Public figures on Wednesday responded to published off-the-record comments by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, indicating that Jerusalem is not planning to apply sovereignty over Judea and Samaria “at least in the coming months,” due to opposition from U.S. President Donald Trump.
MK Ohad Tal responded to Sa’ar’s comments, telling JNS that applying Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is the morally and biblically correct path and represents the only viable solution to stabilizing the region and ensuring a better future for all—Jews and Arabs alike.
Former Ambassador Yoram Ettinger said Israel’s control of the Judea and Samaria mountain range was a critical line of defense that Americans should understand is not important only for Israel, but “serves as a deterrent against terrorism and war, which is consistent with U.S. interests.”
The Sovereignty Movement emphasized that while Trump is a true friend of Israel, as demonstrated by many of his actions and statements, the responsibility for fateful decisions regarding the future of the State of Israel lies solely with the government of Israel.
Rabbi Tuly Weisz, founder of Israel365 Action, a new party in the World Zionist Organization supporting sovereignty, told JNS that Sa’ar correctly doesn’t want to publicly disrespect Trump, whom he called Israel’s great ally.
Avi Abelow offered that Sa’ar’s remarks highlight that Israel has not effectively framed sovereignty as a shared objective with its most important ally.
AFSI’s take:
Reasonable people who understand the facts about Israel’s biblical and historical rights to the land understand that the application of sovereignty should not be conditioned on outside approval. Though ignoring geopolitical constraints may pose risks to Israel, it doesn’t change the truth about this issue and Israel remains the sole arbiter. If anything, both the discussion and outrage triggered by Sa’ar’s statement signals that the question about applying sovereignty has transitioned from a theoretical consideration to a practical one. It is evolving from a question of ‘if’ to ‘when’—and under what conditions.