As a Jew, the news that the sitting U.S. president is to receive an Israeli Peace prize fills me not with pride, but with deep dismay. Yes, credit must be given where it is due: he has clearly confronted antisemitism, recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, and consistently supported Israel on the international stage. These actions deserve recognition. But recognition must not become blindness —especially not where fundamental truths are being sacrificed.

For the same president now being honored for his “unique contribution” continues to deny Israel full recognition of its historic and biblical heartland: Judea and Samaria. Gaza, too, is not treated as an inseparable part of the Land of Israel, but as a bargaining chip in geopolitical negotiations. This position is not a minor detail. It is a rupture.

A homeless man with dog sitting on the street as a symbol of Israel being denied its God-given home —Judea, Samaria, and Gaza— by the very person who receives the Israeli Peace Prize.

Like being kicked out of your own home, that’s how you have to imagine it. Judea and Samaria are not merely disputed territories. They are the core of our history —the land where Jewish life, Jewish Faith, and Jewish identity were formed. Anyone who claims to be a friend of Israel while demanding that Israel relinquish this heart is demanding the impossible. More than that: he is demanding self-denial.

What makes this particularly bitter is that this reluctance does not stem from concern for Israel’s security, but from the desire to enter the history books as the architect of the Abraham Accords. Peace at any price —even at the price of Truth. Even at the price of Israel. Yet peace built on freezing reality is not Peace at all; it is merely an intermission before the next wave of terror.

The refusal to clearly recognize Judea and Samaria as part of Israel has not weakened terror; it has emboldened it. It has sent a dangerous message: that violence, international pressure, and moral blackmail yield results. A clear annexation, by contrast —legally, politically, and in terms of security— would not be an act of aggression, but one of self-defense. It would be the most honest and secure way to dismantle terror structures permanently and to establish responsibility where it belongs.

As a Jew, I also believe this question is not purely political. God gave this land to the people of Israel —not as a symbolic metaphor, but as a Covenant and a charge. Those who ignore this may enjoy short-term diplomatic success. In the long run, however, they stand against Justice, against Truth, and against Israel’s security.

A Peace prize that ignores this contradiction does not honor Peace, but illusion. And illusions have cost our people dearly in the past. For that very reason, this prize must not only be applauded —it must be questioned. Out of loyalty to Israel, not hostility. Shame to the committee —Miriam Peretz, Moshe Edery and Michal Abadi-Boiangiu.

>>-> US-Diplomacy: “From the Nile to the Euphrates” vs “From the River to the Sea”

>>-> Historical: Judea and Samaria return to Israel

>>-> And Israel frees itself from its shackles

>>-> Who Was Elie Rosen’s Shoah Speech in Parliament Addressed To?

>>-> Democracy as a springboard for Shoah

By Okay Altinisik | 30-12-2025, 22:43:37