Setting Stable and Defensible Boundaries with Resettlement While Deterring Aggression with Consequences

In the face of escalating tensions and unabated aggression in Gaza as well as ever-increasing isolation, Israel’s allies are now joining with its enemies in drawing “red lines” to prevent a clear victory.

Israel, however, has expressed clear red lines of its own, endorsed by a consensus of its citizens and sealed in the guidelines of its unity government: topple the military abilities of Hamas, bring home the hostages, and prevent any recurrence of October 7.

The only way to do that is by annexing and resettling parts of Gaza.

We are a long way from the “day after” but Israel has made it clear that the IDF must retain security control over the Gaza Strip for at least a decade. That may not exactly coincide with what the Americans or the international community wants but… so be it.

At least in north and central Gaza, and along the eastern border of the Strip, Israel has begun reshaping the terrain to prepare for that eventuality. That includes leveling structures above and below ground (think ‘parking lot’), paving roads, and creating avenues for rapid IDF deployment.

Israel’s plans are not going to be popular. It’s reluctant to show cards that might threaten its current war efforts. But there’s no secret that, at least in northern Gaza, as well as the eastern border areas, the IDF will, for the foreseeable future, operate there as it does in Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”). It’s an essential buffer to protect our people and our borders.

But it’s more. A wise friend once told me: “If you’re gonna pay the price, you may as well get the goods.” Jews are not occupiers in Gaza but indigenous. Ruins of our ancient synagogues are found there. David slew Goliath there. The captive Samson brought down the Philistine temple columns there.

Now, after the failed Disengagement experiment of 2005, and 18 years of experience of the Hamas terror statelet, we’ve returned and repurchased the land with our blood. Ask our soldiers: we are never giving it back.

The world won’t like it? They won’t like it no matter what we do. So, for a change, let’s do what’s right for us. As Rabbi Ricky Nelson once sang: “See, you can’t please everyone, so you’ve gotta please yourself.”

Are We Weak-Kneed Jews? Is Israel a Banana Republic? Or Have We Learned the Lessons of October 7?

That may not be music to the ears of the Biden Administration but it’s the reality of Gaza if Israeli is going to keep the lid on resurgence of terrorism against its civilians and “resistance” against the IDF. But the laws of war are clear. If a nation invades you, the invaded nation has every right to take land back, for defense, for deterrence, and for punishment. The spoils of war.

In the best case, Israel will face a situation like post-1967, where a defensive war turned, after six days, into the acquisition of essential territories of the Land of Israel. And let there be no mistake: according to the Bible and the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Treaty that followed it, Gaza is part of Eretz Yisrael. No one knows that more than the Israelis who settled there and were evicted in 2005. They, and many more who share their worldview as well as many if not most of the soldiers who have been fighting for the the last five months, want to return to settle this land and protect their country.

The security of our nation and the safety of our people demand innovative solutions that not only counteract immediate threats but also deter future hostilities. This imperative is further amplified by a distressing global surge in anti-Semitism, which underscores Israel’s role as a haven for Jews worldwide, seeking refuge from persecution. Thus, the annexation of strategic areas in northern and eastern Gaza, accompanied by the renewal of Israeli settlements within these territories, emerges as a vital strategy.

This approach not only fortifies our security but also serves as a stark deterrent against the notion of invading Israeli land. Moreover, in an era marked by the resurgence of anti-Semitic violence and discrimination, the expansion of our borders is not merely a tactical necessity but a humanitarian obligation, ensuring Israel remains a sanctuary for Jews seeking safety and peace.

The Security Argument for Gaza Resettlement

The perennial conflict with Gaza has underscored a glaring vulnerability along Israel’s southern frontier, where the specter of rocket fire and tunnel incursions has become an intolerable norm for the residents of bordering Israeli communities. Northern and eastern Gaza, territories that have served as launchpads for such aggression, are now identified as pivotal battlegrounds in the quest for lasting security. The annexation of these areas, coupled with the establishment of Israeli settlements, would forge a buffer zone, significantly diminishing the immediate threats to Israel’s heartland.

Strategic depth has been a cornerstone of defensive strategies for nations worldwide, offering both a physical and psychological barrier against aggressors. For Israel, a nation ensconced in a region marred by hostility, securing additional territory for defensive purposes is not an expansionist whim but a survival imperative. By extending its sovereignty over critical areas in Gaza, Israel can effectively monitor and neutralize threats, curtailing the ability of hostile entities to orchestrate attacks from proximate territories.

Moreover, the presence of Israeli communities within these buffer zones serves as a tangible assertion of sovereignty, complicating any adversary’s calculations to wage war. The logistics of attacking or infiltrating areas peppered with civilian settlements are considerably more complex and fraught with international repercussions. Consequently, these settlements not only fulfill a defensive role but also contribute to a broader deterrence strategy, signaling to hostile neighbors that aggression against Israel will result in significant territorial and political costs.

