Danger ahead: What the West Bank’s red signs say about peace

From murdered motorists in Huwara to the Palestinian Authority’s vow of a Jew-free state, the message is clear: Coexistence cannot begin where exclusion is policy.

Drive through Judea and Samaria, and you’ll see them everywhere: bright-red signs warning Israelis in three languages that entering a Palestinian Authority town is “forbidden, dangerous to your lives and against Israeli law.”

Imagine, for a moment, an American community posting a sign that says, “Italians entering do so at their own risk.” The outrage would be swift and universal. Yet in Israel’s biblical heartland, such warnings are a routine part of the landscape.

Wikimedia Commons

These signs exist because they must. They reflect a reality that no peace process slogan can obscure: Israelis who cross into P.A.-controlled areas risk their lives.

The danger isn’t theoretical. In August 2023, a father and son from Ashdod were murdered in Huwara while waiting for their car to be serviced. Hamas proudly claimed responsibility. Just months earlier, two brothers, Hillel and Yagel Yaniv were shot dead in the same town. Across Judea and Samaria, Israeli drivers are routinely pelted with rocks, concrete blocks and Molotov cocktails as they travel along Route 60, the region’s main north-south artery.

These attacks aren’t random crimes. They’re part of a pattern of tolerated violence, celebrated in Palestinian social media and rewarded by the P.A.’s “pay-for-slay” stipends—monthly salaries to terrorists and their families. When killers are glorified and subsidized, no one should be surprised that hatred thrives. The P.A.’s leaders have said openly what many of their supporters believe: a future Palestinian state should be Judenrein, or “free of Jews.”

In 2013, chief negotiator Saeb Erekat insisted that not a single Israeli would be permitted to live in a Palestinian state. In 2019, current P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas repeated that pledge, declaring that “not one Israeli” would remain.

In any other context, the promise of an ethnic-cleansing policy would trigger international condemnation. In the Palestinian context, it’s shrugged off as political rhetoric. Yet it explains why those red warning signs exist—not because Israelis want segregation but because Palestinian leadership embraces exclusion.

Meanwhile, the P.A.’s textbooks continue to erase Israel from maps and glorify “martyrs.” The result is a generation raised to believe that Jews are intruders to be resisted, not neighbors to be respected.

Israel’s critics call the current system unequal. They’re right, but they’re looking in the wrong direction.

Palestinians enter Israeli cities daily—for work, medical care, shopping—without fear. No Israeli town posts signs warning Arabs that their lives are in danger. And when extremists tried to put up such a sign in the Jewish community of Yitzhar in 2020, Israeli authorities removed it immediately, denouncing it as racist.

The contrast couldn’t be clearer: Jews who stray into Palestinian towns risk their lives. Palestinians who enter Jewish towns go home safely. That’s not a political imbalance. It’s a moral one.

The red signs at Palestinian town entrances are more than traffic warnings; they are monuments to a worldview that still defines peace as the absence of Jews.

For decades, Israel has been told that peace will come when the Palestinians achieve statehood. But what kind of state bars Jews by law? What message does it send when “coexistence” means Jews stay out—or else?

If Palestinian leaders truly sought peace, then they would prepare their people to live alongside Israelis, not without them. They would dismantle the culture of martyrdom, end the stipends to terrorists, and teach children that Jews are part of the region’s history and future.

Until then, those red signs will continue to mark more than borders. They mark a moral divide—between a society that protects its neighbors and one that glorifies their murder.

This post and others by Stephen M. Flatow can be read online here.

 Recognition without reality

By rushing to recognize a Palestinian state, Western leaders embolden Hamas and delay the only real path to peace: disarmament, reform and negotiation.

Western recognition of Palestinian statehood without reform or disarmament is symbolism, not peace—and risks emboldening terror.

This past week, several Western governments—the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Australia—announced their recognition of a Palestinian state. At the United Nations, their diplomats framed the move as a bold step toward reviving the two-state solution.

 In reality, it is neither bold nor helpful. It is a symbolic gesture that will not bring peace to either Israelis or Palestinians. Worse, it risks encouraging further violence from Hamas and other terror groups who already view murder as the most effective tool in their arsenal.

