Israel Must Rebuild Jewish Gaza

by Michael Freund, Jewish Journal of Los Angeles.

As Israel's ground operations against Hamas in Gaza continue, an open question that remains unanswered is what will happen the day after the terrorist organization is eliminated.

Various proposals have been bandied about, one more unrealistic than the other, leaving the fate of the territory and its inhabitants uncertain.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and expelled 9,000 Jews living in 21 communities there, the Palestinian Authority was given the task of administering the area, but its corruption and mismanagement paved the way for Hamas to take control two years later. Realistically, then, there is no Palestinian leadership with a proven track record that can be trusted to run Gaza for the benefit of its people while also preventing attacks against the Jewish state.

Hence, I want to suggest a simple, though far from simplistic, solution: Israel should reassert full military and civilian control over Gaza and rebuild the Jewish communities that were uprooted. This is the only way to ensure that Gaza will both prosper and not pose a threat to Israel's existence.

After all, in August 2005, we were assured by then-prime minister Ariel Sharon, and much of the mainstream media, that Israel's pullout would strengthen Palestinian moderates, weaken Islamic extremists, and silence the world's criticism. Those who opposed the withdrawal, myself included, were derided as pessimists and naysayers.

But if the October 7 attack taught us anything, it is that the lack of an Israeli presence in Gaza undermined the country's deterrent posture and intelligence-gathering capability and allowed Hamas to plan and train at will.

That cannot and must not be allowed to happen ever again.

Anyone who studies the region knows that it is a basic and fundamental truth of Zionist history and Middle Eastern reality that Jewish settlements are not an obstacle to peace but an impediment to war.

Moreover, Hamas' goal of destroying Israel is based in part on the assumption that the Jewish presence in that part of the world is temporary or transitory. Logically, the best way to combat that is to demonstrate in a tangible way that it is wrong and that the Jewish people are not going anywhere.

The fact is that Gaza has a long and proud Jewish history that stretches back to biblical times.

During the Talmudic era, Gaza was home to a large Jewish population and served as a major port of commerce. Indeed, one of the oldest synagogues ever found in the Land of Israel is in Gaza, and it dates back to the early sixth century, more than 1,400 years before Hamas or the PLO were founded. During the Middle Ages, Gaza was home to a thriving Jewish community, including in Rafah, where Jews flourished for nearly 300 years until the arrival of the Crusaders in the 12th century.

Gaza also boasted its share of prominent rabbis who left a lasting imprint on Judaism. These include Rabbi Yisrael Najara, author of "Kah Ribbon Olam," the popular hymn sung in Jewish homes around the world every Shabbat. He served as Gaza's chief rabbi until his death in 1625, and he was buried in the city's Jewish cemetery. Yes, Gaza had an ancient Jewish cemetery.

It is perhaps due to the Jewish people's deep roots in Gaza that despite having been expelled from the Strip seven times over the past 2,000 years, they always sought to return. In 61 CE, the Romans evicted the Jews from Gaza, as did the Crusaders, Napoleon, the Ottoman Turks, the British Army in 1929, and the Egyptians in 1948.

After the Six-Day War, when Jews once again returned to Gaza, building flourishing communities that were subsequently demolished in 2005 as part of Israel's withdrawal.

The very idea that Gaza, or anywhere else for that matter, should be off-limits to Jews is discriminatory and antisemitic, and there is no reason to deny Israelis who wish to resettle Gaza the right to do so.

By reviving Gazan Jewish communities, Israel can rewrite the reality on the ground and send a clear message to the Palestinians: The more you try to kill us, the more we will rebuild.

Sure, such a move will not be popular in the White House or at the United Nations, but nothing Israel does ever really is.

Regardless, full Israeli control over Gaza is the best guarantee that the strip of land along the Mediterranean will thrive, for both Jews and Arabs alike.

How the Biden Administration's Policies Have Led to the Gravest Escalation in the Middle East in Decades.

by Nitzan David Fuchs, geopolitical analyst, Makor Rishon columnist, and "The Great Game" podcast host, translated by Hillel Fendel.

If anyone was surprised at the Biden Administration's restrained response to the murderous Hizbullah rocket attack on the Israeli-Druze city of Majdal Shams that killed 12 teenagers, he has not been paying attention very well for the past nine months. Note, too, that this a response also includes the expectation that Israel should show similar restraint.

The Biden-Harris government has committed itself to the concept of "de-escalation," even in light of blatant Iranian provocations. The primary question for Israel is how to navigate its moves so that it can properly protect its citizens under such circumstances. 

De-escalation has become a mantra in the strategic discourse of the Administration. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan tends to use it very often in various contexts, from Gaza to Ukraine. In an article in November 2023, Sullivan wrote proudly of the Administration's success in de-escalating the Gaza-Israel situation – without analyzing whether the mega-event of the month before had been a result of that policy. 

What exactly is de-escalation? The nub of the Biden-Harris strategy and order of priorities is this: China is the primary challenge, and everything else, including Iran, is secondary. De-escalation therefore dictates a policy of reducing tensions with Iran, including giving preference to diplomatic channels over a military conflict, all for the goal of freeing up resources for a clash with China.

This strategy has produced mixed results. While the resuscitation of the nuclear agreement with Iran has failed, understandings have been reached to ease sanctions against Iran in return for Iranian restraint in its race to achieve nuclear bomb capabilities. On the ground, Tehran continued to enrich uranium, though at a slower rate, and stepped up its support for Russia, while improving its international standing. The Biden-Harris regime chose to ignore these developments, in return for relative quiet.  

The murderous Hamas onslaught of Oct. 7th shook up regional stability, but did not change the American strategy. The Administration continued to stick with de-escalation, in an attempt to contain the warfare in Gaza and to prevent a broad regional escalation. Even in the face of attacks on American forces in Syria and Iraq, the US response remained restrained, allowing for a strong but still restrained military response only after American lives were lost. 

The Houthi threat on maritime freedom in the Red Sea – a historic and vital American interest – also elicited a lukewarm US response. The American rejoinder focused on thwarting future attacks, and was nowhere near a comprehensive offensive against the Houthis. 

The climax of the de-escalation policy came in reaction to the unprecedented Iranian attack against Israel this past April. Israel successfully repelled the more than 300 Iranian drones and missiles fired at Israel, and the Americans viewed this as a great victory for the regional air defenses. Others, such as Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the like saw it very differently. They have likely chalked it up in their book as proof of Iran's ability to target Israel, or possibly any American ally, with impunity and barely any US response. The United States is allowing Iran to behave with increasing aggressiveness – which ironically is itself what will increase the chances of a crisis that will force it to retaliate militarily.

The policy of de-escalation is expected to continue under a future Harris presidency, if the American electorate so decides. Israel will have to get used to the fact that American support for its military initiatives will be limited, even if this strengthens Iran and its proxies. If Donald Trump is elected, he can perhaps be expected to take a more aggressive approach vis-à-vis Iran, but it is still doubtful whether he will want or tolerate a regional war. 

The conclusion is straightforward: No one in the world can act for Israel's security except for Israel.