Accelerated advancement of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heartland, an immoral equivalence between Israel and the Arab enemy, partition of Jerusalem, a construction freeze and isolating communities, and more, are the hazards scattered throughout the text of the Trump plan. We read it and were outraged. Yehudit Kastover and Nadia Matar

A serious debate must be held only after reading the material that is being debated. That is the claim proffered by many, quite justifiably, regarding the dispute over the Trump plan. That is why we read the plan verbatim in Hebrew and English. Here are several citations from the plan along with our observations regarding their content (the citations appear in bold).
 
In the introductory chapter: Background: “Israelis and Palestinians have both suffered greatly from their longstanding and seemingly interminable conflict.”  This is an outrageous analogy that is morally and fundamentally erroneous. Ever since the seed of Zionism began to germinate and the State of Israel began to flourish, the Arabs have arisen against us to eliminate us. By contrast, the Arabs of the Land of Israel immigrated here from the Arab expanse, were aware that they were interlopers in a land that is not theirs, and did not stop harassing the nascent state. If invasion was not enough, they also murdered us, slaughtered us, demanded the land for themselves, and in 1964 (before the pretext of the 1967 “occupation”), even demanded to be a people.
 
“Palestinians have aspirations that have not been realized, including self-determination.” Why is it that the Jewish people, that exists for thousands of years, forcibly expelled from its Promised Land, is supposed to pay with the land of its tiny homeland for the demands for self-determination by invaders who are not a people?
 
The plan’s document continues: “Realistic two-state solution.” Are these tidings or a warning? In the eyes of the drafters of this document, these are apparently tidings, but why in our land? If we seek to understand what is the solution that the document claims to be “realistic,” the explanation follows immediately. It is a solution that “would give the Palestinians all the power to govern themselves but not the powers to threaten Israel.”
 
Haven’t we already experienced some of this with Oslo? Rifles and weapons were given then to the Arabs, who were trained by elite American commanders and officers. All these were ostensibly earmarked for a local police force to maintain order. Our cries: “Do not give them rifles!” fell on deaf ears, and as expected, the rifles were directed toward us. More than 1500 Jews killed, thousands of wounded, hundreds of orphans, and dozens of widows were part of the tragic consequences of the Oslo catastrophe.
 
The text continues: “This necessarily entails the limitation of certain sovereign powers in the Palestinian areas (henceforth referred to as the Palestinian State).” No fewer than 48 times is the phrase Palestinian state mentioned in the document.
 
The document also addresses what is called “the legitimate aspirations of the parties.” In that regard, it is written: “Any workable peace agreement must address the Palestinians’ legitimate desire for self-determination. This vision addresses these legitimate concerns through, among other things, the designation of territory for the future of a Palestinian state, strengthening Palestinian institutions of self-government, providing the Palestinians with the legal status and the international standing of a state, ensuring solid security arrangements, and building an innovative network of roads, bridges, and tunnels that enables freedom of movement for the Palestinians.”
 
Later in the document (which, as mentioned, was characterized as auspicious tidings for Israel): “The question of territory, self-determination, and sovereignty. Any realistic peace proposal requires the State of Israel to make a significant territorial compromise that will enable the Palestinians to have a viable state, respect their dignity, and address their legitimate national aspirations.”
 
All this is written despite what is written later in the document: “Withdrawing from territory captured in a defensive war is a historical rarity. It must be recognized that the State of Israel has already withdrawn from at least 88% of the territory it captured in 1967. The vision provides for the transfer of sizeable territory by the State of Israel – territory to which Israel has asserted valid legal and historical claims, and which are part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people – which must be considered a significant concession.”
 
In the chapter addressing borders, the drafters of the document wrote: “The Conceptual Map has been designed to demonstrate the feasibility for a redrawing of boundaries in the spirit of UNSCR 242, and in a manner that
 

1. ­Meets the security requirements of the State of Israel.” Where has basic logic gone? How will the security requirements of the State of Israel be met alongside a terrorist state situated in its heartland, when it has never ceased claiming its ownership of the Land of Israel in its entirety.
2. “Delivers significant territorial expansion to the Palestinians…The Israeli population located in enclaves that remain inside contiguous Palestinian territory but that are part of the State of Israel shall have the option to remain in place unless they choose otherwise.” This phrase: “Unless they choose otherwise,” is more than an allusion to the possibility of evacuating and uprooting them in the future. After certain communities will find themselves besieged in enclaves and surrounded by the Arab enemy, no one will build his house, no one will plant a vineyard, many will leave, and the path from there to de facto uprooting is very short. Even if the matters are not written explicitly, the implication is a silent uprooting of the communities.

 
Is Jerusalem partitioned or not?
 
“Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel, and it should remain an undivided city. The sovereign capital of the State of Palestine should be in the section of East Jerusalem located in all areas east and north of the existing security barrier, including Kafr Aqab, the eastern part of Shuafat and Abu Dis, and could be named Al Quds or another name as determined by the State of Palestine.” So, partitioned or not?
 
Here is another excerpt of the Trump plan: “Foundations of a Palestinian state…The transition to statehood is complex and fraught with peril. The region cannot absorb another failed state, another state not committed to human rights or the rule of law. A Palestinian State, just like any other state, must combat all forms of terrorism and be accountable to its neighbors….” In other words, someone there really hopes and believes that the Arab enemy, the one that has aspired and continues to aspire to establish a state on the ruins of the State of Israel, will be transformed into Canadians or Norwegians.
 
The plan is a detailed plan that addresses economy, security, tourism, crossings, refugees, and much more. We have brought before you some of the excerpts that outraged us, and that, for some reason, people do not always speak about and their consequences.
 
The matters seem clear – the objective of the plan is the establishment of a Palestinian state. The matters are written explicitly. Some will view the plan pragmatically, who will see winks and nudges between the lines, and have the sincere belief that everything will work in our favor, that the Arabs with their conduct and their recalcitrance will save us. We must not close our eyes and walk on the brink of the abyss. We cannot support the very agreement to the concept of establishment of a Palestinian state. On the basis of all public opinion surveys conducted in recent years, the majority of the people do not want it.
 
The Sovereignty Movement was established as an ideological movement whose objective is to put an end to the fallacious discourse regarding the “occupation,” to put an end to the uncertainty surrounding the question of the rightful owners of the Land of Israel, to put an end to the Civil Administration, and to put an end to the reality that any leader who desires peace views Israel as the one who is supposed to relinquish its land. As a movement of this kind, we cannot come to terms with the very existence of a discourse regarding a foreign country in our heartland.
 
We are obligated to continue to promote the idea of Greater Israel in practice and not leave it merely in the conceptual realm. Almost a decade has passed since our first Sovereignty conference in Hebron, whose aim was to promote the idea and to instill it into the public consciousness. Many outstanding people attended that conference. At present, it appears that the idea is taking shape in practice; however, this is not happening in a healthy, correct, just, and Zionist framework. The concept of sovereignty has been totally distorted and has become a cellophane wrapper obscuring the establishment of a Palestinian state. We will not be party to this!
 
 It is incumbent upon the Israeli Prime Minister to remove the establishment of Palestine in the heartland of the Land of Israel, and to progress bravely and proudly toward sovereignty as rightful owners of this land. In the name of truth and justice, in the name of the fathers and mothers who sacrificed their lives for our land, and for the sake of future generations who will, with God’s help, establish many more cities and communities and welcome into our tiny land  millions of more Jews who will flow and stream here in the coming years, with God’s help.