DAY 207 OF THE WAR: A Crucial Juncture: Rafah, Hostages, and Saudi Arabia; Columbia University; Trump

Tel Aviv Diary April 30, 2024

Zoom Briefing: Sunday May 5, 6 PM Israel time, 11 AM EDT, 8 A M PDT

A CRUCIAL JUNCTURE

Israel may be at a fork in the road— Either Hamas will agree to the current proposal to release the hostages and institute a ceasefire, or we will proceed with an operation in Rafah. It is unclear what Hamas will decide, so I will not speculate. Should Hamas respond affirmatively, it remains uncertain what will happen next. MKs Ben-Gvir and Smotritch have explicitly stated that they will topple the government if Israel enters into an agreement that would preclude going into Rafah. In a public statement, Netanyahu declared his firm resolve to enter Rafah—stating “nothing would stop us”. Today, Netanyahu met with a large group of families who lost loved ones serving in the war who demanded that the IDF enter Rafah and finish off Hamas. They have promised they will conduct a hunger strike if a ceasefire is implemented.

It's a profoundly difficult position to be caught between the demands of the hostages' relatives, who understandably urge the government to do whatever it takes to bring their loved ones home, and the families of fallen soldiers, who insist that all measures are taken to ensure their loved ones did not die in vain.

Unfortunately, as I have previously noted, it seems unlikely that entering Rafah will be a game-changer. Netanyahu talks about “the last four battalians of Hamas,” but usage of the term “brigade” here can be very misleading. For Israelis, the term “brigade” conjures images of well-equipped, combined arms groups, with artillery, tanks, and all sorts of additional weapons. Hamas’s brigades are essentially loosely organized groups of soldiers armed primarily with light weapons, including the occasional RPG. These units can easily be reconstituted. We estimated that there were between 30-40,000 Hamas fighters when the war began, and we killed 13,000— which still leaves most of Hamas’s terrorists alive, despite our having conquered nearly all of Gaza. Therefore, entering Rafah despite both American pressure and opposition from the Egyptians, prompts the question: What would we truly achieve?

In the meantime, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken has just visited Saudi Arabia, and it appears they are on board for the mega-agreement that would include their recognition of Israel. However, in exchange, such a deal would require Israel to make some commitment to support the establishment of a Palestinian state sometime in the future.

This afternoon, I appeared on i24News alongside Professor Uzi Rabi, Director of the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University. Professor Rabi generally holds more right-wing views than I do and has been opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian State. However, both during and after the show, he and I agreed that we are currently faced with choosing between bad and worse options and that entering Rafah would be the worst choice at this time.

The Executive Director of INSS (Institute for National Security Studies), Maj. Gen. (res) Tamir Hayman, provided the following summary, which aptly captures the decision facing Israel:

The regional arrangement in the Middle East, which includes ending the war in Gaza and achieving normalization with Saudi Arabia, has three stages and requires two crucial decisions. The risks are more tangible than the opportunities, but the strategic benefit is enormous.

1. Rafah—Hostage deal

The opportunity: It seems that the proposal on the table is in line with Hamas’s preconditions. If the proposal is accepted, it will pave the way for a long pause in the fighting. This pause can be used to negotiate a ceasefire with Hezbollah and to compel the withdrawal of the Radwan force from the border through a temporary understanding that will allow the residents of the north to return to their homes.

The risk: If Hamas emerges as victorious, Hamas’s leader Sinwar could harden his positions, to the point of preventing or postponing a deal. In such a case, the Israeli government’s only tool will be military pressure and a military operation in Rafah. If the move is not coordinated with the United States, it may jeopardize the continuation of American support. Above all, the current situation, characterized by stagnation and indecision, wastes the precious time remaining to save the hostages.

2. Ramallah— Consent by the Palestinian Authority and Israel to allow an international force to be responsible for the civil administration of Gaza

The opportunity: The Arab–Western coalition, which works in coordination with Israel, aims to assume responsibility for the civil administration of Gaza and aid in its rehabilitation. The United States, leading the coalition, supports this direction and will ensure the success of this initiative, if Israel agrees to the terms.

The risk: One of the conditions is the involvement of the Palestinian Authority, which the Arab countries will require for their participation, with Israel’s consent. The PA will do this as part of a process that, in their view, leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Although this is only a vision and not an actual plan, it lacks support from the current Israeli government. In the absence of an alternative, it appears that Hamas will restore the civil situation in the Gaza Strip, and it will continue to manage aid as a means to regain its rule and military power.

3. Riyadh—Normalization with Saudi Arabia

The opportunity: The United States and Saudi Arabia continue to promote normalization. This represents a significant strategic shift for Israel, particularly against Iran.

