RUTHFULLY YOURS

Former U.S. Ambassador David Friedman’s new book, One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, currently being launched and distributed, presents a coherent political doctrine aimed at shifting approaches and perceptions.

In it, he argues that Israeli rule over the entire territory not only aligns with Israel’s historical, biblical right to the land but will also benefit all parties involved, both Jews and Arabs.

Friedman has drawn on his years of policy experience, which played a significant role in key actions such as relocating the American embassy to Jerusalem and securing U.S. recognition of the Golan Heights as sovereign Israeli territory, to write his book addressing a wide range of political, security, civil and economic issues. Friedman is well aware of the multifaceted challenges involved in such a political plan.

We held a three-way conversation about this topic with him and MK Ohad Tal, a key figure in advancing President Donald Trump’s plan within the Israeli political arena.At the outset, Friedman summarizes the main points of his plan, which views the application of sovereignty as a step towards achieving the political goal of securing two things.

“No. 1 to bring stability, safety, security, prosperity for the State of Israel. No. 2 is to be faithful to the will of God with regard to the way in which the Jewish people should hold the Land of Israel. These are achieved through sovereignty. But it’s not about achieving sovereignty. It’s about achieving these two goals.”

Friedman outlines the path to his goal in several stages. “I don’t think it can happen overnight. The most important thing is for the State of Israel, by a meaningful consensus, to decide this is the right thing for the State of Israel, before any other country gets involved. The State of Israel has to decide that. And I think the State of Israel should decide that through a process which is deep and robust and thoughtful. I mean, I think people really need to discuss it.”

Friedman cautiously adds that while he doesn’t mean to offend anyone, the discussion around such a move needs to be approached somewhat differently from the hasty manner in which the judicial reform was promoted “by a narrow majority that created a lot of dissension. This issue is much bigger and if it’s going to go forward, it must do so with the support of a significant majority of the people in Israel.”

An expansion of the Abraham Accords

He continues, “Step two, I think there needs to be a real plan. How is it going to get done? How is Israel going to be a sovereign over what could be an additional two million Palestinians? How will Israel separate the ones who want to be peaceful from the ones who continue to want to commit acts of terror? That’s going to have to continue until it’s resolved. How does Israel pay for it? It’s going to involve a lot of money to assume responsibility for an additional two million people.

“So that involves an expansion of the Abraham Accords. Convincing Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and other countries that this is the best outcome for the region and even for the Palestinians themselves.”

Friedman emphasizes that a governmental structure must be established to ensure the continuation of a Jewish state.

“It involves a governance structure which makes sure that Israel always remains a Jewish state and that you don’t have the risk that by increasing the population, you have the risk that the non-Jewish Israelis could cause the country to make decisions that are not consistent with being a Jewish state, so it’s a whole bunch of steps. I wrote a 240-page book about it and I try to address all those complicated issues.”

Right and left can unite under a single political plan

Friedman expresses the hope that his proposed plan can unite diverse groups: those that promote Israeli sovereignty, those concerned with Palestinian welfare and those focused on issues of human rights or national security. “This is something that can appeal to people with a diverse range of interests,” he says.

“It’s crucial that it be presented in this way, and not simply as a small minority of the population grabbing territory at the expense of someone else.”

Tal listens intently, emphasizing what sets this plan apart from the political discourse until now: “Ambassador Friedman’s proposal represents a significant departure from the thinking we’ve grown accustomed to, certainly over the past 30 years.

“Many attempts to resolve the conflict, including international efforts, have tried taking the territory and dividing it into two and to see whether it’s possible to establish a shared reality with borders. This approach has failed to bring peace, prosperity, security or welfare to either Israelis or Palestinians.

“Ambassador Friedman’s plan says let’s try to focus on the well-being of the people themselves. It suggests setting aside ideologies momentarily to explore how we can implement a tangible solution for the people on the ground.

“And to address the people on the ground, we must examine reality. Israel is currently home to an Arab-Muslim minority as well as other minority populations. If you ask them whether they would rather live in any Arab country in the Middle East or in Israel, their answer is clear: They prefer to live under Israeli control. Their lives are much better, they enjoy better education, health care and welfare services.

“Ultimately, there’s no terrorism coming out from cities under Israeli control, because Israeli control means the reality of a better life, of security, prosperity, welfare. Now let’s see how we can take this model and replicate it in other places. This is essentially the plan, and as Ambassador Friedman says, applying Israeli sovereignty is part of what it means when Israel takes responsibility for everyone’s lives.”

Tal considers Friedman’s vision pragmatic and realistic, despite its challenging complexities.

“We’ll have to consider how to deal with those who want to keep fighting us,” the Israeli lawmakers says. “We obviously can’t allow them to benefit from the good life Israel has to offer. Those who want to leave can leave, those willing to accept Israel as a Jewish state are welcome to stay and live here and enjoy a much better life than any previous plan has offered in the last 30 years.

