Jewish settlement across the West Bank is a strategic necessity

The debate over Jewish settlement in the West Bank is not only about ideology or population distribution, the article argues. It is about whether Israel can hold strategic ground across a narrow territory before an enemy does.

The argument comes against the backdrop of the death of Prof. Arnon Sofer, one of settlement’s most formidable academic opponents. Sofer warned that Jews were increasingly concentrating along the coast, especially in Gush Dan, while neglecting the north and south. He believed that trend risked surrendering the country won in the War of Independence to a smaller “state of Tel Aviv,” returning it toward the borders of “Jewish Palestine” proposed by the 1937 Peel Commission.

Sofer also criticized the Religious Zionist movement for focusing much of its energy on settlements beyond the relatively small West Bank enclaves. He urged greater attention to the Galilee and Negev, citing the Talmudic warning, “One who grasps too much grasps nothing.” His followers include Efraim Inbar, who recently argued for selective strategic settlement around Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, rather than treating every hill in Judea and Samaria as strategically important.

The article rejects that approach by looking back to the 1930s and the 1948 war. Zionist leaders who favored settlement in the coastal regions, the Sharon and the Jezreel Valley had opposed the creation of more widely scattered Stockade and Tower communities. Yet, the article says, those outlying settlements held the line against invading Arab armies and bought the fledgling Israel Defense Forces time to organize and counterattack.

The author’s conclusion is that Israel’s compact geography makes widespread settlement strategically relevant. A quick journey from north to south means that control of hills and open spaces can affect the country’s ability to prevent hostile forces from finding sanctuary. The article therefore presents settlement throughout Judea and Samaria as a security necessity, not merely a political project.

“

One who grasps too much grasps nothing.