What to Do About a Problem Named Gaza?

by Zev Kam, public news commentator and reporter, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Here's a peek inside the recent Israeli Government cabinet meeting where the ministers discussed their options regarding Gaza. One thing is clear: Much is still unclear, even to the ministers.

There are those who believe in the model called “New Gaza.” That is to say, the broken area known as the Gaza Strip should be cleared of its ruins and rebuilt anew as a modern, flourishing, blooming district. The U.S. Administration is fully in, raising massive funding from the Gulf states and forming a coalition to supervise the reconstruction and help police the area. Everything is carefully outlined, down to the smallest details – but the Americans seem to have forgotten one very small point: the people involved. This particular component of the plan is filled with hatred of Jews and of the West in general. It's nice to plan buildings and sidewalks and the like, but if the people who are to populate these are Gazans, it's a lost cause.

Still and all, there was one Cabinet minister at the recent Israeli Government meeting on this topic who seems to have been infected with the Americans' enthusiasm for the project: American-born and raised Ron Dermer, Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs. This is a position from which he has just resigned as these lines are being written, for family reasons. He is a close confidante of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and plays a major role in Israel–U.S. relations and diplomatic policy. While the other ministers at the meeting raised important question marks and deep fears regarding what the Americans are planning for us in Gaza, Minister Dermer seems to think it's the greatest thing since apple pie.

Hamas Stalling All the Way

Let's begin with one party that certainly has no intention of cooperating with the plan to rebuild Gaza Hamas-free, and that is of course, Hamas. Hostages Administration chief Gal Hirsch said that every one of the remaining hostage corpses – currently four, down from 13 when Hirsch was speaking – is accessible to Hamas, "and they can return them, if they want." He showed how Hamas is able to reach, within a very short time, each and every single remaining corpse.

For instance, four of the corpses that were recently released were all held in the same place, and yet still, Hamas returned them in drips and drabs: first two, then one, then another one. This means, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Tamir Yed'i explained, "Hamas intentionally wasted time in returning the corpses." This was motivated of course, by the desire to torment Israeli families and the entire public, but not exclusively. Hamas also has an interest in dragging out this interim period so that it can liquidate more of its enemies and fortify its grasp on the 48% of Gaza it still controls.  

Essentially, Hamas' objective is to take the exact opposite approach from the Trump Plan. Clear and detailed proofs of this have been shared with the Americans. Israel, for its part, is "punishing" Hamas by holding up three things that Hamas wants: the opening of the Rafah Crossing, the entry of dual-use items into Gaza [items that can be used both for civilian and military purposes] and the entry of fuel for a power station. In truth, of course, these are rather minimalist sanctions.

And this returns us to Minister Dermer, who said, "If in fact New Gaza is built, that means the end of the Hamas regime, to be replaced by something entirely different, without the Palestinian Authority. Different people will run it."

Who are these "different people"? Dermer did not answer. He did say, however, that "if Hamas does not disarm, or if the foreign forces do not disarm Hamas, we'll do it ourselves – and the Americans know this. We are taking Gaza from the PA and from Hamas, and building up something else, for the residents of Gaza." The other ministers were not encouraged by these remarks, and in fact had strong questions/objections.

For instance, one question was, "Where exactly will the multi-national force operate? In the Israeli-controlled area of Gaza, to the east of the new Yellow Line, or on the Hamas side?" Most astonishingly, no clear answer to this basic question was provided, even though several attempts were made. Dermer himself said something that caused a storm: 

"It could be that the rehabilitation part will occur on our side. That is, if something nice is built on the Hamas side, little by little we'll move the Gazans who are not involved in terrorism to live in New Gaza, on the Israeli side."

What?! The ministers could not digest the possibility that not only would the Gazans remain in Gaza, but that those who are "sweet and cultured" would actually live practically adjacent to Kerem Shalom, Nir Oz, and Sderot! At least now there is a buffer zone separating them, thanks to the IDF’s presence in half of Gaza. "It absolutely can't be," complained Minister Ze'ev Elkin, "that we will finish this entire event with Hamas in the west and these new [Arab] forces in the east, practically atop our communities."

