"Most do not believe that Judea and Samaria is actually Arab land" - I know lots of leftist, and as far as I can tell, this is definitely not true. Most of them do believe it is Arab land, owned by Arabs who lived there long before the modern state of Israel was founded (maybe not before the ancient state of Israel, but that's different...).

Why bother to lie. The San Remo accord expired along with the end of the British mandate. The only claim Israel has to the Palestinian territories is based on historical fantasy and religious comic books. in the real world the Israeli occupation and settlement enterprise are perceived for just what they are - violations of International Law.

Stop caving in to demands of national suicide, be proud bold and strong in YOUR LAND. Stop the ghetto mindset forever and carry a big deterrent (more Jericho 3's and nuclear armed subs). In the long run everybody will have to come to terms with the fact that we are no longer victims to be pushed around but a geopolitical power to be reckoned with.

You make very good points. But among Jews there are different degrees of left-wing attitudes. 1) The well-meaning but misinformed doves could - with a lot of patience and persuasive arguments - be turned around. 2) SOME of the radicals (professors, writers, artists, politicians) who consistently spew venom against their own country and their own people should be SOMETIMES regarded as utter lunatics and be dealt with accordingly. Trying to have a rational conversation with them is useless and legitimizes their status. They are deranged. DEFINITION OF PSYCHOSIS: Abnormal condition of the mind often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". They may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and thought disorder. Depending on its severity, this may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the daily life activities. . Their perceptions of Arab feelings and intentions towards Israel fall under the category of hallucinations. And their visions for a future along the Palestinian state fall under delusional beliefs. Unusual and bizarre behavior shows in their advocacy for international boycotts against Israel and the partition of THEIR OWN country. Difficulty with social interaction is evident in their irrational hatred against those who profess the same religious beliefs that sustained Jews - their own ancestors - for thousands of years. Their insanity shows in how they deny their history, their heritage, and their rights to their land. They are not rational and they are not sane. They should be brough down from their pedestals and regarded with pity or scorn. Then given jobs where they can't do much harm. 3) But SOMETIMES there's a third category, the usually corrupt and evil individuals who should be simply tried for TREASON. And I'll leave it at that.

Yishai, since none of your arguments based on history, security, Arab threats or the Disengagement Disaster works with the left, it's high time you and others started using the simple argument of international law. The land is legally yours. It's only due to unexplicable neglect by governments and by Israelis themselves that the powerful argument based on international law has been put aside. When the UN Secretary General cites Resolution this and Resolution that, and the US government insists that talks between former governments and the PA have already set the framework for the partition of the country, you MUST insist that all talk of partition is ILLEGAL. Dear Yishai, PATRIOTIC ISRAELIS MUST INSIST ON THIS. If the US or your own polticians don't want to hear about it, insist. Then take legal action to assert your right to the land. Because Mr Netanyahu is NOT going to do it. The US and the UN are in violation of international treaties when they demand Israel's partition.

unfortunately, the ideals of the nationalist-right tend to sound attractive to irrational, narrow minded people ans such people are thus drawn to the camp. the fact is that there is no more pragmatic and long term solution to the middle east mess than the one proposed by the right.

Fleisher makes many good points. It is absurd that in a centre right country, the far left viewpoint is practically the only one heard if the media. Israelis made their feelings about the left quite obvious by electorally devastating the Labor and Meretz Parties. In effect, leftist media dominance is silencing a large majority of Israelis. This situation is intolerable. Those who love Israel must invest in patriotic media. An Israeli version of America's patriotic Fox News would be a great place to start.

Pragmatic left? Is that the same left that told us leaving South Lebanon was a great idea and would bring peace? Is that the same left that armed terrorists to control other terrorists? Is that the same left that said leaving Gaza would bring peace? Is that the same left that thought Oslo would usher in a new era of peace? When has the left ever been correct about anything?

to the author; i get it... you want to keep the west bank, apparently want to re-engage gaza, and re-occupy lebanon. is this the solution to Israel's problems? occupation hasn't worked for the last 43 years. what makes you think the continuation of the status quo is beneficial to the State? if it is not beneficial, then what is the alternative beyond what you've ignorantly described as a palestinian terror state? do you propose a single state that includes the Palestinians? will you treat them as equal citizens? the complaints that you bring up in the article are interesting, but put forward a solution to the issues you bring up

I do not disagree with Mr. Fleisher in his overall argument: the view that we have a legitimate connection to Judea and Samaria, and that the legal argument for who has a right to sovereignty over this land is at least open to a serious debate. But I oppose his black and white characterization of the debate. I think that the people who want peace, genuinely want peace and are concerned of the damaging effects war has on Israeli society (and perhaps its Jewish character, or our Jewish character), and, like Mr. Fleisher, people who genuinely believe that the connection to one's land and to one's history is not a trivial matter, do so out of genuine and important concerns, particularly when those who would deny this connection, deny it for reasons that have much graver implications than simply an academic argument about archeology or Biblical history. I would say the issue to argue today is: how do we remain a democratic state (or is that not a necessity for Mr Fleisher?) and rule over several million people who do not wish to be governed by us, for this is what annexing this land would encompass. If Mr Fleisher imagines that we could declare sovereignty over this land without legally annexing it, I would be curious to know how Mr Fleisher sees this happening. We can not ignore that there is another people living here. We have been in conflict with them for about a 100 years or so, the real question is what is our plan to end this conflict. What I would like to know, is what would Mr Fleisher's plan be to the practical problem we are facing now? It's not enough to say we have a right to this land, there is a big number of people who do not agree and who also live on this land. To say that "Nationalism is rationalism", is a reduction which suffers from a serious lack of historical perspective. Nationalism can be rationalistic, but is certainly not destined for it, as history has shown tragically time and time again. What Mr Fleisher may have meant is that every people has a right to assert itself as a sovereign nation. I think the starting point for his argument should be what this right means in our particular situation in Israel. If people behave like zealots and monkeys, this is how they will be perceived, whether they have beards or not. But if people seek the respect of others, as I believe Mr Fleisher does, than it's incumbent upon them to explain more specifically (or using a rationale everyone can understand) as to how to achieve a "bold independence." As the saying goes "if you can not be Holy, you must be Reasonable." Mr Fleisher wants to be both. That is admirable. But it's not enough to claim it, one also needs to be convincing. Convincing, of course, involves others.

Yasher koach, Yishai! Excellent analysis of the situation 'on the ground'.

To the internationalist, it doesn't matter who controls Judea & Samaria, or the rest of Israel for that matter. In their sorely misguided world-view, they see the UN as the savior. They wish to see national laws replaced by international laws in every state (including Israel & Palestine) and nationalism dead forever. They believe world governance is the answer. Lennon said: "Imagine no countries" ...no countries does not mean no armies, no police, no government. It means that our armies are hamstrung by "international laws", and we are unable to defend ourselves without permission. It means that our domestic police act as a client of Interpol, and our state governments act as clientèle of the UN. Imagine no countries? I'd rather not. How about "Imagine great countries". Countries that respect each others' sovereignty and traditions. Countries that negotiate borders based on the history of their people, not the history of the British empire. Israel, a 3500 year old nation, should never ever surrender to demands of the 65 year old UN. Viva Israel ~ Viva Nationalism!

Dear Sir, you are not in full knowledge of the facts. The "Palestine Mandate" was voted unanimously the 24th of July 1922 by all the 51 Members of the League of Nations. The United States, not being a member of the League, signed the Anglo-American Treaty, concerning the Mandate for Palestiine in 1924. The Mandate for Palestine granted the Jews the IRREVOCABLE RIGHT to settle in the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, including the GOLAN HEIGHTS, a right unaltered in INTERNATIONAL LAW and valid to this day due to Article 80 of the Charter of the UNITED NATIONS. I hope, Dear Sir, that I helped broadening your knowledge about this historical matter.

