Hamas is responsible for attacks on Israel emanating from the Gaza Strip because it is responsible for that territory, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting.Netanyahu’s words follow IDF strikes inside Gaza over the weekend – in response to rocket fire from there – that included targeting a Hamas military compound in the northern part of the coastal enclave. “One of the fundamental concepts of what was once called ‘international law’ – a concept that once had meaning before it was distorted by very warped decisions of the International Court of Justice – was that a government was responsible for its territory, in the sense that it was responsible for any offensive action emanating from its territory against another country,” he said. “We act according to this principle.”Netanyahu made clear that while Israel has recently acted against Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Israel still views Hamas as responsible for aggressive actions coming out of Gaza. “Therefore,” he said, “the IDF acted in response to terrorist actions against it that came from Gaza. That is the way it has been, and that is how it will continue to be: Hamas is responsible.”Netanyahu said he met last week with Shin Bet head Nadav Argaman, who briefed him on actions taken to protect Israelis in Judea and Samaria. He called these actions “very impressive,” and that the cooperation between the Shin Bet and the IDF has yielded “tremendous results.”Together with this daily war on terrorism in the West Bank, Netanyahu introduced a proposal that passed the cabinet to allocate NIS 40 million to “strengthen the security” components in the territories.“We will fight terror,” he said. “They will not uproot us from here. This is our land.”Anti-settlement Peace Now responded that while residents of the North and communities near the Gaza Strip do not have budgets for their security, “in the settlements there is a small and extreme minority for which there is always a budget from the Right.”Peace Now said this “distorted decision” shows how there is suspicion that a prime minister involved in “criminal proceedings” will make decisions based on his personal interests and political survival, rather than the national interest.