The day after.

 

In a report she wrote for The Media Line journalist Debbie Mohnblatt chose to quote Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, director of the Project on Regional Middle East Developments at the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, former director-general of the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry, and head of the Research Division of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate.

In addition, Ms. Mohnblatt drew on comments made by Professor Efraim Inbar, who serves as president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.

I have added a few brief comments of my own in italics

Yossi Kuperwasser argues that, strategically, Rafah is the most crucial part of the Gaza Strip for the IDF to control as it serves as Hamas's gateway to the world. "As long as they control it, they can bring in weapons and goods," he said.  

Likewise, Efraim Inbar posits that the IDF operation that took over the Rafah crossing seriously undermines Hamas's control over Gaza as the crossing is constantly used to enhance the organisation’s military capabilities. 

Inbar added that while this significantly limits Hamas's smuggling capabilities, there are tunnels that remain along the Philadelphi corridor, which lies along Gaza's border with Egypt; these tunnels must be destroyed to completely prevent Hamas from smuggling weapons and goods. 

In addition to Rafah being Hamas's last stronghold and gateway to the world, Kuperwasser believes that the operation in Rafah is crucial for Israel's deterrence capabilities. Inbar and Kuperwasser stressed that time is crucial for a successful conclusion to the war in Gaza.

Kuperwasser agrees and warns that Israel needs to make sure that despite the lack of American support for the incursion, the IDF has to conduct it in a way that considers Washington's concerns. 

“In addition, Kuperwasser,” said “Israel must make sure it will not cause direct tension between Israel and Egypt. "We have to make sure that nobody goes into Egypt. The Egyptians are on the border to make sure it doesn't happen, but we will also have to take this into account during the operation." 

“Militarily speaking, Hamas's tunnel infrastructure along the Philadelphi corridor is certainly a challenge.” Yossi Kuperwasser concluded.

in an opinion piece he wrote for Ynet news, the IDF’s Intrepid supporter, Colonel Richard Kemp said, “Biden's cynical Rafah obsession only strengthens Hamas. Biden hopes preventing Israeli military actions in Rafah would win back the anti-Israel elements of his support base, but he only makes Hamas stronger by doing so.

 Biden’s cynical obsession with preventing Israel from finishing off Hamas in a major offensive in Rafah will have the opposite effect from the one he intends.”

Other highly respected military observers have expressed serious doubts if Hamas can be ‘finished off.’

Kemp continued, “His analysis of U.S. electoral projections has convinced him that he must be seen to stand against Israel as the voting intentions of some of his supporters, especially young people, will be damaging to his prospects for a second term unless there is a course correction.

Thus, we have seen direct public attacks on Netanyahu and his cabinet by Biden and his supporters such as Chuck Schumer, outrageously calling for replacement of the democratically-elected government of an allied country.

While appreciating Richard Kemp’s supportive comments, they come at a time when U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is concerned that Israel’s failure to lay down a template for the governance of Gaza meant that its victories might not be “sustainable” and would be followed by “chaos, by anarchy and ultimately by Hamas again.” 

Veteran British journalist Peter Beaumont reporting for The Guardian said

“A long-festering split at the heart of Israel’s war cabinet has burst into the open with the defence minister, Yoav Gallant, challenging the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to come up with plans for the ‘day after’ the war in Gaza, and saying he would not permit any solution where Israeli military or civil governance were in the territory.

Gallant’s comments, immediately plunged Israel’s leadership into a highly public row, in the midst of the Gaza conflict, raising speculation over his future in the Israeli government and of Netanyahu’s fractious coalition.

In uncompromising remarks, Gallant – whose firing last year by Netanyahu triggered mass protests, a political crisis and an eventual reversal by the PM – publicly demanded that Netanyahu describe plans for a ‘day-after plan’ for Gaza.

Gallant’s comments provoked an immediate political row, with Netanyahu pushing back rapidly with a videotaped statement and a call from the far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, for Gallant to be replaced.

