Peloni: So Gallant’s substitution for completing the war is to arm Fatah with small arms to ‘protect against Hamas elements under the supervision of an international framework”. As Hamas is not limited to light arms, it seems curious how Gallant might conclude that the Israeli light armed Fatah terrorists would survive any contest with the Iranian heavily armed Hamas terrorists. In any event, it will leave Gaza in the hands of some terrorist entity, ie Hamas or Fatah, each of whom have celebrated the slaughter of October 7. Even more disturbing than this, Gallant would cede all control of Gaza to an international framework of of moderate Arab states with the support of the US, rendering it an impossibility for Israel to respond following the next repeat of October 7. And let us make no mistake, there would be a repeat of that slaughter, only this time, the terrorists would be venturing forth from a US protected enclave carrying Israeli provisioned arms. This is a most foolish and dangerous proposal. Gallant must go home, the war against Hamas must be completed, and the Day After should be decided after the war has actually been won.
Additional details from the Defense Minister’s “The Day After” plan are revealed • Local Gazan officials will manage civil order in the Gaza Strip • Israel will agree that they will be armed with small arms to protect against Hamas elements under the supervision of an international framework
Amir Ettinger | Israel Hayom | May 16, 2024
After Defense Minister Yoav Galant’s speech against Netanyahu’s failure to make decisions, Israel Hayom received additional details about the “Day After” program in the Gaza Strip as proposed by Galant and the security establishment.
As he has already said publicly, Gallant believes that those who should manage the Gaza Strip from a civilian point of view are local Gazan elements. These are actually Palestinians from Gaza who are identified with Fatah.
Gallant defined this in one of the cabinet meetings: “Gazaites who may occasionally look to Ramallah”, evidence of the connection that those parties have with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. Gallant explained in the cabinet and also at the press conference that it was a choice between bad alternatives and worse alternatives and that the other alternatives to his proposal were government Hamas or a military government, which according to him have many more shortcomings.
As part of the details of his plan, Gallant proposes that the population in Gaza be concentrated in humanitarian bubbles and in each such bubble a civil apparatus of local Gazans will be established who will take the reins of its management. In response to the claim that Hamas will kill any other party that tries to control Gaza, Galant and the security establishment propose to arm them with light weapons, that is, guns, in order to maintain law and order and protect against Hamas.
The weapons that will be given to the Gazans will be under technological supervision by Israel to prevent a situation in which they will end up in the hands of Hamas, as well as under an international framework of moderate Arab states with the support of the US, which will flow money and also supervise the civil administration in the Strip.
The security establishment held talks with people at the military and political level in the countries relevant to that envelope and heard that the condition for this is first the transfer of civilian control to local Gazan elements. The selection of the Gazan elements relevant to the management of the civilian side in the Strip will be done with the help of the Palestinian Authority’s intelligence, which knows how to provide people who are not identified with Hamas for the benefit of the matter.
Will they be able to face Hamas?
Opponents of Galant’s plan, led by ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, believe that allowing local Gazan elements to control the Strip is actually transferring the Strip to a population that identifies with the Palestinian Authority and creating infrastructure for a Palestinian state.
In response to this, Gallant says in the talks that he is opposed to a Palestinian state and that he will not agree that a commitment to its advancement will be a condition for giving local Gazan elements the administration of the Strip. The big question is whether those local Gazans as well as the PA can face Hamas, since it took over the Strip in 2007 when Fatah ruled there, and if the management of elements affiliated with the PA will really be different from that of Hamas, since the PA P supports terrorism and finances terrorism.
In the meantime, there is no discussion at all about Galant’s plan or any other governmental alternative to Hamas. Netanyahu continues on the line that there will be neither Fatahstan nor Hamastan, and de facto chooses not to decide, and thus Hamas rule returns and is restored in places where the IDF is not present.
“going off the rails”
Following the publication in Israel Hayom, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gabir attacked the Defense Minister. “Minister Gallant, for the umpteenth time, is going off the rails, trying to look good in the eyes of the Americans and working to establish a terrorist state in Gaza without authority or public and moral legitimacy.”
This continues the conflict between the two, which has been going on throughout the government’s tenure, but reached new heights this week. “We are experienced, we saw how it ended the last time we distributed weapons. We must not repeat this mistake again,” said Ben Gvir.
Netanyahu has missed his opportunity. He has failed to immediately fire Gallant.
He will suffer politically for it. And should. BUT…we need him in the PM’s chair, so we may have a paradox.
IL generals are not competent to be at the helm.
Don’t have the required mind set!
@Bear
A much better list than that put forward by Gantz which I still hold as being unreasonable and irresponsible but which bears the US stamp of approval, which is why he supports it.
