Smotrich says Jewish settlements in Gaza would have prevented Oct. 7th

Smotrich: ‘Where there is no settlement, there is terror.’

By Vered Weiss, World Israel News

Speaking at a conference, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that if there had still been Jewish settlements in Gaza, the October 7th terror attack would never have happened.

At the 10th Katif Conference for National Responsibility held Monday, Smotrich said, “If there had been Jewish settlement in Gush Katif, the [October 7] massacre would not have happened.”

He added that Israel’s disengagement from Gaza turned Hamas into a “terror monster.”

“Where there is no settlement, there is terror. We are committed to rebuilding the Gaza border area from destruction, and an inseparable part of that is settlement in the Gaza Strip that will bring back security to Be’eri,” he added.

Despite these remarks, Smotrich said that getting the hostages back and destroying Hamas should be the main goal rather than the resettlement of Gaza.

He added that the IDF should take an administrative and security goal in Gaza and should be active in the distribution of humanitarian aid to avoid allowing Hamas to assume that role and regain power.

The movement to resettle Gaza after the war is an increasingly vocal one.

In 2005, around 9,000 Israelis were removed from 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip, most notably, Gush Katif, to give the land back to the Palestinians.

Given the growth of Hamas in the Gaza Strip that culminated in the October 7th massacres, Israelis have been discussing the mistakes of disengagement and the re-settlement of Jews in the Gaza Strip after the war.

In November, Yossi Dagan, head of the Samaria Regional Council, gave a rousing speech declaring “Let it be known that you support the appeal to renew Jewish settlement throughout all of the Gaza Strip. The nation is waiting for you,” he said.

When asked by reporters at a Religious Zionism faction Knesset meeting about Gaza resettlement in November, Bezalel Smotrich said, “It’s not the time to deal with this,” and “What we do afterward on the civilian side, we’ll argue about it later.”

>