The Israeli magazine “+972” said that the attack of last October 7 led to the collapse of the “policy of separation” that Israel has pursued for decades towards Gaza, which was realized by War Cabinet member Benny Gantz and Defense Minister Yoav Galant, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu The extreme right still refuses to recognize it.
The magazine explained – in a report written by Meron Rapoport – that the dispute within the Israeli government regarding the “next day” in Gaza is difficult to understand, and that Gantz justified his withdrawal by preventing Netanyahu from “true victory” by failing to present a workable plan to govern the Strip after the war.
Gantz, who joined the government and the war cabinet after October 7, 2023 as a minister without portfolio, has been urging Netanyahu to lay out his plan “for the next day,” but the prime minister, who has a personal and political interest in prolonging the war, even refuses. Now presenting such a proposal, rejecting the continuation of the “Hamastan” state and replacing it with “Fathistan” run by the Palestinian Authority.
The differences are deeper
However, Gantz himself does not have a viable plan either, because his proposal to replace the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) with an “international civil governance mechanism” that includes some Palestinian elements while maintaining comprehensive Israeli security control ultimately meets what Netanyahu and his far-right allies want to continue. The war is indefinite, according to the writer.
Even Gantz and Gallant’s demand that Netanyahu give priority to reaching an agreement with Hamas to return the detainees does not stand up to the test – according to the writer – because any agreement would require an Israeli withdrawal, and would lead to the return of Hamas rule or the Palestinian Authority, and both of them are unacceptable, neither for Gantz and Gallant, nor for them. To Netanyahu and his far-right allies.
The differences between Gantz and Netanyahu are much deeper than the issue of the “next day” in Gaza. The problem is that Israeli leaders are now in a dilemma as a result of the collapse of the “policy of separation” that Israel has pursued for decades, and Israeli leaders are no longer able to maintain the illusion that the Gaza Strip has been… Separating it from the West Bank.
Meron Rapoport explained that the differences are much deeper than the issue of the “next day” in Gaza, which is that Israel’s leaders are now in a dilemma because the “policy of separation” that Israel has pursued for decades has collapsed, and Israel’s leaders are no longer able to maintain the illusion that the Gaza Strip It has been separated from the West Bank.
The Israeli policy of separation can be traced back to the early 1990s when, against the backdrop of the First Intifada and the Gulf War, the government began imposing a permit system on Palestinians that restricted travel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. These restrictions intensified during the Second Intifada and reached their peak following the Israeli “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005 and the subsequent rise of Hamas to power.
Netanyahu worked to consolidate the policy of separation, and widened the rift between Gaza and the West Bank by directing funds to the Hamas government in the Strip, believing that dividing the Palestinians geographically and politically would limit the possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state.
It seems that the army is tired of this vacuum, so that the only horizon is fighting without end and without an achievable goal, exhaustion among soldiers and reservists, and an escalating confrontation with the Americans, with whom the Israeli defense establishment has a uniquely close relationship.
However, Hamas announced that one of the reasons for the October 7, 2023 attack was to destroy the illusion that Gaza is a separate entity, and to return the Gaza Strip and the entire Palestinian issue to history, and it undoubtedly succeeded in doing so, according to the writer.
Yet Israel consistently refuses to formulate a coherent plan for the “day after” because doing so would necessarily require addressing the status of the Strip within the broader Israeli-Palestinian context, and any such discussion fundamentally undermines Israel’s carefully pursued policy of separation.
Strategic vacuum
As long as the power vacuum in Gaza exists, the right is able to achieve what it wants: continuing the war, keeping Netanyahu in office, postponing peace negotiations, and potentially “displacing the Palestinians” from the Gaza Strip, which is the final desire of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, or “total annihilation.” “For population centers in Gaza, which is the goal of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
But it seems that the army is tired of this vacuum, so that the only horizon is fighting without end and without an achievable goal, exhaustion among soldiers and reservists, and an escalating confrontation with the Americans, with whom the Israeli defense establishment has a uniquely close relationship.
The proposals of Gallant and Gantz regarding Palestinian governance are not serious and will not be accepted by any respectable Palestinian, Arab or international body, but they are sufficient to challenge Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben Gvir’s choices regarding the eternal oblivion of Gaza, arouse their unholy anger, and undermine the government’s stability.
Israel’s seizure of the Rafah crossing undermined the idea that it bears no responsibility for what is happening in the Gaza Strip, and indeed Gallant realized that controlling the crossing and the Philadelphia corridor brought Israel closer to establishing a military government in the Strip without intending to, and without acknowledging it.
The writer concluded that the proposals of Gallant and Gantz regarding Palestinian governance are not serious and will not be accepted by any respectable Palestinian, Arab or international body, but they are sufficient to challenge Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben Gvir’s options regarding the eternal oblivion of Gaza, arouse their unholy anger, and undermine the government’s stability.
The statements of Gantz and Gallant also express an unconscious recognition that Israel is currently facing two possibilities without a third: either a settlement that recognizes Gaza as an integral part of any Palestinian political entity and the formation of a unified Palestinian government, or a war of attrition, which the messianic right hopes will end with the expulsion or annihilation of the Palestinians, but it is… It will most likely end as the First Lebanon War ended with an Israeli withdrawal under continued military pressure.