 

Steve Cadman, CC BY-SA 2.0
via Wikimedia Commons

I understand the appeal of recognition from a distance. But it’s symbolism without substance. It costs nothing politically at home for Western leaders to talk about peace. It allows them to signal moral concern without having to grapple with the brutal reality of what Palestinians have built—or, more accurately, failed to build—in Gaza and the West Bank.

 But symbolism is not statecraft. Recognition does not create security forces, disarm terror groups, establish functioning institutions or teach accountability to a population fed a steady diet of anti-Israel propaganda.

 As The Wall Street Journal editorial page noted this week, recognition is detached from Middle East reality. It changes the diplomatic conversation in New York, not the facts on the ground in Nablus or Rafah. The New York Times, for its part, has carried sympathetic voices arguing that recognition is an overdue correction to decades of imbalance. But what these “pro” arguments overlook is crucial: Unless the underlying problems are addressed, this shortcut guarantees more bloodshed, not less.

Consider the timing. Hamas still controls Gaza. Its leaders openly promise more horrific days like Oct. 7. Hostages remain in captivity. Palestinian politics are fractured, elections are nonexistent, and corruption is rampant. To declare “Palestine is a state” in such conditions sends exactly the wrong message: Violence works, governance doesn’t matter, and the world will hand you rewards even if you refuse to disarm.

 Terror groups understand incentives. If recognition comes without demilitarization, then they will trumpet it as vindication of their strategy. For Israelis, this means living under the renewed threat of rockets, kidnappings and cross-border attacks—all justified in the name of a “recognized” cause. For Palestinians, it means another generation consigned to leadership by warlords instead of reformers.

Real peace requires sequencing, not shortcuts. First must come an end to terror, and the disarming of groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Second, there must be credible Palestinian governance reforms—transparent institutions, accountable security forces and leaders chosen in free elections. Third, the parties themselves must negotiate borders, security arrangements and the status of Jerusalem. Only after those steps are credibly underway does recognition become meaningful. Anything else is play-acting.

Imagine if Britain or France had recognized the Confederate States of America in 1862. Such a move would have legitimized a rebellion before the United States had resolved the fundamental questions of slavery and secession. That is exactly what today’s premature recognition of “Palestine” does; it cements dysfunction instead of curing it.

Supporters of recognition like to claim it “levels the playing field” between Israelis and Palestinians. But leveling the playing field while one side is armed to the teeth with Iranian missiles and the other is a democracy fighting for survival is not balance. It is folly. Others argue that recognition restores hope. Yet hollow hope is dangerous; it creates expectations that cannot be met, setting the stage for more disillusionment and more violence.

Even voices sympathetic to the Palestinian cause concede the point. Barbara Slavin, writing for the Stimson Center, described such recognition as “a largely symbolic gesture” that lacks real pressure or follow-through. Vox columnist Abdallah Fayyad likewise acknowledged that recognition by Western nations is “largely symbolic,” motivated by domestic politics more than a workable peace strategy. Pro-Palestinian legal scholar Noura Erakat noted in a piece published by L’Orient Today that recognition, unaccompanied by enforcement or reparations, remains symbolic at best.

 When your own advocates acknowledge that recognition does not change the reality on the ground, it should be a red flag.

 There’s a better path. Western leaders who genuinely care about Israeli-Palestinian peace should stop chasing headlines and start demanding accountability. Recognition should be tied to hard benchmarks: the disarmament of Hamas, the release of hostages, the creation of functioning Palestinian institutions and the holding of real elections. Without those steps, statehood is not a bridge to peace but a recipe for war.

 The Jewish people have always prayed for peace, and Israel has proven again and again its willingness to negotiate, compromise and sacrifice for the chance at a lasting settlement. But peace cannot be built on illusions. Recognizing a Palestinian state in today’s conditions does not hasten peace; it delays it. It does not empower moderates; it emboldens extremists.

 Those who care about a true two-state solution should be the loudest voices opposing this premature recognition. Otherwise, they will find themselves applauding a symbolic victory that becomes a practical tragedy for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Instead of thanking Israel for making the Mideast a safer place, we get calls for a Palestinian state

 After war with Iran, countries call for a Palestinian state

Recognition without security measure in place undermines peace and endangers Israel.

