The Sovereignty Youth Seminar invited two adversaries: journalist Shalom Yerushalmi, for whom sovereignty would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise, and Prof. Eldad, who views sovereignty as a historical Zionist necessity.
At the Oz veGaon preserve, the Sovereignty Movement held another seminar for dozens of young men and women from all parts of the Land, entitled Sovereignty – Learn and Teach, the goal of which was to train the members of the Sovereignty Youth movement to be advocates and ambassadors for the vision.
The event was opened by the head of Gush Etzion Council, Shlomo Ne’eman, who praised the Sovereignty Movement and its leaders, Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, for bringing about the significant change in awareness that has occurred during the movement’s period of activity. He also praised the involvement of the youth in the vision and its realization, describing to the attendees the difficulties of administering a local and regional authority in the absence of sovereignty, where it is military officers who make important civil decisions touching on everyday life in the communities and councils.
Following the words of welcome, there was a speech by a surprising guest of the seminar, journalist Shalom Yerushalmi, a strong opponent of the vision of sovereignty, who sees its realization as the end of the Zionist enterprise. The co-chairwomen of the Sovereignty Movement expressed their appreciation of Yerushalmi for his willingness to present his opinion before an audience so opposed to his position and explained the reason for bringing him to speak before the young people. “It is important to be familiar with the position of the other side because these are the positions that one hears in the street, and it is important to be able to deal with these positions”, and indeed, Yerushalmi’s lecture caused quite a stir among the audience, who found it challenging and asked many questions.
Yerushalmi began his remarks by expressing respect for the resolute and tenacious way that the leadership of the settlement enterprise conducts the battle. “I very much appreciate a battle over positions and opinions, whether on the Left or the Right”, he said, expressing the hope that in the Left camp as well, there are youths who are willing to fight for their positions as much as the Sovereignty Youth seem to be.
True to the position that he has been presenting for many years, Yerushalmi stated that the model of the application of sovereignty exists on a small scale in Jerusalem, and the result of this model is disastrous. “Jerusalem is collapsing. Jerusalem is a city that is occupied by those whom we conquered in ‘67. Today the Arabs are almost forty percent of the residents of the city. Jerusalem is economically and socially dependent on the good will of that Arab forty percent of residents”, he stated, describing the situation where the Arabs of Jerusalem can choose to incapacitate the city.
To this, he added that “If the Palestinians ever decide that they will contend for mayoralty of the city in the next elections in Jerusalem, they will automatically have 40 percent of support which would mean victory. In such a situation the City of Jerusalem, which today is bi-national, would become a Palestinian city because we have annexed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
In Yerushalmi’s opinion, terror in Jerusalem has abated because “they do not need terror. Jerusalem is falling into their hands like ripe fruit. We are only contributing to this. We erected a separation fence to fight terror but the Palestinians on the other side of the fence are still Jerusalemites. Nearly a hundred and fifty thousand people are residents of Jerusalem who only make the economic situation worse. They live beyond the separation fence and receive National Insurance. We cannot separate ourselves from them”.
Yerushalmi sees the Oslo Accords and the Disengagement as “two miracles that happened to us”, in his words, explaining that “Thanks to the Disengagement we are not in Gaza and thanks to Oslo we are not in the Palestinian cities and do not control their lives as demanded by those who want sovereignty”.
“If Abu Mazen hands over the keys, the IDF returns to the cities and the refugee camps and starts to manage the lives of two and a half million Palestinians and their welfare. Even before dealing with the demographic matter we will be burdened. When we resume control there, our soldiers will become targets for terror. When we were in Gaza we did not impose order; we were protecting our own lives. We can imagine what a war there would be here if we returned there, how many opportunities they would have to take revenge on our soldiers”.
However, in Yerushalmi’s opinion the possibility for separation no longer exists because of the settlement enterprise, which has determined facts on the ground. “Today”, he claimed, “there is no prime minister that would be able to evacuate Beit El, Ofrah, Shiloh or Kedumim. Facts on the ground have been created, which are a victory for the Right but will bring about the defeat of Zionism”.
In response to Yerushalmi’s words, Prof. Aryeh Eldad said ironically that Yerushalmi is correct when he claims that we must separate from the Palestinians, but that transfer is not acceptable to us, not because it is not the right thing to do or because it is not ethical, but because there are bodies in the world and among us as well, that would object to it. “In a utopian world it would have been the only way to stop the bloodshed but we do not live in a world where we do what we want and what would be the ethical and correct thing to do”.
