Strategic Irresponsibility: Israel Should Not Defend Every Hill | Gershon Baskin
Before demanding the draft of tens of thousands more soldiers, we must ask a fundamental question: why do we continue to create more locations that the army is required to defend?
Again and again we are told that the IDF lacks tens of thousands of soldiers. The proposed solutions are familiar: draft the ultra-Orthodox, extend mandatory service, further burden the reserve system, and demand more from those who already bear the burden. But this debate evades a much more fundamental question.
Perhaps the main problem is not a shortage of soldiers. Perhaps the State of Israel has created for itself more security tasks than any army can bear over time. Nowhere is this more evident than in the West Bank.
The Burden of 'Isolated Points'
Alongside existing settlements, more than 200 outposts are currently scattered. In recent years, another phenomenon has expanded rapidly: isolated agricultural and shepherding farms, the number of which already exceeds 100. Some are inhabited by individual families and sometimes only a handful of people, but through them, vast areas are seized, creating a huge security and political burden for the State of Israel.
Every isolated settlement, every outpost, and every farm creates a new military task. It is necessary to secure access roads, patrol the area, provide intelligence coverage, respond to attacks and confrontations, deal with the constant friction between settlers and Palestinians, and keep forces available for reinforcement.
Those who bear this burden are the IDF. The settlers and the politicians who support them decide to go up to another hill or settle in another isolated area. The entire country pays the price. Young soldiers serve longer, reservists are called up again and again, and families are separated from parents for months. Businesses lose employees, and the entire economy pays the price. Units that are supposed to train for real strategic threats are scattered across hundreds of points throughout the West Bank.
Political Choice vs. Security
The number of soldiers Israel needs is not just a demographic figure. It is the result of political decisions. When a government establishes, legalizes, or allows another settlement, it simultaneously creates an additional need for military forces. It is impossible to expand the territory the army is required to defend indefinitely, and then complain about a lack of manpower.
This is not a security policy. This is strategic irresponsibility. Settlers living outside the large settlement blocs do not strengthen Israel's security—they weaken it. In this sense, the isolated settlement project has become a direct burden on the state's security and a factor that acts against its long-term interests.
The future of the large settlement blocs can be discussed within the framework of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. But isolated settlements, outposts, and farms scattered within Palestinian territory have no real contribution to Israel's security. On the contrary, they stretch the army, increase daily friction, and make the possibility of reaching political separation in the future increasingly difficult.
Loss of Legitimacy
The price is not only security-related. The settlement enterprise has become one of Israel's heaviest political and diplomatic burdens. For decades, Israel's strength relied not only on its military power but also on international legitimacy. Many of Israel's friends believed that it ultimately aspired to a political settlement. This belief is eroding.
The continuous expansion of settlements sends the opposite message: that Israel seeks to turn its control over the Palestinians into an irreversible fact. The result is that Israel is losing support not only among those who have always opposed it, but also among its traditional allies: young Americans, Europeans, liberals, and Jewish communities in the diaspora. It is impossible to dismiss all this criticism as antisemitism. Criticism of a policy that continuously expands Israeli control over occupied Palestinian territory is not necessarily hatred of Israel.
The Need for a Change of Course
A serious state must be able to ask itself if its own policy contributes to its isolation. The settlement enterprise currently exacts a double price from Israel: it weakens its security at home and harms its legitimacy in the world. Therefore, the next government must change course. It is necessary to begin a process of evacuating settlements and farms outside the large blocs that burden the IDF.
Israel needs to do this because it is in its own interest. The next government needs to clarify that its goal is to reach political separation from the Palestinians and live alongside them in peace, not to control them permanently. This would be a fundamental change from the direction led by the Netanyahu-Smotrich-Ben Gvir government.
Israel cannot remain both Jewish and democratic if it permanently controls millions of Palestinians without political rights. Defending the State of Israel is a duty. Defending every hill is a political choice. The next government should choose differently.
