A Cruel Choice: Hostages Over Soldiers?

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

We can no longer avoid the question: How many soldiers is it morally justified to sacrifice for the sake of the hostages?

Just a week ago, five IDF soldiers from the hareidi Netzach Yehuda battalion were killed in a tragic, well-planned terrorist ambush in the Beit Hanoun sector of the Gaza Strip.

Terrorists had mined the area with explosive devices, and then fired not only on the soldiers who entered, but also on a rescue unit that arrived on the scene shortly afterwards. The terrorists reportedly planned to try to kidnap one or more soldiers, as they also tried to do in the case of the bulldozer operator whom they murdered two days later. In neither case did they succeed.

These grave incidents remind us of that Netzach Yehuda exists - a hareidi combat battalion that has been engaged in holy security activity for years, mainly in Judea and Samaria but in this war also in Gaza. It has sometimes also paid a heavy price in wounded and killed. E-l malei rachamim: "G-d, full of mercy, grant a proper rest on the wings of the Shekhinah to those who have fallen for the sanctification of Your name, in the ranks of the pure and heroic holy ones." Such calamities must not bring down our spirits, but they should cause us to examine ourselves and our deeds, and correct our mistakes.

2. 

In recent weeks, a Hasmonean Brigade reserve company has taken up a position on the northern perimeter of the Gaza Strip. Its soldiers are hareidi men with families, who enlisted at a later age and then underwent special training for upgrade to combat roles in the new hareidi brigade.

The personal example that these soldiers set for their brothers in the sector is much more significant than all the attempts to force them to enlist in the army. The hareidi sector is not a uniform bloc; while some believe it is a terrible sin to enlist, many others are attentive to the moral Torah charge to come to the physical aid of their countrymen and take part in this "mitzvah war" that has been forced upon Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael.

It will not be easy to change the hard-core that has long held, as far back as 1948, that even during wartime, Torah students should not leave their studies. But even the late Rosh Yeshiva of Ponevezh, Rav Shach, spiritual guide of perhaps the largest hareidi yeshiva sector, said that young hareidim who are not learning, for whatever reason, should enlist in the army. He even said that those who do not do so are considered to be literally "endangering" the bona-fide Torah students – a status with clear Halakhic ramifications. There are thus many thousands of such potential soldiers every year, and they must be the focus of efforts to bring about hareidi enlistment.

Of course, many in the hareidi public justify even the non-studious who avoid conscription, because of the fear that military service will weaken their religious observance and will prejudice their hareidi lifestyle and identity. The more soldiers who enter the army as hareidim and also leave it as hareidim, the more the resistance will dissolve.

On the other hand, forced conscription with sanctions and threats of jail will come at a heavy social cost, causing the hareidi public to close ranks in a fierce struggle against the State. It is almost certain that even if a few thousand conscripts are forced to enlist each year, their motivation and combat quality will not be high. Instead of persecuting those who do not enlist, we would be much better advised to empower and honor those hareidim who answer the call of the hour and enlist.

3.

Not many people suspect that the move to dispatch tens of thousands of draft notices to young hareidim stems from good intentions to strengthen the IDF's combat capabilities or even simply to lighten the load of those currently serving. Rather, the IDF is bowing to the pressures exerted by our Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara (her pre-firing hearing is being held as these words are being written); she would contribute much more to national security if she would stop trying to impede, with a variety of poor excuses, the important and even urgent appointment of Gen. David Zini as head of the Shabak.

Another way in which Ms. Bahara-Miara could help would be by removing her "legal" demand to provide "humanitarian" aid to the Hamas terrorists in Gaza. If the Hamas terrorists who find the strength to stand and fight against our soldiers are hungry, unpaid, and unmotivated, this will help our national security a lot more than by forcing some yeshiva boys to fight alongside them.

On the one hand, the hareidi parties are threatening to topple the government if a broad conscription bill is passed – and on the other hand, there are elements seeking to pass precisely that type of bill for precisely that reason: to topple the government. Most of the soldiers fighting in Gaza today and who have sacrificed so much until now would like help in carrying the stretcher – but even more than that, they want the stretcher to reach its destination - namely, full victory. This will not happen if the government falls.

4. 