Netanyahu Insists: Hamas Will Disarm

At this point, Netanyahu intervened and said that from his standpoint, the international forces must replace Hamas in all areas, and that it all must happen on the Hamas side of the Yellow Line. "And in any event," he continued, "Turks, Egyptians, and Qataris will not be there." He continued to try to allay fears by saying that the rehabilitation of Gaza is dependent upon Hamas disarming, which will happen only on their side. Ministers Gamliel and Elkin were not comforted, and Minister Smotrich said, "We have missed a great opportunity. We could have ruled in Gaza the way we rule in Judea and Samaria – after all, in the end, it's our land."

Ambassador Votes Confidence in Bibi

One of the participants was someone who does not usually attend Cabinet meetings: Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Yechiel Leiter, a Torah scholar who lost a son during this war in Gaza. He said: "We don't realize what an amazing miracle happened here! When I asked the Prime Minister to ensure that Hamas not remain in Gaza, I never imagined that this would be part of a genuine American plan that the whole world supports! But now we have to know how to actualize this. We have to let the Prime Minister run this vis-à-vis the Americans, the way I saw him up close running the story with Iran. I trust that he will do it successfully."

Another question is who will make up the "technocratic" government that will run Gaza. Some ministers said that they well know that many of the candidates are recommended by Hamas or, equally bad, are PA representatives. Elkin lamented to Dermer, "This will be a Hamas-PA unity government, which is against the Trump Plan." Dermer said, "The Americans agree with you, and they won't let it happen." Smotrich chimed in, "If it's neither Hamas nor the PA, then it's an 'empty set,' which doesn't exist in this context." 

Minister Orit Strook, a resident of Hebron, told Netanyahu that the problem began when he agreed to internationalize Gaza. She reminded him that after the Wye Agreement by which Israel withdrew from most of that city, he promised to send in tanks if the home of Strook or her neighbors would be fired upon. "Our house was in fact targeted," Strook said, "and my son was wounded, as you know. But you couldn't send in tanks – because you were no longer in office."

The moral of the story, Strook continued, is that whatever the Prime Minister does, he must take into account that the moment of truth might happen under someone else's watch. "The minimum you have to do is to guarantee that we have total security control in Gaza, just like in Judea and Samaria, so that the IDF can enter wherever and whenever it has to."

Reliving the Disengagement? 

Coming to Bibi's defense at this juncture was Minister Dudi Amsalem, who said, "Israel does not want to rule over two million Gazans, and that's why we prefer to internationalize the area." Let's leave aside the fact that this number is a total exaggeration, and that Amsalem is falling into the false narrative trap that the Arab world likes to tell about Gaza. More important is that Amsalem's excuse is of the type that Ariel Sharon and his supporters used over 20 years ago when they executed the Disengagement and threw out the nearly 9,000 Jews then living in Gaza – and we know where that got us.

Moses Shop Chain Becomes Kosher: “The Demand Came from the Ground Up”

The chain, part of the BBB Group, is shifting direction and gradually making its branches across the country kosher, following growing demand from customers and franchisees.

The group’s CEO: “Since the war, there has been greater sensitivity toward kashrut — even among secular audiences.”

The Moses Shop chain, part of the BBB Group, which currently has 16 branches nationwide, is changing course and gradually becoming kosher — except for one branch in Zichron Yaakov. In the past week, the branch in Savion also received kosher certification, marking another step in a broader trend within the chain.

According to Ahuva Turjeman, CEO of the BBB Group, the move was born out of customer and franchisee demand:

“We’ve encountered a very diverse audience that constantly asks about the kashrut of the meat. Even branches that opened as non-kosher quickly became kosher — in places like Rishon Lezion, Modi’in, and Herzliya. It turns out that the demand isn’t just for kosher dishes, but for businesses that operate under kosher certification and don’t open on Shabbat.”

