Singular military, government needed from the sea to Jordan - opinion

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency, referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” – The Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922.

These are Articles 5 and 6 from the British mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations, which was later ratified in Article 80 of the UN Charter. They were penned more than a century ago. Since then, much water has flown down the proverbial River and Sea, yet their relevance persists in our times.

Article 5 prohibits the establishment of any other state in the Mandate territory, while Article 6 mandates actions to facilitate Jewish immigration and promotes dense Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel.

The Jewish people’s struggle for survival in their land took many different forms. It began with Jewish defense against riots and pogroms, continued with the challenges involved in establishing a state, facing invasion by numerous Arab forces, grappling with a level of terrorism other Western nations have never had to deal with, and culminated with the events of October 7.

On October 7, we witnessed horrific acts that we believed were relics of the past. We saw savage murder, rape, looting, arson, and the abduction of soldiers and civilians, women and men, elderly and infant.

In response, Israel has embarked on a war to defend our country, eliminate Hamas, and bring back our hostages.As days go by, there is increasing talk about “the day after” considerations that undoubtedly should not be included in any decisions on the tactical level. After all, the troops that landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day didn’t carry maps of a divided Berlin or the details of the Marshall Plan in their backpacks.

More than three months into the war, however, voices both within and outside Israel are trying to demoralize our soldiers, suggesting that the “great vision,” for the sake of which they have been fighting and willing to sacrifice themselves, is going to be nothing more than a victory for Hamas and its Palestinian Authority supporters, in the form of a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip.

Some go so far as to advocate for a halt in hostilities, providing Hamas with a much-need break in order to regroup, reenergize, and reinforce itself with newly-released terrorists, fresh out of Israeli prisons. Israel cannot risk a repeat of October 7

Israel cannot risk a repeat of October 7

Both these scenarios ensure that the events of October 7 will be repeated over and over in the Gaza Envelope and in the “Judea and Samaria Envelope,” towns and villages surrounding the so-called West Bank. Our fighters did not risk their lives for such outcomes. Nevertheless, proponents of the two-state solution, a dangerous yet highly influential minority, cavalierly label their opponents as “messianic” or “delusional.”

The conference on Sunday in Jerusalem that called for resettling the Gaza Strip presented a different vision – a vision deeply rooted in reality and aligned with the traditional aspects of Zionism, recognizing Jewish settlement as the sole future for Israel’s resurgence in its land.

Without succumbing to nostalgia or idealism, the vision of settlement stands as the most pragmatic guarantee for securing the war’s achievements. Establishing a safe and flourishing Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip would signify Hamas’s defeat, making sure there would never again be another such massacre. Whether we choose to establish settlements or not, the decision must remain our own, otherwise we will not have been victorious.

If, unfortunately, the alternative vision of a Palestinian state prevails, we will be able to delude ourselves by replacing Hamas with Fatah, telling ourselves that we have dealt a decisive blow against Hamas, shut the gates of the Gaza Strip, protect ourselves with another Iron Dome, more smart fences, until there is another inevitable pogrom.

For years, Israel has been torn between those who advocate for Israel’s full borders and supporters of a Palestinian state. The former are often dismissed as unrealistic fools, while the so-called “experts” are in favor of a Palestinian state.

As I write these lines, I am in the U.S., advocating for Israel’s interests, speaking with leaders in politics, academia, and the media, to whom I say any hope for a Palestinian state must be nipped in the bud. Such aspirations have only blown up in our faces, quite literally, time and again. After the events of October 7, “Messianic” and “realists” alike know that there can only be one political entity and one military power between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

This understanding was globally acknowledged in 1922 and recorded in the Mandate’s charter. Now, 102 years later, perhaps it’s time to revisit wisdom, vision, and common sense. Old-fashioned Zionism.

The writer is a Religious Zionist Party MK and chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee.