“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 sections are Articles 5 and 6 from the charter of the League of Nations, which received approval in Article 80 of the UN Charter. They were penned more than a century ago. Since then, much has transpired, both in the Jordan and the sea, yet their relevance persists to 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 promote dense Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel.
The Jewish people’s struggle for survival in their land has undergone numerous transformations. It began with confrontations against riots and pogroms, evolved into the challenges of state formation, resisting invasions by Arab forces, and grappling with a level of terrorism unprecedented in Western nations.
Since October 7, we are witnessing a resurgence of horrific acts we believed were relics of the past, including murder, rape, looting, arson, and the abduction of soldiers, civilians, women, men, the elderly, and infants.
In response, the State of Israel embarked on a defensive war, with soldiers from diverse backgrounds engaging in combat to fulfill the war’s objectives: the elimination of Hamas and the rescue of captives.
Over time, the discourse increasingly focuses on “the day after,” emphasizing the importance of not conflating tactical decisions with long-term considerations. For instance, the soldiers crossing into Normandy didn’t carry maps for the division of Berlin or the Marshall Plan’s budget analysis in their backpacks.
More than three months into the war, however, voices both within and outside Israel are trying to demoralize our soldiers, painting their sacrifice and struggle as merely a “victory image” for Hamas and its Palestinian Authority supporters, suggesting the creation of a Palestinian state in the Strip. Some even advocate for halting the conflict, providing Hamas a break for regrouping and empowerment, including the release of terrorists from Israeli prisons.Israel cannot risk a repeat of October 7
Both of these postwar scenarios risk repeating the events of October 7 in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, affecting both rural and urban areas alike. Our fighters did not risk their lives for these outcomes. Nevertheless, proponents of the “two-state solution,” a dangerous yet 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, beneficial 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 postwar would signify Hamas’s defeat, ensuring no other hostile entity emerges. Whether we choose to settle or not afterward, the decision must remain ours, as it’s integral to our victory.
If, unfortunately, the alternative vision of a Palestinian state prevails, we might delude ourselves into replacing Hamas with other factions, falsely celebrating a transient victory, only to reinforce our defenses for the inevitable next conflict.
For years, Israel has been torn between advocates for Greater Israel and supporters of a Palestinian state. The former are often dismissed as dreamers by so-called “experts” who favor a Palestinian state.
Currently, I am in the US, advocating for Israel’s interests in various forums, consistently arguing against the viability of a Palestinian state. This concept has repeatedly proven disastrous. After the events of 7/10, it’s clear that from the sea to the Jordan, only one military and governmental power should prevail.
This understanding was globally acknowledged in 1922 and recorded in the Mandate’s charter. Now, 102 years later, perhaps it’s time to revisit that wisdom, embracing logic, vision, and Zionism.
The writer is a Religious Zionist Party MK and chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee.