1. 1. 1. Hamas is not a sovereign state but rather a terrorist organization.
      2. Egypt does not call for the destruction of the State of Israel while the Palestinian Authority encourages terrorist activity against the citizens of Israel and incites in its textbooks against the State of Israel.
      3. An agreement signed with the Palestinian Authority should be taken with limited liability: there is a Muslim principle that perceives a peace agreement as an intermediate point towards a better strategic position in the next battle – without hesitation to tell a lie. For example, half a year after signing the Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, gave a speech regarding the Oslo Accords. In the speech, Arafat emphatically referred to Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Palestine, asserted that the Jihad must continue until the conquest of Jerusalem, and that the Oslo Accords are equal in meaning to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah: a cease-fire agreement signed by the Prophet Muhammad with the Qurayshi tribe before he massacred them. In doing so, he created a historical precedent, where a signed agreement can only be a temporary agreement, which can be changed or canceled.
      4. The relinquishment of Sinai did not harm Israel strategically, and it cannot be compared to narrowing the country’s waistline dramatically which will happen with the handing over of territories in Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

הפוסט The peace with Egypt as a model: it is not the same thing הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

הפוסט From an international legal point of view, they deserve a state הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

However, it must be remembered that in each survey the question is asked in different formulations and from other angles. Therefore, when a general question is asked about the desire to reach peace without stating the exact price and the details of the agreement – there is a small majority. For example: the question asked in the survey in question is “Do you support or oppose a solution based on the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel”. Well, 52% of Israeli Jews support such a solution. But it should be noted that it is not specified what is meant by “based“.

Further on in the survey, it is detailed what such an arrangement includes: the dismemberment of the Palestinian state, the exchange of equal territories, the reunification of families and the return of 100,000 Palestinian refugees to the territory of Israel, the definition of East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the end of the conflict. Such an arrangement is supported by a minority of 38% of Jews and 39% of Palestinians.

On top of that, other polls show other opinions. For example, a survey conducted in 2013 by the Group of Professors for Political and Economic Resilience in collaboration with “Maagar Mohot” shows that only 11% of the Jewish public wants the land to be divided while establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

In any case, there is no proof that there is a Jewish majority that supports a situation in which the State of Israel chooses to withdraw from Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley, and it is very difficult to determine public opinion on this issue.

הפוסט From a democratic point of view, they deserve a state הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The response: This is not true. This is not the only way to prevent a demographic disaster. There are four more ways listed here.

הפוסט This is the only way to prevent a demographic disaster הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The response: In order to deal with this claim, the definitions included in it must be broken down and explained.

• “People”: As of today, there is no definition in international law for the term “people”. At the same time, there are many conflicting definitions of which groups of people may legitimately claim the right to self-determination and which cannot.
• “Self-determination”: International law states that a group of people has the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status without external interference. However, the principle does not determine the actual outcome, i.e. whether that group will gain full independence, be part of a federation, gain protection, gain a partial form of autonomy, or be fully annexed to the majority.

Therefore, it is found that from a moral point of view the State of Israel does not deny the Palestinians the right to self-determination, and on top of that, the form of government of the Palestinian Authority makes the Palestinian Authority a semi-autonomous entity.

הפוסט The solution of two states for two peoples is the moral solution הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The response: It is not true.

• There are four alternatives that the Israel Defense and Security Forum (“Movement suggests instead of a “two states for two peoples” solution and you can read them here.
• The paradigm of “territories for peace” was shattered into pieces when the State of Israel signed agreements to normalize relations with some of the Arab countries – the Abraham Accords – without giving up a centimeter of the territory of the State of Israel.
• The price of giving up Judea and Samaria is very high, and it is not worth it in exchange for a fragile and dangerous peace agreement:
• Our land reserves are there. The settlement in the Land of Israel in the last 100 years ignored the basic features of the topography of the Land of Israel: from a historical point of view, the main presence in this country took place on the mountainous area to the east of the coastal strip, i.e. Judea and Samaria and the coastal plain has always served as a bridge between north and south. Today 60% of Israelis live between Netanya and Rishon LeZion. Never before have so many people lived on this bridge as there are today.
• Currently the main traffic artery in the State of Israel is on the coastal plain (Ayalon, Geha, the Coastal Road). Judea and Samaria are the key to creating a national transportation plan – longitudinal and latitudinal roads that we need. If it were imagined that there would be regional peace here after the establishment of a Palestinian state, there would be massive traffic between Damascus and Cairo – through the coastal plain which is densely populated in any case.
• The territories of Judea and Samaria are essential for maintaining infrastructure that will prevent natural disasters and sanitary disasters in the coastal plain: a flood of rainwater falling on the crest of the mountain range flows to the coastal plain and may flood the Greater Tel Aviv area, unless proper infrastructure is maintained in Judea and Samaria. Also, a proper sewage system is needed in Judea and Samaria so that wastewater does not flow to the coastal plain and contaminate the Greater Tel Aviv area.

הפוסט This is the only way to bring peace הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The response: The meaning of the establishment of a Palestinian state, even under a peace agreement of one kind or another, is to place Israel at a strategic and security disadvantage that endangers its very existence.

• Strategically, the mountains of Judea and Samaria overlook the entire Israeli coastal plain and all major Israeli population centers. They also overlook and control critical infrastructure such as the power plants in Reading, Rotenberg and Hadera and Ben-Gurion airport. This reality requires full Israeli security control in the Jordan Valley and in Judea and Samaria, and it is impossible to guarantee this control without a massive presence of Israeli citizens on the ground.
• From a security point of view, handing over territories in Judea and Samaria in favor of establishing a Palestinian state will bring the range of Israel’s enemies’ missiles closer to those strategic assets mentioned above. Already today, those assets are threatened by rocket fire (for example, Israel’s airport was closed during Operation Guardian of the Walls), especially with the handing over of territories from Judea and Samaria that are closer to those assets than the Gaza Strip or Lebanon. For example, the array of Hamas Grad rockets, which have a range of 40 km, will be able to reach the centers of almost all the cities in Gush Dan (Greater Tel Aviv area) with a high level of accuracy.
• The IDF’s control of Judea and Samaria provides high-quality intelligence that allows for effective prevention against terrorist attacks. This is the reason why there is no rocket fire from the territories of Judea and Samaria, but there is from Gaza, and the meaning of giving up IDF control in Judea and Samaria is the opening of a new array of rockets along dozens of kilometers.
• The thought that we would have international safeguards to prevent war in the form of an alliance with the US or other countries was proven to be meaningless in Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine, despite agreements signed by Ukraine with both Russia and the US.

הפוסט Two states for two peoples: not peace but a security danger הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The response: without a national ethos no army can win. An airplane, a submarine or a tank division cannot cover up the lack of righteousness, the lack of a national vision and the lack of national ambitions. Also, renouncing Judea and Samaria in favor of establishing a Palestinian state creates difficulties from a psychological aspect both in the short term and in the long term.

• On the simple level, renouncing Judea and Samaria means renouncing cultural assets of Jewish history found in these territories. Judea and Samaria constitutes the space where our ancestors roamed and lived, where lies the beginning of our history as a people. Renunciation of Judea and Samaria means renunciation of the righteousness of our way. As Ben-Gurion said: “The Bible is our mandate. The Bible was written by us, in our language of Hebrew and in this country itself, this is our mandate.”
• On a deeper level we are getting used to giving up rights that are ours and therefore we will not stand up for rights that are ours in the future. This is a human psychological mechanism that affects many leaders in history, and it is also one of the reasons why Iran reached nuclear capability – one concession that led to another concession.

הפוסט Territories for peace? Not at any price הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.