Turjeman explains that the demand also comes from the franchisees themselves, especially in areas with large religious or traditional populations:

“We’re a national chain, not just a Tel Aviv one. In many parts of the country — even in areas that once weren’t considered kosher markets — the public is asking for it. Since the war, there’s been a rise in sensitivity toward kashrut, even among more secular crowds.”

According to her, one of the factors affecting the pace of the conversion is the shortage of manpower — a challenge facing the entire restaurant industry:

“Since COVID, it’s been very difficult to find permanent staff. There’s high turnover, and the fact that many young people don’t want to work on Shabbat only strengthens the decision to make some of the branches kosher.”

Meting Out National Justice to the Hamas Terrorists

by Yoni Rotenberg, Besheva weekly contributor, translated by Hillel Fendel.

What is needed now is another Eichmann trial – one that will cement in our national consciousness, and that of the world, the ruthlessness of the Hamas massacre of 2023 and the gravity of its memory.

Following the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, my grandfather, Shlomo Yehuda Kirschenbaum, a survivor of the Holocaust, wrote the following to then-Attorney General Gideon Hausner: "I would like to express to you, in the name of my wife and myself, our sincere appreciation of the tremendous work you and your aides invested in this trial. It was conducted on a high international judicial level, based on true justice in the spirit of Judaism. As former concentration camp residents, our wounds have not yet healed, and perhaps never will. But the trial, in all its proceedings, gave us much more than we expected."

Here, he detailed the historic ramifications of that complex and famous trial: "For one thing, we no longer need to justify ourselves before our own people as to why we survived. We had always been constantly asked, 'Why did you not resist? Why did you go like sheep to the slaughter?' This trial has now shed light on these strange questions. If the trial had achieved only that, it would be enough.

"But it also planted within us the faith that behold, as the Psalmist writes, 'the G-d of vengeance has appeared and the Judge of the earth has arisen' to exact justice on all those murderers of our people who still walk free. And further, all our enemies now know that Jewish blood is not cheap and that vengeance will come. Your name will be borne aloft in our national history as one who raised our honor among the nations, and for that may you be blessed."

These words echoed in my mind as I watched the Knesset Law Committee last week discuss putting on trial the Nukhba terrorists imprisoned in Israel – those who took part in the Oct. 7th massacre. Opposition MK Yulia Malinovsky, who is co-sponsoring, together with coalition MK Simcha Rotman, the proposed bill to put them on trial, seemed to be similarly inspired in her words to the Committee members: "Before our eyes stands the goal of setting an international narrative. This is a legal matter, and the professionals will do the hard and important work of managing the investigations. But as legislators, our eyes must be peeled to what this will mean for future generations. Fifty years from now, they will look back at us and our actions just as we look back at the Eichmann trial."

Of course, the State of Israel is now in a very different place, in terms of our international image, than it was in 1961. Less than two decades after the Holocaust and our six million losses, the world received with admiration every act of justice and vengeance that we decided upon. Now, the situation is basically the opposite, and arrows of criticism and hatred are shot at us from every corner. As British anti-Islam campaigner Tommy Robinson has put it: "Denial of the Shoah began [long] afterwards, while denial of the Gaza slaughter began the day afterwards." This reality has great ramifications on the legal-judicial construction of the prosecution's case, and on its diplomatic aspects.

The Law Committee's session dealt primarily with two matters: the specific charges on which to charge the cruel Hamas brutes, and the tribunal that would try them. These discussions are now being held openly for the first time in more than two years (preparing the evidence and writing up the material has been ongoing behind the scenes) because Hamas can no longer threaten to harm our hostages.

The manner in which the discussion or debate was held, it must be noted, was impressive. For one thing, it was clear that Melinovsky and Rotman, who spent many hours preparing the bill, and will yet spend many more, are leaving politics aside as they seek the best possible outcome for the State of Israel. Melinovsky, who ran the session, emphasized that this is how the entire issue must be approached, and in fact, representatives of groups on both the left and right sat together and argued and discussed respectfully the various issues. They asked and answered, listened and clarified, wrote comments and submitted materials, all for the common goal.

