The main argument brought by autonomy supporters is bogus. They claim that if we would give them good conditions, municipal services that they can run themselves, they’ll abandon the path of terror. However, the neglect in Arab areas is the result of Arab policy, not Israeli policy. It makes no difference how many tens of billions of dollars in international “aid relief” flow to them; they don’t even make the barest investment to improve their people’s primitive living standards. They would rather invest in terrorism and murder – not just toward us, but also toward their fellow Arabs. That’s the way they operate; it’s a fundamental component of the Muslim weltanschauung.
Translated by Michoel Leib Dobry
1.
Here is a summation of sixty-seven years of the Israeli ‘difference of opinion’: The left-wing is certain that if we would only be nicer to the Arabs, apologize and give them good living conditions, we’d have another Switzerland here. In contrast, the nationalist camp declares that it’s forbidden to blink before the terrorists, and in war, the one who blinks first – loses.
The recent wave of terror has revealed the absurd, as Arabs with Israeli citizenship have joined the terrorist ranks – residents of East Jerusalem with blue (citizen) identity cards and even employees with state-run corporations. A couple of weeks ago it was reported that several dozen Israeli Arabs crossed the border into Syria and enlisted into the ISIS murder organization and its growing factions.
The truth of the matter is that ever since the dismantling of the Yamit settlement on the Sinai Peninsula, as stipulated in the Camp David Accords, the national policies implemented in Eretz Yisroel have been characteristic of the political left. This doesn’t apply solely to governments led by the Labor Party, rather the whole concept of territorial compromise that the Oslo Accords have imposed upon us. While the Likud Party voted against Oslo II in the Knesset, its leaders implemented its provisions: giving away Chevron, making more concessions at Wye Plantation, and destroying the Jewish communities of Gush Katif and the northern Shomron. These actions were not made unilaterally. Every time an agreement was reached, the world at-large played its role as well, transferring billions of shekels to the “Palestinian Authority” for the rehabilitation of Arab cities and those areas gutted of all Jewish presence. The “Palestinian Authority” receives among the largest amounts of humanitarian aid from the international community. However, what do the terrorist leaders do with the billions they get? If the reason for terrorist activity is the neglect of water and sewage infrastructure in Arab villages, one would expect that these funds would be invested in developing new infrastructure. But the terror organizations take the money allocated for assistance to the indigent Arab population and use it instead for a far loftier purpose: murder, bloodshed, and the addition of more widows and orphans to the circle of bereavement.
The real problem is not the Arabs; it’s the international perspective on the Middle East conflict penetrating deep into Israeli policy. For more than twenty years now there has been no nationalist policy within the political leadership in Eretz Yisroel. There’s no one in Israeli politics today who truly believes that all of Eretz Yisroel belongs to us and we must apply Jewish sovereignty over all parts of the land under our control. The concept of autonomy – conceived at Camp David by the first Likud prime minister and advanced at Madrid by another Likud prime minister – has been transformed into a key element of the most far right political platform in effect at the present time. Anyone today who talks “only” about autonomy is considered the most extreme right-wing reactionary on the ideological spectrum of Israeli politics.
In the face of this utter confusion we see how heavy a price we pay when we don’t heed the warnings of the leader of the generation. Anyone who grants control over water and electricity to the heads of terrorist organizations makes them the rulers over that specific territory. It’s no wonder that the only city to be built in Yehuda and Shomron over the past twenty years is the Arab city of Rawabi, which has turned the vision of a “Palestinian” state into an established fact.
The fact is that the whole concept of autonomy started out as a very pragmatic idea; it’s just that pragmatism now dominates the entire debate. Even the separation between the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and the Jewish communities has been made a part of a pragmatic solution. The problem is that, in practical terms, the division of Yerushalayim has already begun. Once again, a Likud government is implementing the concept of separation – not based on ideology or a fervent desire to partition the land, rather the pragmatism of “we’re here and they’re there.” Last week we also learned that Prime Minister Netanyahu is exploring the possibility of invalidating Israeli citizenship for the Arab residents of East Jerusalem. To put it simply, he’s transferring the city’s eastern sector to the control of the PLO – excuse me, today they’re called the “Palestinian Authority.”
2.