So while I would support your list, I would still argue that it should be held quiet til it was relevant, on the Day After, and not before.
I am in favor of:
Defeating Hamas & Hezbollah
Getting back the Hostages
Resettling the Gaza perimeter villages and kibbutzim
Moving Home the Israeli refugees from the Lebanon border
Demilitarized Gaza Strip with Israeli security control,
Israeli civil administration of Gaza (this can employ Arabs to carry out functions).
Starting a program to allow for Voluntary Emigration of Gazans
Referendum on resettlement of Gaza by Israelis.
@Bear
This had been my previous opinion of Spyer, but I would argue that his article on this topic does nothing to support that view.
He states that unless Bibi decides on the Day After policy today, Hamas will be ever present, as is clear even in what you cited. This is utter malarky.
Along with a healthy dose of anti-Bibism which belies a true prejudice in his analysis. His purpose in supporting the American proposed policy of deciding before the Day After what will take place on the Day After are his own to know, but Spyer’s analysis fails to impress as it ignores the reality that 1. Hamas will be destroyed by the continuation of the war, but to do so, the war must continue and not remain on hiatus as has been the situation of the past 3 months during which time the incompetence of Halevi led to Hamas returning to these areas after the he pulled the IDF troops out of central and norther Gaza; 2. Israel must resist placing its security concerns in Gaza the control of the international community, either in part or whole, as this will hold devastating consequences for the Israeli people.
Please see Mike Doran’s comments and Caroline Glick’s (brief) comment for further consideration of your views.
@Peloni I think Spyer is very astute and knowledgeable. I think his analysis was on point! You are reading things into what he wrote that are not there. He does not say nor imply that Hamas can not be defeated. He analyzed what Bibi’s plan is based on current and past actions.
“Unless a clear decision is made in another direction, this looks to be the emergent reality for Gaza. If Netanyahu stated that he seeks the entry of the PA into Gaza, his coalition would be likely to collapse. If he expressed his support for military reoccupation of the Strip, the response of the US Administration would be immediate and harsh. Expressing support for neither enables the Israeli prime minister to get back to being the tactician and conflict manager that he likes to be and that he has always been (at least outside of his books and his speeches). He can’t openly commit to this policy either, however, because it constitutes much less than an Israeli ‘total victory’ over the Gaza Islamists. In fact, what this direction involves is something like the status quo ante bellum, with a much weakened but not destroyed Hamas. It is a return to what Israelis used to call ‘mowing the grass”
@Bear
The entire tone in the Spyer article is far from balanced as the author takes liberties on more than one occasion to attack Bibi’s character out of context of the topic he is addressing. Indeed, as Spyer discusses the straw men he sees in the Bibi and anti-Bibi proposals (yes, it appears some such as Spyer are being drawn back into this broken politicization strategy which only undermines Israel’s security and sovereignty), Spyer concludes with a straw man conclusion, namely that Hamas can not be militarily destroyed, that it is some form of invincible boogey man whose persistence and control of Gaza can only be ended by detailing the power structure which might replace it. Belief in such insanity is surely the road to perdition, a road which is being constructed by American elites and their Israeli allies. Indeed, how is naming what will come after Hamas provide any antidote to Hamas’ presumed invincibility? It won’t. The only treatment for Hamas is by military means, and if the IDF can not produce such an outcome, as seems to be Spyer’s conclusion, no Pal entity will be capable of doing any better.
In fact, the war must be pursued to its final conclusion and the destruction of Hamas, and until Hamas is irradicated, no other entity can or will be named to replace them. Before the decimated elements of Hamas can be irradicated, however, the remaining battalions in Rafah have to be annihilated. Then the remaining elements can be irradicated. Following this, on the Day After, what remains of the Pal tribal society might be assessed and supported without the need or use of either Fatah or Hamas.
See full article
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bibis-plan-for-a-post-war-gaza/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2f4l2fDOX4O8fqb4XlrDYlq7jwJIExRg2jOd7bvFHzGsCTwd9npWIhYDs_aem_AY0yDJzNCavsZ-dCwCijbxIqpDM4aZcbr7YKO78g06jsaufAkLDNLRfSHhKHtAnG_gvFQ6EDvsYS1uSChFuw3_cV
Mowing the grass is not good enough and neither is putting the PA in charge of Gaza! Will Israeli leadership be found that accomplishes the Israeli people will accept and make them safe? Will leadership be found that reestablishes the homes of those living in the Gaza area and also those that had left their homes on the Lebanon border. Clearly this absolutely needed.
One point Gallant point has made since the start of the war is that Hezbollah is more dangerous to Israel than Hamas (and now what remains of it). This point I have always concurred with. Perhaps very soon Israel needs to undertake a massive destruction of Hezbollah so the Northern Residents can return home and all of Israel will be safer.
