We summarized and translated into English the podcast conversation between attorney Eran Ben‑Ari, an expert on the legal reality in Judea and Samaria who accompanied Judge Edmond Levy’s report, and attorney Michael Dvorin about what life in Judea and Samaria looks like today and about the urgent necessity of applying sovereignty.
National agreement around the vision of sovereignty is expanding: an overwhelming majority of the Israeli government and a majority of Knesset members have already expressed their support for applying sovereignty. Still, the sovereignty project raises many questions. So if you too still have questions about the vision of sovereignty, or if you still don’t understand why sovereignty and why now, we recommend you listen to the podcast of the meeting between Attorney Michael Dvorin and Attorney Eran Ben‑Ari.
As part of the podcast series “Utterly Implausible” by “Shomer Saf,” the two discuss the vision of sovereignty, its importance, and its feasibility. Attorney Ben‑Ari states absolutely and unequivocally that applying sovereignty is the only correct answer to European moves seeking to recognize a Palestinian state. During the conversation Ben‑Ari explains how necessary and critical the move is for Israel’s security and future, as well as for the civil normalization required for more than half a million residents of Judea and Samaria.
Having served in the Ministry of Defense as the official responsible for civil affairs in Judea and Samaria, Attorney Ben‑Ari presents the currently impossible reality there, while opening with a reminder of the lessons from the October 7th massacre, when the entire people of Israel saw what the establishment of an independent Arab political entity meant — including the evacuation and uprooting of Jewish communities and reliance on various technological means for our security. This is while in Judea and Samaria the IDF conducts arrests of terrorists every evening and night with local communities assisting in holding the area — and that is the source of the difference between Gaza and Judea and Samaria.
Ben‑Ari describes the historical‑legal background of control over Judea and Samaria and the decision to apply sovereignty to East Jerusalem after the Six Day War. He notes that applying sovereignty does not require a Knesset majority but is sufficient by a government decision. He also explains the fundamental difference between applying sovereignty in East Jerusalem or other parts of Judea and Samaria versus applying sovereignty on the Golan Heights.
Dvorin and Ben‑Ari talk about the impossible reality that exists in Judea and Samaria in the absence of sovereignty regarding civil and human rights. The discussion touches, among other things, on real estate laws that exist in Judea and Samaria — absurdly, these are laws from the Ottoman period when maps did not even exist to indicate responsibility and ownership. Since the Turks parceled land only so taxes could be collected from farmers, the implication is that one cannot acquire legal possession of land in Judea and Samaria.
Attorney Ben‑Ari expands on the significance of the territorial division under the Oslo Accords and the entrenchment of an apartheid‑like reality in which Jews are forbidden from entering and moving within Area A. The division of the territory was intended to be temporary until a permanent agreement — which, as is known, did not arrive because of the Arab decision to wage war against Israel — and following that the IDF operates throughout the area. Despite all the settlement enterprise, Israel officially did not apply its sovereignty over the area; in practice the Central Command commander is the exclusive sovereign in the territory, and as sovereign he chooses which legislation would apply in Judea and Samaria and which would not. Thus some Israeli laws apply alongside the still‑relevant Ottoman legislation.
The conversation also raises the absurd reality in which, according to the Paris Protocol — the economic annex to the Oslo Accords — Israel collects taxes for the Palestinian Authority, which is not only corrupt and enriching its leaders by millions of dollars but also encourages terror and pays salaries to terrorists according to a “blood money” scale in which those who killed more Jews receive higher pay.
In this context they also mention the involvement of PA security personnel in terror attacks, and PA legislation prescribing severe punishments including torture and death for those who sell land to Jews.
Ben‑Ari and Dvorin cite further examples of anomalies in how life is conducted in Judea and Samaria in the absence of Israeli sovereignty — in tort law, corporate law, and more. To correct this perverse reality, he asserts, the recent Knesset decision must be translated into a government decision whose meaning is the application of sovereignty.
Having been secretary of the committee led by Judge Edmond Levy that investigated the historical claims of the Jewish people to Judea and Samaria, Attorney Ben‑Ari firmly states that the claim of “occupation” is entirely baseless, and that it is possible and important to study the writings of Judge Edmond Levy to understand the historical background of the real situation in Judea and Samaria. The rights of the Jewish people to all of Judea and Samaria also have international recognition, although one must also recognize the reality of the Arab population of Judea and Samaria, whose exact number is still unknown, since the PA has an interest in inflating the figures while many of them leave and choose to emigrate across the world.
Ben‑Ari emphasizes that the Knesset declaration focuses on applying sovereignty to settlement areas and the Jordan Valley — that is, areas where the demographic challenge is almost non‑existent. Ben‑Ari and Dvorin stress the security importance of the Jordan Valley, noting that the alternative to an eastern border on the Jordan River is an eastern border on Highway 6, with all the implications and dangers that would pose to Israel’s population centers.
