1.
Five weeks after the outbreak of war on Simchat Torah, there is still no real pressure from the West on Israel to put the brakes on. And as far as we are concerned, the West calls the shots. In practice, the opposite is true. The US, Great Britain, and even the EU have all justified the Israeli objective of eliminating Hamas' control of the Gaza Strip. "The terrorist organization Hamas, or any other terrorist organization for that matter, cannot rule in Gaza," were the words uttered this week by none other than Ursula von der Leyen, the President, of the European Commission, an entity that is not really known for backing Israel's wars.
Video: Netanyahu to ABC: 'No ceasefire' without hostage release / Credit: Reuters
There are indeed certain differences as to the question of when and under what circumstances it is correct to have a "humanitarian pause" in order to promote the release of the abducted Israelis. There is an expectation in the US that water, food, and medications should be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip – which Hamas then lays its hands on – much more than we would like to see enter, if it was purely up to us. The Americans are also speaking to us about allowing fuel to enter the Gaza Strip.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
But there is no real pressure to stop the current military action there. The pressure exists purely in the TV studios, which are breaking records of demoralization and sowing discord among the people at wartime.
The Western states have a variety of reasons and interests to support the objective of Israel's war. Moral identification, concern over similar outbreaks of violence in their own countries, responsibility for their own nationals who have been abducted, and the eternal fantasy that once the dust of battle has settled, a Palestinian state will finally be established. This last item will not happen, and the day will come when we will have to argue the toss on this point with those who are currently backing us. But for the moment, whatever the argument might be, and in contrast to all the previous rounds of violence and wars we have come to know, the relevant international players do not want us to stop, on the contrary, they are willing us on to continue.
This approach grants Israel long-term political breathing room, enabling the IDF to move ahead slowly and carefully, but with the full extent of its military might. There are other reasons to hurry, above all the economic costs borne by Israel's homefront and its stamina. But, as far as the diplomatic-security aspect is concerned, this will not be a replay of the Six-Day-War, nor a Six-Week-War, but more likely a Six-Month-War.
2.
At a time when the Israeli population is taken up by the war and understands that politics can wait, a small, radical and boisterous group refuses to cease shouting, "Bibi, Bibi." There are two focal points for this. One, opposite the prime minister's residences in Caesarea and Jerusalem, and the other one in the Channel 12 News and Channel 13 News studios. The war effort is currently at its peak. About 1200 people have been murdered. Some 200 thousand have been evacuated from their homes. Dozens of towns, villages, and rural communities have been abandoned or burned. The education system is currently working on two cylinders only. The economy is shaking, and they remain adamant, "Bibi, Bibi, assume responsibility, assume responsibility." As though, were he to say the magic words, this would bring the dead back to life. As if there is one leader in Israel who can honestly say, "This wouldn't have occurred during my shift."
My personal opinion has been and still is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should say "I am responsible." This would contribute to national unity and remove this issue from the public agenda. But he, for his own reasons, has chosen not to utter those explicit words. That remains his right, of course. Now, let's move on.
Moreover, anybody paying attention to him, both in his open announcements to the media and in closed briefings, fully understands that he recognizes that he is responsible. When he was presented with what former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said about responsibility, his reply was, "Nothing has changed." In other words, it is evident that Netanyahu clearly understands that the buck stops with him. For whatever reason, he does not want to say it, and as the calls for him to do so intensify, it is easier to understand why that is the case. He knows that the obsession will not die down.
And indeed, a considerable amount of time in the news broadcasts and the briefing he gave this week to journalists was dedicated to homing in on the issue of responsibility. This was the context in which Netanyahu said what he said about a future need to "check the correlation between Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar's motivation and the issue of reservists refusing to serve."
I was there in the room. Netanyahu did not raise this issue off his own bat. The journalists pressed and pressed. And then he answered. As if he did not reply, they would claim that "he is not answering questions." And when he answers, they then proceed to attack him for those answers.
