Quote

The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple.

Israel has a security concern involving geography. But geography does not have the same value it did in 1967.

I don't think that when Zionism began there was a claim that we were losing - even in part - our capacity to contribute to other peoples.

From 1967, all the Israeli governments continued making two big mistakes: occupation and settlement in the territories.

One of the dreams of Zionism was to be a bridge. Instead, we are creating exclusion between the East and the West instead of creating bridges; we are contributing to the conflict between East and West by our stupid desire to have more.

The settlers do not have a problem with the leftists but, rather, with Israelis who like settlers: Israelis who are unconcerned by the fact that national-religious youngsters are overtaking our elite units. Such Israelis actually appreciate the settlers for that.

Zionism was originally a rebellion against religious Judaism and the PLO Charter was essentially secularist. But because the conflict was allowed to fester without a resolution, religion got sucked into the escalating cycle of violence and became part of the problem.

It pains me to see the gap that exists in the public's consciousness - religious and secular - between the notion of Israel as a Jewish state and as a democratic state.

When we distinguish between Israel's right to defend itself and settlements, then we legitimize its security needs; when we distinguish between isolated settlements and the blocs, then we legitimize the settlement blocs.

I am deeply concerned that, without peace and a two-state solution, the Jewish and democratic nature of Israel is in danger. That's why I have opposed Israel's settlement policy since 1973, and that's why I have favored a two-state solution since 1967.