“This is a vision that presents a completely new and different opportunity, beneficial for everyone, Palestinian Arabs, Israelis and the entire Middle East. It offers genuine peace, security and stability. It will allow many countries to reallocate resources and focus on economic growth and building a better regional future, breaking the cycle of recurring violence as part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It offers a way out of the current deadlock.”

Talk to the people, not the corrupt, despotic leadership

When asked whether there is an Arab partner to talk to, given the history of rejected proposals even when they promoted Arab welfare, Friedman emphasizes a key aspect of his plan: It bypasses the Palestinian leadership and communicates directly with the people living in Judea and Samaria.

“The Palestinian people have lost faith in their leadership. They see how aid money ends up in the leaders’ pockets. Ismail Haniyeh’s children are fighting over a multi-billion-dollar inheritance, Arafat’s widow shops on the Champs-Élysées,” the ambassador says.

“Beyond that, the plan is not an agreement, a contract or negotiations, all of which have proven to be a waste of time. The Palestinians will never say please come and take over our territory, but nor will they ever say, please don’t take our territory if they see it happening.”

Friedman explains: “Meaning: Don’t ask them! We don’t need to ask the Palestinians whether they’re willing to give up something that they’ve been promised by their leadership for the last 50 years. You don’t need to have a discussion like that. What the State of Israel needs to do is to come in and say we are asserting our sovereignty under these terms, and here are the opportunities available to the Palestinians.

“And I believe that they will accept it, but not in a formal way. Not like they’re going to sign a contract, they’re not going to sign a treaty. But this will be the new reality. The Palestinian people have never lived under their own authority. I mean, they’re the majority of Jordan. Do you see them protesting in Jordan? Maybe 50 years ago. But they have shown an ability to accept living within the sovereignty of another country.

“They’ve shown that. And I think they’ll do it here as well. But I wouldn’t waste time negotiating. It’s not necessary.

Q: But how might the world react to such a move?

“That depends on a number of things. The first and most important is that the State of Israel has to decide on sovereignty, and the second is that it has to be a serious decision, not one established on a narrow majority of 61 votes [in the 120-member Knesset]. When that happens, when Israel respects itself, the world will respect it. The key is to do it with a broad consensus.

“Afterwards, the United States, under a Republican administration, understanding the full scope of the move, would likely support it. We’ll need to work with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and there’s a real possibility they’ll agree once they see how the plan improves Palestinians’ lives. What it requires at all time is that it be presented as a win-win-win plan.

“As for Europe, it’s uncertain what will happen there, but I believe that within five to 15 years, this issue will fade from the global focus as other concerns take precedence,” Friedman says.

Tal adds, “It’s not what the gentiles say that counts, but what the Jews do,” invoking the well-known saying by David Ben-Gurion. “In this context, in the aftermath of October 7, we as Israeli society need to reflect on the past 76 years and the last 30 years and see how we can learn from our mistakes rather than recycle them. This plan is an opportunity to do just that.

“The public wants to hear something new, some out-of-the-box thinking, and that’s what this plan offers. However, we must admit that it presents a challenge.

“Even in right-wing circles, we’ve become accustomed to the Oslo paradigm, which is why it’s difficult at first to grasp Ambassador Friedman’s idea, even though it’s simple, logical and smart any way you look at it. We need to move ahead and push it forward. We need to start getting used to hearing ideas like this.”

In his remarks, Friedman noted anticipated support from a Republican administration for the plan. However, is such support certain, given that some may view it as conceptually different from Trump’s business-oriented approach, which led to the presentation of the “deal of the century” during his term?

Friedman does not accept the characterization of his plan as a “nonbusiness” plan, even if it doesn’t involve Arabs receiving percentages of territory, a flag, government or a state.

The model for this

“The model for this are the Israeli Arabs, the Israelis who live inside the Green Line. You know, they participate in the Israeli economy, the educational system, the homeownership. In some respects the Christian Arabs in Israel do better than anybody, including the Jews.

“So the point is that over time, the goal would be leaving aside the rights to vote in national elections. Leave that aside for a minute, because it’s complicated. We can spend time on it. But it’s complicated. But the idea is to bring the standard of living of the Palestinian Arabs living in Judea and Samaria up to the level of the Israeli Arabs living inside the Green Line. That’s receiving a lot. That’s infrastructure. That’s education, that’s hospitals, that’s roads. That’s billions of dollars that we would hope to get with our partners in the Gulf and from America.

“Right now, America gives a half a billion dollars to UNRWA, which kills Jews. They give money for the worst things. I mean, America could just put its money in the right direction, coupled with the Saudis and the Emiratis and others.

“There’s both a carrot and a stick here,” Friedman explains. “Obviously, if they want to commit acts of terror, Israel has to fight without mercy. But at least there’s an opportunity for people to say, you know what? What are we fighting about? We can have better schools. We can have better education, we can have better hospitals. We can build more. We can do more business. That’s what this is about.