Gallant was backed, however, by his fellow war cabinet minister Benny Gantz, a former IDF chief of staff, who said Gallant had spoken the ‘truth’.

At a press conference on Wednesday evening in Tel Aviv, Gallant said he had asked for an alternative governing body to Hamas to be found, and did not receive a response.

In his remarks, Gallant criticised the lack of any political planning for the ‘day after’.

Gallant’s comments come after months of tension between the two men and recent reports in the Hebrew media that senior IDF officers had become concerned that the lack of an alternative to Hamas was forcing the IDF to return and fight in areas where they claimed Hamas had already been defeated, including northern Gaza, which has seen heavy fighting this week.

“As early as October 7, the military establishment said that it was necessary to work towards finding an alternative to Hamas,” Gallant said, adding, “the end of the military campaign is a political decision. The day after Hamas will only be achieved by actors who replace Hamas. This is first and foremost an Israeli interest.”

Gallant said that military planning “was not raised for a discussion, and worse, no alternative was brought in its place. A military-civilian regime in Gaza is a bad and dangerous alternative for the state of Israel.

“I will not agree to the establishment of a military government in Gaza,” he said, adding a “civilian-military regime in Gaza will become the main effort in there and come at the expense of other arenas. We will pay for it in blood and victims – and it will come at a heavy economic cost.”

The comments by Gallant appeared to be the culmination of growing frustration with Netanyahu among Israel’s military leadership.

In his column in The Washington Post David Ignatius wrote, “`This open, public campaign for a new approach to postwar Gaza that includes Palestinian security forces could split the Likud party, of which Gallant and Netanyahu are both members, and increase what has been growing talk in Israel and the United States that Gallant could be a future prime minister.”

In my humble opinion it’s far too early to predict who will be our next prime minister. Furthermore, there are other claimants for the post.

 

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,

 

16th of May, 2024

 

Rafah on my mind.

 

On Monday last week Reuters reported that plans to attack Rafah would be shelved in favour of a "sustained period of calm" if a ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israeli was reached. Days earlier, Israel's Foreign Minister Israel Katz told Israeli TV Channel 12 that "if there will be a deal, we will suspend the [Rafah] operation.”  However, on Tuesday the prime minister insisted that the war would continue until Israel had achieved all of its objectives in Rafah. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, Netanyahu said he would invade Rafah "with or without" a deal, further confirming that he is prioritising his political survival.                                       Now, regarding the ongoing hostage talks, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller pushed back on the claim made by Hamas on Monday that it had accepted the truce proposal that was on the table.                                                                             Israel had agreed to what US Secretary of State Antony Blinken described as a “generous” hostage deal proposal late last month,” Miller began. “That’s the offer that was on the table.”                                                                                                         “Hamas seemed to make clear in their public statements that they accepted that offer yesterday. That is not what they did. They responded with… a counter-proposal, and we’re working through the details of that now,” he said, noting that CIA chief Bill Burns is in Cairo along with delegations from Israel, Hamas and Qatar.

Tamir Hayman, Executive Director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University, clarified some of the misconceptions regarding the IDF incursion in Rafah this week.  I’m mentioning his analysis because Maj. Gen. (res.) Tamir Hayman is eminently qualified to proffer his opinion. However, in order to include other opinions, I’ll restrict my comments to Hayman’s opening remarks: -

“I would like to put in order what seems to be contradictory: an unnecessary delay and frankly, for the first time in a month, an Israeli initiative that might lead us to the end of the war.

Hamas has apparently agreed to the offer. However, this is a fundamentally different proposal than the one Israel agreed to. There are two main points of contention: The end of the war and the identity of the prisoners who are serving life sentences and will be released as part of the deal. On the first issue, Israel finds the mediators’ proposal acceptable because the phrase ‘End of the war’ is not mentioned. The phrase in the proposal ‘cessation of activity’ is vague, and it allows flexibility for renewing the war in the future, should Israel choose to do so. The catch is in the second issue, which is completely unacceptable.  Namely, Israel will waive the right to oppose the decision about the Palestinian prisoners to be released.”

