The leech has two daughters [who cry] Give! Give!
PROVERBS 30:151
I have devoured, and I will continue to devour!
MIDRASH, BEREISHIS RABBAH 19:122
Perhaps the key to lasting peace is not stopping the fighting, but resolving the underlying issues. Many cite Palestinian desire for statehood and self-determination as the core reason for the conflict. According to this view, if only these would be provided, there would be peace.
At the start of the 2023 war, influential global leaders repeated the worn refrain that lasting peace would only be achieved through a two-state solution with two separate, independent states — one for Jews and one for Palestinians.
To test this proposition, let’s look at the positions of Israel’s opponents, and consider whether a two-state solution would make peace and save Jewish and Arab lives. What are the intentions of the resistance movements Israel has faced since its founding and before? Do they truly yearn for peaceful co-existence?
Subtle Imagery
If we examine the emblems of the major Palestinian groups, we find that they all contain a striking feature: an image of Israel’s entire territory. This is true not only of the Islamist Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), but also of the purportedly moderate PLO and its subsidiary Fatah.3
This striking fact indicates that these groups aspire to control all of Israel’s land; Israeli withdrawals from Judea, Samaria, and even Jerusalem will not satisfy their demands. These groups hold all the political power in Palestinian autonomous regions. Hamas rules Gaza and tolerates PIJ presence. The Palestinian Authority – the PLO’s successor governs Palestinian majority in Judea and Samaria, such as Bethlehem, Hebron, Shechem (Nablus), and Ramallah.
For those educated on the conflict, it is common knowledge that “ending the occupation” carries different meanings for different groups. For the mainline Israeli left, ending the occupation means Israel’s complete withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. However, for those who endorse the Palestinian narrative, it means completely dissolving Israel as a state and Palestinian control of cities like Safed, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, and Haifa.4
Voices of Palestinian Leadership
Beyond merely examining flags, a closer look at the preamble to the Hamas Charter offers more insights. There, we read:5
Palestine is a land that was seized by a racist, anti-human, and colonial Zionist project that was founded on a false promise (the Balfour Declaration), on recognition of a usurping entity, and on imposing a fait accompli by force. Palestine6 symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled, and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital.
It’s difficult to imagine a group with such a mission statement making peace with Israel if given some land.
Another interesting fact to consider is that over the past 50 years, the Arab leaders in Hebron, a city with a massive Palestinian population, have either been directly involved in the murder of Jews or are closely related to those who were.7 As the Rebbe exclaimed in 1970:8
The current mayor of Hebron9 or his close relative (either his brother or father) participated in the 1929 pogrom against the Jewish residents of the city. Photographs from that period demonstrate the mayor’s connection to the massacre. Far from hiding this fact, the mayor takes pride in having expelled the Jews from Hebron. The city is being handed over to the same Arab leadership whose predecessors were responsible for murdering Jews in the 1929 [massacre].
And what do the government representatives answer me? They claim that there is a “status quo” in place, as Hebron has been under Arab control for thirty years already. But what kind of “status quo” is this? The situation here is “you have killed and also taken possession.”10 They killed the Jews and then inherited their property. Is this a “status quo”?
Matters have only gotten worse since the Rebbe made these observations in the 1970s. As of this writing Tayseer Abu Sneineh is Hebron’s sitting mayor. Abu Sneineh, who has been in office since 2017, was previously sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in an attack that resulted in the death of six Jewish civilians and injured 20 others. He was later released in a prisoner exchange. Despite Abu Sneineh’s murderous past and his continued lectures and tours discussing the attack, Palestinian public opinion has not disqualified him from leadership.
Looking further at Palestinian leadership, Mahmoud Abbas, who is chairman of the PA and seen as a moderate by the West, is not a credible peace partner given his history of Holocaust denial11 and approving support of the October 7 massacres.12
There are no other significant Palestinian political groups, and both Hamas and Fatah have a taste for one-party rule. New elections have not been held since 2006, shortly after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Hamas and Fatah fought a bloody civil war in 2007, culminating in the Battle of Gaza, where Hamas evicted Fatah from the Gaza Strip.13 Given this data it is difficult to identify a viable counterpart with whom Israel could negotiate a two-state solution to make peace.14
A Broader Regional Challenge
If somehow, the formidable challenges toward making peace with the Palestinians were overcome, and miraculously, that population would lose its hostility, would surrendering land secure peace? What of the many other enemies? If Israel were to enter into Land for Peace negotiations, would Hezbollah or Iran cease their hostilities? Hezbollah-affiliated news outlets, such as Al-Ahed and Al-Manar,15 label the entire State of Israel as “the temporary entity.” Al-Ahed describes the residents of Northern Israel, an area recognized as part of Israel in the 1948 United Nations Partition Plan, as “settlers,” and refers to Israeli cities and towns in this region as “settlements.”16
Similarly, Iranian news outlets refer to the entire Israel as the “oppressive and arrogant enemy” and a “child-killing Zionist” regime.17 They praise Palestinian attacks on Israel and describe the “occupied territories” (including Sderot, Be’er Sheva, Ashkelon, and Tel Aviv – all within the original 1948 boundaries of the State of Israel) as having been turned into “hell for the Zionists.”18 This rhetoric demonstrates that they do not recognize the legitimacy of any part of Israel, suggesting that Hezbollah or Iran would likely continue fighting Israel even if it gave up land for peace.
