Friedman tells Israel: Think fresh, get tough — and win!

Former US Ambassador David Friedman’s new book, “One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” published on Sept. 3 by Humanix Books, presents what he believes is a coherent political doctrine aimed at shifting approaches and perceptions.

In it, the native of Woodsburgh in the Five Towns argues that Israeli rule over the entire territory not only aligns with Israel’s biblical and historical right to the land but will benefit Arabs as well as Jews.

Sovereignty Journal (ribonut.co.il) held a three-way conversation with Friedman and MK Ohad Tal, a key figure in advancing President Donald Trump’s plan within the Israeli political arena.

Friedman said the application of Israeli sovereignty would advance two political goals.

“No. 1 is to bring stability, safety, security, prosperity for the State of Israel. No. 2 is to be faithful to the will of G-d with regard to the way in which the Jewish people should hold the Land of Israel.”

“I don’t think it can happen overnight,” and the State of Israel must craft its course “by a meaningful consensus … through a process which is deep and robust and thoughtful.”

Friedman cautiously adds that the discussion around such a move needs to be approached differently from the hasty manner in which judicial reform was promoted “by a narrow majority. … 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.”

“There needs to be a real plan,” he said. “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? How does Israel pay for it? It’s going to involve a lot of money to assume responsibility for an additional two million people.”

His answer: “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.”

Friedman hopes his 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. “I wrote a 240-page book about it and I try to address all those complicated issues,” 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 observes that “Ambassador Friedman’s proposal represents a significant departure from the thinking we’ve grown accustomed to, certainly over the past 30 years.”

Friedman’s plan focuses “on the well-being of the people themselves,” Tal said. “It suggests setting aside ideologies momentarily to explore how we can implement a tangible solution for the people on the ground.”

Friedman emphasizes that his plan bypasses 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.”

“The Palestinian people have never lived under their own authority,” Friedman said. “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.”

Tal considers Friedman’s vision pragmatic, despite its challenging complexities. “We’ll have to consider how to deal with those who want to keep fighting us,” the Israeli lawmaker says.

• • •

How might the world react to such a move? “That depends on a number of things,” Friedman said. “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 Oct. 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.”

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 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.

• • •

Friedman would sidestep — “for a minute, because it’s complicated” — the right to vote in national elections. “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.”

“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.”

• • •

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 G-d?’

“He said, ‘I don’t know. My parents went through the Holocaust, so I have issues with G-d.’ 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 G-d, 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. This is our history.’

“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.”

• • •

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.”