It is hard not to rise up against the fact that a hornets' nest like Beit Hanoun on the northeastern border of Gaza, which threatens the neighboring kibbutzim as well as the city of Sderot, has not yet been razed to the ground – including the tunnels below it, which are still being used to ambush our soldiers. It is still teeming with terrorists, even though the IDF has been sent to battle them four or five times during the course of this war.

This is the sad result of two grave mistakes. One is the system of quick forays that the previous Chief of Staff enacted, during which our forces would enter the area, hit the terrorists hard, and then leave – enabling Hamas to return, rearm, and booby-trap the area for the next entry of the IDF. This has cost us many soldiers' lives.

The second mistake is one that is close to being made again today: partial hostage deals in which some hostages are freed but many remain in Gazan captivity while the IDF withdraws from areas it captured at great cost. The price is so high that it is doubtful whether even the sacred mission of saving the hostages can justify it.

The truth must be told: We could have long ago won this war and destroyed Hamas if not for the extraordinary caution we take not to endanger the hostages. It is this that renders large areas of Gaza basically immune to Israeli attack, enabling the terrorists there to fortify themselves with practically no Israeli resistance. The IDF also does not avail itself of its massive airpower for the same reason, and instead sends infantry, engineering corps, and armored forces to carry out dangerous and costly missions.

The question must be asked: How many soldiers may be sacrificed in order to save 20 live hostages? Is 40 a justified amount, two for each one? Or maybe 60, three for each one? Or perhaps 100? Why do we seem willing to sacrifice our soldiers for the hostages' sake? Is it because we know the hostages by name, thus rendering their blood redder than soldiers whom we do not (yet) know? The bottom line is that this is a moral injustice vis-à-vis our dedicated soldiers.

This of course must be added to the even greater moral injustice of supplying the enemy with food and more so that they can continue to wage war against us.

Sadly, Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, who was appointed IDF Chief of Staff precisely for the purpose of winning the war, has fallen victim to the powerful "Bring Them Home at any Cost" campaign. He now objects to conquering the Strip, and instead seeks a cave-in hostage deal. The government must obligate him to follow its orders and not show weakness.

5. 

Netanyahu's quest to make another deal of the same type in Washington this week is most regrettable. When the current Gideon's Chariots offensive began a number of weeks ago, we were told that its objective was to defeat Hamas – but we quickly realized that its purpose was simply to pressure Hamas into agreeing to release a few more hostages. Hamas knew the whole time that if the military pressure became a bit unbearable for them, they could easily stop the IDF at any time, and even cause it to withdraw, by simply agreeing to release another few hostages. This is not the way to win, nor even to create a measure of deterrence.

When we set out on this latest offensive, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz vowed that Israel would not withdraw from the areas it would conquer. But it is now clear that in the current talks, Israel insists on remaining only in the Rafah area and a bit north, while agreeing to withdraw from the other areas we conquered at great cost. Did we not learn from our recent withdrawal from the Netzarim Route, through which hundreds of thousands of Gazans quickly returned northward, without even any effective security checks? Wherever we withdraw, the terrorists stream in and place explosives, to be used against our troops at a later date.

The equation that places the safety of the hostages above any other strategic consideration is causing us to lose the war, and thereby even distances the very release of the hostages.

May G-d open our eyes and those of our leaders, and may He save us from the calamitous mistakes that we bring upon ourselves. May He lead us to a victorious conclusion to the war in Gaza, as He did in Lebanon and Iran, Amen.

The author can be reached at eshilo777@gmail.com.

Three Words to Victory: Conquest, Emigration, Settlement

by Moshe Feiglin, former Knesset Member and chairman of the Zehut (Identity) party, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The ceasefire in Gaza, if it comes about, is a losing proposition for Israel. Victory is attainable, however, with a simple acceptance and declaration of the truth.

On the night the ceasefire with Iran took effect, June 24, we lost seven of our sons in Gaza, and another nine in the two weeks-plus since then. The same country, the same IDF, the same defense establishment – which just days ago operated deep inside Iran so tremendously successfully against a distant and powerful enemy – has struggled for nearly two years now to defeat Hamas on the border. Why?

Because in Iran we fought for security; in Gaza, we are engaged in evading justice.

What's the difference?