On a number of occasions, I have mentioned Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare. Kemp claims that the IDF in Gaza ‘did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

 Israel must push on with its plans and not buckle to international pressure, no matter how great.

In an op-ed he wrote for the UK news website The Telegraph Kemp said -                       ” Hamas’s agreement on Monday to a ceasefire deal that was never on the table was yet another ruse to buy time and build international pressure to halt a major IDF operation in Rafah. It was a sign of the terrorists’ desperation to prevent the destruction of their final stronghold. An IDF move into Rafah has been delayed far too long. It is the result of months of fruitless negotiations over the release of hostages that never showed any sign of materialising. Yet Israel had little option than to play along while even the smallest glimmer of hope existed. 

The delay was also brought about by unbearable pressure from the US and other Israeli allies, with Biden repeatedly forbidding an attack on Rafah without what he called a ‘credible and executable plan’ to protect or evacuate the civilian population there. Similar demands were recently parroted by Lord Cameron during a visit to Jerusalem. No plan the IDF drew up ever met Biden’s stipulations, but then no plan could have done so if his real intention was to block the final destruction of Hamas amid growing concerns about adverse effects on his own electoral prospects. Of course, one credible plan would have been to allow civilians to take temporary refuge through the Egyptian border into Sinai. Biden could have brought that about by pushing Cairo to agree but neither he nor any other international leader ever even raised a finger to do so. That unforgivable failure, which played right into Hamas’s hands, has contributed to many of the civilian deaths during this war and will likely lead to many more. 

The IDF has been making preliminary moves against Rafah on the ground and from the air. Quite rightly, Jerusalem has not signalled its immediate intentions. Those may be to shape the battlefield for future large-scale operations, including spurring the civilian population to evacuate Rafah to designated humanitarian zones and adding pressure on Hamas to free the hostages. Nor is it impossible that an apparently inevitable push into Rafah might impel elements of the Hamas leadership to make good their escape from Gaza while they still can. After all, they have witnessed the collapse of every one of their formed fighting units as the IDF advanced through the rest of Gaza.

 Whether this turns out to be a limited operation or something more sustained, Israel is going to have to deal with Hamas by an offensive in Rafah if it is to achieve its goal of dismantling the terrorist threat to its citizens. One thing we can be sure of is that the US and other Western countries will continue to browbeat Israel not to do so and instead to end the war. 

These countries will be pushed further into acting against Israel by two separate phenomena. First, Iran will try to protect its proxies in Gaza by again stepping up aggression from its militant networks in the region. That in turn will raise renewed trepidation in our capitals about escalation and wider conflict. Second, expect demonstrations on university campuses and in the streets to intensify even further. The impact of Gaza-related agitation on some recent local elections in Britain will be fresh in the minds of our politicians. Rishi Sunak says he’s ‘deeply concerned’ about the prospects of a military incursion into Rafah and according to Keir Starmer it ‘must not go ahead’. 

Biden’s trepidation over widespread protests in an election year is only too clear. As the IDF moved against Rafah yesterday, the Biden administration continued its public opposition to Israel’s very objectives in Gaza, with White House spokesman John Kirby saying: “You’re not going to eliminate an ideology through military operations”. This tired mantra is a false argument against pretty much any military solution to any aggressor. Why did the US fight against Isis, which represents the same ideology as Hamas? Why is Ukraine bothering to resist the military manifestation of Putin’s ideology? 

It shouldn’t need saying that it is absolutely vital for Israel to eliminate Hamas’s capability to continue translating its twisted ideology into physical violence. That means their physical destruction in Rafah. Israel must push on with its plans and not buckle to international pressure, no matter how great. Failure to do so would amount to nothing less than strategic defeat.”