What about Islamists across the world? Consider Osama Bin Laden’s thoughts on the matter:19
If you want a real settlement that guarantees your security in your country and safeguards your economy… then you have to implement a roadmap that returns the Palestine land to us, all of it, from the sea to the river, it is an Islamic land not subject to being traded or granted to any party.
Clearly, while many in the Western world distinguish between Judea and Samaria and the territory the U.N. granted to Israel in 1948, Israel’s most concerning enemies do not make this distinction.
Historical Context
Let’s examine the historical record. Muslim groups in Israel have perpetrated sporadic pogroms against Jews in the Land of Israel for over a thousand years.20 Yet Arab political violence against Jews in the Land of Israel began in earnest in the 1920s with the arrival of larger numbers of Jews from abroad, many fleeing violence and antisemitism in Europe. Fueled by resentment towards the swelling numbers of Jews, the Arabs resorted to violence.21
Between 1920 and 1948, Arabs in Israel staged several riots against Jews. Perhaps most notable is the 1929 Hebron massacre,22 when Arabs brutally attacked the Jewish community, massacring 67 Jews, mutilating and raping23 many, and injuring 58.24 Arab violence against Jews predates the State’s founding. Since 1948, when the newly-formed State of Israel repelled assaults from seven Arab armies,25 it has faced a steady stream of attacks by various terrorist groups. Fatah, formed in 1959, carried out its first attack against Israel in 1965, two years before Israel gained control of Judea and Samaria from Jordan and of Gaza from Egypt in the Six-Day War.26
Terrorism against Jews in the Land of Israel began long before Judea and Samaria came under Jewish control, predating even the establishment of the State of Israel. Why, then, would giving up Judea and Samaria resolve conflict? It seems that this suggestion is either deliberately misleading or reflects ignorance on the part of those seeking easy solutions. Palestinian responses to the two-state solution typically fall either into the category of outright rejection (Hamas, PIJ, and Hezbollah) or fickle acceptance (PA), without committing to any concrete solution.
Withdrawal and Autonomy
It seems that there’s no viable peace partner for a two-state solution. Moreover, Israel’s opponents have voiced their aspiration for a single state called Palestine, encompassing all of Israeli territory. Given this backdrop, what steps could lead to peace short of the Jewish people leaving Israel altogether?
A common Western belief is that, in spite of Palestinian’s actual voices, peace can be achieved by partial Israeli withdrawal. Some assume that Arab opposition is mere bluster. They say that leaving Judea, Samaria, and Gaza would result in peace, giving the Arabs in the Land of Israel a sense of autonomy and self-determination. It would lead to a cessation of terror and the emergence of a flourishing economy alongside Israel. To assess this possibility, let’s revisit the historical record and see if such an approach has worked in the past.
A) The Oslo Accords
In 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat, leader of the PLO. The Accords granted Palestinian autonomy in areas with Palestinian majorities, including Gaza, Jericho, Hebron, Shechem (Nablus), and Ramallah. However, the Oslo Accords did not lead to peace; instead, terrorist attacks escalated, culminating in the Second Intifada,27 from 2000-2005.
The Second Intifada, marked by a surge in terrorist attacks (including widespread suicide bombings), saw various PLO groups28 and Hamas as particularly violent contributors. History repeatedly demonstrates that concessions lead to more violence.29 The Intifada did not end because of concessions, but as a result of decisive Israeli military action in Operation Defensive Shield.30 In this operation, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) raided autonomous Palestinian areas, arresting terrorists and seizing weapons.31 Rather than fostering peace, autonomy allowed Palestinian areas to become terror bases. The Intifada only ended with intensive Israeli military action and the construction of security barriers in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza which effectively prevented terrorist infiltration.
This also explains why the security barriers surrounding Gaza and parts of Judea and Samaria are not “apartheid walls.” These barriers did not exist when Israel conquered the territory from Jordan in 1967. Though Israelis were suspicious of the Arab population who had either supported or actively participated in violence against Israelis, there was a general optimism among Israelis for peace and collaboration. Israel only constructed the security barriers in response to relentless terrorist attacks and suicide bombings.