The risk: For Saudi Arabia, normalization with Israel is not a vital interest. Therefore, the Saudis will insist on a Palestinian political component as part of the process, as a “tax” to the Arab world. They might be content with only a “vision of two states,” but it is doubtful whether the current Israeli government, given its composition, will be able to agree to that.

In conclusion, we are at a crossroads. Israel holds the key to making decisions to end the war in exchange for the return of the hostages and to allow the Palestinian Authority to assume responsibility for managing Gaza. These difficult decisions have the potential to improve Israel’s strategic position in the Middle East, but they do not guarantee the defeat of Hamas and certainly do not meet the unfortunate definition (in the wake of the October 7 failure) of “total victory.”

A VIEW FROM A GAZA ENVELOPE VETERAN

I’d like to share the perspective of Almog Boker, a member of one of the Kibbutzim attacked on October 7, and who has lived in a border community, under fire for the last 20 years. As a Channel 13 News correspondent, Boker has been a vocal advocate, both publicly and privately, for the definitive destruction of Hamas.

Here’s what Almog Boker posted on Sunday:

Nobody will tell you this out loud, but the war is over; we are deep into a targeted operation. And now is the time to make bold decisions:

If, in any case, the Gazans are returning to the north of the Strip (and they are returning),

If they are hanging out at the beaches (and they are hang out),

If the markets in the Gaza Strip are open (and they are open),

If humanitarian aid is entering the strip like in the days before the 7th of October (a record in the number of aid trucks),

If Hamas controls the humanitarian aid (and Hamas controls it completely!),

And if in the strip, there are a total of 2 divisions of the IDF (yes, only two divisions!), then the excuses are over, and you can stop with the slogans of absolute victory: In the field, the war is over anyway, so there is no room for excuses, and now we must go as far as negotiating and bring them home. All of them.

Yes, in exchange to the end of the war, because it's already over anyway. Not only did the war end, but the firing on the Gaza envelope continues. Fully continues. So, Sinwar, the one who hides in the tunnels like a mouse, will think that he has won, and we will at least save those who are still alive, and the families will get to say a proper farewell to those who were murdered and held captive by Hamas.

We don't want more empty promises; we want them at home. This is the least that the Netanyahu-led government, the one that displaced its residents on the seventh of October, can do for them now—for their families—for us. After that, after they are here, with us at home, and Hamas violates the ceasefire (they will violate the cease-fire!), then we'll continue with their destruction.

In the meantime, just before we lose our only levers of pressure left in the negotiation, let's use the cards we still have, stop this and bring them home. Then we can also finally focus on the North, act against Hezbollah, push Radwan's forces away from the fence, and bring the people of the North home.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, we've waited more than twenty years; we cried out for more than twenty years for you destroy Hamas. Bring them back home, and after they are here, we'll return to destroy Hamas.

GADI EISENKOT’S RESPONSE TO THE POLITICAL ULTIMATUM

War Cabinet member and former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, whose son was killed in combat in Gaza, responded to the threats by Ben Gvir and Smotrich to topple the government if Netanyahu does not authorize the military operation in Rafah, as follows:

The cabinet defined the objectives of the war six months ago. In the past two  days, two cabinet members have resorted to political extortion. This is a serious phenomenon that damages national security of Israel. I will be a partner only in a government that makes decisions from the considerations of the country's national interests, and not from political considerations.

A REVIEW OF THE LAST FEW DAYS …

SUNDAY

Israeli settlers trespassed into a private Palestinian area near the Susiya settlement in the southern Hebron Hills. Police and military forces were deployed to the scene to disperse the settlers and remove them from the area. During the incident, one of the settlers confronted the troops at the scene and unleashed his dog, which then attacked an IDF soldier. The dog’s bite resulted in minor injuries to the soldier, who was subsequently taken to a hospital for medical treatment. Two settlers were arrested and are currently under investigation by the Israel Police.

An IDF spokesperson stated,

The circumstances of the incident and the soldier's injury are under investigation. IDF soldiers work to maintain the security of the residents, as well as the law and order. The IDF condemns any act of violence against its soldiers and security forces and will act to enforce the law.                                                                                                        

Also, on Sunday, it was reported that the signing of an unusual series of administrative detention orders against five extreme right-wing activists. The orders, ranging from three months to half a year, involve detainees, some of whom are married and fathers, as well as a 16-year-old boy. The arrests stem from increased disturbances and a heightened level of threat and danger in the area. These activists, previously known from past incidents, have faced various periods of detention.

The five were apprehended this morning by forces of the Shin Bet's Jewish Department, under suspicions, of repeatedly engaging in violent activities against Palestinians. Ben-Gvir responded to the incident by stating that Defense Minister Gallant is acting “in the same antisemitic way as the International Court of Justice in Hague.”