Concurrently, a number of international news sites reported that the IDF has begun evacuating civilians from eastern Rafah to a new expanded humanitarian zone which includes al-Mawasi and parts of Khan Yunis and central Gaza. The IDF confirmed on Monday morning that the evacuation comes ahead of planned IDF operations in the Rafah area.

The new humanitarian zone includes field hospitals, tents, and increased provisions of food, water, medicine, and other supplies.

Additionally, the IDF is working in cooperation with organisations and several countries to allow an increase of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.

To that effect, the IDF is calling on the population currently under Hamas control to evacuate temporarily from the eastern neighbourhoods of Rafah to the new zone. The evacuation will be conducted in a phased manner in accordance with continuing situation assessments.

The call to evacuate is being made through leaflets, text messages, phone calls, and statements in Arabic.

Shortly after the IDF announcement, Palestinian media reported that the IDF began dropping leaflets over Rafah informing civilians about the evacuation. The leaflets warned that Gaza City is still off limits and considered a "dangerous combat zone" and that it is "forbidden to approach the eastern and southern security fence."

Witnesses on the ground told Reuters on Monday morning that some families had begun evacuating the area under the evacuation order.

The General Authority for Crossings and Borders in Gaza said that the Rafah crossing was still operating as usual, after some reports by Arabic media stated that the crossing was closed.

The evacuation was for a limited area as of Monday, including an area where about 100,000 people are believed to be staying at the moment, according to Israeli news media.

The cabinet decided on the evacuation on Sunday night, with Defence Minister Yoav Gallant informing US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin about the decision overnight.

During the discussion, Gallant also informed Austin about the rocket barrage fired at Kerem Shalom. The defence minister detailed the efforts the government made toward trying to reach a ceasefire and hostage release deal, insisting that, at this stage, Hamas was refusing all proposals.

Gallant stressed during the conversation that "there was no choice left, and this meant the start of the Israeli operation in Rafah." Gallant thanked Austin for the close cooperation between Israel and the US.

A readout of the call published by the US Defence Department overnight said that the two discussed the ongoing hostage negotiations, humanitarian aid efforts, and Rafah. Austin expressed his condolences for the IDF soldiers killed in the rocket attack on Kerem Shalom and reaffirmed his commitment to the unconditional return of all the hostages.

Austin stressed that any potential military operation in Rafah needed to include a "credible plan to evacuate Palestinian civilians and maintain the flow of humanitarian aid."

According to the Israel public broadcasting corporation (KAN), Israel told Egypt about the evacuation as well and stressed that this is only to prepare for a limited operation in the Rafah area.

According to a report in The Economist “When Hamas announced, on the evening of May 6th, that it had agreed to a ceasefire with Israel, the mood in Rafah turned jubilant. Thousands of people cheered and danced in the streets of Gaza’s southernmost city, hopeful that there might soon be an end to the seven-month war that has devastated the Palestinian enclave. The celebrations were premature. Israeli officials said there were problems with the proposed agreement—that it was different from the earlier text that they had agreed to last month (foreign diplomats insisted the changes were minor). The next morning a column of Israeli tanks rumbled along the Philadelphi corridor, a strip of land along Egypt’s border with Gaza, and seized the Rafah crossing, the main entry point for humanitarian aid throughout much of the war.

There’s a good measure of naiveté in the claims made by the foreign diplomats cited above.

Deutsche Welle (DW) reported that in April, the IDF said it had purchased 40,000 tents to prepare for evacuation ahead of its planned ground offensive. 

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, “The IDF plans to ‘proceed in phases’ evacuating neighbourhoods in advance before moving onto new areas. 

Israel believes Rafah is the last stronghold of Hamas,

Israel has claimed that up to four of the 24 Hamas brigades are still hiding in or under Rafah. Hamas has been weakened by seven months of fighting with Israel but hasn't been defeated militarily.”