Eldad noted the history of transfers that have brought about peace between countries and in the case of Turkey and Greece such a plan won the Nobel Peace Prize despite the personal tragedies. “But Shalom Yerushalmi is not referring to this. He means that we will leave our homeland so that the Arabs can establish a state in the heart of our homeland. This will not happen either. They make up different names for this – Oslo, the Geneva Initiative and others, but every time, the plan is stained with Jewish blood so it is difficult to sell”.
Prof. Eldad also stated that at the root of Shalom Yerushalmi’s ideas, represented by words such as “separation”, is the basic sense that does not recognize the Land of Israel as the homeland. Eldad wondered if the severe problem of the lack of sovereignty in the Negev leads to the conclusion that we should give up the Negev along with the Bedouins who live there.
Eldad recalled the event when ten PA vehicles entered Jerusalem to arrest four wanted individuals, an event that directly infringed on Israeli sovereignty and nevertheless, there was not one protest by the rightist ministers “because this is not in their soul, because they are not sovereigns in their consciousness. Sovereignty is a state of consciousness and not just law; no law will make a difference to anyone who does not feel that this is our homeland and that it belongs to no one but us”.
In this context, he noted the battle for the Falkland Islands and similar battles where various countries went out to battle from the sense that the land is sacred and it is necessary to go to battle and fight for it. This is what the British said and Lenin’s Russia as well, in the fight against Japan, and in contrast to what happens in Israel, these cases had no connection to religion. “It is patriotism, which is not related to religion. This is how it was also in the movement for Greater Israel, which included secular leaders like Tabenkin and others. This sort has disappeared”.
“Zionism believed that the Land of Israel must be a safe haven for the Jewish People in the event of the expected catastrophes. This relates to the Land of Israel as a tool and not as an ideal, and a tool can be large or small. This is the big problem with Shalom Yerushalmi’s concept”.
Eldad believes that the State of Israel is now in an optimal situation to implement the application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, because of Donald Trump’s administration, which is due to end in a year and a half or in five and a half years. And this is despite the Deal of the Century that he is promoting which includes a Palestinian state of some sort. “We are in a very difficult situation, but it is still the best international situation that we have ever had”.
“If, Heaven forbid, a Palestinian state should arise in this territory, whether it is a “state minus” or not, if it decides to build rockets this would be justification for war, but Israel would not start a war because of the missile production, just as she fails to do in Gaza, because of the cost, because of “what they would say” or any other reason. If Heaven forbid, a Palestinian state is declared, which would become a Hamas state, Israel will not be able to go in to turn the wheel back”, said Prof. Eldad.
Later in his remarks, Eldad related to the issue of the Arabs’ status and coping with the demographic issue after applying sovereignty.
Eldad noted the idea that was raised by the UN committee that was sent to the Land of Israel toward the end of mandatory period. According to this idea, after the partition plan was accepted there would be 600 thousand Jews and 400 thousand Arabs remaining in the Jewish state who would receive the status of resident in the Jewish state and the status of citizenship in the Arab state.
“There is already an Arab state where 75 percent define themselves as Palestinians and this is Jordan. It covers 75 percent of Palestine, as King Hussein has also claimed. An Arab in Nablus can live in Nablus and vote for parliament in Amman. This would solve a great part of the problem. This would prevent the possibility for Arabs to change the Zionist laws, to change the state symbols. The distinction between citizenship and residency is not ideal but our problem is different from any other place in the world; therefore, the solutions are different”.
Eldad explains that in order to carry out such a process, Israeli sovereignty must first be applied in the territory and only afterward can the sovereign authority transfer some of the authorities to autonomous rule, and then it can pull back some of these authorities according to the will of the Israeli regime. “The existing law states that the government of Israel is may apply the law over any territory that she chooses. This is how the law was applied in Jerusalem”, Eldad notes.
Also taking part in the seminar’s first day were: publicist and director of the Israeli Sheli Movement Sarah Haetzni-Cohen, Shay Hemo, who is Regavim coordinator in Judea and Samaria, correspondent Yair Sharki and Rav David Nativ.