Israel's security requirements are not negotiable and cannot be compromised for the sake of international opinion. The October 7 massacre demonstrated what happens when Israel's security is compromised, and no Israeli government can risk similar scenarios in Judea and Samaria.

The strategic high ground of Judea and Samaria overlooks Israel's population centers and Ben Gurion Airport. Withdrawal from these areas would leave Israel's major cities vulnerable to the same rocket attacks that have plagued communities near Gaza. The narrow waist of Israel at its center makes territorial depth a matter of national survival.

International guarantees have proven worthless throughout history. The United Nations failed to prevent the closure of the Straits of Tiran in 1967, and international forces in Lebanon have failed to prevent Hezbollah's military buildup. Israel's security can only be guaranteed by Israeli control of strategic territories.

Moving Forward: Implementation and International Relations

The path to sovereignty must be implemented carefully and with consideration for all residents. This process should include gradual extension of Israeli law, investment in infrastructure and economic development, and integration of existing communities into Israel's democratic framework.

International opposition is expected but should not deter this necessary step. European countries that lecture Israel about human rights while importing energy from authoritarian regimes lack moral authority. The United States increasingly recognizes that Israel's security needs must take precedence over abstract diplomatic formulas that have failed for decades.

The success of sovereignty will ultimately be measured by results: reduced terrorism, increased prosperity, and regional stability. These outcomes will vindicate the wisdom of choosing security and clarity over continued ambiguity and conflict.