Should Israel accept sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria? Experts in the nationalist camp respond

Most responses depended on whether or not a Palestinian state would be part of the deal.

By Atara Beck

Israeli lawmakers on Wednesday approved a non-binding motion backing the extension of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.

The next day, the Defense Ministry confirmed the establishment of 22 new Israeli settlements in the region, including both new communities and outposts that will now be legalized. This marks the largest single settlement expansion since the 1967 Six-Day War.

Among prominent politicians, activists, and experts who are pro-Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, there has been some debate about whether Israel – if given the opportunity for a US-brokered deal with the Palestinians – should accept sovereignty over only parts of the region as an initial step.

At the inaugural JNS (Jewish News Syndicate) International Policy Conference, a two-day event held last month at Jerusalem’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel, several speakers raised and debated the issue.

World Israel News asked various influential participants and attendees: If President Donald Trump presents a deal, like he did during his first administration, that would recognize Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria, should Israel grab what it can for now?

The following responses were slightly edited for brevity and clarity.

David Weinberg, Senior Managing Fellow, Misgav Institute for National Security & Zionist Strategy: “When [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu talked about Palestinian statehood in his Bar-Ilan speech (Netanyahu expressed his willingness to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel, under certain conditions, in an address at Bar-Ilan University in 2009) and in the Trump plan, there were about 6,000 hoops that the Palestinians had to jump through in order to get to potential statehood. Life is dynamic; things change. The likelihood that we’ll ever get there is close to nil. There is a dilemma about keeping the concept of a Palestinian state alive, but I still think that we must grab the opportunities that we have and lock in our gains nevertheless.”

Martin Sherman, founder and CEO of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies: “I tend to agree with Weinberg because the stipulations made then were stipulations that the Palestinians would never accept. So, take what you can get now, and take what you can get later because the Palestinians will never accept Trump’s stipulations.”

As for setting a precedent for a Palestinian state, “Netanyahu set the precedent at Bar-Ilan,” Sherman said.

Member of Knesset Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionism), Chairman of the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee: “It depends on which parts of the region are offered. I cannot answer the question because I would need to know the reason for the offer and understand the specific situation. If the suggestion would be to draw a jurisdiction for a Palestinian state in the future, I would say no.”

Nadia Matar, co-chair (with Yehudit Katsover) of the Sovereignty Movement founded by Women in Green: “We opposed the first Deal of the Century, presented by President Trump, because it included a Palestinian state [in Judea and Samaria], so there was a very big rift in the nationalist camp. Some people said we should grab it because the Arabs will never agree to all the terms, and so it will never happen. However, we said no because it would give legitimacy to the idea [of a Palestinian state], and maybe another president will come to power afterward – which happened with the election of Joe Biden. Had we agreed to the first part, then-president Biden would have said the time has come to implement the second part. So, I’m very happy that the original Deal of the Century did not come to fruition. If we would negotiate a plan for sovereignty without including a Palestinian state, there would be what to talk about.

“If, during this administration, a plan is presented that does not include a Palestinian state, with the implementation of sovereignty is in stages, I think that could be discussed – as long as we all know that the end goal is sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria.”

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America: I agree with what [first Israeli prime minister] David Ben-Gurion did. He didn’t get everything he wanted, but he established a state, and it was the right thing to do. I think we should apply sovereignty wherever we can.

If Trump comes up with another plan, we should take it, but not if it requires saying that the Arabs have a right to other areas in the region that would be reserved for a Palestinian state. I would never agree to that. Otherwise, I would take whatever we can get for now.

Chaim Silberstein, founder and chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Applied Policy (JCAP) and the Im Eshkachech-Keep Jerusalem public diplomacy organization: “I’m in favor of incremental sovereignty because I don’t think we’d be able to get sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria in one shot.

“I’m in favor of incremental sovereignty, starting with Jerusalem – expanding Jerusalem as a metropolitan area and then incorporating the [surrounding] Gush Etzion area, the Ma’ale Adumim area, the Givat Ze’ev area in the greater Jerusalem area as one huge municipality. It would be good for Jerusalem. It would break the glass ceiling of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, and I think that’s a very good place to start. From there onwards, we could, hopefully, continue the incremental acquirement of more areas under Israeli sovereignty.”

However, “not if it’s in return for a Palestinian state. We need to be very clear that there’s no place for a Palestinian state – not anywhere, in my opinion, but certainly not west of the Jordan River. At the same time, we have political considerations, and we might have to assert our sovereignty even incrementally.”

2 state solutionDonald TrumpJudea and SamariaSovereignty