The status of Judea and Samaria: a war process

---

By Yana Grinshpun and Roland Assaraf. Although written five years ago and never published until now, this article appears to be as relevant today as ever.

Since its independence, Israel has succeeded in achieving a comfortable economic and military standing compared to other countries, but it has failed miserably to confront the root cause of the war against its very existence and legitimacy.

The political establishment often fuels the conflict, likely due to a distorted interpretation of reality shaped by powerful global anti-Israeli propaganda. The core of the conflict is not land, natural resources, or vague “territories,” but primarily cultural and psychological symbols. The motivation behind the war against Israel is, above all, a matter of culture and psychology.

Focusing on military and technological strength is understandable when the short-term survival of the state is at stake. The fact that Israel has been governed by numerous generals—Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon—is symptomatic of this short-term survival mentality. But military success on the battlefield is not incompatible with political weakness or incompetence, especially when the ultimate goal is to achieve peace through victory.

For Israel’s enemies, the 1948 war, the 1956 Suez crisis, the Six-Day War of 1967, the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and the Second Intifada are not “wars,” as Israelis often label them, but rather battles. When a war ends, peace is established between the belligerent parties. There has been no war in Europe since the defeat of the Nazis in World War II.

In Israel’s case, peace has never been achieved. As Fried (2014) noted, “the desired territorial, economic, military, or other benefits expected following the successful conclusion of a war” were never discussed. Peace comes from the psychological and official recognition of one party’s victory and the other’s defeat. It also entails acknowledgment of territorial annexations resulting from war.

This is how Alsace was annexed by the German Empire in 1871 after victory in the Franco-Prussian War, and how it returned to France after World War I. Sakhalin (Karafuto) was annexed by Russia following its victory over Japan in 1945.

During the 1948 war, Jordan’s Arab Legion conquered the Old City of Jerusalem and took control of territory west of the Jordan River, including Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, and Nablus. At the end of hostilities, Jordan was in full control of the West Bank.

---

Two Alternatives for Israeli-Arab “Peace”

1. A complete Israeli victory, in which Israel’s enemies renounce their goal of eliminating the Jewish state and recognize its legitimacy.
2. Israel’s surrender to genocidal ideology and eventual disappearance. This, too, results in “peace,” since peace always exists with a country that no longer exists.

How Israeli Politics Fuels the Conflict

The failure to apply Israeli sovereignty over the lands occupied by Jordan in 1948—and recovered by Israel in 1967 after the Six-Day War—reinforces perceptions of Israeli illegitimacy and puts Tel Aviv and Jews worldwide in danger by presenting them as legitimate targets of terrorism.

Entrusting a terrorist organization like the PLO with managing a population just kilometers from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem confers “Jewish” legitimacy upon terrorism against Jews.

The “preventive ethnic cleansing” of Jews in Gaza under Ariel Sharon—referred to as the “dismantling of 21 Jewish settlements”—did not produce peace. Instead, it confirmed the legitimacy of continued ethnic cleansing, supported by the UN and the Palestinian Authority. Hamas quickly took over the Gaza Strip.

Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem are the symbolic and cultural heartland of the Jewish people. Jews have continuously lived there and legally acquired property since the late 19th century under the Ottoman Empire.

Israel’s reluctance to defend this heritage is not lost on its enemies, who observe that Jews will not fight for their cultural legacy but flee, as they have for centuries. If they won’t fight for Jerusalem, why would they fight for Sderot—or ultimately, Tel Aviv?

The Oslo mentality is rooted in appeasement: the belief that granting power to genocidal ideologues will earn their goodwill. Everyone remembers the basis of the Oslo Accords: Israel recognized the PLO—a terrorist organization that not only attacked Jews but also targeted Arab leaders willing to recognize Israel. In return, Israel was to transfer control of parts of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to the PLO, which was supposed to renounce violence and propaganda.

In practice, Arafat ignored these terms—unsurprisingly, as he was a dictator. Yet the Israeli government was not troubled: massive funds were transferred to Arafat’s personal accounts, and no support was given to Palestinian dissidents opposing his rule. Israel, under Western pressure, enabled the creation of one of the world’s most corrupt and repressive regimes, which oppresses its citizens and promotes open hatred of Israel.

It is astounding that a state fighting for its very existence and paying such a high price agreed to an accord with a terrorist organization without demanding reciprocal recognition. As Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit noted, the Oslo Accords were a colossal mistake—they granted the Palestinians the right to sovereignty without receiving mutual recognition in return.

This suicidal decision may stem from the ideology of Oslo architects like Shimon Peres—a man who, despite his contributions, was a post-nationalist dreamer. He believed that borders and territory had little significance for stable peace and prosperity. In line with this vision, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs even closed its “propaganda department,” ceasing efforts to promote Israel’s perspective internationally. The consequences of this surrender are now evident in France, Europe, and the United States. The rise of antisemitism is partly due to the naïveté of politicians like Yossi Beilin, who believed, “If we are sincere in our desire for peace, the world will support us.”

Nathan Sharansky critiques these illusions in The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, clearly illustrating how “world support” plays out in reality. In recent years: 13 Jews were murdered in France simply for being Jews, their killers often seen as victims of society; pogroms have shaken the U.S.; and antisemitic and anti-Israeli sentiments have become more fashionable than ever.

The appeasement logic extended to Moshe Dayan, who handed the Temple Mount to Jordan; to Rabin, who invited a genocidal organization from Tunis to manage Arabs near Israel; to Barak, who offered 98% of Judea and Samaria, including half of Jerusalem; and to Ehud Olmert, who offered even more. Even Netanyahu, to a lesser extent, adopted this logic when he froze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria at Europe’s behest.

It is also the logic of General Benny Gantz, who aspired to be Prime Minister
See: Times of Israel article

Gantz, understandably as a general, views Judea and Samaria only through a military lens and misses their symbolic and psychological value. By accepting the premise that Jews will abandon their homes to avoid fighting, he validates the idea that they might one day flee Tel Aviv in pursuit of “peace.”

History repeats itself. The Oslo ideology, promoted by Peace Now, J Street, JCall—what Lenin might have called “useful idiots”—remains alive. Gantz proposes concessions for a short-term truce, emboldening enemies to prepare for the next war in the name of peace.

He and his supporters failed to learn from Oslo and the Second Intifada because they misunderstand the conflict: it’s not about tanks and tactics, but about the inability of Islamic and Christian traditions to accept a Jewish return to the Land of Israel.

As Daniel Sibony, the French psychoanalyst, put it: this is “the land symbolically owned by Jews for 3,000 years.” Thinkers like Jules Isaac, Léon Poliakov, Robert Wistrich, Pierre-André Taguieff, Shmuel Trigano, Daniel Sibony, Georges-Elia Sarfati, Bat Ye’or, and others have analyzed these cultural representations. For 20 centuries, Jewish lack of sovereignty over this land was seen as divine punishment—a theological validation of antisemitism, especially in Christianity.

Conclusion

True, long-term peace requires courage: the courage to assert non-negotiable sovereignty over the biblical heartland, in line with international law. The European mantra—that the 1948 ceasefire lines are Israel’s legal borders and that Jewish settlements are illegal—is nothing more than a modern echo of a 1,700-year-old theology: a Judenrein Judea.

And a Judenrein Judea naturally leads to a Judenrein Spain, a Judenrein England, a Judenrein France, and a Judenrein Europe.