Ben‑Ari elaborates on the consequences of a Palestinian state functioning like any other state — one that has a flag and passport and could populate its territory with twenty million refugees from around the world. He states that such a reality would be the end of the State of Israel, and recalls the importance that even Labor Party figures saw in retaining security control of these areas, which led to the Allon Plan — the basis and origin of settlement in Judea and Samaria.
So why hasn’t sovereignty been applied yet? Ben‑Ari argues that when the whole government supports applying sovereignty, the decision and determination rests with the Prime Minister, Netanyahu. Ben‑Ari assesses that Netanyahu’s long‑standing approach has been to consider various political and international pressures and considerations — but this is his test as leader and prime minister.
Ben‑Ari recalls the application of sovereignty in the Golan Heights carried out by Begin despite confrontation with the Reagan administration, which opposed it and even imposed sanctions that were lifted several months later. He is convinced that the present reality allows for a sovereignty move with backing or tacit consent to some degree from the Trump administration.
Dvorin and Ben‑Ari believe that applying sovereignty in the Gaza Strip would also serve as a fitting punishment for those who perpetrated an unprecedented murderous assault on Israel — a punishment in the language they understand best: loss of land for those who regard human life as worthless. However Ben‑Ari notes that the Israeli consensus does not yet think this way and that this consideration must also be taken into account, especially while Israel is in the midst of a war and where broad national agreement is important.
Ben‑Ari points out a lesser‑known fact: the Oslo Accords — which in practice created the Palestinian Authority — forbid the PA from undertaking any diplomatic moves. That means the PA’s actions at the UN, the establishment of embassies worldwide, and the like are acts contrary to the Oslo Accords themselves. Because of this conduct, Israel must respond in the only appropriate way: by applying sovereignty.
Attorney Ben‑Ari further asserts that the Oslo mindset — which held that PA security mechanisms would maintain Israel’s security — corrupted Israel’s security system. Israeli generals concluded that the IDF could not protect Israeli citizens and therefore responsibility was transferred to the PA, thereby allowing Israel to effectively breathe life into the “corpse” of the Palestinian Authority.
Ben‑Ari explains the original purpose of the Civil Administration, which was intended to deal with Arab city governors in Judea and Samaria while the military governor was the supreme authority. Under the Oslo Accords the PA was established and the IDF withdrew from the Arab cities, turning the Civil Administration into a body dealing with Israeli citizens rather than with the local Arab population, while senior Civil Administration officials continued to hold the view that they must ensure “industrial calm” and therefore create coordination with the Arab leadership — whom they saw as representing the "indigenous" population, namely the Arabs.
In the most recent government, Ben‑Ari notes, this reality changed with the establishment of the Civilian Administration (the “Ma’azeret Ha’ezrachut” — Agency for Civilian Affairs) to provide services to citizens in Judea and Samaria. The Administration was established by Minister Smotrich during his tenure at the Ministry of Defense, and thus civil authorities are transferred from officers who lack real expertise in areas such as transportation, archaeology, building permits, environmental quality, law, and so on to civilian professionals. This administration reports both to the minister and to the military authority, i.e., the regional division commander.
Ben‑Ari also speaks about the involvement of the military prosecution in the Civil Administration’s activities — involvement that has prevented the army from acting in Israel’s interest under the pretext that international law forbids it, but this was based on a very radical interpretation of international law. This interpretation greatly limited both military and civilian capability in Judea and Samaria. Ben‑Ari gives outraging examples of this restrictive interpretation that tied the hands of the army. All of this is in addition to the space allowed in the Israeli legal system even to the PA and to foreign organizations and entities with anti‑Israel interests.
Against all of this stands the necessary response of applying Israeli sovereignty to the area to restore civil normality, orderly Israeli legislation in the territory, security, and to prevent the danger of a Palestinian state or the transfer of territory to a foreign entity — a move that is forbidden by law when it concerns sovereign Israeli territory unless an eighty‑member Knesset majority or a public referendum is achieved. When the people of Israel want and understand the importance of holding Judea and Samaria, this is the opportunity to take the required step: applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and, in Dvorin’s and Ben‑Ari’s view, also over significant parts of the Gaza Strip, thereby sending a sharp and unequivocal message to Israel’s enemies.
The two issue a clear call to the Israeli government not to wait or rely on “it will be okay,” but to take historic action and bring about the necessary change.
The conversation concludes with Attorney Ben‑Ari’s legal clarification about the lack of significance of the recognition by a number of European countries of the fiction of a Palestinian state.