According to a report by The Times Of Israel on Monday, September 29, 2025, Likud MK Nissim Vaturi sparked controversy after telling the Knesset Channel that Israel’s long-term interest is to see no Palestinians remain in the West Bank — a reiteration of calls he made earlier this year for mass expulsion.
When asked whether the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority should have any role in governing Gaza after the war, the backbench lawmaker replied that “Israel’s primary interest” is that “there will be no Arabs here at all.” He added bluntly: “If it were possible to deport them all, we would do it tomorrow morning.”
Vaturi went on to blur the line between civilians and militants, claiming broad support in the West Bank for Hamas’s October 7 attack and asserting that “they will attack us as soon as they can.” He emphasized his position on who should remain in the territory: “Anyone who wants to murder Jews and that’s the goal of their life shouldn’t be here,” he said. At the same time, he sought to distinguish between some Israeli Arabs and others, noting there are both supporters of Likud and “collaborators.”
The remarks follow a pattern of hardline statements from Vaturi. At an ultranationalist rally in Jerusalem in February, he publicly demanded the removal of Palestinians from both Gaza and the West Bank, saying: “We want to remove all the Arabs from Gaza. They should not be in Judea and Samaria either.”
Vaturi’s comments have drawn immediate criticism from opposition politicians, human rights groups and Arab community leaders, who describe his proposals as discriminatory and unlawful. International legal experts also say any effort to expel an entire population would violate international law and carry severe political and legal consequences for Israel.
Supporters of Vaturi and like-minded figures argue that radical measures are necessary to ensure national security in the wake of the October assault and ongoing cross-border threats. They portray the stance as a defensive, albeit uncompromising, response to persistent violence.
The exchange on the Knesset Channel underscores deep divisions within Israeli politics over how to handle Gaza, the West Bank and the broader Palestinian question. While some lawmakers endorse negotiations or limited international involvement in postwar governance, hardline voices such as Vaturi’s press for maximal security measures that critics view as exclusionary.
As debate intensifies, the government faces the challenge of balancing security priorities, legal constraints and international pressure. For many observers, Vaturi’s remarks mark a troubling escalation in rhetoric that complicates efforts to find a politically and legally viable path forward.