In advocating for this measure, one must confront the inevitable international scrutiny and the accusations of unilateralism. However, the stark reality confronting Israel—a reality marked by persistent attacks and the perpetual threat of war—demands bold actions that prioritize the security and well-being of its citizens above external opinions. The annexation of northern and eastern Gaza, far from being an aggressive maneuver, is a calculated response to an untenable status quo, one that ensures the safety of Israeli lives and the integrity of its territory in the face of unyielding hostility.

Deterrence Through Annexation: Sending a Message that Israel Cannot Be Cowed

The strategic annexation of parts of Gaza and the establishment of Israeli settlements within these areas transcend mere territorial acquisition; they embody a potent form of deterrence. This approach signals to hostile factions and their state sponsors that aggression towards Israel carries tangible, irreversible consequences. By permanently altering the geographical and demographic landscape in response to hostilities, Israel would not only safeguard its borders but also instill a measure of hesitancy among its adversaries, affecting their calculus in future confrontations.

This form of deterrence is grounded in the principle of cost imposition. The prospect of losing significant territories as a result of initiating conflict with Israel serves as a powerful disincentive to aggression. The establishment of Israeli settlements in these areas further compounds this deterrent effect. It transforms what were once launch pads for aggression into thriving communities, thereby embedding a physical and emotional testament to the futility of hostility against Israel.

Critically, the implementation of such a strategy requires careful consideration of the international ramifications. While it is anticipated that annexation and settlement expansion would be met with condemnation from certain quarters, it is essential for Israel to articulate the rationale behind these measures as a defensive and deterrent strategy, rather than expansionism. In doing so, Israel must leverage its diplomatic relations, emphasizing the existential threats it faces and the failure of traditional deterrence mechanisms in the volatile context of the Middle East.

Moreover, Israel must underscore the legal and historical precedents that underpin its actions. By presenting a well-founded case that these measures are both a right and a necessity for survival, Israel can work to mitigate the most severe diplomatic fallout. Additionally, engaging in transparent, albeit firm, dialogue with international partners will be crucial in managing perceptions and ensuring that Israel’s security concerns are understood and, ideally, respected.

In sum, the annexation of strategic areas in Gaza, coupled with the establishment of Israeli settlements, serves a dual purpose. It not only fortifies Israel’s security posture but also introduces a new deterrence paradigm. By making the cost of aggression unpalatably high, Israel can significantly reduce the likelihood of future conflicts, ensuring the safety and security of its citizens in a region where peace remains elusive.

The Land of Israel is, More than Ever, the Only Refuge Amid Resurgent Global Anti-Semitism

In an era marked by a disturbing resurgence of anti-Semitism worldwide, Israel’s role as a bastion of safety and security for Jews globally has never been more critical. The troubling rise in hate crimes, discriminatory policies, and vitriolic rhetoric against Jews in various parts of the world necessitates a proactive stance from Israel, not just in defense of its current citizens but also in preparation for those who may seek refuge within its borders. The strategic annexation and settlement of parts of Gaza thus carry an additional, profound significance: they are an expansion of the sanctuary that Israel provides to Jews facing persecution abroad.

That prospect might cause some of the Israel- and Jew-haters the occasion to reconsider their intimidation. If their violence and threats cause Jews to emigrate to Israel, especially to settle in Judea, Samaria and now Gaza again, they may think twice.

This move is not merely about security or political strategy; it’s about fulfilling a historical and moral obligation. Since its inception, Israel has been more than a nation; it has been a promise—a promise of refuge, of a safe haven for Jews wherever they may be, facing whatever threats they may endure. The increase in aliyah rates, driven by the rise in global anti-Semitism, underscores the urgency of expanding Israel’s capacity to welcome and integrate those seeking safety.

The newly annexed territories, developed into thriving settlements, could provide the much-needed space for new immigrants, ensuring that Israel can continue to honor this promise.

Moreover, establishing settlements in these areas serves a dual purpose. It not only offers new homes to Jews fleeing persecution but also contributes to the security and deterrence framework outlined in previous sections. By intertwining the humanitarian mission with strategic defense initiatives, Israel reinforces its commitment to its people—both current and future citizens—ensuring their safety and upholding their right to live in peace.

The initiative to annex and settle parts of Gaza in response to the twin imperatives of security and refuge must be communicated to the international community with clarity and conviction. Israel must articulate that these actions are driven not by a desire for territorial expansion but by an urgent need to protect its citizens and those who seek its protection from a wave of global anti-Semitism.

