Question

Hello Rabbi Michi, I have a question regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I hope I’ll manage to phrase it well.
I apologize for the length, but I tried to lay things out and clarify them as much as possible. Even though it may look like there’s some artificial hair-splitting here aimed at a predefined conclusion, the question was written in complete sincerity, after thinking the matter through.
I should note in advance that this was written from the perspective of a right-wing person, or at least an Israeli patriot.
 
 
As of today, Israel controls the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, but does not give them voting rights. Seemingly, from a theoretical standpoint, if we set security issues aside for a moment, we have two options:
give the Palestinians voting rights (a binational state),
or give them a state of their own (two states for two peoples).
Most of us probably do not want to give up the idea of a Jewish state, so the only option left is the two-state solution.
In reality, a Palestinian state would probably endanger us, and so it is entirely legitimate to oppose such a state. But all of that opposition should be based on practical considerations, not ideological ones. That is, it should seemingly be clear that if the Palestinians were Swedes, we would be obligated to give them a state, and the problem would be more technical than principled. The answer to that theoretical question (of Palestinians turning into Swedes) seemingly defines the difference between a security-based right wing and an ideological right wing.
One could try to argue that in practice it makes no difference, and whatever the argument, the result is the same. But I see no reason that should be true. The settlement enterprise is seemingly an ultimate and very significant example that is relevant as a practical difference between the two arguments, but even if we manage to explain that issue through a security argument, there is no reason this would always be the case. For the sake of example, let us say that 1,000 decisions a year are made regarding the territories; it is reasonable to assume that in at least a quarter of them, the motivations affect the outcome. Over time, very significant differences emerge between the strategy of a security-based right wing and an ideological right wing.
Since Israeli actions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are actions with enormous moral consequences (controlling another people, the deaths of very many people, etc.), the difference between the security right and the ideological right becomes extremely significant. Seemingly, I cannot find a legitimate justification for an ideological right wing. The source of the ideological right is religious, and there is no reason that religious belief should allow one people to rule over another, with all the implications involved.
In today’s Israeli reality, the influence of the ideological right is becoming more and more significant. Broadly speaking, an overwhelming majority of the Religious Zionist public holds this view. Almost every Religious Zionist person will declare that he holds the ideology of Greater Israel, and at the same time it is clear that he would oppose granting voting rights to the residents of the territories. (If I understand correctly, historically the people who supported Greater Israel meant one state with equal rights for all, which at that time would have been possible if the Jews of Europe had immigrated to the Land.)
I’ve noticed that the overwhelming majority of people do not make this distinction, and treat the whole right wing as a security position. For example, the Religious Zionist opposition to Oslo and the disengagement stemmed from religious motives (and naturally, since that is their position, they also held the security arguments, but even without them the majority would have objected), and yet people see the failure of those moves as justification for the path of someone like Smotrich, for example.
A situation has developed in which, because of the growing influence of this public, the State of Israel can no longer claim clean hands and pure conduct regarding the Palestinians. I try to imagine myself as a Palestinian teenager. Let us say I am a decent, educated person with liberal values. So I hate Hamas and am strongly opposed to jihad. Let us also say that I understand that the overall conduct of the Jews regarding the conflict is much more moral than the Palestinian conduct. I also understand that if we (the Palestinians) had known how to take advantage of opportunities, we would already have had a state. Since I am decent and liberal, I would also try to strengthen the moderate forces, and I would acknowledge our central share in the current situation. But I also know that right now, Israel’s opposition to a Palestinian state stems from a religious commandment of the Jews, and Israel is not at all striving to give us a state. It builds settlements and tries to annex the territories, and in fact my status as a subject without rights is pretty much the preferred state of affairs for them from the outset. So what would cause me to oppose attacks against soldiers, at least? How is this different from the underground groups that tried to drive out the British?
 
After this long introduction, my questions are:

1. Do you agree that an ideology of Greater Israel without giving rights to the Palestinians is illegitimate (Greater Israel as an ideology, not as a technical problem)?
2. Why would that decent and liberal Palestinian not be justified in supporting certain attacks against soldiers?
3. Does this issue trouble you? Suppose that right now we are in a period in which very significant decisions have to be made about Gaza, and I think it is clear that Smotrich and Ben Gvir want to promote settlement in Gaza for religious reasons. That means that religious longings are involved in the decisions now being made about what to do there. I’m interested in how you relate to that kind of decision-making. I’m trying to think what I would do if I were a soldier who had to go into Gaza, and I knew that a significant part of the decision-making that led me to risk my life was tainted by the dream of the Religious Zionist public for Greater Israel. It seems very clear to me that there will be a significant difference in the steps Israel takes depending on whether the goal is to deal with the security threat of Hamas, or whether we also have an additional and central goal of settling there. And again, I am not talking about one specific decision that one can debate, but about a large number of decisions.
4. Why don’t you deal with these issues? For some reason, when people talk about the problems of the Religious Zionist public, they avoid mentioning this issue, even though its implications are most extreme. In effect, a situation has arisen in which, because of the ideology of this public, the State of Israel cannot claim pure and justified conduct. If I try to defend Israel’s policy in the world, I will not have a good answer for our rule over the Palestinian people. Of course I can rightly say that if the Palestinians were not endangering us, they would long ago have had a state, but I would be lying if I said that from our standpoint that is our goal. In the current situation we are not striving for that at all, and in fact we see the present situation as a kind of preferred arrangement from the outset. And again, I stress: this is not just a theoretical matter, but a large portion of the decisions being made today, with all the moral implications that follow from them, are being made because of that very ideology.

 
Sorry for the length, I hope that’s okay,
and thank you in any case.
Daniel