Israel deals differently with three issues that permeate the void of the war in Gaza: "the abductees," "ceasefire," and "the day after."
Regarding the release of the hostages, Israel says "yes" to negotiations; As for a ceasefire, she says "no"; As for the day after, "not now, after the war." As for the abductees, the position is correct and justified. Policy on the other two issues must be changed, strategic and public.
A ceasefire in an ongoing war is desirable and is seen as a positive step towards an "armistice" and then peace agreements. In the face of destruction and casualties in Gaza, there are increasing calls for a ceasefire, especially in North America and Western Europe. The Israeli response to the calls is no, correctly claiming that a ceasefire will be a reward for the murderous Hamas and Jihad and allow them to reorganize their forces, survive and repeat their horrific acts of terror, as their spokesmen promise.
US President Joe Biden is demanding "humanitarian pauses" to bring food, water and medicine into southern Gaza and allow the release of the hostages. But an opinion poll conducted in the United States by Reuters found that 68% support a ceasefire. It is reasonable to assume that the American public is confused between a "ceasefire" and a "humanitarian ceasefire," and a significant rate does not understand that a ceasefire will stop the IDF and may keep Hamas in power. But what counts is what they think, not what they understand.
Israel's negative position needs to be changed and phrased in positive terms – "yes, but."
Israel should say that it will agree to a ceasefire if Hamas surrenders unconditionally, surrenders its means of war, its leaders leave, and all the hostages are returned. Hamas is likely to reject these conditions, but Israel will pass the ball to it and prove that it is the cause of the continuation of the war, the losses and destruction.
A similar approach should be adopted regarding the "day after." The US and Israel agree that Hamas will not rule Gaza. Since the beginning of the war, Biden and his people have wanted to know how Israel sees the person who will replace him after the war ends. Israel replies that this is not the time, because Hamas still has to be defeated. Biden favors returning the Palestinian Authority to control Gaza and a "two states for two peoples" solution. He wants Israel to defeat Hamas and Jihad, but also sees an opportunity to realize America's longstanding vision of a permanent solution. Netanyahu rejects the return of the PA.
Israel needs to present its own outline that will be in sync with the American position, because if it persists in a negative answer, or "not now," others will try to dictate their vision to it. Of all the alternatives offered to Gaza the day after, the return of the Palestinian Authority seems the lesser of two evils.
Israel should say that it will agree to a ceasefire if Hamas surrenders unconditionally, surrenders its means of war, its leaders leave, and all the hostages are returned. Hamas is likely to reject these conditions, but Israel will pass the ball to it and prove that it is the cause of the continuation of the war, the losses and destruction
Israel must cooperate with the United States and formulate a response in positive terms: Yes to the return of the PA, but on condition that it changes and meets certain conditions, such as security access to Israel at any time and anywhere in the Gaza Strip, the establishment of a security zone between Gaza and Israel, a ban on Hamas and Jihad activity, the dismantling of UNRWA, changes in school curricula and the media, the cessation of payment of salaries to the families of terrorists, Control of the movements of funds, and the like. The U.S. is likely to adopt some of these conditions. Biden said the PA needs to change. The PA is likely to reject them, but then it will be Biden's problem what to do in such a case.
With positive "yes, but" approaches to issues of a "ceasefire" and the day after, Israel may reduce criticism of it, slow down the political clock, stop the erosion of international legitimacy for war, and, instead of a confrontation with the United States, coordinate positions with it.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us