Israeli Settlements Evolved From National Project to Political Tool
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Israeli settlements have evolved from a unifying national project to a politically divisive issue, according to Colonel (res.) Amir Noy. Initially driven by the Labor movement, the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria later became associated with religious Zionism. The 2005 disengagement from northern Samaria led to a security vacuum, prompting a recent government push to re-establish settlements there, sparking debate over their security benefits versus burdens. The core question persists: are settlements a political project or a broader Zionist ideal?
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Israeli settlements transformed from a national project to a political symbol, shifting from the Labor movement to religious Zionism.
- The 2005 disengagement from northern Samaria created a security vacuum, fueling terror group growth, according to security studies.
- Recent government decisions aim to re-establish settlements in northern Samaria, sparking debate over their security impact.
- Settlements are now debated as either a political project or a broader Zionist ideal encompassing national development and security.
- Derogatory terms like "settler-terrorists" emerged in the 1980s-1990s as settlements became politically charged.
The concept of Israeli settlements has transformed from a unifying national endeavor into a politically charged symbol, according to Colonel (res.) Amir Noy. Initially associated with the Labor movement and figures like the kibbutznik and moshavnik, the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria gradually shifted its demographic and ideological center towards religious Zionism and the Gush Emunim movement. This shift re-framed the idea of settling the land with a religious-national meaning, aligning it with a different political camp than its origins.
Strategically, the idea of Jewish settlement in areas like the Jordan Valley and the Samarian mountains was part of security doctrines, predating its association with the political right. However, as religious Zionism became the dominant force in Judea and Samaria settlements, the language surrounding them changed. "Building the land" became "the settlement enterprise," and settlers became symbols of political division, with derogatory terms like "settler-terrorists" emerging in the 1980s and 1990s.
The 2005 disengagement from Gaza and four settlements in northern Samaria marked a significant turning point. The evacuation of these areas, including Homesh, Sa-Nur, Ganim, and Kadim, left no permanent Israeli civilian presence. This event raised practical questions about separating settlement from security in the region. In the years following the withdrawal, Hamas and Islamic Jihad established significant terror infrastructure in northern Samaria, leading to extensive military operations and a debate over whether the disengagement created a security vacuum.
More recently, between 2023 and 2024, legal restrictions on returning to Ganim, Kadim, and Sa-Nur were eased. In 2025-2026, the government made decisions to re-establish these settlements and regulate Homesh and Sa-Nur, with families beginning to return to Ganim, Homesh, and Sa-Nur in 2026. Proponents argue this enhances security, acting as a buffer for central and northern cities and supporting IDF operations. Critics, however, view it as a security burden and a source of friction.
Noy concludes that the settlement movement, which began as a shared Zionist project, has undergone a complex evolution. It changed its human composition, became a political symbol, was partially evacuated, and has now re-entered strategic discourse driven by the post-evacuation security realities. The fundamental question remains whether settlements in Judea and Samaria are primarily a project of a specific political camp or a continuation of a broader Zionist ideal that encompasses national development and security considerations.