The following essay excerpts are taken from Zote Ha'aretz (This is The Land), which was the bi-monthly journal of the Land of Israel Movement (Tenuah Lemaan Eretz Israel Hashlema) and were written by Dr. Israel Eldad.

On the Sin We Have Sinned – Against The Land of Israel and Ourselves
[Zote Ha'aretz, 1969]

Even the best among us, those taking a clear Zionist, national, patriotic stand, they too in their arguments against retreat [from Judea/Samaria, Gaza, Golan and Sinai] produce the argument of security needs, a smooth and dangerous argument. It is a snare and a trap and a door to pressures from outside and to the weakening of inner-certainty. The “security” of our ownership of Eretz Israel is beyond all questions of security....

Precisely those people who from the point of faith and ideals were furthest from the concept of a “great State-Zionism,” and in the past derided those who wanted a state … it was precisely those individuals who attained ruling power: state budgets, flags, ceremonies, national and international receptions of which they never dreamt in their “little” Zionism and “furrow after furrow.” They became intoxicated with this statehood, and it became for them the total vision. This is the satiety that blinded them, which blunted their sensitivities, which ade “Israel” the essence and the Land of Israel “foreign territory.” … For years one had to fight that Zionism should be “state-oriented.” Today the great amazement and paradox is that one has to fight that the state should be Zionist.

Why is The Land Still Divided?
[Zote Ha'aretz, August 1, 1969]

The existence of the partition of the country is a function of the division of the existential soul of Zionism in its different layers. In these layers, from the beginning, there was a deep fragmentation, with guilt feelings towards the cosmopolitan ideals of socialism and liberalism, which were to liberate the world from nationalism, maybe even from the plague of thenation-states, and which would liberate the Jews entirely form their separate unique existence … This is a typical schizophrenia. We have guilt feelings that we presumably have betrayed these universal ideals by turning to Zionism, which is of necessity “reactionary” for it is a return to sometimes irrational roots. . . . Had it only at least been possible to implement “utopian Zionism” in “ways of peace” through convincing the Arabs that we bring blessings to them too, and socialist liberation and progress! But in vain! To go on with psychological language, what is left is frustration, the feeling that perhaps Zionism is after all a reactionary movement.

Geography and Ideology
[Zote Ha'aretz, June 5, 1970]

Anyone who negates, as Dr. [Elisha] Efrat [a geographer] does, the historic-nostalgic basis [of the demand for the entire Land of Israel] what then is he doing here, precisely in this land, in the first place? … One cannot exchange Jewish existentialism for an Israeli existentialism, for Jewish existence is the underpinning of Israel … If Hebron will remain in Israeli hands, it will not be because of the geopolitical grasp and economic education of the secular Zionists, but by dint of the group around Rabbi [Moshe] Levinger which was attracted to Hebron because it was the City of the Fathers … And at the head of the opponents stand realistic people like the economist Professor [Don] Patinkin, who should really be expected to understand the economic importance of the Hebron district for Jerusalem, or the historian Professor [Joshua] Prawer, who brilliantly dissects the reasons for the failure of the Crusaders, who did not settle on the land, and left it and the central mountain district in the hands of the Arabs, while he himself with all his “wisdom” recommends to us today, the Jews, to commit the identical mistakes.