By Stephen M. Flatow

 

Stephen M. Flatow is president of the Religious Zionists of America. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995, and author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror. (The RZA is not affiliated with any American or Israeli political party.)

 

Israel, with support from the United States, makes the Middle East and Europe safer. So, how is it being repaid? With calls for the creation of a Palestinian state, made unilaterally.

 

Countries such as France, Ireland, Spain and Norway have already moved toward recognizing Palestinian statehood. The United Kingdom and others may soon follow. Some present this as a bold step toward peace. In reality, unilateral recognition undermines Israel’s security, emboldens extremists and sets back the cause of genuine peace.

 

From Israel’s standpoint, these declarations bypass the essentials of any viable two-state solution: re-educating the Palestinian public away from violence, enforceable security guarantees, mutually agreed borders and complete demilitarization. Without these, Palestinian statehood could become a launching pad for further violence, not a foundation for peace.

 

For decades, international consensus held that a Palestinian state should emerge from bilateral negotiations—covering security, refugees, Jerusalem and borders. That was the premise of the Oslo Accords, backed by successive U.S. administrations and U.N. resolutions.

 

Unilateral recognition upends that process. It rewards a corrupt Palestinian leadership with statehood while demanding no concessions. Worse, it empowers rejectionist forces like Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, disarm, or abandon terrorism. If statehood is handed over without commitments to coexistence, why would Palestinian leaders compromise in future talks?

 

Such recognition removes incentives for negotiation and undermines Israel’s leverage over existential issues: defensible borders, airspace, intelligence-sharing and control over the presence of foreign forces. One has to ask: How long before North Korean “advisers” show up in Palestine?

 

This isn’t just about pride or symbolism. It’s about Israel’s ability to defend itself from terror and regional threats.

 

Geography matters. The pre-1967 lines—central to many recognition proposals—leave Israel just nine miles wide at its narrowest point. Those “Auschwitz borders,” as they’ve been called, would make it easy for an invading army (think Oct. 7) to split the country in two. Giving up security control of such areas without ironclad guarantees is a risk no Israeli government can take.

 

A premature Palestinian state could also unravel the fragile network of counterterrorism coordination and border arrangements that protect both Israelis and Palestinians. Any future Palestinian entity must be fully demilitarized—no rockets, tunnels or heavy weapons—and subject to strict border oversight to prevent arms smuggling and foreign fighters.

 

Israel’s current, if imperfect, coordination with the Palestinian Authority relies on Israeli control of key zones. Granting statehood before new security arrangements are in place would likely break those ties and create a vacuum—one that terror groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad would be quick to exploit.

 

Supporters of recognition claim that statehood will moderate Palestinian politics. But the Gaza experience tells a different story. Israel’s 2005 disengagement was meant to reduce tensions and empower Palestinian self-rule. Instead, Hamas seized power and launched repeated wars. More than 20,000 rockets have been fired at Israel from Gaza since, culminating in the horrors of Oct. 7.

 

The lesson? Sovereignty without accountability breeds violence. Goodwill gestures can be hijacked by extremists. Real peace requires mutual responsibility, not unilateral giveaways.

 

European governments may act with good intentions, but their actions could worsen the conflict. By rewarding intransigence and bypassing negotiations, they sideline pragmatic voices and empower militants.

 

Across Israel’s political spectrum, there’s broad agreement: Palestinian statehood must not come at the cost of Israeli security. Recognition, if it comes, must be tied to enforceable commitments:

 

• A demilitarized Palestinian state with no offensive weapons;
• A verifiable end to incitement and terror support;
• Full Israeli access to intelligence and early warning systems;
• Agreed borders ensuring defensible perimeters;
• Permanent Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.

 

These are not obstacles to peace; they are its foundation. Any agreement must reflect the region’s hard realities, not idealism from afar.

 

The desire for peace is real on all sides. But peace cannot be imposed, especially not by sacrificing one nation’s security for symbolic gestures. If the world truly seeks a lasting solution, it must return to negotiation, mutual recognition and reciprocal obligations.

 

As Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann said in 1947 following the U.N. partition vote, statehood is not handed over “on a magesh hakessef”—a silver platter. It must be earned and secured by those who genuinely seek to live in peace.

 

Anything less risks not reconciliation, but continued bloodshed.

This column can be reviewed on line here.

