Photo Credit: Moshe Feiglin
Moshe Feiglin

Everyone is talking about Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The basic assumption is that peace talks are supposed to bring peace. It is common knowledge that peace is expected to solve the following problems: security; demographics; Palestinian nationalism (that competes with Israel over the same piece of land); international pressure (particularly from the U.S.); and, to some, economics. But even a superficial analysis of the aforementioned “problems” reveals that none of them are motivating Israel’s “peace” talks.

Peace cannot be defined as the goal of a state. Peace is the result of the proper definition of a state’s goal and the achievement of that goal. If peace is our goal, it can be achieved more easily in other locations (Australia or Uganda, for example) by surrendering our sovereignty or by assimilation.


Security for Israelis cannot possibly be the problem we are trying to solve. The more we progress in the peace process, the more our national and personal security deteriorates. Suicide bombers were not blowing up buses and restaurants, and missiles were not crashing into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, prior to the diplomatic process. Our cumulative experience proves that our desire for security should distance us from any diplomatic process. If we continue to sacrifice our citizens for the so-called sake of peace, security is not what is motivating our participation in the peace process.

Demography is also not the problem. The average Tel Avivian no longer has fewer children than her neighbor in Ramallah. According to the American-Israel Demographic Research Group, if the current birthrates continue in conjunction with a proactive aliyah policy, Israel’s Jewish majority will upgrade from today’s 66 percent to 80 percent by 2035. In other words, even without a diplomatic process, the Jewish majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – including the Arabs of Judea and Samaria – will be 80 percent in the next 20 years or so.

Palestinian nationalism was artificially constructed in response to Zionism. When this land was under Arab sovereignty – Jordanian or Egyptian – the problem did not exist. If Israel would disappear off the map, God forbid, Palestinian nationalism would disappear with it.

On Feb. 18, 1947, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, certainly not an ardent Zionist, addressed the British parliament to explain why the UK was taking the question of Palestine, which was in its care, to the United Nations. He opened by saying that “His majesty’s government has been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles.” His described essence of that conflict: “For the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.”

There isn’t really Palestinian nationality; there is the Arab nation that does not accept Jewish sovereignty over any part of Israel. Thus, solving what is really the non-existent Palestinian problem will not solve the fundamental conflict: Arab opposition to any Israeli sovereignty. This is also the reason that a Palestinian state has not yet been established and will never be established, despite the fact that never in history has a state been offered to any group on a platter more silver than what is being offered to the Palestinians. They simply do not want a state.

International pressure is also not a problem, for it always increases in direct proportion to Israel’s participation in diplomatic processes. Before the Oslo Accords, there was a major question mark hovering over the legitimacy of the PLO and its leaders. No such question mark existed over the right of the Jews to have their own state. Today, after twenty years of diplomatic processes, the situation is reversed. We recognize them, but they do not recognize us. The Americans, however, are not willing to demand recognition of Israel as a condition for negotiations.

And then there’s the supposed economic problem. The diplomatic process will not solve it. On the contrary, as we learned the hard way, the Oslo Accords consume 10 percent of our annual state budget: approximately one trillion shekels since the accords were signed. Over the past years, Israel is approaching the status of an economic superpower – not because of the diplomatic process, but despite it.

So if it is not peace, not security, not demography, not Palestinian nationalism, not international pressure and not economics, what exactly are we negotiating about? What are we trying to achieve?

The person who provided the most precise answer was none other than Ron Pundak, an architect of the Oslo Accords, who recently told Tel Aviv University lecturer Tomer Persico:

“I want peace so that there will be Israeliness. Peace is not an end in and of itself. It is the means with which to bring Israel from one era into another, to the era that I consider to be normal statehood: “Israelization” of society instead of its “Judaization.”

Do you understand? We bury thousands of victims of terror, chop off entire sections of our homeland, uproot our settlements (displacing our inhabitants), bring missiles into Tel Aviv, negate our legitimacy, rob 10 percent of our State budget every year – all this and more damage – not for peace and not for any of the regular excuses. We do all this to tip the scales in the internal struggle over the identity of the state of Israel: Will it be a Jewish state or the state of all its citizens?

Seems exaggerated? Please reread the quote from Pundak, an architect of Oslo.