“The highest GDP per capita in the countries surrounding Israel is around $4,000-$5,000, and in places like Lebanon and Syria, it’s even lower. Israel is like 11 times that. So the idea is for the Palestinians to share more in Israeli prosperity. That’s the only way that that we can de-radicalize the Palestinian people.”

Tal supports Friedman’s position, emphasizing, “The plan offers a huge advantage for individual Palestinians. Their quality of life will improve, their health will improve, their economy will improve and their education will improve. The future for their children will be much better. True, the Palestinian leadership won’t benefit from it, but that’s because we’re stuck in an outdated mindset. We’ve become accustomed to thinking only about whether there’s an agreement and how to make the corrupt Palestinian leadership richer. They won’t benefit from it, but the life of the average individual will improve.”

Replicating the Tel Aviv conversation across the country

“Let’s consider for a moment what has happened to Palestinian residents in 30 years of Oslo—has their life improved? After all, they suffer from Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorism, endless rounds of fighting and the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. So if we truly want to benefit the people themselves, Ambassador Friedman’s vision offers the best path to ensuring better lives for everyone. The current reality benefits no one,” says Tal.

Spreading Friedman’s idea will require multiple platforms beyond the Knesset. “There needs to be a national discussion on how to present this,” the ambassador says, sharing a story from a business meeting he had with a Tel Aviv high-tech professional in one of the city’s skyscrapers.

“We talked a bit about business and then also about politics. I asked him, ‘What do you think about Judea and Samaria?’ He told me, ‘You know, I haven’t been there since I was in the army. I don’t want to rule over people who don’t want to be ruled by us. I don’t want my children to have to risk their lives.’ I said, ‘Okay, I understand. Do you believe in God?’

“He said, ‘I don’t know. My parents went through the Holocaust, so I have issues with God.’ I told him, ‘I understand. Let me ask you a question. Let’s pick a place instead of talking hypothetically. Do you know what happened in Shiloh?’ When he said no, I said I’d tell him, and I told him about the Israelites coming out of Egypt, about Joshua leading them across the Jordan, the seven years in Gilgal and about their arrival in Shiloh, where they remained for 369 years.

“Shiloh was Israel’s Jerusalem before there was Jerusalem—that’s where all the tribes came to, where they received their part of the Land of Israel, where the prophet Samuel was born, where Hannah taught the world how to pray.

“When he asked what I meant, I explained that she prayed so fervently that the high priest thought she was drunk. After telling him all this, I asked him to choose, ‘Look, it’s an important place. Now, what do you want to do? Do you want to keep it, or give it away? If you give it to a Palestinian state, it will be destroyed.

“The Palestinians want to erase any connection between the Jewish people and their biblical land. So, what do you want to do?’ He answered, ‘We have to keep it.’ I told him, ‘But you’re an atheist,’ and he replied, ‘So what? I don’t care. I don’t care who wrote the Bible, whether it was God, someone else, or 10 people.

“I don’t care. It’s our book. It’s the book that kept us as a people. We’ve been here for 3,000 years. None of those other peoples are here anymore and it’s all thanks to the Bible. This is our history,’ that’s what he said. The Bible stories are who we are, just like America wouldn’t give away the Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty.

“A discussion like the one I had with that fellow needs to happen every day, a thousand times a day, everywhere in Israel. Israelis are focused on worrying about Iran and Hezbollah, but they need to take a step back and reflect on the big picture. If we do it respectfully, without trying to push or force anyone, but with respect, education and love, love for Israel, we can move the people of Israel in a very positive direction.”

After Oct. 7

Tal is convinced that this moment, particularly after the trauma of Oct. 7, is the right time to consider new ideas such as Friedman’s.

“The huge crisis we’re all facing is a tremendous opportunity to build a better future, to create change. We saw how in [Kibbutz] Kfar Aza, there were flags and signs of Peace Now on the doors of the burned houses.

“These are people at the tip of the leftist pyramid, the ones who drove Gazan Arabs to hospitals in Israel over the years, led big peace campaigns and employed Gazans in their homes. Yet when those Gazan Arabs came to murder them in the kibbutzim, they called those kibbutzniks ‘settlers.’

“After the massacre, we heard many in the left-wing camp using very strong language about Gaza and Gazans. So many people in the left-wing camp are now saying enough is enough.”

Friedman adds, “This plan is neither right nor left, and that’s a very important point. Someone from the left told me they don’t want to rule over the Palestinians. I said, listen, my friend, you’re already ruling over them. You’re sending soldiers to Jenin, to Ramallah, to Tulkarem. You’re there.

“Wouldn’t you rather be there with an opportunity for change? If you go in and they see that with the help of a billion or two from Saudi Arabia, you’re building a hospital, paving a road and establishing a school, it will be clear that at least now you’re there with the opportunity to reduce tensions, not exacerbate them.”