The gathering of settlers from the Nachala organization near the Gaza border on Thursday, under the banner “Raising the Flag in Gaza,” signals a deeply concerning escalation in the rhetoric and ambitions surrounding the besieged territory. This event, and the discussions surrounding it, reveals a clear intent to establish Jewish settlements in Gaza, despite – and arguably because of – the widespread destruction inflicted upon the Palestinian population. The event highlights a disturbing view within certain segments of Israeli society regarding the future of Gaza and the fate of its residents.
Nachala’s Vision: Settling the Ruins of Gaza
Hundreds, predominantly religiously motivated individuals, convened at the Sderot lookout point, a now infamous location offering Israelis a panoramic view of the devastation in Gaza. This site has tragically become a tourist attraction, drawing those eager to witness the aftermath of relentless Israeli bombardment over the past two years. Standing atop the hill, the stark reality is impossible to ignore: where once homes and communities stood, now there is almost nothing but leveled land meeting the sunset. The systematic flattening of Gaza by the Israeli army is openly acknowledged, yet framed by Nachala as creating a blank slate for future habitation.
Organizers distributed sufganiyah, traditional Hanukkah pastries, using the holiday as a backdrop to assert historical claims and future intentions for the strip. Buses arrived carrying supporters from both the occupied West Bank settlements and within Israel itself, underscoring the broad base of support – or at least, acceptance – for this controversial agenda. A small contingent of left-wing activists from the “Standing Together” movement attempted to disrupt the event with signs reading “We are not returning to Gaza,” but were largely overshadowed.
“Gaza Must Be Jewish” – Justification and Historical Parallelism
The central message of the gathering, repeatedly emphasized by speakers, was stark: “Gaza must be Jewish.” One organizer justified this ambition by framing the deaths of Israeli soldiers in Gaza as necessitating a permanent presence, arguing their “sacrifice” would be rendered meaningless without settlement. This rhetoric invokes a sense of entitlement and a belief in Gaza as an integral part of the historical “Land of Israel.”
Arnon Segal, a settler from occupied East Jerusalem, explicitly stated his reasons for attending with his children: “because we appreciate the sense of direction coming from here, that Gaza needs to be Jewish.” His sentiments drew a parallel to the beginning of settlement in the occupied West Bank, 50 years ago. He described that initial endeavor as a “delusional dream” which ultimately became reality and expressed his conviction that re-establishing a Jewish presence in Gaza is “a matter of decision.” This reliance on claiming a past that justifies present actions is a recurring theme in discussions about the area.
Political Backing and Border Breaches
While the organizers hadn’t received permission to physically breach the border and raise a flag at the former settlement of Nisanit, north of Gaza City, the event received notable political backing. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Katz had recently faced pressure – even from within their own Likud party – to approve such a symbolic act. A letter signed by senior Likud ministers warned of other nations attempting to “take control over the Gaza Strip,” reinforcing the idea that Jewish control of Gaza is paramount.
This support manifested in an invitation to the event, circulated by Likud party officials, declaring: “Gaza is ours forever!” Despite this enthusiastic endorsement, only one Likud MP, Osher Shekalim, attended in person. Others included Limor Son Har-Melech of Otzma Yehudit and Settlement Minister Orit Strook of Religious Zionism, illustrating a cross-section of right-wing political figures supporting the initiative.
Adding to the tension, reports surfaced that dozens of settlers, independent of the main event, did breach the Gaza barrier at two locations, raising flags. Importantly, the army reportedly did not arrest any of these individuals, raising questions about enforcement and tacit approval.
Expanding the Vision: From Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
The ambitions expressed at the Sderot gathering extended beyond Gaza. Yehoshua Sokol, a settler from Karnei Shomron, voiced the assertion that “Gaza is our ancestral inheritance,” but also made the provocative claim that “Lebanon is also our ancestral inheritance,” extending the desired territory “up to the Litani River.”
Sokol dismissed the sanctity of international borders, stating: “An international border is not sacred. Every international border lasts until the next war.” This reinforces a rejection of internationally recognized boundaries and implicitly advocates for territorial expansion through conflict. He further emphasized that establishing settlements wasn’t a security issue, but a matter of reclaiming what he considered rightfully belonging to Israel.
The Fate of Palestinians: “Voluntary Migration” & Ethnic Cleansing Concerns
Central to the plan for Jewish settlements in Gaza is the question of the existing Palestinian population. The event saw explicit discussion of the need for Palestinians to leave, couched in the euphemism of “voluntary migration.” MP Limor Son Har-Melech, who previously organized a Knesset conference dedicated to planning Palestinian expulsion and Jewish settlement, echoed this sentiment.
Daniella Weiss, head of Nachala, openly stated that Palestinians “should go.” Segal, echoing this view, expressed a lack of conscience regarding the suffering inflicted on Palestinians, stating they “will eventually go.” Sokol, referencing WWII, maintained that “the aggressor pays,” implying that Palestinians should lose their land as punishment. This language is widely understood as code for ethnic cleansing, raising alarm among human rights organizations and international observers. The settlers also lamented the Israeli government’s perceived inability to overcome “international pressure” to facilitate this mass displacement.
The event culminated in a declaration that “only the people of Israel will rule Gaza,” explicitly rejecting any role for other nations, including those potentially involved in reconstruction or governance. This rigid exclusivism demonstrates a deeply entrenched ideological commitment to controlling Gaza at any cost, coupled with a disturbing disregard for the rights and future of its Palestinian inhabitants. The push for settlements in Gaza, therefore, represents not merely a territorial ambition, but a vision for a fundamentally altered demographic and political landscape.