What is the ultimate objective? All the participants were in agreement: the death penalty for the Nukhba terrorists. How to do this, however, is not a simple matter. There are various issues that must be dealt with. Let us try to review them in brief.

The first is that of the specific court that will try the terrorists. This is clearly a decision that must be taken with an eye to history. A special court, with all the proper trappings, and a prosecutor and a bench of judges worthy of the occasion, can well serve the purpose of setting the historic narrative. It will be considered a totally unique event in the national and universal memory, and will place Israel in a positive light. In addition, Israel can certainly not afford, in light of the terrible backlog and delays that plague our judicial system, to treat the hundreds of incarcerated Nukhbot the same way as it does other accused criminals.

 However, there is also a grave problem inherent in setting up a special court just for the Nukhbot. Such a court will create, in international opinion, the sense of a rigged trial, and will not concretize the truth and gravity of the Hamas massacre of 1,200 Jews in October 2023. Both Dr. Haggai Vinitzky and Prof. Amichai Cohen – respected judicial figures on Israel's right and left, respectively – agreed that changing the rules retroactively is a bad way to foster trust and confidence in the process.

The Lod Military Court

Vinitzky had an original idea that could solve the problem. He said that in the central-Israel city of Lod exists a military court that was responsible in the past for trying terrorists not from the areas run by the military administration in Judea and Samaria. An example is Kozo Akamoto, the Japanese terrorist who led the Israeli airport murder of 26 Jews and Christians in 1972. Though the court is not active now, its formal validation is still in effect – and employing it for this occasion will ensure that the trial is not considered an on-the-fly operation.

The other question is: What offenses will the Nukhbot and their accomplices in charging murderously into Israel be charged with? This, too, is not a simple matter at all. All agree that to charge each individual with specific crimes of murder, rape, and the like is a mission impossible. Southern Israel on that black day was not a crime scene, but a war scene. Forensic evidence of the type generally collected after a murder was not exactly available at the time, or since then, nor were autopsies carried out, for obvious reasons. And of course, many witnesses to the crimes were murdered themselves and cannot share what they saw.

Rather, a more comprehensive approach is needed, one that will correctly depict the mass-scale invasion and attack on defenseless Israeli citizens in their homes or at the Nova festival.

The question, then, is to determine the precise crimes that they will be charged with. One option is to use Israel's 1950 "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Justice Law." However, this would require the building of a detailed legal case proving that the crimes are included in that law. On the other hand, "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" are not found in the Israeli legal code. To adopt these laws at this point would not be a smart move, as Israel itself is facing similar charges in The Hague, whose right to do so Israel does not recognize. For us to then use these clauses would fuel our enemies' drive to prosecute us, nationally and individually, on the very charges that Israel did not recognize previously.

Genocide, Perhaps?
Not everyone agreed that this is a game-stopper. Maurice Hirsch, former Director of the Military Prosecution in Judea and Samaria, for example, said that a strong case that the Hamas terrorists were engaged in genocide can be made based on Hamas documents captured in Gaza and the clear wording of the Hamas charter.

However, Prof. Amichai Cohen made the point that international laws against genocide were formulated after the Shoah, and that Israel has long sought to limit the definition of genocide in order not to trivialize the Holocaust. Were Israel to now change course and term even the attempt to murder "just" a few thousand people as genocide, it would pull the carpet out from under its long-held position. This is certainly a point worthy of consideration.

Another legal obstacle is that the leaders and masterminds of the Simchat Torah massacre are, of course, no longer alive. This means that only the middle-level terrorist operatives will have to pay the price. This is not an insurmountable problem, but one that must be placed on the table.

Significant work remains to be done on this bill, though MK Malinovsky declared that she will not allow the matter to be delayed, as time is of the essence. In general, the points having to do with how the world will view our proceedings are important, but must be placed in their proper proportions. Over the past two year’s we have learned on our own flesh that the arena of international law is mainly a political one, and that claims and counter-claims are raised according to political – or, often when it comes to Israel, anti-Semitic – interests.

The emphasis, then, on the debate over this bill must be two-fold: 1) ensuring that the victims' families, and Israel in general, witness true justice being done, and 2) setting the internal Israeli narrative (as my grandfather wrote regarding the post-Shoah atmosphere in Israel). We must take the international view into consideration, but only to a certain extent.

Making this trial into an important national event that will engrave in our consciousness for generations the story of the terrible massacre, the heroism of the survivors and warriors, and the importance of ensuring that we do all we can to prevent its recurrence – is the charge of the hour.

Summing Up the Ceasefire Deal: Joy, Sorrow, and What to Do Now

by Emmanuel Shiloh, editor of the Besheva weekly, translated by Hillel Fendel.

1.    Two years ago on the Simchat Torah holiday, our traditional festive commemorations of the latest annual round of Torah reading and study were cut brutally short by the Hamas massacre of some 1,200 Israelis and the abduction of 250 others. It was as if a Divine signal had been handed down from heaven, saying, "I don't want your dancing! 'Who asked this of you, to trample My courts?'" (Isaiah 1,12)

One year ago on Simchat Torah, many of us were engaged in trying to find the proper way to celebrate the holiday on the first anniversary of the largest calamity in Israel's history. Some thought we should dance even harder, some asked how we could dance at all, and others replaced (some of) the dancing with songs of sorrow and prayer. 

Finally, this past Simchat Torah, last week, the joy returned. The previous year had seen great military and other successes, with G-d's help, including in Syria, Lebanon, and especially Iran. We were able to sense that the Master of the Universe had once again opened for us the gates of happiness. We entered the holiday fresh off the release of all 20 living hostages from their torturous two years of captivity – and we sang and danced with abandon. 

Would it be that we remain in G-d's good graces and be worthy of His shining countenance. For this deal has clearly led us into a complicated situation, and much Divine assistance and human effort will be needed to conclude it positively. Among the major challenges that await us are: the return of all the deceased captives for burial in Israel, as Hamas committed to do but has not yet fully done; the dismantling of the Hamas regime; and the disarmament of Gaza. 

Of course, the chances that this will happen are not high. Israel and the U.S. have bound themselves with political commitments, and Trump has firmly and repeatedly declared that the war is over. But after all the wonderful events we were blessed with between Simchat Torah 5774 and Simchat Torah 5776, we need not despair of prayers and hope for miracles and good surprises.

2.    Jewish Law relates to complex situations that have aspects of both joy and sadness. For instance, one who is to inherit a large sum from a relative who has just died must recite two blessings: "The True Judge" on the sad news, and "He Who has brought us to this time" (Shehecheyanu) for the good news. Life is complicated, and sometimes our feelings are strongly mixed.

The current ceasefire deal is one of those situations. It is possible and correct to oppose the deal, even as we rejoice at the freedom gained by our 20 brothers who were held in the tunnels of Hamas. There were even some rabbis who ruled that both of the above blessings should be recited, given the release of 250 terrorist murderers from our prisons. For even those who support the agreement certainly know and agree that freeing murderers in this fashion is clearly immoral, infuriating, and very dangerous to Israelis around the country.

3.    It is sad to see how our national heart has become numb and insensitive to the release of terrorist murderers in the framework of such deals. The cruel killers of our fellow citizens should ideally have been executed – but given that they were only to sentenced to life imprisonment, at least they should have truly remained in prison until their death. The Torah sharply negates waiving a murderer's punishment for any type of ransom: "Do not accept ransom for the life of a murderer guilty of death; he shall be put to death" (Bamidbar 35,31). The moral injustice of releasing murderers is depicted as one that "defiles the Land" (ibid. 33,34). Even those who believe that saving lives overrides this prohibition – despite the danger that the lives being saved might later cost other lives – should at least feel the pain of defilement of the Land of Israel.