MONDAY

Forty-five rockets were launched at the North. Additionally, in the evening, six anti-tank missiles targeted Metullah. Rockets were also fired at Sderot.

On Monday, two soldiers were killed in Gaza. The initial investigation revealed they were struck by a tank shell fired by our forces. The deceased are Master Sgt. (res.) Ido Aviv, (28) and Master Sgt. (res.) Kalkidan Meharim (37).

TUESDAY

Hezbollah fired six anti-tank missiles at Metullah, seriously damaging several buildings.

Tonight, Hezbollah fired three rockets toward Shlomi and Rosh Hanikra.  They fell harmlessly in open fields.

NEW HARVARD CAPS OPINION POLLS

Harvard CAPS/Harris released a new set of public opinion polls. The phrasing of the questions has been criticized. Here are a few of the results, with more to follow tomorrow night.

UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES

Tensions on U.S. university and college campuses continue to escalate. At Columbia University, demonstrators have now taken over Hamilton Hall, the main administrative building of Columbia College. In response, Columbia has announced that it may expel the students involved in the take over. We will see what unfolds.

Dov Waxman posted the following comment on Twitter:

I’m a scholar of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a longtime advocate for peace and for Palestinian rights. I have publicly opposed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and its blockade and now destruction of Gaza. I support the rights of students and faculty to peacefully protest against Israel, including by establishing protest encampments, such as the one on my campus at UCLA. I do not want these protest camps to be removed by the police, whose propensity for unnecessary and excessive use of force is well-established.

As a Jew, I do not personally feel threatened or unsafe because of the protest encampment at UCLA. I know some of the students taking part and believe they are well-intentioned. Many, probably most, of the protesters are simply horrified by the mass killing and near-famine in Gaza and want it to end. So do I. But I cannot join this protest because it is not just a protest against the war in Gaza.

Among the demands of the protest organizers is the demand to “sever all UC-wide connections to Israeli universities, including study abroad programs, fellowships, seminars, and research collaborations, and UCLA’s Nazarian Center.” Needless to say, I oppose the demand to boycott the Nazarian Center, which I direct. The Center is devoted to the academic study of Israel and has no ties to the Israeli government. I also oppose boycotting Israeli academic institutions and academic boycotts in general.

But it isn’t only the demands of the protest organizers that I have a problem with. One of the organizations behind the protest, Students for Justice in Palestine, has expressed support for Hamas and has even celebrated the massacre of Israelis on October 7. Being in solidarity with Palestinians does not necessitate supporting Hamas. On the contrary, Hamas oppresses Palestinians and has no concern for the lives of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. They have openly stated that they are willing to sacrifice countless Palestinian lives—“martyrs”—for their cause, which is the ultimate eradication of Israel. They have spent billions building a vast underground network to protect themselves and their weaponry, but they haven’t built a single bomb shelter for Gazan civilians or sheltered them in their tunnels. They are prolonging the devastating war in Gaza, and the humanitarian crisis there, in order to maintain their power and authoritarian rule in Gaza.

I know that many people in the pro-Palestinian movement don’t support Hamas and don’t praise the October 7 massacre, but groups like SJP lead the movement on many college campuses, exploiting the sympathy that many students rightly feel for the suffering of Palestinians. Students and faculty demonstrating in support of Palestinians shouldn’t ignore the fact that the organizers of these demonstrations are, in many cases, ideologically committed to eradicating Israel and expelling Israeli Jews, supportive of violence against Israeli civilians, and willing to ignore or even justify Hamas’ strategy of sacrificing Palestinian civilians for their political ends.

The son of renowned anti-war activist Jerry Rubin wrote an intriguing article titled: This is definitely not my Dad’s antiwar protest

YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS UP AT COLUMBIA

TRUMP INTERVIEW TO TIME MAGAZINE

Trump gave a lengthy interview to Time Magazine, and this is part of what he said:

I want to know—you said you want to get Israel to wind down the war. You said it needs to “get it over with.” How are you going to make that happen? Would you consider withholding aid?

Trump: I think that Israel has done one thing very badly: public relations. I don't think that the Israel Defense Fund or any other group should be sending out pictures every night of buildings falling down and being bombed with possibly people in those buildings every single night, which is what they do. 

So you won’t rule out withholding or conditioning aid? 

Trump: No, I—we have to be. Look, there's been no president that's done what I've done for Israel. When you look at all of the things that I've done, and it starts with the Iran nuclear deal. You know, Bibi Netanyahu begged Obama not to do that deal. I ended that deal. And if they were smart and energetic, other than trying to get Trump, they would have made a deal because they were in bad shape. They should have made a deal with Iran. They didn't prosecute that. They didn't make that deal. But I did Golan Heights.

You did. 

