Idea of establishing settlements in Gaza Strip increasingly gains acceptance within Israeli political circles
Date
11/5/2024 3:28:11 AM
(MENAFN) The once-taboo idea of establishing settlements in the Gaza Strip, long considered an extreme and dangerous proposition, is increasingly gaining acceptance within Israeli Political circles. What was once viewed as a disastrous and counterproductive move is now being framed as “legitimate,” with influential political figures and commentators embracing it as a plausible policy option. In a recent broadcast on channel 13, Moria Esraf declared that the idea of settlement in Gaza was “legitimate,” and her colleague, Lemur Lafnatt, expressed surprise more at the program’s endorsement of the idea than at the notion itself. While Prime Minister Netanyahu has claimed that such plans are “unrealistic” for now, the widespread media coverage and the celebratory tone with which these plans are being presented signal a profound shift in the public’s perception of settlements.
This transformation reflects a familiar pattern in Israeli political discourse: ideas that once seemed radical, impractical, or harmful to national interests gradually find their way into the mainstream. Over time, proposals that were once dismissed as unfeasible or dangerous, like the reestablishment of military control over Gaza or the reoccupation of southern Lebanon, have evolved from “fiction” into something viewed as “legitimate”—and potentially even “realistic.” What began as an extremist vision is now inching toward formal acceptance, underpinned by shifting attitudes toward territorial control and security.
At the heart of the argument for settlements in Gaza is the claim that they are necessary for Israel’s security. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a leading advocate for this policy, has argued that the presence of settlements would require the stationing of soldiers to ensure their protection, thereby enhancing security in the region. On the surface, this may seem like a rational approach, but it would likely require an extensive and sustained military presence, transforming Gaza into a heavily militarized zone. With two million Palestinians already residing in Gaza, the logistics of such an operation would be immense. The so-called “security justification” ultimately serves as a tool for normalizing the settlement process, even though the reality of creating defensible settlements in such a densely populated area remains fraught with challenges and dangers.
Adding to the normalization of this narrative, far-right politicians like Itamar Ben-Gvir have framed settlement as a moral necessity linked to the “encouragement of immigration”—in other words, the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homes. Ben-Gvir’s rhetoric echoes that of Emmanuel Kant from Kiryat Arba, who advocates for the “moral transfer” of Palestinians, framing their displacement as a necessary step to secure a greater Israel. This language softens the brutal reality of mass displacement, presenting it as a natural and justified outcome in response to what they describe as the Palestinian “threat.”
MENAFN05112024000045015687ID1108851491
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.