NOT FATAH. Check their Charter, their leaders' statements (in Arabic), their educational media, such as school textbooks with Jewish Israel erased from the map, and children television programs advocating hatred and violence against Jews. NOT HAMAS. They are quite open about their intention to fight until they get ALL OF PALESTINE. NOT IRAN. Obviously. NOT THE ARAB STREET. While the governments of Jordan and Egypt are rather restrained in their statements and policies towards Israel, the great mass of people do not want peace with Israel. They consider the Jews occupiers and won't rest until they rectify the situation. NOT LEBANON, SYRIA, TURKEY, and many other Islamic governments that challenge or threaten Israel every chance they get. The animosity will continue until they get rid of Israel, nothing less than that. So who is the Israeli left trying to kid? The sad truth is that it's a bad neighborhood and Israel will always have to be prepared for war. Israel can have peace as long as it is strong enough to defeat the whole gang of countries and radical groups that might threaten it. Giving up the land WILL NOT BRING PEACE. ANNEXATION is the only option. As far as the Arab population is concerned, they can live in peace and enjoy rights of residency. Citizenship may be offered eventually. Those unhappy with the arrangement can be financially assisted to relocate elsewhere. Their numbers, by the way, have been somewhat exaggerated by the PA census. .

I have not seen your beard, and I did not know that you are religious, but reading the FIRST PARAGRAPH of your article convinced me that what you writing has no connection to facts. The facts are that Jews ruled J + S more than 2000 years ago for a few hundred years. (Jerusalem was ruled by Muslims almost continually for 1200 years until 1917.) The facts are that the vast majority of people living in J+S ( if not all) were Arabs. Israel accepted the Partition as voted on at the UN. The UN and most countries accepted that the State of Israel within the borders after the War of Independence has a right to exist. I AND MOST LEFTISTS ACCEPT THE FACTS AND BELIEVE THAT THE BORDER BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PALESTINE IS THE BORDER THAT EXISTED UNTIL 1967.

You seem to think that if you can justify the continued control of the lives of 2 million Palestinians by (selectively) resuscitating the 1922 San Remo accords, ratified by a body that no longer exists, allmost a century of history down the road, ignoring anything that happened between 1922 and 2010. You seem to think you can win an argument about the 1922 San Remo accords in a debating contest, shout "q.e.d.", and reality will go away. That is completely delusional. You are not rational, you are rationalising your religiously founded daydreams to justify them in front of a general audience.

In the current reality, post-Oslo and with the establishment of the PA the threat of a bi-national is at the same level as that of the boogey man. Something to scare small children and the simple minded. The PA autocracy has no intention of renouncing their power and even if they did they would have to abrogate the Oslo agreement, an internationally recognized treaty. That would only weaken their claim to represent the Palestinians and lead the way to some other autonomy. There is little debate that Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin and the other larger urban centers will continue not to be under Israeli sovereignty, what is required is for Israel to state unequivocally that Jewish communities will remain and that the PA fantasy of deportation and destruction remain a futile dream. Such a solution will not affect demography in the slightest and will in the end be beneficial to a real and true coexistence.

go back where you came from and stop ,meddling in us israelis' affairs. what the hell is the idea of international police that makes its own 'laws' and the leftists who [ercieve them like thie bible??

that the concessions and the "peace process has brought war and terrorism death and destruction both to Israelis and Palestinians and occupation has given the Palestinians law.order security prosperity ,employment and freedom of expression but they have no vote thus the withdrawal from sinai let the Palestinians smuggle bombs and rockets into gaza causing the intifada the withdrawal from gaza caused the wars in 2006 and cast lead and the withdrawal from lebanon caused the second lebanon war and the Oslo process caused the intifada and staying on the Golan has lead to peace and security Not doing a preemptive strike in 1973 led to disaster however when israel acted solely according to its security needs and ignored the rest of the world as in 1967 bombing the syrian and iraqi reactors was good for Israel and good for the world

A world in which each link in the food chain is a prospective meal for the next is not one that inspires me toward believing in a benevolent creator . It has,however, led me to believe exactly the views so brilliantly expressed in this article by this bearded author.