In Iran, there’s no debate: The enemy regime openly declares its desire to destroy us. This is no “territorial dispute,” just a purely existential threat. Even on the far left in Israel, no one comes to Iran's defense. And so the operation was sharp, swift, and clean: the wings of the planes bore no ethical weights, and no officers worried about having to choose between striking the targets or facing indictments in The Hague. We set out to defend our lives - and we won.

In Gaza, the story is the opposite.

On the soil of the Land of Israel – on the coast of the western Negev – the campaign, once straightforward and morally clear, has become murky. This is because the issue has become not only one of security, but also of justice: Whose land is it? Are we allowed to say clearly out loud that Gaza is ours? As long as that question remains unanswered, the war will not end. One who is unsure of his ownership of the land will never be able to control it.

The Source of the Problem

The infrastructure for the terror state in Gaza was established when we experienced a moral crisis – i.e., when we lost our confidence in the justness of our path. It wasn't the Iranians who supplied Gaza with weapons; it was we who deposited the Gaza Strip into the hands of a terrorist organization, via the Oslo Accords and with the Disengagement [unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005]. We wanted to put the problem to bed by distancing ourselves from it – but we received, instead, a center of jihad. A problem that is not solved with justice, returns in blood.
Conquest, Emigration, Settlement – three words that will once again bring victory to our nation. 

The Public Knows: It's Time to Win

Most of the nationalist camp in Israel doesn't necessarily dream of ideological settlement in Gaza; they simply want security. But such security will not happen without a clear victory, which means telling the bitter truth: "Hamas will not be defeated as long as it draws legitimacy from the international community's stance that the land belongs to the Palestinians." As such, the war in Gaza is being run not only with weapons and bombs.

If we want to win, we must take three essential steps: Conquest, deportation/emigration, settlement.

We must begin by conquering Gaza. There can be no sovereignty without control on the ground. Gaza must be under complete Israeli control, without "forays" and "sterile areas" and the like.

We must then deport our enemies, those who dispatch the terrorists, those who incite, those who organized and murdered and raped on Oct. 7^th. This is a defensive and necessary defensive step. The others should be encouraged to emigrate, in the spirit of Trump's plan.

Finally, we must settle Gaza with vibrant, loving, Jewish communities. This must be our mission, our return to roots. Settling the land is not just an adornment or a decoration; it is our declaration: This is Our Land.

But what about Trump, you ask?

His proposal to deport the Gazans and turn the Strip into a “Riviera” reflects a global disgust with Hamas, but does not solve the problem for the long term – neither in Gaza nor in Judea and Samaria.

If we continue to deny our connection to the Gaza Strip, as well as the fact that it and everywhere else in the Land of Israel are all part of our national identity – there will be others who will come and “solve the problem” in their own way, and not necessarily in line with our interests.

Whenever the State of Israel continues to evade the issue, apologize, and deny the truth of its historic connection with the Land, and as long as it does not define for itself its political vision (which should be self-evident) - our enemies will see our weakness, and will even interpret it as a form of consent to future territorial concessions.

The real battle now is not just over Gaza – but over the future of the entire State of Israel.

We must say openly and clearly, "Gaza is Ours. This is Our Land." The moment we do so, all the gates will be opened, the path forward will be paved, the campaign will be decided – and the cycle of death will be ended, and security will of course be restored.

An Ongoing Absurdity: Netanyahu's Trial in the Shadow of War

by Attorney Yitzhak Lax, member of the Israeli Bar Association, translated by Hillel Fendel.

How is it possible that while our blood is still being spilled in the alleys of Gaza, the trial of Prime Minister Netanyahu continues in the Jerusalem District Court as if nothing else was happening?

Israeli in the summer of 2025 is undergoing a complex and painful reality, fraught with existential challenges. The Iron Swords war in Gaza, newly named Gideon's Chariots, continues – some would say, limps along – while our hostages are still barely surviving in Gaza tunnels, the northern front burns despite the conclusion of the brilliant Rising Lion offensive against Iran, and Israeli society is once again divided and bleeding.

Yet, despite and amidst all this national chaos, while soldiers continue to fall at the hands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza, the trial of Prime Minister Netanyahu continues in the Jerusalem District Court. The obvious question that cries out to the heavens is: For how long will we continue to allow this absurdity to go on?!

