An especially stormy and passionate discussion accompanied the special event held by the Sovereignty Movement marking the publication of "Excuse me, Is This Yours?" by Tuvia Tenenbom, which uncompromisingly calls for the application of Israeli sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel.
Rachel Silvetsky of Arutz 7 English argued that tanks and military divisions alone do not determine sovereignty as long as the terminology used regarding Judea and Samaria remains temporary in nature. She also pointed to what she described as “apartheid among Israeli citizens,” in which residents of Judea and Samaria live without sovereign Israeli civil law and their civilian lives ultimately depend on the decisions of military officials. In her view, this reality sends a message to the world that Israel’s presence in these territories is itself temporary.
Attorney Maurice Hirsch, an expert in international law and researcher of the legal status of Judea and Samaria, argued that it is the settlement enterprise itself that creates sovereignty in practice. When more than 550,000 Jews live in Judea and Samaria, he said, that constitutes de facto sovereignty. In his opinion, sovereignty is not primarily about legal declarations, but about actions and realities on the ground. He briefly reviewed key milestones in the legal and constitutional history of the Land of Israel since the San Remo Conference, concluding that the decisive factor throughout history has been Jewish presence. By contrast, he argued that the absence of large-scale Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip enabled the disengagement and expulsion from Gaza — unlike the situation in Judea and Samaria.
At the same time, Hirsch emphasized that according to international law, no entity other than the State of Israel can legitimately claim ownership over these territories.
Omer Rahamim, CEO of the Yesha Council, described what he called the practical revolution taking place in Judea and Samaria over the past three and a half years — developments that, in his view, are gradually bringing sovereignty into reality step by step. At that point, Tuvia Tenenbom interrupted sharply, arguing that such gradualism merely “purifies the creeping problem” of failing to formally apply sovereignty. In his opinion, some officials fear sovereignty because they would lose their positions if it were implemented.
Rahamim clarified that, in his view, the Netanyahu government failed by not formally applying sovereignty. Nevertheless, he said the government deserves credit for the significant progress made toward sovereignty during its years in office, advancing one stage at a time. He concluded by arguing that sovereignty should become a central issue in Israel’s next election campaign.
Attorney Michael Shperber expressed agreement with many of Tuvia Tenenbom’s arguments and warned that an alternative government formed after future elections could dismantle Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and reverse many of the practical changes advanced by Minister Bezalel Smotrich. In his view, this danger stems from what he described as Israel’s excessive dependence on the United States under the current prime minister. Such dependence, he warned, could return Israel to what he called the “Auschwitz borders.” At the same time, he praised the practical transformation that has taken place on the ground in recent years.
Dubi Sheffler, head of the Efrat Local Council, elaborated on the significant developments that have taken place in Judea and Samaria, including in the area of land purchases. In his opinion, some of these processes are already irreversible — even if a future government were led by Yair Golan. “Bezalel Smotrich is forcing this government to carry out the necessary steps,” he said. In his view, what is now needed to complete the picture is the realization of what he termed the Arab “right of return” to their countries of origin, which he believes would create a Jewish majority in Judea and Samaria.
Tenenbom again sharply criticized several of the speakers, accusing them of “selling illusions,” in his words. Arabs, he argued, would not leave voluntarily, and fantasies about such a scenario were merely “fairy tales” and unrealistic dreams. His remarks sparked intense reactions in the discussion after he accused settlement leaders of acting out of political maneuvering, personal interests, and misleading the public.
The second half of the panel focused on the question of how the broader public could contribute to advancing sovereignty. Rachel Silvetsky again pointed to the dramatic initiatives led by Minister Bezalel Smotrich, particularly in accelerating legal and administrative measures aimed at strengthening Jewish presence and facts on the ground in Judea and Samaria.
According to Silvetsky, Israelis must bring about an internal shift in consciousness regarding Judea and Samaria and strengthen awareness of the Jewish people’s historical and legal connection to these areas.
Attorney Maurice Hirsch added that the public should demand the cancellation of the Oslo Accords and the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority. “Either we prepare for sovereignty or we prepare for another October 7,” Hirsch said, referencing recently published reports concerning Palestinian Authority military-style training exercises, including artillery drills — capabilities he argued are unnecessary for a police force. He also cited reports claiming that instead of the officially expected 11,000 police officers, the force now numbers approximately 60,000 armed personnel.
Hirsch argued that Israelis must become familiar with sovereignty models beyond what he described as the false dichotomy between a Palestinian state and a binational state. He maintained that alternative frameworks exist and that international precedents for them can be found.
Omer Rahamim warned against the possible formation of a national unity government that, in his view, would halt all progress on settlement and sovereignty. What is needed now, he said, is broad mobilization within the national camp to secure a decisive electoral victory leading to a right-wing government that views Judea and Samaria as inherently belonging to Israel, as he believes the current government does. Hirsch added that during the previous Bennett–Lapid government, investments in Judea and Samaria were frozen, and warned against a return to such policies.
Attorney Michael Shperber suggested that hopes should not rest solely on canceling the Oslo Accords or encouraging Arab emigration, which he believes is unlikely because neighboring Arab countries are not interested in absorbing Palestinians. According to him, Israelis must internalize what he described as the immediate and tangible threat posed by Arabs in Judea and Samaria to Israeli cities and communities, especially after the events of October 7. He said intelligence assessments have repeatedly warned of such scenarios. “We want to move them eastward. Jordan is Palestine, and if we say this openly, it is the only thing that will guarantee our survival,” he said, arguing that the current government cannot truly be considered right-wing as long as it does not cancel the Oslo Accords and fundamentally change its strategic paradigm following October 7.
Dubi Sheffler concluded by calling on every individual to consider how they can personally contribute to advancing sovereignty — including by bringing visitors and tour groups to Judea and Samaria, thereby normalizing the reality on the ground. He also highlighted the efforts of Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, leaders of the Sovereignty Movement, who he said are striving to bring about a genuine transformation in Israeli policy through their call for sovereignty.
Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, co-chairs of the Sovereignty Movement, summed up the evening with optimism: “Indeed, Tuvia Tenenbaum is right. There is still no sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, but we say in a clear voice: Sovereignty will come, because this land is ours!”
POTO: Meir elipur