Netanyahu: No Palestinian State, Israel Will Retain Full Security Control From Jordan to the Mediterranean

By: Fern Sidman

In a forceful and uncompromising address that reverberated across Israel’s political landscape and far beyond its borders, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejected renewed calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state, framing such proposals as not merely unrealistic but existentially dangerous in the wake of the October 7 Hamas massacre. According to a report on Tuesday at VIN News, Netanyahu’s remarks represent one of the clearest and most definitive articulations yet of Israel’s post-war security doctrine—one that places absolute primacy on Israeli control, deterrence, and the prevention of future terror infrastructure.

“The establishment of a Palestinian state will not happen — I have stopped it again and again,” Netanyahu declared, in language that left no room for ambiguity. His words were not framed as political positioning or diplomatic signaling, but as a strategic doctrine rooted in what he described as hard-earned historical lessons and irreversible security realities. As VIN News reported, Netanyahu’s tone reflected not only policy resolve, but a deep conviction that the events of October 7 irrevocably transformed the parameters of any future political arrangement in the region.

At the heart of Netanyahu’s message was a core principle: Israel will retain full and permanent security control over Gaza and will not permit any foreign military forces to operate there—specifically naming Turkey and Qatar, countries he accused of legitimizing or supporting Hamas in recent years. “We will not allow Turkish or Qatari soldiers into Gaza,” he stated. “I will not permit the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza. Israel will maintain security control from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and this applies to the Gaza Strip as well.”

This declaration represents not simply a rejection of Palestinian statehood, but a broader rejection of international frameworks that prioritize political symbolism over operational security. Netanyahu’s position, according to sources cited by VIN News, is rooted in the belief that sovereignty without security enforcement is not peace-building—it is threat multiplication.

Netanyahu’s remarks cannot be understood without the trauma of October 7, when Hamas launched a coordinated massacre across southern Israel, killing civilians, abducting hostages, and exposing catastrophic failures in deterrence and border control. For Netanyahu and much of the Israeli security establishment, that day has become a defining historical rupture—an event that fundamentally discredited assumptions that territorial withdrawal, international guarantees, or diplomatic frameworks could substitute for direct Israeli security presence.

As the VIN News report emphasized, Netanyahu explicitly connected his opposition to Palestinian statehood to Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza. That withdrawal, he argued, transformed Gaza into a terror enclave rather than a peaceful entity. “Gaza became a launching ground for terror after Israel’s disengagement,” Netanyahu said, pointing to years of rocket fire, tunnel construction, weapons smuggling, and Iranian-backed militarization.

From Netanyahu’s perspective, the lesson is brutally clear: relinquishing security control creates vacuums that are filled not by moderation, but by extremism. According to the information provided in the VIN News report, senior Israeli officials increasingly view Gaza as a case study in failed assumptions—proof that sovereignty without demilitarization and enforcement mechanisms leads not to peace, but to radicalization and war.

Netanyahu’s stance comes amid intensifying international pressure on Israel to accept a two-state framework, particularly from European governments and international institutions that continue to view Palestinian statehood as the cornerstone of any long-term solution. Yet Netanyahu’s response, as reported by VIN News, reflects a growing Israeli consensus that such frameworks are disconnected from the security environment on the ground.

He described political proposals that ignore ongoing rocket fire, regional instability, Iranian proxy networks, and the operational capabilities of terror groups as “disconnected from the lessons of recent history.” In Netanyahu’s formulation, peace cannot be constructed on ideological abstractions; it must be built on enforceable realities.

For Netanyahu, demilitarization is not a negotiating point—it is a prerequisite. Any future arrangement for Gaza, he insists, must render the territory incapable of threatening Israel. But unlike previous diplomatic formulas that envisioned international forces or multinational monitoring mechanisms, Netanyahu made clear that only Israeli security oversight can guarantee that outcome.

As VIN News analysis explained, this reflects deep skepticism within Israel toward international peacekeeping structures, many of which are viewed as politically constrained, operationally weak, and vulnerable to intimidation by local militias. Netanyahu’s rejection of Turkish and Qatari involvement underscores this distrust, particularly given both countries’ political relationships with Hamas.

What makes Netanyahu’s declaration particularly significant is that it reframes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not as a territorial dispute, but as a security doctrine conflict. The central question, in Netanyahu’s view, is not borders or recognition, but control, enforcement, and deterrence.

This doctrine envisions Israel as the permanent guarantor of regional stability west of the Jordan River, responsible for preventing the emergence of hostile armed entities capable of mass-casualty attacks. From this perspective, Palestinian statehood is not seen as a peace solution but as a strategic vulnerability.

Netanyahu’s assertion that Israel will maintain security control “from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea” signals a long-term vision that prioritizes strategic depth, intelligence dominance, and military freedom of action. As VIN News reported, this position resonates strongly within Israel’s defense establishment, which increasingly views the region as a single interconnected security theater rather than separate political zones.

Netanyahu’s remarks were directed not only at international audiences but also at regional actors. His explicit rejection of Turkish and Qatari military involvement sends a clear signal that Israel will not tolerate external powers embedding themselves in Gaza under the guise of stabilization or reconstruction.

Israeli intelligence assessments increasingly view regional power competition as a destabilizing factor, particularly when states with ideological or political alignment to Islamist movements seek influence in Palestinian territories.

Netanyahu’s stance also serves as a deterrent message to Hamas and its sponsors: Israel does not intend to trade security for diplomatic recognition, nor does it view reconstruction without disarmament as legitimate.

As VIN News has consistently reported, Israel’s post–October 7 strategic thinking represents a fundamental paradigm shift. The language of “conflict management” has been replaced by the language of “threat elimination.” The concept of deterrence has evolved from containment to denial of capability.

Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian statehood must be understood within this framework. It is not merely a political rejection—it is a security architecture decision. His vision prioritizes long-term prevention over short-term diplomatic appeasement.

In his closing remarks, Netanyahu emphasized that Israel’s responsibility is first and foremost to its citizens. “Israel’s responsibility is to protect its people,” he said, asserting that political frameworks detached from security realities endanger lives rather than preserve them.

As the VIN News report observed, Netanyahu’s declaration marks a defining moment in Israeli policy discourse. It signals that the post-war era will not be governed by inherited diplomatic formulas, but by security-first doctrine shaped by trauma, experience, and strategic recalibration.

Whether this approach reshapes regional diplomacy or deepens international tensions remains to be seen. But one reality is now unmistakable: Israel’s leadership no longer views Palestinian statehood as a pathway to stability. Instead, it is seen as a structural risk in a region already saturated with armed non-state actors, ideological extremism, and proxy warfare.

In the aftermath of October 7, Netanyahu’s message is not one of negotiation—it is one of boundary-setting. And as VIN News reported, it reflects a broader national sentiment that security, not symbolism, will define Israel’s future.

For Netanyahu and for a growing segment of Israeli society, the era of abstract peace formulas has ended. In its place stands a doctrine forged in blood, trauma, and hard lessons: Israel will not outsource its survival, surrender its security, or gamble its future on promises that history has already proven hollow.