@Bear
Regarding Gantz, whose American Deep State spots have always been obvious to me, I disagree with your assessment that his list is reasonable.
Hamas must surrender or be destroyed. There can be no third option for them. Demobilization which can not be classified as either their surrender or their destruction must be outrightly rejected.
No governing alternative in the Strip can be discussed so long as Hamas is not destroyed and the presence of their remnant ranks removed from the Strip. Any attempt to prematurely employ such an alternate govt would see them become the target of either the disbanded or destructed Hamas ranks which have not been irradicated.
Notably, it has taken seven months just to get to Rafah, and Hezbollalh will be a much more difficult opponent than was Hamas. Hence the only way the current conflict might be reasonably expected to be resolved is to permit Hezbollah to continue in its current situation, something which should also be outrightly rejected.
Relevantly, adopting the September due date to end the war in the north places undue pressure on Israel to limit their actions in the North, and to accept the fact that all Hezbollah needs to do is outlast the September deadline, which is only 4months away. This is not feasible and should not be acceptable.
Perhaps these are the details to which you referenced, but his list is not pursuable, even as described thus far as I have shown. The war aims have already been agreed upon, and replacing them with constrictions of time limits and limits of completion of the war will only see Israel defeated in achieving its war aims, and this can not be tollerated.
@Bear
This is specifically missing from the plan which Gallant proposed which is simply a complete surrender to the American demands.
I agree entirely with your own views outside of Bibi stepping down. Currently, the only thing preventing the Americans from explicitly dictating Israeli actions is Bibi’s leadership. Elections will come in time, but I would argue that six months is not an appropriate period of time as the war in Gaza is still ongoing and who knows how long it might continue. Notably, Rafah should have targeted first but even as it was held til last, the delay on beginning this phase of the war was interminable. Also, there is literally no way to know what will come next as Hezbollah must still be dealt a crushing blow, and Gaza is not yet completed. Hence, leaving Gantz, Gallant and others to mind the store as Bibi steps down in six months will, I would argue, a grave mistake, and not one to which Bibi and his govt is likely to consent to agreeing.
Gantz whether one likes him or not ( I DO NOT AT ALL TRUST HIM) has set a very clever and reasonable goal for the government. It will resonate with large amount of Israelis. The Devil is in the details and the outline like cost outlines is short of details:
Bibi is very weakened and since the outline sound like reasonable objectives he should agree in public .The battle will be over the details. He has now been preempted by Gantz with reasonable goals and very shrewd political moves. He can almost not lose whether this happens or not.
It is said Bibi is a very sly political fox. I am not sure how digs out of this political corner.
@Peloni, I believe (may be wrong) that Gallant wants to keep a buffer zone, have the ability to make raids into Gaza and keep some security options open.
In any case I believe Israel needs to keep military control of Gaza and allow and facilitate Gazan’s voluntary exodus as difficult as this might be.
Gallant needs to be persuaded to resign or be fired.
Bibi and the Likud need to realign.
Saar needs to be brought into war time coalition for now.
Likud needs new leadership and needs to call for an internal primary six months from now and elections should be held within one year.
@Edgar
@Sebastien
Good points. I particularly appreciate Edgar’s description of Gallant as “the undiscovered genius.”
@Bear
I would suggest that what Gallant is doing is even more extreme than Oslo. Indeed, Oslo left Israel in control of the security situation in the lands governed by the PA, whereas Gallant wants that Israel should forego all security control over Gaza in preference of the hostile elements of the International community, which should be understood to be a code word for anti-Israel and which is characterized by their support for antisemitic trends. By doing so, Israel would cede these lands which have been conquered at the price of Jewish blood to the antisemitic clutches of our enemies.
He would also preserve Hamas from its final and necessary destruction which would signal abject Israeli weakness and surrender to the Sunni Arabs whose only interest in peace with Israel would be based on its strength. This provides a further aspect of the seriously concerning distinctions from Oslo.
Perhaps these distinctions are what fueled your comment describing the comparison to Oslo as stupid, but I rather think you were making much the opposite point. If so, I would seriously disagree with you.
Gallant trying to create Oslo II? Stupid!
Galant the undiscovered genius.
I hope everyone took note of what he said, as this I assume is the same item printed in A7
To give the Gaza folks guns so that they can prevent Hamas from taking them etc.
This “genius” who is presently involved (even to a very small extent) in totally destroying Hamas it being the sworn goal of the govt and the IDF.
This genius Galant. He comes straight out of Gogol’s ” Dead Souls”combined with Charlie Chaplin’s rendition .
And in any case, the moderate Arab states have emphatically refused while the armed wing of Fatah has crowed triumphantly that they took part in the Oct. 7 massacre.