B) The Gaza Disengagement
In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon32 proposed a unilateral Israeli disengagement from Gaza, which would involve removing all Jewish settlements and handing full control of the area over to the Palestinians. Executed in 2005, this plan forcibly evicted 8,000 Jews from their homes and demolished their communities. The following year, Hamas won the Palestinian elections and violently ousted Fatah, turning Gaza into a base for ongoing attacks against Israel. The disengagement did not bring peace; instead, Gaza became a haven for groups like Hamas and PIJ, posing a significant threat to Israel.
C) Ceding Judea and Samaria
It seems, then, that Land for Peace is a failed policy. But what if Israel is just not giving up enough land? Maybe if it gave away all of Judea and Samaria, Israel’s enemies would be mollified and everyone could live in peace.
Would Israel’s withdrawal from these areas, held since 1967, satiate Palestinian ambitions, or will it simply be a stepping stone to incrementally achieve total Palestinian domination?
At the moment, the Palestinian Authority (PA) controls Palestinian majority cities in Judea and Samaria. While corrupt,33 it cooperates with Israel to some degree.34 Nonetheless, even the “moderate” PLO has a “pay for slay” policy, offering stipends to families of suicide bombers and others who murder Jews.35 Moreover, the PLO can only maintain power backed as it is by Israeli military presence in Judea and Samaria. Should Israel withdraw, a Palestinian civil war, the likes of the Palestinian civil war in Gaza, might occur, in which case Hamas could take control.
Even if Hamas were not to take control, many independent terrorist groups flourish in Judea and Samaria, including (but not limited to) the Tulkarm Brigade, Lion’s Den, Jenin Brigades, and Tubas Brigade.36 This places Israel in a precarious position. While withdrawing from Judea and Samaria might bring peace in an “ideal” world, that hypothetical world appears quite distant from the real world. If Judea and Samaria were to become terror bases similar to Gaza, Israel would be in serious trouble.
Rockets and cross-border attacks would be much more damaging and would undermine Israel’s security, crippling its economy and transforming the entire state into a war zone. We will explore the Rebbe’s commentary on this point from both a Jewish legal perspective and military perspective later in this course.
Land for Terror: A Counterintuitive Phenomenon
In the long history of Land for Peace, the doctrine has only brought terror — not peace.37 Both Israelis and Palestinians are less safe since the Oslo Accords and the Gaza disengagement. And Palestinians are now more likely to be killed, either by terror groups38 or by Israel retaliating against terror groups.39 As the Rebbe observed:40
We once thought that if the Arabs learned of our plans to give away land, it would lead to peace and quiet. However, the moment Israel discussed the possibility of giving land, terrorist attacks began to proliferate. The number of terrorist attacks dramatically increased after the signing of the Camp David Accords, [when Israel made significant territorial concessions.]
Land for Peace inspires further terrorist attacks, as the ultimate objective of Israel’s opponents is to completely undermine the Jewish state and replace it with an Islamist or Arab one.41 If Israel stands strong, then the Palestinian population will relinquish its territorial ambitions and pursue productive endeavors instead of terror.42 If, however, Israel shows weakness and readiness to compromise, then, as history has proven, it will invite more terrorist attacks and incite further conflict.43
Outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the doctrine of “Land for Peace” is unheard of. Historically, when a country won territory in a defensive war, they retained the territory. Land for Peace seems to be a construct specially invented to carve up Israel.44 Land for Peace is a failed experiment. The ideal premise of Land for Peace is: Israel granting the Palestinians greater autonomy, followed by increased cooperation from the Palestinians, which then prompts Israel to offer even further autonomy. In fact, Israel has repeatedly offered increased autonomy to the Palestinians. However, instead of leading to peace, this has been exploited by Palestinian factions to perpetrate violence, which in turn prompts Israeli retaliation to restore security. Consequently, Land for Peace and attempts at a two-state solution cannot be the elusive solution we need to end the cycle and make peace.
Conclusion
We have seen that despite their attractiveness, solutions like unconditional ceasefires without accomplishing military objectives, relying on the international community, and Land for Peace, all bring war and do not make peace.
What, then, is the solution? It would seem that the various groups committed to Israel’s destruction, would all like Israel to close up shop and turn the Land of Israel into the Islamic Republic of Palestine. Will Jews be allowed to live in this Republic or will they be expelled to the West? Birobidzhan?45 What would life for the Palestinian residents of the Republic look like? To understand why giving up the Land is an untenable option, we need to consider the Jewish right to the Land, a point we will explore in Part 3.
If the Jewish people do remain in Israel, what can we do to end the cycle and achieve lasting peace? In what follows, we will explore three halachic texts fundamental to the Rebbe’s approach to this question. The principles derived from these texts firmly cohere with realpolitik and military tactics used in counter-terrorism since the dawn of post-World War II insurgencies.46
Exercises:
Comment Below: If neither ceasefires, international intervention, nor land concessions bring peace, what alternatives remain?
Join the Discussion