Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to convene his security cabinet to discuss escalating military actions against Hamas, potentially leading to the full occupation of the Gaza Strip. This pivotal meeting coincides with the 20th anniversary of Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza. The notion of resettlement, once considered a marginal idea, has gained traction among mainstream politicians following Hamas’s attacks on October 7, which included heinous acts of violence. Yitzhak Wasserlauf, an Israeli minister, articulated that reinstating Jewish communities in Gaza would correct a national injustice, arguing that the 2005 disengagement facilitated the rise of Hamas and subsequent terror tactics.
Wasserlauf drew parallels to the Gush Katif communities established post-1967, highlighting the strategic error of expelling Jews from Gaza. He expressed firm beliefs that restoring Israeli sovereignty would demonstrate a strong deterrent stance against terrorism. Claims have arisen that failing to reclaim and settle Gaza would send a message of weakness. He reaffirmed that any future negotiation with terrorists is ill-advised, viewing resettlement as a necessary consequence of ongoing violence.
Historically, from 1948 to 1967, Gaza was under Egyptian control. After being captured during the Six-Day War in 1967, it remained under Israeli governance until a transitional authority was established under the Oslo Accords in 1994. The 2005 disengagement saw all Israeli personnel and communities removed, leading to Hamas’s ascendant power after they gained legislative control and subsequently ousted the Palestinian Authority in a coup. Critics of the disengagement had long foreseen that ceding land would embolden attackers, a notion that has gained validation as violence intensified in recent years.
Amid discussions on military occupation, military experts diverge on the implications of resettling Gaza. Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi noted that Israel’s national security strategy faces challenges posed by groups like Hamas. He opined that U.S. support will be vital in shaping future strategies. Observations suggest that Israel currently controls about 75% of Gaza. Still, broader strategic decisions await the political calculus regarding future occupation and settlement, intertwined with U.S. interests.
In contrast, Maj. Gen. (Res.) Yaakov Amidror emphasized the imperative of dismantling Hamas as the immediate focus, advocating for a long-term responsibility on Israel’s part for Gaza’s security. He cautioned against the complexities that resettlement could introduce, advocating for maintaining peace and security without the entanglement of settlement logistics. Several officials echoed sentiments that while the discussion of resettlement exists, it does not align with current military objectives centered on eliminating Hamas and supporting hostages.
Proponents of large-scale Jewish resettlement, like Daniella Weiss of the Nachala Settlement Movement, argue that the time is ripe for significant demographic shifts within Gaza. Weiss hinted at already mobilizing families ready to resettle, advocating for a historical connection to the land. Although legislative discussions haven’t officially entertained resettlement, Weiss believes that civic pressure could compel government policy adjustments. Her assertion that Gaza has historical ties to Jewish heritage reflects a broader sentiment to reclaim territory in response to current hostilities, urging that historical ties should not be neglected.
