Israeli Sovereignty: The only path to stability in the Middle East

A misunderstanding of the Middle East has led President Trump to criticize steps toward Israeli sovereignty. We must be clear: sovereignty is what will bring stability. 

Yehudit Katsover & Nadia Matar, co-chairs of the Sovereignty Movement | Ribonut.co.il |

By Michael Vadon - Donald Trump Sr at Citizens United Freedom Summit in Greenville South Carolina May 2015 by Michael Vadon, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=72181496Photo by Michael Vadon – Donald Trump Sr at Citizens United Freedom Summit in Greenville South Carolina May 2015 by Michael Vadon, CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikipedia

President Trump’s opposition to applying Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria stems from a Western view that sees such a step as destabilizing. In the Middle Eastern context, however, this is a misreading of reality. Israeli sovereignty is a necessary strategic move.

Beyond being a security and political necessity, sovereignty fulfills the Jewish people’s natural right to their land-a biblical, historical, and legal right, recognized under international law. No other people in the world has such a continuous, documented, and unmistakable connection to its land, with defined borders and a recognized homeland.

Anyone familiar with the Middle East knows that the region’s key players-from Iran to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood-are primarily driven by a religious-political ideology. For them, Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel is not a territorial dispute but a challenge to the Islamic order. Political ambiguity or delaying decisions does not produce stability-it signals weakness.

For this reason, applying Israeli sovereignty is urgent. Clear sovereignty establishes law and borders and eliminates the illusion of a “future Palestinian state.”

Implementing sovereignty also raises the question of the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, which requires attention and solutions that cannot be avoided. Attempts to impose Western models of binationalism, mass citizenship, or the creation of a Palestinian Arab state in the heart of our land are not only unrealistic-they are dangerous.

History repeatedly shows that in the Middle East, states cannot survive as multiethnic entities without a clear sovereign identity:

Iraq after World War I, with Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, continues to face internal conflict.

20th-century Syria, with Druze, Alawites, Kurds, and Christians, failed to achieve stable unity.

Multi-religious Lebanon in the 20th century faced a prolonged civil war (1975-1990) due to imbalances between groups.

The civil war in Syria, the crisis in Yemen, and Iraq’s fragmented governance all demonstrate that multiethnic states without clear sovereignty collapse.

While the Jewish people have only one state-Israel-Arabs in Judea and Samaria have the option of dozens of countries with a shared Arab or Muslim identity. Insisting on perpetuating conflict within the Jewish state, instead of allowing a natural regional solution, defies Middle Eastern logic.

We must also consider the Gaza Strip. The current technocratic Palestinian administration there uses symbols of a “Palestinian state”-an open invitation to disorder. Achieving regional stability requires complete Israeli sovereignty from the sea to the Jordan, with Gaza as an integral part of the Land of Israel. Only then can a clear, lawful order replace the illusion of a Palestinian Arab state.

The relocation of Arabs from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is not a precondition for sovereignty-it is a natural consequence. Once sovereignty is clarified and it is clear that no Palestinian Arab state will emerge, the path opens to the only realistic solution: voluntary emigration, incentivized economically and supported internationally.

History provides many precedents: population exchanges between Greece and Turkey; the migration of millions of Hindus and Muslims following India’s partition; the relocation of German populations from Eastern Europe after World War II-all contributed to long-term stability.

Moreover, the international community turns a blind eye to forced or agreed-upon demographic changes elsewhere, including these days, with the displacement of Kurds and other minorities. In those cases, such moves are framed as promoting regional stability. Yet only in the Israeli case is demographic change portrayed as illegitimate, even when it is the most humane and realistic solution. Israel must demand an end to this double standard.

Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza have natural alternatives in 22 Arab states and 59 Muslim-majority countries, sharing language, culture, and space. Managed, voluntary relocation with international support is far preferable to perpetuating an ideological conflict that cannot be resolved within Israel’s borders.

Israeli sovereignty is not an obstacle to regional stability-it is the decisive step from which order begins. In the Middle East, only decisiveness and determination create stability.

February 11, 2026 | 2 Comments »

Leave a Reply

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. AI Overviews::

    was the german emigration from sudetenland and east prussia voluntary

    No, the emigration of Germans from the Sudetenland and East Prussia following World War II was not voluntary. It was a massive, forced migration consisting of panicked flight from the advancing Red Army, followed by systematic, state-sanctioned expulsion (ethnic cleansing) by Polish, Soviet, and Czechoslovak authorities. Approximately 12 to 14 million Germans were driven from their homes in Eastern Europe, with millions perishing during the process.
    Key Aspects of the Forced Migration
    Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia): After the war, nearly the entire German population (approx. 3 million) was expelled. “Wild expulsions” began in May 1945, where Germans were rounded up by local militias and forced to leave with minimal belongings. Later, more organized, state-sanctioned deportations took place in 1946–1947.
    East Prussia (Germany/Soviet Union/Poland): The exodus was triggered by the rapid, brutal advance of the Red Army in early 1945. Many fled in panic to avoid Soviet reprisals, while others were evacuated by Nazi authorities in the chaotic “Operation Hannibal”. Those who remained were subjected to forced labor or subsequent expulsion by Soviet/Polish authorities.
    “Wild” vs. Organized Expulsions: The process occurred in stages. The first phase was panic-driven flight, followed by brutal, localized “wild” expulsions in 1945. Later, the Allies formally recognized these transfers at the Potsdam Conference, leading to more “organized” but still often brutal deportations.
    Conditions and Death Toll: The expulsions were marked by immense suffering, including crowded cattle wagons, forced marches (such as the Brno death march), and violence. Estimates of deaths range from 500,000 to over 2 million due to hunger, cold, disease, and violence.
    Voluntary Elements: While the vast majority was forced, there were very limited cases of, or attempts to, classify transfers as “voluntary” by authorities, or instances where, years later, families were allowed to reunite through migration, but the initial post-war exodus was essentially forced.
    The expulsion was largely motivated by a desire to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states in Eastern Europe and revenge for the crimes of the Nazi regime.

    These are results for was the migration of hindus and Muslims during Partition of India forced or voluntary

    The 1947 partition of India triggered one of the largest forced migrations in human history, involving roughly 15 to 20 million people. While some movement was voluntary due to ideological alignment with the new states, the vast majority was driven by extreme violence, panic, and existential fear, making it a largely involuntary, chaotic displacement.
    Key aspects of this forced migration included:
    Mass Violence and Ethnic Cleansing: Communities were targeted based on religion, with widespread massacres, riots, and sexual violence forcing people to flee for survival.
    Panic and Urgency: Millions abandoned homes with little notice, traveling in crowded, unsafe caravans or trains, often facing attacks during the journey.
    Large-Scale Demographic Swap: Roughly 9 million Hindus and Sikhs moved to India, while nearly 5 million Muslims fled to West and East Pakistan, transforming the region into a “great sorting” of populations.
    Breakdown of Law and Order: The collapse of administrative and security structures, alongside a departing British military, left minorities unprotected, leaving them with no choice but to migrate.
    Though framed as a political solution, the partition quickly devolved into a, humanitarian crisis and a, {“other face of freedom,”} leaving 1 to 2 million dead.