First lets look at the UN, since this is usually what is argued first. Many try to argue that the UN supersedes a states jurisdiction, ignoring the obvious loophole of just leaving the UN and voiding it automatically. We must consider before any resolution, the UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2, line 1 and 2: 1The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. 2 All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. Officially their is sovereign equality in the UN. However, as Israel is barred from participating in the security council due to the UN's unwillingness to finally put it in the correct grouping... Israel officially is an unequal member of the UN (actually the sole member to carry this title). Since the UN does obligate itself to give Israel it's full rights, Israel is not obligated to follow the conditions of the UN. This is indeed like a contract and you cannot expect one party to play along while the other refuses to do so. Secondly the only official documents in regard to borders of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria are the Jordanian and Egyptian armistice agreements. While both Jordan and Egypt were in control of the respective territories, their has been no other document to usurp this. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp Jordanian agreement in regard to Judea and Samaria: 9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp Egyptian agreement on Gaza: 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. The fact is that the 'green line' that many proclaim as a border, is not. Clearly in the agreements that were arranged these were viewed in military terms as simply lines were battles stopped, not official territorial boundaries of a state. Even though it is obvious that both Egypt and Jordan wrote it in the terms that would be biased against Israel, it does change the fact that it is indeed a two-way street and Israel also has the legal right to challenge in the other direction as well. So in conclusion, do you actually have a valid argument based on legal thought or just personal opinion trying to be flaunted in a pompous manner?

As much as you want to believe YOUR own lies and try to make others believe them, the occupation is not a violation of international law. There is nothing illegal in conquering and occupying land during a war. You can jump up and down as much as you want but this is a fact. Now, because you are so concerned about international law, is launching indiscriminately rockets on civilians (or non armed people) a violation of international law? Is sending a suicide bomber in a bus full of civilians a violation of international law? Those are only rethorical questions. I know your answers. As long as the violence targets israelis, it is justified to sick individuals like you.

When somebody uses the San Remo Accord as a legal argument, he knows that he wants to fool others or, maybe, just to fool himself. It has no legal standing whatsoever today.

It is disgusting how people support terrorists and terrorism. Kidnapping soldiers and demanding terrorists with blood on their hands be released for them? Bombing train stations? Attacking civilian buses? And then celebrating these monsters? Oh wait, those were the terror attacks by two members of the Olei HaGardom and the kidnapping and murder of British soldiers to try and free them. But that is okay, because the attacks were British and Palestinians. We can't condemn our enemies as monsters when we did the same stuff when in their position. Also, while occupation is not illegal under international law, moving your civilian population into occupied land is. This is why you Zionists are supposed to know not to call it that. Repeat after me "it was never a sovereign country, so it isn't occupation." Now you know the party line. Go forth and oppress!

Don't expect reason from left. They call themselves "progressives", care for everybody (that's not from their tribe), scream racism at anything they don't agree with and would love to be loved by 'the world'. But... deep inside there is a totalitarian streak that wants to quash anyone who doesn't think or look like them and run their lives for them as well.

Yishai, what a pleasant surprise to read your Opinion piece and have it resonate with my own beliefs of Israeli nationalism and soveriegnty. I am not Jewish, not Israeli. Just an American who has always felt Israel should never have returned the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza, or even the Sinai. I know these were returned for sake of peace in the short term but it was not for long-term resolution. The enemy is still on the doorstep and continues to expand their power base and promote their mutual dislike and hatred on a single source so they can unite their strengths and causes. What a brave opinion piece you wrote. I am sure you will be attacked by many - as Israel always will be unless it stands up to the bullies over and over and over again.

I am not surprised the lefties are attacking Yishai's use of the San Remo accords. They do whatever they can to find ways to brush away laws that don't suit them - just like Yishai says they do with all intellectual ideas. Case in point, Yishai, case in point.

There is NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, which talks 'so much about it's own '(de)legitimization' as some of Israel's own people, (private, journalists, lecturers, etc) .From 'kaka/schmaka/lakastan or whatever, NOBODY EVER comes up with such an IDIOTIC question. Even 'people with NO rightfull claims, claim their 'rightfullness. This MUST STOP! If YOU, the people of Israel ask this question all the time....why shouldn't others?