If so, you may ask this: Why does the Likud continue to lead this process? The answer is that the Likud has not yet built a faith-based leadership alternative to the Left’s vision of a state of all its citizens. Because the Likud has not yet created a different horizon for Israeli mentality, it is necessarily dragged down the Oslo path, implementing, as always, the most extreme hallucinations of the radical Left.


Previous articleA Society Obsessed with Toys (Cont.)
Next articleVision and Details
Moshe Feiglin is the former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. He heads the Zehut Party. He is the founder of Manhigut Yehudit and Zo Artzeinu and the author of two books: "Where There Are No Men" and "War of Dreams." Feiglin served in the IDF as an officer in Combat Engineering and is a veteran of the Lebanon War. He lives in Ginot Shomron with his family.


  1. The problem with this peace negotiation is for Israel to concede something in favor of Palestinian either lands, housing settlements or prisoners. Political pressures especially from Europe or America for Israel to yield to the demands. Is this a peace negotiation? I think it’s not but a call to surrender. Peace negotiation must serve both bilateral interests. This might be the reason God has His own way to achieve this peace. It cannot be denied Israel is at war with her enemies, and God’s means to accomplish the peace negotiation is for Israel’s enemies to yield before Israel. Considering such great obstacle of peace, not any man or any political means can achieve this peace, but God only in His time soon.

    Isaiah 60:14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

  2. Well, MK Moshe Feiglin, your PM has chosen Livni as high judge so any nationalist knesset law will be shot done. You need to pray harder because Bibi is going to run for PM until the day he dies. Maybe his wife will take over after his death. Stop dreaming, the Likud has failed time and time again. Anybody who votes Likud is throwing their vote away.

  3. non-israeli national response is a typical response. when ireland was threatened by Protestantism the native Irish ran towards the catholic powers that be. to every action there is a re-action. The racist and colonialist characteristics of Zionism were quite evident since its inception as an organised political movement in the late 19th century. In his attempt to sell the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine to the colonialist powers of the day, Theodor Herzl explained that such a state would constitute part of Europe's "wall of defence against Asia; [it] would serve as an outpost of civilisation against barbarism". But he was quick to add that the Zionists would take any country the European colonial powers would agree to give them. Notice that this was almost half a century before the heinous crimes of the Nazis against the European Jewry. Needless to say, the opinion of the indigenous people of whichever country the colonial powers would choose to allocate to the Zionists was of no significance to the latter. For whether it would have fallen on Palestine, Argentina or Uganda — just to mention a few countries that were considered as a home for such a state — it would have been considered a "land without a people for a people without a land."

  4. Rain forests are cut down and cyberspace bombarded discussing this subject. The Palestinians only ever negotiate about negotiations. They want the whole caboodle, nothing less. And Israel releases prisoners from time to time to keep the pot boiling on the fire. Until this reality changes, I pity the rain forests.

  5. 'the country… was of no significance' to Herzl perhaps and his cohorts, but 'next year in Jerusalem' is what Zionism is about and that is 2000 yrs old and more. The idea that Jews abandoned Israel following the destruction of the Temple is not quite true. Yes most were forced out but many remained. They were still there in the first century and the second and third and fourth century. They were there when the Muslims invaded and killed thousands of them & they were there when the Crusaders came and killed thousands of them. They were there when the Druze massacred them in Safed in 1660 and again in 1834. The 'Palestinians' were not even there during the Mandate discussions on the future of Palestine. So piss off with your lies.

  6. Matt McLaughlin there is a difference between word games and historical facts. When the British during the mandate handover were discussing with Arabs and jews there was no mention of Palestinians. Indeed they did not exist till the 1960s and neither did their leadership, their national flag, their coinage or any evidence of a people or a history. The 1917 Palestine Delegation to the UK consisted of Jews. The Palestine Symphony Orchestra and the Palestine Post were Jewish and all pre-date 1948. Where were the Palestinians during the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem? Palestine was only ever a geographical area, renamed by the Romans – there is no 'p' in Arabic – and was never a people. Even Yassar Arafat admitted there was no such people as the Palestinians, but rather they are a front for islamic imperialist aims. You can believe all the lies you want, but don't peddle them to me.

