Since Oct. 7, 2023, from my position both in Israel’s war cabinet and in the opposition, I have watched how some in the West have misinterpreted Israel’s actions in prosecuting its war against Hamas. For Israelis, that day was not another round in a yearslong conflict. It was a strategic rupture — and a reminder of what may happen when terror on our doorstep is underestimated.
Too often, Western leaders view our policies in this war not through the lens of national security, but through the prism of individuals — and, in particular, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The conversation is often framed as a question of what serves the prime minister, as if Israel’s national security begins and ends with one man. This view is mistaken and counterproductive to global stability, regional normalization and Israel’s own security.
There are deep political divisions and disagreements in Israel. I myself have been a vocal critic of Mr. Netanyahu. But the nation’s core security interests are not partisan property. Today more than ever, they are anchored by a national consensus that is rooted in the hard realities of our region. Opposition to the recognition of Palestinian statehood stands at the heart of that consensus. Any path forward for broader Palestinian civil autonomy must first incorporate a proven long-term track record of accountable governance, comprehensive de-radicalization reforms and a successful crackdown on terror elements targeting Israelis.
The growing support in the West for recognition is too often framed as a rebuke of both Mr. Netanyahu and his war policies. More and more states’ recognition of Palestinian statehood is propelled not merely by domestic political pressure, but also appears to be driven in part by personal animosity between leaders. The truth is that international recognition of Palestinian statehood under current conditions is not a rejection of Mr. Netanyahu. It is a rejection of Israel’s bipartisan security consensus.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, the Palestinian Authority was entrusted with the territory’s control. The next year, Hamas won a shocking plurality of seats in the P.A.’s legislative elections, eclipsing its rival faction, Fatah. Hamas violently overthrew Fatah in Gaza the next year, and with help from Iran, Hamas dramatically expanded its military capabilities within Gaza, and ultimately launched the Oct. 7 massacre.
That collapse was not an anomaly; it was the consequence of a Palestinian Authority with little legitimacy among its people and a painful lesson that Israel cannot risk suffering from again in the foreseeable future.
As it stands, the P.A. has failed to thwart terror originating in its territory against Israel. It has incited violence and glorified terrorism in school textbooks, and waged unilateral campaigns to isolate and delegitimize Israel in international forums. At the United Nations, in international courts, through boycott movements, it has sought to bypass reform, accountability and dialogue — and dismiss Israel’s security concerns altogether.
The real question is whether the international community will respect the overwhelming consensus, a declaration passed last year by 99 of 120 members of the Knesset in a democracy proclaiming that “Israel will continue to oppose unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State,” and that “such action following Oct. 7 would be an unprecedented rewarding of terror and prevent any future peace arrangement.”
Early in the war, I spoke with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez of Spain, who seemed to downplay the danger Israel was confronting. He remarked that his country also contends with terrorism; I responded with sheer astonishment at the conceptual lack of understanding. There is no symmetry between defending one’s country against sporadically active terror cells in Europe and a terror pseudostate that commands territory, resources and military arsenals, backed by a country like Iran that openly declares its ambition to annihilate us and fueled by a radical Islamist ideological backbone.
The Spanish leader’s apparent failure to grasp this fundamental difference reinforced my understanding of the extent to which Israel’s security challenges are severely underestimated by the international community. I insisted that those who seek peace, like me, must talk with whomever they can but must fight and prevail over those who seek to harm us — not only to safeguard future Israeli generations but to thwart strategic interceptors of future regional normalization efforts.
After Oct. 7, it was not politics that shaped Israel’s military response. It was necessity. Despite Mr. Netanyahu’s hesitation, I pressed for an immediate ground operation in Gaza. I called for a stronger and faster ground offensive in Rafah despite the international pressure. I called for a powerful response on Iranian soil following the first Iranian attack on April 13, 2024, while Mr. Netanyahu opted for a more restrained symbolic response. And still today, I fully support retaining an Israeli military presence in Gaza long term to prevent Hamas from ever regrouping by maintaining a military presence on the entire Gaza perimeter. The war could end tomorrow if the hostages were returned and Hamas relinquished its weapons and power.
On the eastern front, Israel must prepare to assume formal control over the strategic Jordan Valley in the West Bank, which it has controlled since 1967, in order to prevent smuggling into Palestinian territories and terror infiltration into Israel. These are not political positions. They are, in my view, security requirements to prevent the next Oct. 7.
Israel’s security is solely an Israeli responsibility, but not only an Israeli concern. It anchors the stability of the Middle East and serves the free world. Israel’s security goals, including deterring Iran’s regional aspirations and damaging its nuclear program, prevent the expansion of radical fundamentalist ideology in the region and a broader nuclear arms race. It protects vital shipping lanes safeguarding critical supply chains and freedom of navigation. Counterterrorism cooperation with Israel has saved lives in European and American cities. Gas exports from the Eastern Mediterranean help diversify Europe’s energy supply. Israeli innovation strengthens global resilience in fields from cybersecurity to agriculture.
Ultimately, Israel’s enemies do not care who governs in Jerusalem. The only thing they want is to ensure that Israel is weak, insecure, divided and incapable of defending itself. The international community should adopt the same clarity. Make no mistake: The perception of the overwhelming majority of Israelis on growing international Palestinian recognition is not a matter of personal politics, but rather of contending with the challenges of a new era.
Benny Gantz was a former Israel minister of defense and the Oct. 7 war cabinet minister. He is the chairman of the Blue and White Party.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.