Despite the flood of questions, Netanyahu did not say that the reservists' refusal to serve was the trigger for Hamas deciding to attack – which actually might be the reality of the situation. By the way, it is pretty clear that the Achim Laneshek (Brothers in Arms) protest group wasted no time in attacking Netanyahu for what he did not say, as their conscience is pricking them about what they did and the fact that their conduct might indeed have prodded the enemy into action.
In any event, among the other things that were said during the briefing, we can already outline what Netanyahu's defense strategy will be once the current war is over. Firstly, he can be expected to claim that not even a single member of the various Diplomatic-Security Cabinet over the years ever supported an IDF ground maneuver in the Gaza Strip. According to Netanyahu, not even MK Avigdor Lieberman (head of the Yisrael Beytenu party and a former defense minister). During IDF Operation Protective Edge in 2014 he presented to the cabinet the option of a ground maneuver to take full control of the Gaza Strip. Nobody wanted this option.
Once the option of taking control of the terrain was off the table then the alternative was to have the IAF pound Gaza from the air. This is the main tool that Israel has been using to curb terrorism from the Gaza Strip in the 18 years that have elapsed since the Disengagement Plan. "We thought that the aerial bombardment was sufficient. This turned out not to be the case," Netanyahu went on to say. And in any event, "We thought," refers to all the statesmen, ministers, chiefs of staff, and generals who ever took part in the decision-making process since Hamas forcibly took control of power in the Gaza Strip.
In addition, Netanyahu will remind us that only a few days prior to the outbreak of war, he checked with the IDF senior command as to what the situation was with Hamas, as befits somebody in his position. As we all know, he was told once again that Hamas is deterred.
In other words, Netanyahu will not try to deflect responsibility from himself, but will only say that everybody is responsible and that although this 'screw-up' occurred during his tenure, the conception that Hamas would not launch an attack was one that had been shared by all the policymakers, without exception. It remains to be seen whether or not this alibi is sufficient to placate the public after the war is over. Now is definitely not the time to discuss this.
Netanyahu himself says that as long as "the cannons are heard" and the soldiers are fighting, he refuses to engage in any attempt to address any questions of conscience and sensitivity. He barely sleeps at night – during the first two weeks of the war the effect of those sleepless nights was extremely apparent on him – and he is purely focused on the success of the current military campaign. All the rest, including the issue of "the responsibility," will be discussed once the war is over. If the reservists can wait that long, then surely the commentators can do the same.
3.
While our forces are fighting the enemy inside the Gaza Strip, another struggle is simmering in the IDF HQ at the Kirya in Tel Aviv, between two pressure groups which we can refer to as the "old-school" and the "new-school". What is the struggle about? It is about the correct approach to the Palestinian issue.
The "old-school" group includes Minister of Defense Minister Yoav l, who has made the head of the INSS (Institute for National Security Studies), Major General (res.) Tamir Hayman his closest advisor. An additional appointment is that of Brigadier General (res.) Udi Dekel, who has assumed the position of consultant to the IDF on the question of policy on the day after the war. Dekel is in favor of having the PA (Palestinian Authority) return to Gaza. In other words, the IDF is still adhering to the "old-school" mindset.
Yet, in contrast to this, and mainly subsequent to the total paradigmal, intelligence, and operational collapse of the IDF on Simchat Torah, the influence of the "new school" is growing. At the start of the war, there was disagreement as to whether the objective should be a comprehensive victory over Hamas or an all-out effort to wipe out the organization.
Some of the "old-school" adhered to the first option, while the "new-school" preferred the second option. Their stance was accepted.
The question now is how to contend with the threats evolving from Judea and Samaria. Bound by the 30-year-old paradigmatic trap of the Oslo Accords, the IDF is still putting all its eggs in one basket and relying on the Palestinian Authority. In other words, nobody is sufficiently naive to think that Mahmoud Abbas' police officers love us, but purely that for their own reasons they will do some of the work to keep the terrorists heads down.