  7. Pat McCrann there was never a 'hand-over'. the israelis beat arabs to the vital stratigec posts in Jerusalem 5/13/48. THE BRITS LEFT DEFEATED and did not recognize israel at its birth. youre fixated on the word 'Palestine'. Think non-Jew Zionist. The title 'israel' wasn't assigned to what is now Israel until the very last minute. >>>>>>>>>>>>In 1891, Ginzberg had made his first visit to the Jewish
    > settlements in Palestine. It resulted in an important essay,
    > The Truth from Palestine. What distinguished his report from
    > the gushing accounts of other Jewish visitors was the sober
    > realism with which he noted the many problems. High among
    > them was the existence of an indigenous population. "We
    > tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost
    > completely deserted, an uncultivated wilderness, and anyone
    > can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires.
    > But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find
    > anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow."
    > He makes short work of the argument that lesser breeds can
    > be duped about Zionist intentions and bought off with the
    > benefits of colonialism. "The Arab, like all Semites,
    > has a sharp mind and is full of cunning … [They]
    > understand very well what we want and what we do in the
    > country, but … at present they do not see any danger for
    > themselves or their future in what we are doing and
    > therefore are trying to turn to their advantage these new
    > guests … But when the day will come in which the life of
    > our people in the Land of Israel will develop to such a
    > degree that they will push aside the local population by
    > little or by much, then it will not easily give up its
    > place."
    > Checkmate.

  8. David Ben-Gurion (1886 – 1973), Prime Minister of Israel (1948 – 1953 and 1955 – 1963)[edit]
    "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?

  9. Matt McLaughlin the British were and still are anti-Jewish. As I have pointed out, and you have not been able to dispute, Jews have an unbroken connection to the land of Palestine/israel. The Palestinians are largely immigrants. Your author's claims do nothing to refute the points I have made. There were Jews, Arabs, Druze, Christians and many other villages in Palestine going back many years. Who did the land belong to? Certainly there is no record of a Palestinian people prior to 1967. Arabs yes. However these Arabs came and went, showed little loyalty or connection to the land which is why they turned on their Jewish neighbours in 1948. If it was their land that they shared with jews, christians, druze, etc. they would have fought against the arab invaders. I am not saying this for your benefit, but for others reading your lies.

  10. Matt McLaughlin you're just a bitch for the Arabs/Palestinians. You have not been able to deal with any of my points except for quoting individuals who further your narrative. I can quote plenty of arabs and palestinians who admit there are no such people as Palestinians, including Arafat. They have no history. The Jews were there during the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem and they were there at each Crusade and they were there during the years between then and 1948. They will remain there FOREVER. As for your pained twisting of the 'Promised Land' phrase, it doesn't quite work does it? Did the Palestinians pop out of a rock, because they have no discernible history and have left no imprint on the place whatsoever.

  11. Matt McLaughlin you keep on ignoring the facts. There is no 'p' in the Arabic language. They didn't name it Palestine. It is a geographical area, not a nation state. No coinage, no flag, no history, no leader before Arafat, who was Egyptian. Palestine Symphny Orchestra – jewish. Palestine delegation to Britain in 1917 Jewish. Palestine Post – Jewish. It's simply a name change MORON. One day your Arab/Palestinian friends will cut your throat.

  12. Pat McCrann the brits kicked us to our grave for 800 years, with Jews aiding in cutting up Ulster 1600s and financing the invasion of 1170 my dear. It was Arabs who armed us to escape the brits. Ireland is free thanks to arabs. And it was the IRA that showed Israel how to bomb london. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Zionism is a product of European history and one of the last movements in contemporary history that set out to transform man and society. Both Zionists and their opponents agree that Zionism and the State of Israxl constitute a revolution in Jewish history, a revolution that began with the emancipation and the secularization of European Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries.>Yakov M Rabkin

  13. Moshe Feiglin is the only political leader in Israel who is seriously thinking about what we are trying to do here as a nation. The left tried to silence or ignore him and they can't. Netanyahu tried to shut him out and partially succeeded but only temporarily. Now he is in the Knesset. Meanwhile parts of his program are being adopted slowly by other politicians because they have nothing else. It's either his agenda or Ron Pundak's. He may or may not end up Prime Minister, but his ideas will get there by hook or by crook.

  14. R. Yehoshua ben levi said "The Holy One, Blessed be He, will at a future time cause all the righteous to inherit 310 worlds, as it is said, "That I may cause those that love Me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries." Rav Shimon ben Chalafta said, "The Holy One, Blessed be He, found no vessel that could hold the blessing for Israel save peace, as it is said "The Eternal will give strength to His people; the Eternal will bless His people with peace." Uktskin 3:13, Order Taharoth, Mishnah.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...