Another facet of the injustice: There are amongst us hundreds and thousands of relatives of terrorist victims for whom the State of Israel has given up on bringing their murderers to justice. Their blood has been rendered not only cheap, but totally forsaken. Some of these relatives have expressed willingness to pay this price for the sake of the hostages, but other have not. The media is busy celebrating the return of the hostages, and does not focus enough on the families' pain. We certainly do not hear any apologies for the sorrow this deal causes them. People of Torah and ethics, people of justice – it would be appropriate for you to sound you voices on this matter.

 

4.    And this brings us to the multi-faceted security dangers inherent in the release of terrorist murderers. Firstly, these men are frightfully dangerous, able and willing to kill Jews yet again. Yihye Sinwar himself – mastermind of the Hamas massacre, for those who don't remember – was freed in a similar hostage deal several years ago. At least ten other Jews were murdered after that deal by terrorists who were freed then. What did we gain by liquidating the entire Hamas leadership over the past two years, if we are now freeing many more experienced and cruel potential Hamas masterminds?

Secondly, their release eliminates the deterrent effect of prison sentences on potential terrorists. Any young Arab who considers carrying out an attack will not fear being arrested, confident that sooner or later he will be released in a hostage deal.

And finally: The more we give in to the kidnappers' blackmail, the more they are encouraged to carry out additional abductions. We have now broken new records of caving to blackmail, agreeing not only to release murderers but also to give up on top-notch strategic achievements and goals, including retreating from Gaza cities. This increases the danger of further kidnappings. We all sighed in relief that, with the hostages home, we are now free to fight Hamas without fearing the fate of our brothers. But is it not clear that taking more hostages will be one of the first goals that Hamas will set for itself?

Can we at least hope that finally, now, the Shamgar Commission's recommendations from 2012 – restraining the government's freedom to decide to release crazy numbers of terrorists in exchange for hostages – will finally be adopted?

The entire Nation of Israel – especially those who demanded this deal with shouts and insults, as well as the politicians who caved to their pressure – must ask themselves what they are doing to thwart the next kidnapping. Otherwise, the next kidnapping is much too close for comfort.

 

5.    Though this war brought us some achievements, this was not the conclusion for which we prayed and hoped. The return of all the deceased hostages is far from guaranteed, Hamas is still in power, and it appears to have no plans to disarm. The intended arrival of an Islamic international force in our backyard in Gaza is liable to cause us more harm than benefit. We fumbled the opportunity to encourage the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Gazans. We stopped short of conquering the Gaza Strip and establishing a military administration there, as we did in Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War. And of course barely anyone took seriously the option of resettling Gaza with Jews, ignoring its Torah and nationalist values.

The situation can still be saved if Israel takes advantage of Hamas' violations of the agreement, and the fact that our hostages are no longer in danger, to embark on a final military round to crush Hamas and completely occupy the Strip. This is the way to achieve our unfulfilled war goals.

 

Speak Little and Do

by Rabbi Lior Engelman, translated by Hillel Fendel.

How would we feel if the government would send us to fight in Gaza with an end-goal of a Palestinian state there? That's how others feel when we talk about returning to Gush Katif. Consensus is not hard to reach.

At one of the gatherings between religious and secular Jews that I was privileged to take part in during the stormy days of the Judicial Reform controversy, one of the participants asked me: "Do you really believe that we should expel all the Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza?"

I told him, "It doesn't really matter what I believe, or what you believe, because at some point – next week, next year, ten years from now, or even longer – they won't leave us a choice. It won't happen because I support it, or because a right-wing government decides to do it. I will happen because people like you will feel their evil up close. It will be the Arabs themselves who will convince you, through their actions, that we can't let them establish a state five minutes from Kfar Saba and Raanana."

