After a decade of Likud's rule of Likud, the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria has become indisputable. This is not just a widespread consensus within Israeli society, but also international recognition, such as the American recognition recently won by the settlement enterprise.

Even in the Arab world, there is a willingness to reach an agreement with Israel without condoning it in the establishment of a Palestinian state, and quite a few Palestinians are beginning to recognize that the sovereign state's dream is becoming unrealistic.

The Palestinian national movement is therefore at one of the most difficult lows she knew, while Israel is at a clear advantage, holding the cards in all that is shaping the future of the space we live in. These conditions are very reminiscent of Isaac Shamir's life as prime minister.

Shamir's tenure is remembered above all for the mass immigration from the Soviet Union and then from Ethiopia, which fundamentally changed Israel's face and made a decisive contribution to establishing its power. But Shamir himself saw his great achievement in his success in "preserving the land of Israel." After leaving the Prime Minister's Office, following Rabin's victory in the 1992 elections, Shamir was quoted as saying: "I did not withdraw from one inch of the Land of Israel ...".

This feat is not self-evident. In December 1987, during Shamir's reign, the first intifada broke out, which Israel initially had difficulty finding an answer to. But after a four-year confrontation with the Palestinians, the Palestinian willpower was broken to continue the intifada, and the wave of violence began to wane. The PLO's situation in the international arena was also at a low point. Or the Palestinian problem.

Shamir was often criticized on the right, and this, as well as the schism and split that prevailed in the right-wing camp, eventually led to his downfall. But when Shamir left the prime minister's office, Israel enjoyed a clear advantage over the Palestinian movement. The Israeli settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria, and at the same time also in the Gaza Strip, became a permanent worker - while the desire and determination on the Palestinian side to deal with Israel was significantly weakened.

The Rabin government decided to try to exploit the PLO's weakness to become a comfortable partner for Israel. Israel is now committed, followed by the international community.

This is the reality that Netanyahu inherited when he came to power in '96, and on his second return to the Prime Minister's Office in 2009. But a decade later - the reality on the ground is completely different, and to a large extent Israel has returned to the same point where it was at the end of Yitzhak Shamir's tenure. Few, even among the Palestinians, today believe that the two-state vision is a realistic vision, and Israel is clearly in favor of a divided and divided Palestinian leadership, with no domestic or foreign legitimacy.

As in the days of Shamir, so in the days of Netanyahu, much of the credit for the Palestinian downfall comes from the Palestinian leadership itself. The collapse of the Palestinian state is the result of the failure of the Palestinians to conduct their affairs under the authority as well as under the Hamas rule. Extremism, incitement to violence - even among the Palestinians themselves - as well as corruption and suicide, all constituted a clear recipe for failure.

But this reality is first and foremost the result of the policy that Shamir led at the time and now Netanyahu also leads, a policy that created facts in the field that will be difficult to change, and in this respect we have the closure of a circle of historical significance.