The
history of the Zionist movement seemingly had a contradictory nature
because on the one hand it claimed a readiness for a protracted
struggle, while on the other it showed a willingness for a political
compromise. The recognition that Israel needs an ally as a condition for
any settlement characterizes the history of Zionism. Only a formal, real
alliance with the United States could possibly lead to a settlement.
Based on these assumptions, the author proposes a confederative
settlement that would include Israel, Jordan, and Palestine while making
Jerusalem a sort of Vatican of the three religions. East Jerusalem could
be handed over to the Arabs because, in any case, Israel does not have
control over it. The “right of return” is completely rejected in
principle. The idea of transfer is not feasible from the standpoint of
international politics. The confederative settlement would lead in the
future to a regional military alliance, a sort of Middle Eastern NATO.
Both utopias – the brutal one that favors war, and the rational, humane
one, i.e., the confederative solution – are infeasible in the
foreseeable future. Despite the fact that the Arab terrorist movement is
the cruelest in the history of underground and terrorist movements on
the one hand, and notwithstanding Jews’ deep historical attachment to
Judea and Samaria on the other, Israel should not remain in Judea and
Samaria because this constitutes occupation. Thus, the self-destruction
of Israeli society does not stem from self-hatred as claimed by the
ACPR, but instead is a consequence of this occupation.