Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz's blunder Sunday, saying that if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered a leadership rotation deal with him in the next government, with Gantz leading first he would be "willing to consider it," may be based on political manipulation but he actually did voters a favor.
This remark actually made it clear what the difference is between himself and Netanyahu on the most important issues, namely war, peace, and security.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Gantz very clearly speaks of pursuing a major campaign in the Gaza Strip with the aim of defeating Hamas militarily, but he fails to speak about the day after, or about what might happen if, while the IDF is busy waging this massive campaign in the south, Hezbollah will launch a war from the north.
After the wide-scale operation in Gaza, Blue and White plans to apply Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid's political theories, by which the IDF will hand over control of the Gaza Strip to the "moderate forces" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who will by then agree to begin negotiations for a "long-term peace deal."
One doesn't have to be a military expert to realize that Israel would suffer countless losses over such a move.
Gantz speaks of the fact that this campaign is necessary if Israel is to bring its deterrence back to the required level. The use Gantz makes of the term "deterrence" may indicate that it's time to retire it. Boosting that deterrence could be achieved via a surgical strike or a retaliatory act of some sort and that it may even happen over the growing tensions on the Israel-Gaza border – war is not necessarily the answer.
Gantz argues that everything Netanyahu does is motivated by his need to ensure his political survival but if that is his level of analysis, we're in trouble: Toppling Hamas in Gaza may end up backfiring in the same way that the 2005 disengagement did. Think about it: In 2001, Hamas had the ability to fire a Qassam rocket across a range of 300 to 500 meters (1,000 to 1,600 feet). Eighteen years later, its rockets are a threat to most of southern and central Israel and even Jerusalem.
It is not for nothing that in 2006, Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz's late military commentator, defined Hamas rocket fire on Sderot and Ashkelon as the IDF's defeat.
Another problem that Gantz will face, if he indeed becomes the next prime minister, is how to end such a military campaign and move forward from it. The potential diplomatic void Netanyahu will leave will be very appealing to the Europeans, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, and one must remember that the Trump administration does not have the diplomatic sway necessary to complement Israel's military power.
Much to Gantz's chagrin, Netanyahu is the only one capable of navigating the diplomatic-security waters in a way that avoids war, and if one breaks out, in a way that would end it.