That "all are equal before the law" is a clear and fundamental principle in democracy, and its importance cannot be underestimated. But there is still a fine line between upholding important principles and not seeing reality. For all his weaknesses and limitations, Netanyahu is the prime minister of the State of Israel, at the center of making the most fateful decisions in the history of the country. Leading a multi-front war, he is the one who heads and directs the diplomatic effort vis-à-vis the US and the world, the one responsible for waging the war, and the one whose critical job it is to lead Israel through the stormy sea of ​​security and political threats. To demand that he sit in a courtroom for days and weeks on end to be cross-examined about events that took place years ago, about champagne, cigars, and a Bugs Bunny doll, when Israel is waging a war of survival outside - this is a criminal disregard for reality.

This is no small matter. At stake are human lives, the security of an entire country, and the future of Israeli society. Every minute of time, every hour of thought, and every mental effort of the prime minister must be devoted only to these burning matters.

With the citizens of Israel facing an ongoing, permanent threat, and with the IDF fighting on so many fronts, our leadership must be totally focused and clear, with no distractions. Can Mr. Netanyahu be expected to focus on running the various military wars and fronts while simultaneously being challenged to remember various trivial details from years ago (some from as long ago as 2004)? The answer is clearly: No.

And yet behold, precisely during these emergency times, when common sense and simple logic dictate that all activity that is not essential for national survival should be suspended, the prosecution insists on going ahead with the trial with blood-curdling indifference. Its refusal to agree to a mere two-week delay, when the trial has already been ongoing for five years and is expected to continue for many more, was nothing short of evil. What unbearable legal drama would occur if the hearings were postponed by two weeks? Would the judicial system collapse? Would justice be irreversibly corrupted?

Again, clearly not. A short delay for emergency reasons is something that should occur automatically; what discussion is even necessary? The stubborn insistence by the prosecution - and by the court itself, which in the end agreed to suspend the trial by only one week - is testimony not only to shocking insensitivity, but also to total misunderstanding on our national priorities. It sometimes appears that the law enforcement network sees itself as an objective in and of itself, detached from all context, and focused on procedure at the expense of the essence.

And herein lies the heart of the absurdity: The judicial system, which is supposed to be serving the public and protecting its security and welfare, is actually acting in a way that appears to be endangering it. It ties the Prime Minister's hands during an absolutely most critical period, occupying him with technical and questionable legal matters while our enemies watch and wait to pounce.

Did we really have to reach the point where U.S. President Trump expresses amazed consternation at the ridiculousness of Netanyahu, with whom he talks every day these days, having to work his schedule around two days a week of court hearings and cross-examinations?

Could anyone possibly imagine Winston Churchill be placed on trial in the midst of the months of the Nazi Blitz of London at the beginning of World War II? Or Abraham Lincoln being tried on technical matters while the American Civil War raged on? The comparisons might seem exaggerated, but they actually are not, and they typify the incredible lack of proportions taking place here and now.

The trial itself long ago became a political tool and a source of divisiveness within Israeli society. It eggs on the fringes, heightens the hatred, and distracts our attention from the matters that are truly important. Is there any justification to continue holding the trial while Israel fights for its life? Hasn't the time come to show national responsibility, to put aside these political disputes, and to understand that there are more urgent matters than a criminal trial, even one without as many question marks around it as this one has?

The prosecution and the courts must stop shooting itself, and us, in the foot. They are weakening the Prime Minister and impairing his ability to function – and are also giving over a mistaken message to the Israeli public, as if the people in leadership are totally detached and oblivious to what is going on around them.

Israel is at a historic crossroads. Our future depends on our ability to unite, focus on the war effort, and act in a way that guarantees our security and existence. To continue to conduct Netanyahu’s trial, especially in light of the absurd refusal to agree to a short, two-week delay, constitutes yet another obstacle on the path to achieving that guarantee. The time has come for sensible reason and national responsibility to prevail over bureaucratic rigidity and ignoring of reality. The future of the state is more important than any legal proceeding – especially one that can wait.

From a Military Blow to Historic Opportunity: Israel, the U.S., and the Future of the Middle East

by Harley Lippman, AIPAC Executive Committee Member, Middle East Forum Executive Committee Member, translated by Hillel Fendel.