I had no idea, of course, that the massacre of Oct. 7^th was just around the corner, and I never imagined that within such a short time the Arabs would give us a reason to demolish Gaza. I had no idea that so many "peace-loving" Israelis would speak out in favor of that option. I'll just mention one of the statements that I recall: "In this campaign, there can be no humanitarian aid. We have to tell them: 'Free all the hostages, or starve to death.' It's totally legitimate."

And the speaker was none other than Labor Party chief Yair Golan, one of the most extreme personalities in our country's left-wing. We can just imagine what others were saying.

Today, however, Yair Golan doesn't speak that way anymore, and the same for many others. Today their tune is one of ending the war in exchange for all the hostages, placing no other conditions on Hamas. This, even though they know this means the end of any chance to destroy Hamas, or at least removing them from power. And of course they no longer think about starving those who are holding our loved ones; such calls they now consider fascist.

What has brought about this change? It could be because they have become tired of the war, which all agree has taken too long, whatever the reasons for that might be. It could also be that they simply want to topple the Netanyahu government, or that they're more "now"-conscious than "future"-geared. It might be that nationalism is not as popular in certain circles as is individualism, or that being hooked to the media 24/7 is very weakening. It could be that all answers are correct.

In any event, there's not much we can do about any of these – but there is one possible answer that we can do something about. It has to do with the calls to resettle Gush Katif, i.e., the former Jewish communities in Gaza that were dismantled during Ariel Sharon's Disengagement of 2006.

Not all readers of Besheva are certain to agree with me when I criticize Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich for saying the following at a recent convention: "I don't want to simply return to Gush Katif; that's too small. It has to be something much greater than that. With Gaza we can think big!"

I personally am in favor of returning to Gush Katif, and even on a large scale. Do I think it will happen soon? I don't know, but I do know that every speech like that one probably lessens the chances for the fulfillment of that dream. That type of speech is good for internal political gatherings, to enthuse supporters and even guarantee their votes. But in the real world, where many people are actually not particularly interested in Gush Katif, it does not serve the desired purpose.

Why is that? Because when leaders send their nations to war, the objectives have to be in the broadest consensus possible. In this case, we know that our nation is more than willing to fight so that those who carried out the atrocities of Oct. 7^th will not rule in Gaza, and so that the residents of the south can return home safely without fear of rockets, and certainly so that all the hostages will return home.

But when a flag is raised that is not in the consensus, then that flag becomes, for many, a black flag that prevents them from joining the war efforts. Many people on the left still believe that the "settlements" are not the solution, but rather the problem; they believe that it was not the Disengagement that led to Oct. 7^th, but rather that if not for the Disengagement, Oct. 7^th would have happened in Gush Katif! I don't agree, of course, but that's not the point. The idea is rather that it is hard for some Jews in this country to fight a war for the sake of resettling Gush Katif – and therefore boasting that this is the goal necessarily lowers their motivation to fight.

To make it clearer, let us hypothetically turn the situation around: How willing would we be to go to war in Gaza if the declared goal was to rid the area of Hamas and then build there a Palestinian state with its recognized capital in Jerusalem? Just as we would not be willing, so too they are not – and they therefore end up wanting to give up with barely a fight.

So what do I propose? I favor saying only what is relevant. Messiah, settlements, Gush Katif – all that is not among the war objectives that we must declare at present. I am in favor of straight talk, emphasizing repeatedly that Hamas demands to remain in power in Gaza, no disarmament, the total rebuilding of Gaza, the release of hundreds or thousands of Palestinian terrorists and prisoners – and then they will agree to return all our hostages, alive or dead. Israel is squarely united against these terms, and therefore our "motivating" speeches must constantly harp only on that: We must defeat Hamas, period. And if one day Hamas is actually vanquished and we find ourselves ruling Gaza, then we can talk about Gush Katif. Not until then.

"Speak little and do much" is an important rule in warfare. With little talk, Syria disappeared, and the same with Hizbullah, and nearly the same with Iran and the Houthis. But Gaza is still standing, even with our tough talk about Gush Katif and "voluntary exile." War demands cleverness – including silence when necessary.