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