Settlement alone does not guarantee the future of the Land of Israel. Without a decisive political resolution, the achievements of the settlement enterprise may be reversed.
We have said time and again: If the State of Israel does not dare to apply its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, we should not be surprised when its sovereignty and governance are undermined in the Negev, the Galilee, Lod, Jaffa, and Acre as well.
Sovereignty is not merely control over territory. Sovereignty is a clear declaration by a state: This is our land. We are the rightful owners, and we bear responsibility for its future.
Israel's failure to apply sovereignty over Judea and Samaria has consequences far beyond the Green Line. Its effects are felt throughout the entire country. When a state fails to assert its ownership of parts of its ancestral homeland, it projects weakness and a lack of confidence in the justice of its cause. This emboldens those who seek to undermine its sovereignty within the Green Line as well, and strengthens demands for autonomy in the Galilee and the Negev. (See the August 11, 2026 interview of Mansour Abbas, chairman of Ra'am, with Jack Khoury on Radio Ashams, in which he demands Arab territorial autonomy and cultural autonomy within Israel.)
The consequences extend beyond Israel's borders. They also reverberate in the international arena. By refraining from reaching a decisive political resolution regarding Judea and Samaria, Israel leaves a political vacuum into which international actors step, promoting recognition of a Palestinian state. The absence of a clear Israeli position strengthens international demands for Palestinian statehood. A political vacuum does not remain empty. If we do not determine the future of our land, others will seek to determine it for us.
The results of the Knesset elections should set off alarm bells. The increased representation of the Arab parties that reject Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, reaching 19 Knesset seats, reflects a political awakening whose national implications we must examine. The longer Israel leaves the question of sovereignty unresolved, the more confident those Arabs seeking to advance separate national aspirations become.
And here, we must also say something about ourselves.
We in the Sovereignty Movement must acknowledge that we, too, have not yet succeeded sufficiently in instilling an understanding of the decisive importance of applying sovereignty, neither among decision-makers nor even among some of our fellow residents in Judea and Samaria.
For years, the settlement movement has been dominated by the conception that the last furrow plowed will determine the border. The more we plow, build, plant, and establish additional communities and farms, the more we will secure the future of the land.
Reality has already proven that this conception is mistaken. We have seen thriving communities uprooted, homes demolished, and entire regions handed over despite decades of settlement.
The last furrow is not enough. De facto sovereignty is not enough. We also need a decisive political resolution: the application of de jure sovereignty.
Unfortunately, this outgoing government, too, was captive to the same conception. It advanced important achievements in settlement: establishing communities and farms, legalizing outposts, construction, roads, and infrastructure, as well as significant steps regarding civilian authority and land matters. It deserves recognition for all of these achievements. But this very government, which enjoyed broad support for sovereignty in the Knesset, could have taken the decisive historic step: applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and, yes, over Gaza as well.
Instead of translating achievements on the ground into a binding political reality, it contented itself with expanding settlement. In doing so, it missed a historic opportunity.
Fear of confronting the status of the Arab population paralyzed the politicians. They feared the responsibility, the diplomatic consequences, and the demographic questions. Yet avoiding the issue did not solve a single one of these problems. And so we were left with the same Arab population, the same questions, and the same challenges - but without sovereignty.
Governments come and go, agreements change, and even achievements on the ground can be undone. Sovereignty would have provided them with an immeasurably stronger political and legal foundation.
The struggle for sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is not a local struggle of the Jews of Judea and Samaria. It is a struggle over the character, identity, and security of the entire State of Israel. Anyone who fails to understand the connection between Hebron and Beersheba, between Shechem (Nablus) and Nazareth, and between sovereignty in Judea and Samaria and effective governance in the Galilee and the Negev, Lod and Akko is missing the larger national picture.
So where do we go from here? This is where the work of correcting course begins.
A consciousness of sovereignty does not emerge on its own. It is built through education deeply rooted in our heritage, through in-depth study of the Bible, the history of the Jewish people, its identity, heritage, and traditions. We must raise a generation that knows its roots, knows where it comes from and where it is going, understands its right to its land, and is not afraid to exercise that right. Education toward a consciousness of sovereignty must reach our schools, youth movements, pre-military academies, yeshivas, universities, and the entire public discourse.
Because without a strong national identity, there can be no consciousness of sovereignty, and without a consciousness of sovereignty, even the last furrow plowed will not secure our future in this land.
We missed a historic opportunity.
The Sovereignty Movement will continue with all its strength until sovereignty is applied throughout every part of our land.