Many Jews say, why don’t we partition Jerusalem with the Palestinians, since they control East Jerusalem, anyway? Accepting the de facto situation de jure is not the only option. The other option is to change the de facto. What kind of nation accepts the division of its capital with a defeated aggressor? Berlin was partitioned by occupational powers, but re-united at the first opportunity. What kind of nation would surrender its holiest place, which it has fought for and regained, to the defeated enemy?

Muslims took Israeli withdrawal from Gaza for triumph, and stepped up their military efforts. Surrender of Jerusalem would be a major victory for the Muslims, and inflame violence rather than quell it. Muslim youth, full of discontent and nationalism, will smell victory and fight for the total solution.

The surrender of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria won’t establish Israel’s resolve to desperately fight for the rest, as many Jews hope. The red line in Jewish mentality is very flexible. In 1967, the Israeli consensus was that we needed to annex Sinai. The settlements were thought to anchor the Gaza Strip for the Jews forever. Even leftist Israeli politicians originally rejected the partitioning of Jerusalem. Concessions poison the will to fight. Israel won’t politically defend her 1948 borders any better than the 1967 borders. The 1948 borders are already compromised from the inside by Arab demographic explosion. Whether an Arab state takes Israeli land, or Israel becomes an Arab state, the result is the same: there is no Jewish country. After giving Sinai, Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem to Muslims, Israel will still have de facto Muslim autonomy in Galilee, and a fifth column of Muslims in Israel.

There is no way of living safely in this land, but Rome, a garrison state, lived comfortably for centuries because it dealt with the threats as they appeared without waiting for them to mushroom.
Israelis convince themselves that we submit to world opinion, not to the Palestinian guerillas, when we abandon Jewish lands to our Islamic enemy. They reason that the world doesn’t want us to oppress the Palestinians, and after we withdraw to a ghetto-sized Israel, the world will protect us against the Muslims. Well, the Jews have an experience of others guarding our ghettos.

The world doesn’t care whether Israel or the Palestinians hold Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Most people didn’t even know those names two decades ago. The world’s indifference offers an opportunity to Israel, but it also has another side: the world won’t care if the Muslims seize that opportunity. The civilized world sat idle when the Russians in 1906, the Ukrainians in 1918, and the Germans in 1942 were exterminating the Jews, and offered Israel no help in her wars against Muslim aggressors.

Given the pregnant situation in the Middle East, and the unending claims of Muslims against Israel, NATO will not accept Israel. The current rapprochement is flimsy: Israel participates in the empty Mediterranean Dialogue agreement along with her sworn enemy, Egypt, and other Arab countries. Even if Israel withdraws to its pre-1967 ghetto borders, and is surprisingly accepted into NATO, NATO won’t protect Israel in any war if Israel preempts—and she could not do otherwise.

Contrary to the common thinking, Israeli concessions paint Muslims as righteous defenders of their land rather than aggressors. In human mentality, a strong military power does not give away its core land. If Israel does give it away, then the land is not core Jewish, and is indeed occupied.
Withdrawal from the core Jewish lands would bring disdain, but no security.