When the Rebbe cried out against autonomy, he emphasized that the PLO should not even be given responsibility for trash collection services, warning also about their education. Back in those days this raised a few eyebrows. “Let them educate their children however they want. Why do we have to take responsibility for their children’s education?” Only in the recent wave of terror has everyone been speaking about the incitement contained in textbooks used throughout the “Palestinian Authority.”
The Rebbe saw for decades how talks on autonomy would lead to the establishment of a de-facto “Palestinian” state. “And what they claim that we’re talking about autonomy, not giving away territory – as has been said many times, they’re not talking about giving autonomy to Jews – they’re giving autonomy to those in Sh’chem, Chevron, Ramallah, etc. (who already have some autonomy), and they know who they choose to be their representatives,” the Rebbe said in one of the sichos, as he spoke about the terrorist leaders chosen to be the people in charge over the autonomous territories. “And when they give them autonomy, even just municipal authority, it means that they cut themselves off from ownership rights there, and they continue only to preserve its security.”
In that sicha the Rebbe explained why the idea of gradual autonomy, in a process that would continue for five years, would not prevent the abandonment of security: “Afterwards, they can come and claim that they don’t want to wait five years – five days are enough, and they want them to send so-and-so from there, and they will remove the army since they have a police force. They allow this, and they even give them weapons. From the very outset, this results in a loosening of the foundation under [their] legs, such that they can’t stand there. At the first opportunity when they feel what they have in their power, there won’t be any possibility to argue with them!
“…If from the outset people would stand strong, it wouldn’t come to this. Now, however, it’s clear what will be r”l, and if they sign on the text they are suggesting now, there is not the slightest doubt that this will surely increase the pikuach nefesh (may this not happen), and there is not the slightest doubt that (based on the facts thus far) that not long after the signing, they will make another demand and another demand, until the most extreme demand (which I don’t want to pass my lips).”
Now, take note of the date of the sicha: Motzaei Shabbos Haazinu, the 13th of Tishrei 5739, more than three and a half decades ago.
3.
In the final analysis, the main argument brought by autonomy supporters is false. They claim that if we would give them good conditions, municipal services that they can run themselves, they’ll abandon the path of terror. However, it turns out that the neglect in Arab areas is the result of Arab policy, not Israeli policy. They prefer to live exactly as their brethren do in the twenty-two neighboring Arab countries. Just as in the PA controlled territory, it makes no difference how much money flows to them, they don’t even make the barest investment to improve their people’s primitive living standards. They would rather invest in terrorism and murder – not just toward us, but also toward their fellow Arabs. That’s the way they operate; it’s a fundamental component of their weltanschauung.
This is essentially the problem of the recent wave of terror: Far too many Israeli media pundits are trying to give explanations justifying terrorist activities. They desperately seek to turn everything upside down, showing how we are at fault, blaming us for not tending to the Arabs’ needs. At the same time, we see how all efforts to grant autonomy are only made as a way of evading terrorism. Our weakness in national resolve has taken hold of us everywhere we turn – Yerushalayim, Yehuda and Shomron, the Galilee, the Negev. Anyone today who grovels before the terrorists in Yerushalayim and gives them a gift by transferring the city’s eastern sector into PLO hands should not be surprised if terrorism again goes on the attack.
To this day, the terrorist organizations – those that have been promoting this horrific incitement and igniting the current wave of terror – have not been made to pay the price for their murderous actions. Their chieftains roam around freely and continue to inflame their followers, while their religious leaders preach hate-filled messages in mosques. It’s easy to guess what would happen if, l’havdil, Jewish leaders would incite their congregations in synagogues to murder Arabs. The authorities would order the immediate bulldozing of their homes…
They haven’t even had the courage to cut off Internet services in those areas permeated with terrorist activities. If they claim that all the incitement is running wild on social media networks, why don’t they just cut off their Internet?
4.
A couple of weeks ago, the Israel High Court of Justice issued two rulings in connection with government plans on property destruction. The first decision dealt with the homes of terrorists, and the Court ruled against the Cabinet decision to demolish them. The second case dealt with a decision to tear down the Ayelet HaShachar Synagogue in Givat Ze’ev, and the Court ordered that the Cabinet’s decision should be implemented immediately.
That, in a nutshell, is the policy of the Israel High Court of Justice…