Implementation and International Diplomacy: The Rules Have Changed Since October 7

The practical realization of annexing strategic areas of Gaza and establishing Israeli settlements therein necessitates a comprehensive and carefully orchestrated plan. This initiative must be grounded in meticulous planning, encompassing the legal, infrastructural, and societal frameworks required to integrate these territories seamlessly into the State of Israel. The plan should outline the phased development of infrastructure, housing, and community services, ensuring the new settlements are viable, sustainable, and capable of contributing to Israel’s overall security and social fabric.

Simultaneously, a crucial component of this strategy involves navigating the complex landscape of international diplomacy. Israel must engage in proactive diplomacy to manage the repercussions of annexation and settlement expansion. This involves articulating a clear, coherent narrative that emphasizes the necessity of these actions for national security, deterrence, and providing refuge in the face of global anti-Semitism. Israel’s diplomatic efforts should aim to explain the defensive nature of its measures, highlighting the existential threats that necessitate such steps.

Engagement with key international partners, allies, and multilateral organizations will be critical. Israel should seek to secure understanding, if not outright support, for its actions by leveraging diplomatic channels, intelligence-sharing, and security cooperation. This includes presenting detailed intelligence on threats emanating from Gaza, showcasing the failures of existing arrangements to ensure security, and emphasizing Israel’s legal and historical rights to the land in question.

Moreover, Israel must be prepared to address potential sanctions or diplomatic backlash by devising strategies to mitigate economic and political impacts. This may involve strengthening ties with sympathetic countries, diversifying trade partners, and enhancing domestic industries to reduce dependency on critical imports.

In the realm of public diplomacy, Israel should invest in a global outreach campaign to educate international audiences about the realities of its security challenges, the surge in global anti-Semitism, and the ethical imperatives driving its policies. Utilizing a range of platforms—from traditional media to digital channels—this campaign should aim to counteract misinformation, provide context for Israel’s actions, and highlight its commitment to peace and stability in the region.

Through meticulous planning, robust diplomacy, and effective public outreach, Israel can navigate the complexities of implementing its strategic vision for Gaza. By doing so, it not only secures its borders and deters future aggression but also affirms its role as a haven for Jews worldwide, upholding its foundational principles in the face of evolving challenges.

The FAFO Doctrine: What Israel’s Enemies, and its Friends Too, Need to Find Out

Israel’s annexation of strategic areas in Gaza, complemented by the establishment of new settlements, embodies a decisive stance against escalating threats and aggression. This bold move, while primarily aimed at safeguarding Israel’s security and providing a sanctuary for Jews facing global anti-Semitism, also resonates with the contemporary axiom of “FAFO” (Fool Around and Find Out) — or F-words to that effect. This principle, reflective of the immutable law of consequences, encapsulates the response to Hamas’s initiation of hostilities on October 7, underscoring a clear message: actions have repercussions, and aggression against Israel will inevitably lead to significant, tangible repercussions. Call it Instant Karma, even it takes a few more months.

By annexing key areas and establishing settlements, Israel is not merely expanding its territory; it is setting a precedent that aggression will not only be repelled but will also lead to strategic losses for the aggressor. This approach is a practical application of deterrence, designed to ensure that the costs of hostility far outweigh any perceived benefits. Hamas wanted to strike a death-blow to Israel, thinking perhaps that Hezbollah and others would jump in and join. Now they see the price: Nakba 2.0.

In the face of rising anti-Semitism and the relentless threat from its neighbors, Israel’s actions serve as a testament to its resilience and its unwavering commitment to the safety and security of the Jewish people. The establishment of new communities in these areas not only fortifies Israel’s defensive posture but also reaffirms its role as a haven for Jews worldwide, echoing the foundational values upon which the state was built. It may take a few years to realize this vision, but look at settlement in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan, let alone the grand Jewish settlement enterprise on our one and only indigenous Land of Israel.

Israel’s proposed measures are a clear articulation of the “FAFO” doctrine—a reminder to those who threaten its security that Israel will take decisive, impactful actions to protect its citizens and ensure its survival, regardless of their unpopularity among weak-kneed leaders, including Jewish ones. Are you listening, Beirutis and Hootis? Damascus? Teheran? Sanaa? FAFO.

As Israel moves forward, to Gaza southernmost border, it does so with the understanding that its actions are rooted in the principles of self-defense, deterrence, and humanitarian responsibility. In the face of these challenges, old and new, Israel remains committed to a future where peace and security are not just aspirations but tangible realities for all its inhabitants, including more than a hundred thousand who have been driven from their homes as well as the future Israeli citizens of Gaza.

As for the rest of the world, so unhappy with us and accusing us of genocide and ethnic cleansing: What are you gonna do about it?

Fool Around and Find Out.