Marking Independence Day by making Israel more dependent

 An oldie from 2017 but still relevant

Just when you think they’ve run out of ideas, the American Jewish left has found a novel way to commemorate Israel’s Independence Day—by trying to make Israel more dependent.

In a full-page ad in the New York Times on Thursday, the S. Daniel Abraham Center demanded that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 boundaries and accept creation of a Palestinian state.

The Abraham Center’s solution is a recipe for total Israeli dependence—on the goodwill of the Palestinians and the assurances of the international community. Which is probably not what Israel’s founders had in mind in 1948 when they established what was intended to be a free, proud, and genuinely sovereign state.

Jewish Virtual Library

The New York Times ad began with the usual misleading claims. For example, it alleged that “the Jewish democratic character of Israel is at risk” because “Arabs are today 50% of the population between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Jews are 49% of that population.”

Well, if that’s the case—if the Arabs are already a majority—then how is it that Israel still exists as a Jewish state?

Read the full online version at JNS.ORG here.

Enjoy, Stephen M. Flatow

Wrong, Sen. Warren - creating a PA state is not 'official US policy'

Stephen M. Flatow: Wrong, Sen. Warren - creating a PA state is not 'official US policy'

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren has to get her facts straight when it comes to creating a state out of the Palestinian Authority.

My latest column on Arutz Sheva deals with Senator Elizabeth Warren's belief that the so-called "two state solution" is official US government policy.

Here's the column:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren has raised eyebrows with her not-so-subtle threat to withhold U.S. aid from Israel in order to extract Israeli concessions. But there was another disturbing element to Warren’s statement that is being overlooked.

“It is the official policy of the United States of America to support a two-state solution, and if Israel is moving in the opposite direction, then everything is on the table,” Warren said at an Iowa campaign event this past week, in response to a question about whether she would use aid to pressure Israel.

“Official U.S. policy”?  Not even close.

It is not the policy of the Trump administration to support creating a Palestinian Arab state. In fact, administration officials have specifically said that their forthcoming proposal for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement does not include a Palestinian state.

The London Guardian reported on September 5:  “Although little is known for certain about the Kushner-Greenblatt plan, Trump officials have made it clear it will not commit to supporting the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel…” Other media outlets have reported likewise.

But it didn’t start with President Trump.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower didn’t call for creating a Palestinian state. Neither did Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, or George H.W. Bush. 

In addition, neither Bill Clinton nor Jimmy Carter ever publicly called for a Palestinian state while they were president. Palestinian statehood was not “official U.S. policy” during their administrations.

The first U.S. president to publicly call for a Palestinian state was George W. Bush. That was in 2002. But, significantly, Bush conditioned it on the Palestinians electing a new leadership, and permanently abandoning terrorism. Needless to say, the Palestinians never met those conditions. 

The first—and still only—sitting American president to call for creating a Palestinian state without preconditions was Barack Obama.

There are good reasons why Palestinian statehood has been “official U.S. policy” during only one administration in the past sixty-plus years:

—The Palestinian Arabs have a long record of fomenting regional instability, including an armed conflict with King Hussein of Jordan and a civil war in Lebanon. It’s only a matter of time before a Palestinian state would stir up turmoil and mayhem throughout the region. How would regional chaos be good for America?

—The Palestinians have always allied themselves with the most extreme and aggressive regimes in the world, including the Soviet Union, North Korea and Iran. “Palestine” would become a proxy-state for the world’s worst rogue regimes. How would an Iranian port in Gaza be good for America?

—From the Palestinian Authority’s practices over the past 24 years, we know what kind of state they would have: Islam would be the state religion; elections would be held rarely, if ever; dissidents would be tortured and suppressed; Christians would be intimidated; women would be second-class citizens. How would creating a regime that represent the opposite of American values be good for America?

—Creating a Palestinian state would reduce America’s only real ally in the region, Israel, to just nine miles wide. Making Israel so vulnerable would not only endanger the Jewish state, but would also undermine the confidence of all of America’s allies, and call into doubt the value of America’s promises. How could that be good for America’s strategic position in the Middle East, or its reputation anywhere in the world?

In short, the establishment of a Palestinian Arab fascist dictatorship—for that is certainly what it would be—would be bad for American values, bad for American interests, and bad for America’s allies.

I understand why advocates of the Palestinian cause like to claim that a Palestinian state is longstanding U.S. policy. It makes the idea sound more legitimate. It creates an air of inevitability. But it’s a lie. Somebody needs to explain that to Senator Warren.

* * *

I am pleased to announce that my book, "A Father's Story, My Fight For Justice Against Iranian Terror," is now available on Kindle.

Why Polls on a Palestinian State are a Mirage

Why Polls on a Palestinian State are a Mirage

My Jewish Press Column

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/why-polls-on-a-palestinian-state-are-a-mirage/2018/02/05/

How can it be that despite the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) support for terrorism, violations of the Oslo Accords and non-stop anti-Israel incitement, so many Israelis seem to be in favor of establishing a Palestinian state next door? Could it be that the answer is found in the asking?

Just last week, newspaper headlines announced that according to a new poll, 47 percent of Israeli Jews still support Palestinian statehood. The poll was carried out by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research, at Tel Aviv University.

But as with most news about Israel, you need to dig behind the headlines to find out the real story. In this case, the real story is the wording that the Steinmetz Center used. The question which got that 47 percent figure was loaded with false assumptions and completely unrealistic expectations. In other words, the poll offered a fantasy.

The Steinmetz Center asked respondents if they supported a “two-state solution” that would include:

1. It would be a “permanent settlement.” In reality, of course, nobody can guarantee that any settlement would be “permanent.” The Palestinian leader who signs an agreement could be overthrown the next day. Arab leaders are constantly being ousted and replaced by arch-rivals.
2. The agreement would include “demilitarization of the Palestinian state.” This, despite the fact that every Palestinian leader has rejected the idea of demilitarization. Even if they signed an agreement saying it would be demilitarized, what’s the likelihood they would abide by that? If a “demilitarized” Palestinian state started importing tanks that it claimed were needed for self-defense, Israel would face international condemnation and sanctions if it tried to intervene.
3. There would be “family unification in Israel of 100,000 Palestinian refugees.” Notice the use of the sympathetic term “family unification.” What cruel person would oppose unifying families? More important, the PA’s position has always been that millions of Palestinian “refugees”—not a mere 100,000—must be allowed to settle in Israel. The 100,000 figure is an illusion that Jewish supporters of the Palestinians trot out to try to sell their imaginary deal.
4. “The Palestinian state will fight terror against Israelis.” What a joke. The heart and soul of the Oslo Accords was that the PA would stamp out terrorist groups. Yet here we are, 25 years later, and the PA has never disarmed or outlawed any of the terrorist groups, never extradited any terrorists to Israel, never even expelled terror factions from the PLO. But now, when they have a state, they will suddenly “fight terror?”

So there you have it: The “Palestinian state” that 47 percent of Israeli Jews would favor is a creature of the Steinmetz Center’s imagination. A permanently peaceful, totally demilitarized, terror-fighting Palestinian state that won’t insist on flooding Israel with “refugees.” Who wouldn’t want such a neighbor? Frankly, I’m surprised only 47 percent of Israeli Jews voiced their support.

It’s not hard to understand why advocates of the Palestinian cause are so enamored of the Steinmetz Center. The center’s website reports that its polls of Israeli public opinion are undertaken “with funding from the European Union and the Netherlands Representative Office in Ramallah.” I guess the EU and the Dutch government, both of which are passionately pro-Palestinian, see the center’s work as helpful to the Palestinian cause.

You can bet the EU and the Dutch would be mighty unhappy if the Steinmetz Center asked questions that included factual statements about Palestinian statehood. How about questions such as these:

1. If a Palestinian state is established, Israel will be nine miles wide at its midsection. Is that a risk you are willing to take?
2. If a Palestinian state is established, a terrorist with a shoulder-fired missile, standing inside the borders of “Palestine,” will be able to shoot down a plane taking off from Ben Gurion Airport. Do you believe the PA can be relied upon to stop such attacks?
3. The PA has never honored its Oslo obligations to disarm our outlaw terrorist groups. Do you believe that a Palestinian state would take those actions?

Any chance of the Steinmetz Center ever asking such questions? I’m not holding my breath, and you shouldn’t either.

****

Well, that's what I think.  Feel free to share.

Stephen M. Flatow