[written just before the announcement of a ceasefire in Iran]

The joint bombing of the Iranian nuclear project is much more than a military achievement. Beginning with the Israeli decision to launch the offensive, and up to the arrival of the heavy U.S. B-2 bombers, it exemplifies the strength of the alliance between Jerusalem and Washington.

However, beyond the military aspects of these attacks, we must know that the opportunity has now arisen for the shaping anew of the map of regional alliances. Ever since the Camp David Accords of 1979, and up until the Abraham Accords of 2020 under the first Trump presidency, the United States has filled a central role in normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world.

This is a rare, historic moment of clarity and opportunity. With correct coordination between Israel and the United States, the entire region can be reshaped, belligerence can be braked, alliances can be shored up, and the vision of "peace through strength" can become reality. Now is the time for courageous leadership that can turn a strategic alliance into ongoing peace. 

This is a partnership that has been built up over decades of cooperation, both secret and open. It has withstood difficult tests, during both Democratic and Republican administrations, including public differences of opinions as to the best way to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.

Last week, when the attacks against Iran were exclusively Israeli, the American presence behind the scenes was unmistakably strong.

Israel's opening strike - early Friday morning in Israel and Iran, June 13 - and the hundreds of sorties and operations since then, were part of an unprecedentedly complex operation, involving hundreds of stages and the coordination of intelligence gathering, surgical strikes, the use of advanced weapons, and much more. Even though Israel acted alone for the first nine days, many of the capabilities used were built thanks to the ongoing partnership with the United States. In addition, and more openly, the defense effort was integrated; tens of percent of the missile interceptions were carried out by American forces stationed in the region.

Very soon after Israel sent its first 200 combat jets to open Operation Rising Lion, U.S. President Donald Trump and his top brass lavishly praised the attack. Secretary of State Rubio emphasized, however, that the decision to attack was Israel's alone, and made clear that the U.S. is committed to regional security and, of course, the safety of its personnel in the Middle East.

This mutual cooperation – a joint strategic vision with freedom of tactical action for Israel – is the fruit of decades of political, security, and intelligence trust-building between the partners. For both of them it was clear: Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, nor to continue to operate its terrorism proxies in the Middle East.

Nine days after the onset of Israel's offensive, early Sunday morning, June 22, Trump sent his B-2 stealth bombers to Iran, with bunker-busters the likes of which no other army in the world possesses. This was the first time they were used in a combat mission, and they in fact inflicted a painful blow on the most protected underground nuclear sites of the Iranian terrorist regime. It is of course too early to tell precisely how painful was this blow and for how many years it will set back Iran's nuclear program.

Redrawing the Middle East

For the past two decades, pragmatic Arab countries cooperated with Israel far from prying public eyes, identifying Iran as a mutual enemy. This was, in fact, the basis on which were built the Abraham Accords. But many other Arab states, headed by Saudi Arabia, did not join the wave. Now, given the weakened state of the Iranian terror proxies Hizbullah, the Houthis, and the Iraqi militias, and when Hizbullah is actually even signaling some restraint, Israel's ability to operate freely within the heart of Tehran has not gone unnoticed by these countries. The rare documentation of Mossad agents on Tehran soil putting together some kind of offensive device caused a stir in Israel, but it made an even larger impression on decision-makers in other Middle Eastern countries.

In a Middle East where strength and power create a country's status and standing, Israel's Operation Rising Lion has strengthened its position as a trustworthy and serious security partner. If President Trump – who just a few weeks ago paid a very successful visit to the Gulf states – will know how to translate the military achievements of the past few days into real diplomatic progress via intelligence cooperation and mutual security initiatives, a new wave of normalization agreements is very much in sight – but this time, not based just on economic interests, but also on a meaningful security alliance as well.

Will the Government Fall This Week Because of the Threat to Draft Hareidim?

by Hillel Fendel, editor, author and translator.

With all the various crises of varying degrees of importance taking place in the world today –Russia/Ukraine, riots in LA, Israel's naval attack on Yemen, even Trump/Musk – there is one that is liable to have critically negative effects on the future of the State of Israel, militarily, sociologically, and religiously. I am referring to the threats by the hareidi parties to either quit the government coalition headed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, or to bring about the dissolution of the Knesset – and thus, either way, bring about new elections.

