1.
Just as it was a charged meeting, it also signaled hope. On Sunday evening, the civil-economic cabinet met to discuss the question: Should tens of thousands of Arab workers from Judea and Samaria be allowed to return to their workplaces inside the Green Line?
On paper, there were serious reasons to say yes. Representatives of the IDF, Shin Bet and NSC explained that the salaries of Palestinian workers keep them and their families out of the cycle of violence, and therefore stabilize the Palestinian Authority, which assists security. They claimed that their income would also help the economy, and that the permit – "in the first stage," as they put it – was only for those aged 35 and over, and so on.
But then something happened: for the first time in decades, the vast majority of ministers, who did not even have any political alliance or other interest, simply objected. They made it clear to the representatives of the system that when they say security, they mean security, and therefore they are not prepared to endanger the population centers in Israel with sporadic attacks, period.
Economy Minister Nir Barkat said: "Anyone who did not fall for a token on October 7 cannot participate in such a discussion." Sa'ar mentioned the system's "enthusiastic support for bringing in workers from Gaza." Strzok questioned the IDF representative's claim that "the Arabs of Judea and Samaria are not like the Arabs of Gaza," adding that the role of the system at this time is to be prepared for a "reversal of reeds," that is, for a situation in which the Palestinian Authority joins the fighting against Israel. "We must not adhere to the old and erroneous conceptions," said Ofir Akunis. "On October 7, something happened to which the rule applies: what was is not what will be."
Barkat, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Housing Minister Yitzhak Goldknopf were ostensibly the first to justify the workers' income – after all, the real estate industry, and as a result the economy as a whole, are being severely harmed by the ongoing closure. Still, they led the resistance and said they would find other solutions to the labor shortage.
In his own words, the ministers have made it clear that they have ceased to be a rubber stamp of the defense establishment, important and appreciated as it may be. This was the optimistic part of the discussion, since for the first time the political echelon demanded that the security establishment change, update and provide a fundamental response to problems before a disaster, and not afterward. Here, by the way, it is worth mentioning that the NSC, which was established and born as a lesson from the concept of the Yom Kippur War, has ceased to fulfill this role, and at the present time at least echoes the system's perceptions instead of challenging them. This is also a point that will need to be addressed.
It is a pity, of course, that the lesson was taught at a terrible price in blood of 1,400 fallen, but hopefully the lesson will be internalized and that the expensive security establishment will cease to worry about quiet, or stability, or "all considerations," or the situation of the Palestinian Authority, or pressure from abroad. Instead, it will simply provide security.
2.
Modi has a very bitter historical experience, and the "people alone will dwell" are convinced that it is only a matter of time before Biden issues us a red card. In the middle of the week, when the American president was quoted as saying that Israel was "losing the support of the world because of indiscriminate bombings," adding that Netanyahu "has to make difficult decisions," it seemed that the moment of truth was coming.
However, a careful examination of the president's remarks, as published by the White House, revealed that they were completely taken out of context. In fact, Biden conveyed the opposite message to the one attributed to him. The blame, by the way, lies with one of the White House correspondents. Although Biden criticized the composition of the right-wing government, there was nothing new in his remarks. These are the same statements he has made since Netanyahu's victory a year ago. The war, in this respect, neither raised nor lowered.
IDF Spokesperson
As for international support, the American president conveyed the opposite message. He stressed: "This time it's not just the United States that supports Israel. It has the European Union, it has Europe, it has the majority of the world that supports it. But it's starting to lose support because of the indiscriminate bombing that's going on." That was the original sentence, and it sounded completely different.
Above and beyond all this, the central axis of all the Hanukkah events that Biden participated in was that American support for Israel and the cause of the war was unreserved. "This (the war) is an existential threat to Israel. Israel has a difficult decision to make. Bibi has a difficult decision. There is no question about the need to deal with Hamas. They have every right... But in the meantime, we don't intend to do anything but defend Israel in the process. Nothing else."
Another statement along these lines: "There is much more to do. First and foremost, to do everything in our power to hold Hamas responsible. They are animals. They are animals. They exceeded everything every other terrorist group has done for as long as I can remember... No one, no one on Earth can justify what Hamas did. They are a cruel, ugly, inhuman people, and they must be eliminated."
So in that respect, Biden is with us. And not just in words, but in a constant airlift of armaments, including some bureaucratic and other detours, so that the loaded planes will continue to land here.
As far as Hamas is concerned, the gap is not on the militaristic side, but on the humanitarian side. Here Biden is making it very difficult, both in demanding supplies, and especially in the pressure on fuel. These measures also help Hamas's military effort, and also show the public in Gaza that the organization is still the landlord of the products that enter, meaning that it has not yet collapsed. If there's a problem with Biden, it's confined to that contrast.
