Before Israel chooses, it needs to know where each option leads

It worries me when the government appears to ignore warnings from well-regarded Israeli security and policy organizations, and when much of the public is unaware of those warnings.

There has been no vote or referendum asking Israelis whether they want permanent Israeli sovereignty over most of Judea and Samaria, and no government advice on the costs, benefits, impacts and challenges over the next 10 to 25 years of the options currently being considered.

This matters because both Israelis and Palestinians view the future through failed peace efforts, October 7, the Gaza war and years of conflict. Israelis can reasonably look at Gaza and conclude that Palestinian territorial control means danger. Palestinians can look at settlements and conclude that negotiations give Israel more time to take the land. Both perceptions contain important truths. Both can also hide the wider consequences of the policies they encourage.

The decision is already being made

Since October 7, a powerful idea has grown in Israel: greater Israeli control of the West Bank means greater security. This makes intuitive sense. Judea and Samaria also contain places central to Jewish history, as well as the strategically important high ground and the Jordan Valley. October 7 demonstrated what can happen when a hostile armed organization controls territory beside Israel.

However, much of Israel’s real security system has come to be taken for granted. It includes IDF freedom of operation in the West Bank, Palestinian Authority security forces that act against militants, Jordan protecting Israel’s longest border, peace and security cooperation with Egypt, American support, and growing cooperation with Arab states concerned about Iran and regional instability.

Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), made up of hundreds of former senior figures from Israel’s security and diplomatic establishments, warned in May that de facto annexation could weaken or collapse the PA and its security services. CIS says those services are valued by the IDF and Shin Bet for preventing attacks and saving Israeli lives. Their collapse could leave Israel policing and administering around three million Palestinians while the IDF is already stretched across several fronts.

CIS also warns of risks to Jordan, Egypt, the Abraham Accords, Saudi normalization and the regional coalition Israel needs against Iran. The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) similarly argues that annexation offers little security advantage beyond what Israel already has through control of the Jordan Valley, operational freedom and regional security cooperation.

Rather than improving security, INSS and CIS warn that dispersed settlement expansion increases the IDF’s security burden,........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)