As that is the situation, the "old-school" claim, Israel must preserve and safeguard the PA. This includes turning a blind eye to its hostile activity against us, from the salaries it pays to terrorists and its incessant anti-Israel incitement, even though it is all of these that actually serve to fuel Palestinian terrorism in the long term. According to the IDF, this is the way to attain the best security outcome.
Over the 15 years of Netanyahu's rule have not led to a change in this approach. On the contrary, even one minute prior to the war, Netanyahu's cabinet implemented precisely the same method, including a very delicate approach to dealing with the terrorist nests throughout Judea and Samaria, "in order to shore up the Palestinian Authority." This was the fixed recommendation of the defense establishment, and Netanyahu constantly opted to rely on those recommendations.
The unfathomable and terrible cost of the war finally opened his eyes too. Perhaps it was not such a good idea to blindly take in what the "experts" have to say. Perhaps the time has come to listen to the "new-school" advocates, who present a fresh and much more realistic approach. Who is included in the "new-school" group?
For example, the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF), headed by Brigadier General (Res.) Amir Avivi. who met with Netanyahu two weeks ago and recommended that he should not transfer funds to the PA. An additional entity offering a more up-to-date and sober approach is the Jerusalem-based Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, headed by the former National Security Council head, Meir Ben Shabbat.
Within a short period of time, Ben Shabbat assembled a group of talented analysts who have challenged the existing paradigms and who present a resolute and frank approach to the situation. They pull no punches. For example, in a document that the institute gave to the cabinet, the recommendation is to attain an "extended objective" from the war in Gaza. In other words, not only to remove the threat posed by Hamas, but also to obtain deterrence in relation to the entire, Iranian-led "Axis of Resistance." And the Palestinian Authority is a part of this axis, so the analysts at Misgav like to explain.
"Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah movement do not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the region, within any borders, and they are still committed to the final objective of wiping Israel off the map and replacing it with Palestine, even if this objective is not attainable in the short term. The most central Palestinian ethos is manifested in every aspect of both public and private life: from the Palestinian education system that has been bringing up generations of children and teaching them of the 'lost paradise' stolen from them by the Zionists in 1948, to the content of the curriculum, which glorifies terrorists; from the culture of 'preserving the keys to the houses' from which the Palestinians were allegedly driven out in 1948, to the unbreakable desire to blindly adhere to the myth of 'the Right of Return'; from the names of the streets and the squares, idolizing past and current murderers of Jews, to the children's summer school programs, with the names of the former Arab neighborhoods in Haifa, Ramla and Lod; from ceremonies, plays and the media, who are all united in their vitriolic anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric, to the unwavering, stubborn insistence of Abbas to continue to pay salaries to the terrorists held in Israel."
Based on this, at Misgav they have come to the conclusion that, "Abbas' opposition to terrorism is not a matter of principle, but merely a tactical issue. He actually regards terrorism as one of the legitimate forms of struggle against Israel, but he believes that certain forms of terrorism are less effective during certain periods of time. According to his way of thinking, there are times when it is possible to make greater gains via other forms of struggle."
In other words, the "new-school" says to the "old-school", enough with pretending, enough with ignoring the reality of the situation, enough with being captive to false conceptions. We have paid much too heavy a price for all of this.
In practical terms, the institute writes, "transfer of the Gaza Strip to be governed by the Palestinian Authority after the war will not prevent the rebirth of terrorist infrastructure, which in turn will eventually lead to renewed rounds of violence. Therefore, we really must not allow the PA to take over the reins of power, as long as it does not undergo a fundamental change."
As a result of the war, the papers presented by Misgav, along with the other "new-school" groups, are now falling on much more sympathetic ears among Israel's policymakers. For this reason, and perhaps also because it is clear to them that 'The Cheese Has Moved', the "old-school" group is now organizing a 'counter-attack' against Misgav and the other members of the "new-school" group.
Having said that, we cannot simply roll back in time the current bitter reality. The old generals who have been running our lives in the last few decades and who currently stare at us from our TV screens on a daily basis are relics of a bygone era, and they need to make way for the new generation. They are no less responsible for the current situation than the politicians, and the public will speak freely about this too on the day after the war.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