An IDF spokesperson said the supply of humanitarian aid to the local population would continue during the evacuation operation. The plan is to bring the aid supplies to the Gaza Strip via the Israeli port of Ashdod, which is some 30 kilometres to the north.

Meanwhile, the US continues to press for a peaceful solution. According to media reports, CIA Director William Burns is still hoping for a deal.

Nevertheless, in what appears to be a change of heart, the Biden administration appeared to signal its initial approval of the Rafah incursion launched by Israel early Tuesday morning to take over the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt.

Spokespeople for the administration said the goals of the operation were legitimate, but warned that this assessment could change if the offensive expands in scope and leads to an extended hampering of aid shipments into Gaza.

“What we’ve been told by our Israeli counterparts is that this operation last night was limited, and designed to prevent Hamas’s ability to smuggle weapons and funds into Gaza,” White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told reporters in a briefing.

“This does appear to be a limited operation so far, but it does to a great extent depend on what comes next,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said in a separate briefing.

Judging by what I have read and heard, the Rafah incursion is proceeding according to plan and will end well.

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,

9th of May, 2024.

 

 

Rafah

 

 

Understandably, ‘Black Saturday’ is usually associated with the brutal assault carried out by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups on Israeli communities in the Gaza periphery on October 7, 2023.

However, it also brings to mind an earlier ‘Black Saturday.’

At dawn on Saturday, June 29, 1946, a curfew was imposed throughout British Mandatory Palestine. Seventeen thousand British troops were dispatched to institutions and settlements to seize arms and documents and to arrest the leaders of the Yishuv and of the Haganah.

During that Black Saturday, more than 2,700 Jews were arrested throughout the country and taken to the Rafiah (Rafah) detention camp.

One of them was my father-in-law, Gad Tavel. During the two months he was interned at Rafah he communicated with his wife and daughters at Ein Harod by post. We still have a sketch he made of the detention camp.

 Israel’s hostage dilemma is one of the most challenging the country has ever faced. Among the calls to free them “at any price” is the claim that freeing hostages is the highest Jewish value. A closer look at this topic in post-Biblical commentaries shows a far more nuanced approach.

Notable among the people advocating different opinions are a number of highly esteemed medieval Jewish law (Halacha) commentators. Perhaps the greatest of all was Maimonides who argued that ransoming Jewish lives takes precedence over providing alms for the poor in one’s community. A few centuries later, the authoritative book of commandments, the Shulkhan Arukh, penned by Rabbi Yosef Karo, stated unequivocally: “Every moment that one delays in ransoming Jewish captives… is tantamount to spilling blood.”

The opinions of both renowned sages are equally relevant today.

 At this juncture it’s important to add that the texts I have quoted are open-source, and publicly accessible. 

In one of my posts written in 2009 I mentioned a meeting between Minister of Defence at that time, Ehud Barak and a group of Israeli high school students. In an obvious reference to Gilad Shalit a senior student due to be called up for military service asked, “If I fall into enemy hands can the state guarantee my safety?”

Barak's answer was blunt and to the point. “The state can't even guarantee you will stay alive." He said facing the student but directing his remarks to attentive ears in Gaza. "The state of Israel is willing to do anything to free kidnapped soldiers – but not at any price."

Later the same day a Hamas spokesman intimated that Barak’s ‘message’ had been received.

For the purpose of clarification, I’m adding a margin note: - Gilad Shalit as we well remember, was held captive by Hamas for five years and four months. He was released after a lopsided deal was reached between Israel and Hamas to free him in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian and Israeli Arab prisoners.

Yahya Sinwar, currently the Hamas leader in Gaza was among the Palestinian prisoners included in the deal. At that time, he had served 22 years in prison for orchestrating the abduction and killing of two Israeli soldiers and four Palestinians he believed were collaborating with Israel.

Fast forward to the present day.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said early on Tuesday, after returning from talks in the Middle East, that negotiations had reached the point where it was up to Hamas to take the next step. Her visit included participation in the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting held in Riyadh.