The issue for them is the ongoing steps being taken by the courts and the IDF towards a wholescale draft of every last yeshiva student. The hareidi parties therefore demand clear legislation that will regulate how many actually have to be drafted and what sanctions – the lighter, the better – will be emplaced upon those who refuse. If a formulation is not found by this week, they say, they will either quit the coalition, or vote no-confidence in the government. Both, as stated, will lead to the same tragic result.

Whether the government falls via the first route, which would be quicker and more abrupt, or by the second, which could take weeks if not months, the cataclysmic effects could be very similar: Total government paralysis, meaning an end to the war in Gaza with our arch-enemy Hamas still in power and the hostages still under its torturous control, and an ensuing election victory for the center-left. [The only major arena which might not be affected, ironically, might be the Iranian; as Minister Amichai Eliyahu said today, "An attack in Iran is closer than new elections."]

Even if in the short term the new government comes towards the hareidim in terms of the draft, it will most certainly have an anti-religious and anti-nationalist bent, seeking to render the State of Israel just another modern, non-traditional, secular country.

Given the determination of the hareidi parties to bring down the government unless their basic position is accepted – or unless they wake up to their responsibility towards the entire country beyond the undeniable importance of their Torah study – the keys appear to be in the hands of Knesset Defense Committee Chairman Yuli Edelstein of the Likud. He is essentially on the side of those who favor coercive measures to draft hareidim, and so far has insisted on severe sanctions for those who do not answer the call.

Another major issue of contention is whether a quota of Torah scholars will be required to enlist, or rather just a percentage of all the draft-age hareidim in general. The hareidi parties demand the latter, of course, and Edelstein has reportedly already agreed. However, at the same time, the Attorney-General's office has already intimated that it would consider such an agreement to be unlawful.

The longed-for compromise will be achieved only if both of the battling coalition partners – the Likud, currently represented by Edelstein, and the hareidim – realize the magnitude of what is at stake, and show both responsibility and flexibility. Assuming that Edelstein has done so with the above quota compromise, the hareidim would do well to find the way to agree among themselves – this is not guaranteed… – how those who are not studying Torah would be drafted.

As Besheva editor Emanuel Shilo has written, "The hareidim must show good will and readiness to share the security burden, at least in terms of the young men who are not really studying Torah with great zeal, of which there are thousands. The army would be smart to establish appropriate frameworks for their military service, which would even strengthen their hareidi identity." Others say that such frameworks already exist, such as the Netzach Yehuda units – which include two years of active service and then a year of professional or matriculation studies.

And where does the religious-Zionist public - whose sons have borne the brunt of the casualties, proportionately, in the current war - fit in? Voices have been heard on both sides, from those who wish to support Torah study in the State of Israel, to those who wish to see the hareidi public be drafted just as other Israelis. Again, to quote Shilo:

"The religious-Zionist must correctly formulate its priorities. There are those who are acting with political motivations and are interested in toppling the government above all. But those who truly wish to see justice done and have the military burden shared more equally must ask themselves if that goal is more important than actual military victory – which would basically be unachievable if the Knesset is dissolved and new elections are called. After having paid so many heavy prices during this war, we must realize that ending the war with Hamas still standing will be many times worse than having some more patience with the hareidi public as it figures out and becomes accustomed to its place in sharing in the war effort."

With the final deadline apparently arriving this Wednesday, Besheva and Kan 11 columnist Zev Kam writes that we essentially gained a week, due to the sleepiness of the opposition in the Knesset:

"If the opposition had been on the ball last week, it would have succeeded already then in passing a preliminary reading of the bill to dissolve the Knesset. Coalition chairman MK Ophir Katz (Likud) was walking around the Knesset last Tuesday with one fear: that the opposition would suddenly bring up for a vote one of its proposals of no-confidence in the government. For if so, it would have passed. This is because the hareidim had already agreed among themselves not to vote against it, and some of them would even have voted in favor. But the opposition had no clue that the hareidim had reached that point – and when it finally found out, it was too late."

[Keep in mind that no-confidence motions can only be proposed on Wednesdays, and they must have been tabled the previous Tuesday afternoon.]

We can only hope that by the time these words are read, an agreed-upon solution has been found, and Israel can continue to battle its many external enemies without bickering within.