To control, not to withdraw

We told you: if you are hiking near a Palestinian village, you are not really hiking, but coming to provoke. And if Arabs come down from the nearby village and a violent clash develops, and during the clash a weapon is snatched and the snatcher shoots in all directions — then it is a matter of self-defense. The argument is as follows: since there is a group of settlers that uses violence and intentionally seeks friction, then any friction that arises between settlers and Palestinians is necessarily part of that same plot. And if it is part of it, weapon snatching and shooting will be perceived as legitimate, or at the very least as an understandable action. This is nothing less than a justification of violence.

Not to mention that if we took the same logic and applied it to daily life in Judea and Samaria, you would be legitimizing the fact that because of Palestinian terror attacks, it is permissible to use spontaneous violence against them. Oh, wait. These talks sit on one of the most unfortunate decisions in the Israeli discourse: to necessarily link the violent and problematic aspects of the occupation with the very holding of Judea and Samaria. Ending the military occupation in Judea and Samaria is a complex phenomenon in every aspect. Try to find a peer to a situation where a sovereign state must give up territory to reduce (and perhaps even solve) a national struggle, except that this territory is located in the heart of the country, dominates it topographically, reduces its strategic depth to a minimum, and in almost every scenario divides its capital city. Moreover: the rival collective behaves in a way that signals that a partial state is not at all what it is looking for. From the river to the sea.

Traditionally, the Left opens the discussion on the subject from a deterministic historical perspective. A prominent symbol of this is Amos Oz's speech, in which Israel's crossroads are described: division into two states, or collapse. Because non-division will lead to an apartheid state, whose collapse is guaranteed, or to the establishment of one state, and it is clear to everyone why it will collapse. According to him, any argument against division must take into account that there is no other alternative. The argument is similar on the moral level: no matter what specific steps are taken on the ground, the very continuation of the situation will lead to moral deterioration due to the control over another people.

On the other hand, most of the public does not support division without an answer to a simple question: what in such a situation will prevent Kornet missiles or drones from hitting Azrieli or Ben Gurion Airport? With all due respect, between choosing a future threat that stems from historical-moral analysis and a threat from an enemy state that dominates us with fire and observation — most Israeli citizens prefer to take the chance. Assuming such a peace lasts for a decade, what will happen when it crashes? We will place ourselves in a situation where we will be forced to perform acts much more serious than policing. With high probability, those same people who are rightly shocked by the moral situation today in Judea and Samaria will also be rightly shocked by bombings that claim the lives of many civilians in Jenin and Tulkarm.

Thus, the following equation was created: if you believe that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, from your point of view the event is not hill-top youth or extremists who need to be stopped, but the division into two states. And if you believe in the need for a Greater Israel at any cost, you are required to fall in line and agree with everything that happens on the ground, for the sake of the goal. But most Israeli citizens do not want a Palestinian state, that is a fact. And on the other hand, those same citizens do not support unbridled violence against Palestinians at all. How do we provide an answer to this majority? Ensure that there is representation for those citizens who do not want a Palestinian state, but do demand order and absolute control of the IDF on the ground.

Any attempt to push the public to an 'either-or' decision will end in a result you do not want, therefore a clear separation must be created between the two discussions. Want to separate from the Palestinians? Start by convincing the public how this will lead to security. This has nothing to do with the fact that Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria requires law and order. And that radical elements must be curbed. And it certainly has nothing to do with the fact that hikers are attacked. As long as you are not willing to conduct this discussion separately, you are part of the problem.