"It now lies solely in Hamas' hands, to see that the hostages are finally freed," Baerbock said.

Although the precise details of the latest deal have not been made public, the proposal is understood to involve a pause in Israeli military operations in exchange for some of the remaining hostages.

Hamas has said it requires time to consider the offer. AFP quoted an unnamed Hamas source on Tuesday as saying the group wanted to reach a decision "as quickly as possible." Baerbock responded sceptically. "We've experienced this repeatedly in recent months," she said. "The Hamas terrorist organisation is still pursuing the same objective of continually attacking Israel and prolonging this awful war." 

Egypt's state-run Al Qahera TV reported late on Monday that Hamas would return again with a written response to the latest Israeli proposal passed to them by mediators from Qatar and Egypt. Israeli news media reported that Israel will not be sending a delegation to Cairo for ceasefire talks until it has a reply from Hamas on the latest proposal.

However, at a meeting of hostages' relatives, Netanyahu said he would invade Rafah "with or without" a deal.

His comments follow renewed warnings by the US against a Rafah invasion unless civilians were properly protected.

In a phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu on Sunday, US President Joe Biden "reiterated his clear position" on Rafah, a White House statement said.

More than half of Gaza's 2.5m population is in Rafah, having fled there to escape fighting in other parts of the territory.

Israeli sources told the Reuters on Monday that plans to attack Rafah would be shelved in favour of a "sustained period of calm" if a ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israeli was reached.

Days earlier, Israel's Foreign Minister Israel Katz told Israeli Channel 12 television that "if there will be a deal, we will suspend the [Rafah] operation".

But on Tuesday the prime minister insisted that the war would continue until Israel had achieved all of its objectives in Rafah.

"The idea that we will halt the war before achieving all of its goals is out of the question," ...-"We will enter Rafah and we will eliminate the Hamas battalions there with or without a deal, in order to achieve total victory,"

Indirect talks have been at an impasse for weeks, although the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, said on Monday that he hoped Hamas would accept what he has called Israel's "extraordinarily generous offer" for a truce.

According to Israeli media outlets, the government is concerned that reports that the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is about to issue warrants for the arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and IDF chief of General Staff Herzi Halevi, before the end of the week. I’ll hazard a guess and say - “It won’t happen!”

Netanyahu commented on a possible arrest warrant on Friday, April 26, "Under my leadership, Israel will never accept any attempt by the ICC to undermine its inherent right of self-defence."

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post this week juxtaposed two unenviable options. “The case for a full-scale military operation into Rafah to dismantle Hamas is compelling. Proponents argue that only by decisively eliminating the threat of Hamas can Israel secure its long-term security and deter future aggression. This approach promises a clear end to the current threat but comes with a high potential cost—significant loss of life and continued instability in the region. Conversely, the argument for negotiation underscores the immediate need to cease the suffering of our citizens. This pragmatic approach seeks a resolution that could potentially save lives by preventing further military escalation and would allow for the quick return of our hostages. Such negotiations could also pave the way for a more stable future, setting the stage for longer-term peace processes. Yet, this is not merely a strategic decision; it carries profound moral implications. As a nation committed to the sanctity of life, can we justify a prolonged military engagement with the likelihood of substantial casualties on both sides? Or is our moral imperative to prioritise the immediate rescue of our hostages, potentially at the expense of broader security concerns and justice?”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Wednesday he had still not seen a plan for Israel's promised offensive on Rafah that would protect civilians, repeating that Washington could not support such an assault.

Blinken and Netanyahu met in Jerusalem for 2-1/2 hours on Wednesday, after which Israel repeated that the Rafah operation would go ahead despite the U.S. position and a U.N. warning that it would lead to "tragedy."

I’ll conclude  by saying  “Yet to be concluded and hoping for the best.”

Have a good weekend.

Beni,

2nd of May, 2024.