It seems like an inverted sense of logic, but to a not insignificant number, the most immediate step to solving the problem is to settle the entire land. That is, wherever there is an open space in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan, settlements should be established. The feeling is that there is no need to displace Arabs as there is ample empty land. Of course, it shouldn’t be done with fanfare; the idea not being to create an image but to create a reality. The crux being when the land is settled by Jews, it will become obvious that it is considered as Jewish land, not theoretically, but practically. The reasoning is that, the fact that settlement is the issue which the Arabs protest most vehemently should make it clear that it is Israel’s highest priority: the most pragmatic means at Israel’s disposal to change the balance of power in her favor.
Once widespread settlement becomes a fact, it will be impossible to turn the clock back. The Arabs outside Israel would appreciate that the borders would not be moved back, and the Arabs inside Israel would understand that their future exists in coexistence with the Jews and not with struggle against them. The ideology of settlement posits meeting protest with resolution, after which the Arabs and other nations will ultimately realize the reality, which is Israel is serious about defending her self-interest, and the land will not be given away.
In a strange way, the settler movement understands this dynamic. Indeed, restrictions against settlement invite protest. For it becomes obvious that restrictions are imposed only because in essence there are Israelis who feel that they don’t really belong there. Settling the land without restriction, by contrast, according to the Moshe Feiglin’s, Naftali Bennett’s and others, broadcasts a message of confident self-esteem, showing the entire world that Israel is doing everything possible to maintain her security and will not be halted in that endeavor. So what happened? The religious-settler movement correctly identifies the problem as Israel, diplomatically, has not had the strength to stand up against pressure. What has been won on the battlefield is surrendered at the negotiating table.
The proof of the argument is that on the occasions when Israel has stood firm, and refused to compromise her position, such as the status of Jerusalem- at least if Shimon Peres is factored out- despite American and Arab pressure, when they saw Israel was firm and would not compromise, these issues are removed from the agenda. Ultimately, Israel has difficulty confronting its self image. Hard as it is to conceive, Israel has difficulty coming to terms with its identity as a Jewish state. Because of this difficulty, Israel has never come out and said this is Jewish land given by God, and necessary for their security. Instead it dollops out all sorts of arguments to try to justify its possession of the land according to some tangled scramble of “universal values.”
But this does not work. Why? Because Israel’s self image is confused, the external image it projects comes out distorted. Since the real truth is not being said, what is being said is being disregarded or misinterpreted.