3.
The differences that do exist with the administration relate mainly to the "day after." Here Biden comes out openly against the line of the State of Israel and most Israelis. Because starting in the middle of the week, it's not just Netanyahu saying no to returning the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, but also opposition leader Yair Lapid. This week, Lapid wrote about this proposal, belatedly: "No one thinks it can happen in the near future." This is in contrast to his position at the beginning of the war, when he said: "The right step is to return the Palestinian Authority to Gaza."
, Photo: Jonathan Shaul
In a parenthetical note, it should be noted that the chairman of the state camp, Benny Gantz, has not yet had his say on the issue. Those close to him explain that at this stage he does not want to confront the Americans, even though it is clear to him that the PA, as it is today, is out of the question. Even before the war, by the way, Gantz did not talk about a Palestinian state.
However, once there is an Israeli consensus against what Biden is proposing, it will be much harder for him and his people to impose their line. On the other hand, Israel is currently concentrating on saying what is not, and has not really put a complete proposal on the table that outlines what is.
This vacuum has been filled by MK Danny Danon, former Israeli ambassador to the UN, who formulated a plan presented here for the first time, regarding what can and should be in Gaza at the end of the war.
According to Danon's plan, based on his conversations with other Likud experts and MKs, Gaza will be divided and administered through governorates and neighborhoods, without a central government. These zones will be governed by five main principles: full demilitarization of the Gaza Strip and giving the IDF freedom of action; a perimeter defense strip on the western side of the border, at least 3 km wide, in which movement will be strictly prohibited (the Americans, by the way, oppose this bite from the Gaza Strip); expanding and upgrading the Rafah crossing and handing it over to international administration with Israeli staff responsible for security checks; and conditioning the economic rehabilitation of each district and neighborhood, in accordance with its compliance with denazification requirements. The fifth component, which Danon published in a joint article with MK Ram Ben-Barak and which aroused global interest, is allowing Gazans who want to emigrate to other countries and send foreign currency to Gaza's shaky economy.
"Education is the most important thing," Danon says. "We need to learn what was done in Japan and Germany after World War II. The cleanup started with the education system, which was completely replaced. This is the biggest challenge. A neighborhood that makes the change will be rehabilitated and will receive tools to develop. Those who do not do so will not be rehabilitated. Any progress will be in accordance with the renunciation of incitement."
Danon's plan isn't perfect, and he knows it. For example, the main component, which is not clearly stated in the plan, is the civilian element that will control Gaza and manage the processes it proposes.
In his mind's eye, Danon sees an international force that will receive a mandate for a limited period and that moderate Arab states, such as Egypt, the UAE, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia, will lead it. "This force will have police officers equipped only with pistols. Anything beyond that will require Israel's security. The volume of 2 million people is not too large. Bigger things have been done in the world, and it has already happened that the international community has given mandates to international forces to administer certain territories for limited periods," he says.
But whoever manages the Gaza Strip will have to be fully coordinated with Israel, which will remain responsible for security. It is what is supposed to determine which neighborhoods are freed from their inherent hatred of Israel. This is a weak point in the program, as are the other ideas that are circulating in the air. Also, as long as the guns are blaring, it is clear that none of these countries will stand in line to receive the Gazans.
The proposal to encourage voluntary immigration met with criticism inside and outside Israel, but Danon stuck to it. He is convinced that it has economic advantages, particularly the entry of foreign money into the Gaza Strip. This week there have already been reports that Egypt will be prepared to temporarily absorb several hundred thousand Gazans. Egypt needs urgent economic aid, but there are already calls in Congress to halt support for it because of human rights abuses. It is possible that an agreement under which the United States will not suspend aid, or even increase it, in exchange for hosting Gazans in its territory for a limited time, will meet the interests of both sides.
The proposal to upgrade the Rafah border crossing will also not pass easily: "There must be a tight monitoring mechanism there, with Israel's participation, that will deal continuously with the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt and with what passes above ground. This is the way to ensure that Gaza will be demilitarized," Danon explains. Justice, of course, is with him, but here again Egyptian consent is required, and it is not guaranteed.
Despite the difficulties, as someone who has accumulated extensive international experience at the UN, Danon is convinced that it is better to initiate a move and correct it along the way, than to be on the defensive that will eventually break through. He plans to promote the plan soon, in Israel and the United States. It simply won't be, neither for him nor for anyone else, in Israel or around the world. Gaza is a barrel of explosives, military, civilian, mental and cultural, above and below ground. Neutralizing it would be completely difficult.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us