A judge I once knew firmly asserted that to achieve a compromise, pressure must be placed on the weaker party. Now, after a grueling conflict spanning over a year and three months, a compromise, perhaps a temporary one, has been reached between Israel and Hamas, as both sides found themselves weakened with little alternative.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, who once championed the notion that Hamas’s governance over the Gaza Strip served Israeli interests, bears significant responsibility for the calamity of October 7. He also holds considerable accountability for the subsequent war’s failure in Gaza. He endorsed a military strategy that served his personal interests, as well as those of Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, intending for the conflict to drag on. This approach involved a series of raids targeting various sites within the Gaza Strip, dismantling Hamas’s forces and terrorist infrastructure while deliberately avoiding full occupation of the area.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) deliberately chose not to engage with the local population or deliver humanitarian aid, which often ended up in Hamas’s possession. While the IDF achieved substantial success during the fighting, it became evident that the strategy was flawed, perpetuating Hamas’s governance. The group repeatedly reclaimed areas vacated by the IDF, with reoccupation efforts proving costly.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Only recently, over a year into hostilities, has there been a shift in strategy. The IDF has started to exert control over the northern Gaza Strip, but these actions may be too little too late. The current agreement is Netanyahu’s first with Hamas that not only includes the exchange of terrorists for hostages but also entails a political commitment, specifically the IDF’s pledge to withdraw from territories under its command.
This agreement materialized only after the primary objective of the war went unfulfilled. Although Hamas suffered significant setbacks, it remains an operational entity ruling over Gaza, without whose consent no agreement can proceed. Despite these circumstances, there was no alternative. This was the sole method to secure the release of hostages. Furthermore, Israel necessitates a respite, a chance to regroup and recuperate from this devastating conflict.
Moreover, the drawn-out nature of the war has led to a severe deterioration in Israel’s political standing, historically unrivaled in its decline. Donald Trump demanded the signing of this agreement, and with Israel’s reliance on the US reaching a critical level, the country found itself incapable of refusal. When the Americans advised David Ben-Gurion against proclaiming statehood, he had the luxury to dissent. Presently, Netanyahu finds himself lacking such freedom with Trump.
The pressing question remains: what lies ahead? One of the impending challenges is the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Hamas will struggle to maintain control over a region thoroughly demolished and reliant on ongoing humanitarian assistance. The reconstruction will require hundreds of billions, attracting interested parties eyeing these resources.
Israel should seek to leverage US influence to condition the Gaza Strip’s reconstruction on the ousting of Hamas rule. The prospect of peace with Saudi Arabia looms large but hinges on an agreement with the Palestinians. It is imperative to ensure this agreement fortifies our security, yet it is equally crucial. Opposition from the right is anticipated. Nonetheless, one can only hope it does not thwart the formulation of a viable settlement, just as it failed to obstruct the current arrangement with Hamas. —Prof. Daniel Friedmann, former Israeli justice minister (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)