Trump: Nobody even thought of Golan Heights. I gave them Golan Heights. I did the embassy and in Jerusalem. Jerusalem became the capital. I built the embassy. I even built the embassy. 

Right.

Trump: And it's a beautiful embassy for a lot less money than anybody ever thought possible. And you've heard that. But there's been no president that's done what I've done in Israel. And it's interesting. The people of Israel appreciate it. I have like a 98%—I have the highest approval numbers.

Do you know who doesn’t have a high approval rating right now in Israel, though?

Trump: Bibi.

Yeah. Do you think it's time for him to go?

Trump: Well, I had a bad experience with Bibi. And it had to do with Soleimani, because as you probably know by now, he dropped out just before the attack. And I said, “What's that all about?” Because that was going to be a joint and all of a sudden, we were told that Israel was not doing it. And I was not happy about that. That was something I never forgot. And it showed me something. I would say that what happened on—the October 7 should have never happened.

It happened on his watch. 

Trump: No, it happened on his watch. And I think it's had a profound impact on him, despite everything. Because people said that shouldn't have happened. They have the most sophisticated equipment. They had—everything was there to stop that. And a lot of people knew about it, you know, thousands and thousands of people knew about it, but Israel didn't know about it, and I think he's being blamed for that very strongly, being blamed. And now you have the hostage situation—

You think you could work better with Benny Gantz than Netanyahu in a second term?

Trump: I think Benny Gantz is good, but I'm not prepared to say that. I haven't spoken to him about it. But you have some very good people that I've gotten to know in Israel that could do a good job.

Do you think —

Trump: And I will say this, Bibi Netanyahu rightfully has been criticized for what took place on October 7.

Do you think an outcome of that war between Israel and Hamas should be a two state solution between Israelis and Palestinians?

Trump: Most people thought it was going to be a two-state solution. I'm not sure a two-state solution anymore is gonna work. Everybody was talking about two states, even when I was there. I was saying, "What do you like here? Do you like two states?" Now people are going back to—it depends where you are.

     Every day it changes now. If Israel's making progress, they don't want two states. They want everything. And if Israel's not making progress, sometimes they talk about two-state solution. Two-state solution seemed to be the idea that people liked most, the policy or the idea that people liked above.

HOUTHIS

US CENTCOM’s April 29 Red Sea Update:

Between 10:00 a.m. and 5:20 p.m. (Sanaa time) on April 29, Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists fired three anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM) and three UAVs from Yemen into the Red Sea towards MV Cyclades, a Malta-flagged, Greece-owned vessel. Initial reports indicate there were no injuries and the vessel continued on its way.

Earlier, at 7:49 a.m., U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) forces successfully engaged and destroyed one Houthi launched airborne unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) on a flight path towards USS Philippine Sea and USS Laboon in the Red Sea. There were no injuries or damages reported by U.S., coalition, or merchant vessels.

It was determined the UAV presented an imminent threat to U.S., coalition, and merchant vessels in the region. These actions are taken to protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S., coalition, and merchant vessels.

BUSINESS

Elbit Systems Ltd.announced today it was awarded a contract in an amount of approximately $50 million for its new air defense system, "Red Sky”,™ by an international customer. The contract will be executed over a period of 2 years.

Red Sky is a Tactical Very Short-range Air Defense (VSHORAD) System designed to provide protection against low-altitude aerial threats. As part of the contract, Elbit Systems will supply two Red Sky batteries, offering a comprehensive solution that integrates both soft-kill and hard-kill defense capabilities. This solution includes Elbit Systems' Redrone, an electronic warfare (EW) solution designed for detecting, identifying, locating and neutralizing unmanned aerial systems. The Redrone system comprises DAiR Radar, Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) sensors, RF Jammer, and COAPS-L electro-optical (EO) payload. Additionally, the Red Sky solution will incorporate anti-aircraft missile launchers. 

The Israeli startup Island, which is developing a secure browser for organizations, announced a fundraising of $175 million at a valuation of $3 billion. The investment round was co-led by Sequoia Capital, an existing investor, and Coatue, a new investor joining the round. In October, shortly after the beginning of the war, Island announced a fundraising of $100 million at a valuation of $1.5 billion. Following the current fundraising, the company's valuation has doubled, and the total funds raised now stand at approximately half a billion dollars. Island was founded in September 2020 by Mike Fey (CEO), a former CTO at McAfee and a senior figure in a startup that was sold to Symantec for $4.7 billion; and Dan Amiga, (CTO) one of the founders of the startup Fireglass, which was sold to Symantec for $250 million. Fey stated that the new capital will be used for international expansion and acquisitions.

–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––

A PIECE OF HISTORY

Who Is a Jew?

On March 10, 1958, Interior Minister Bar-Yehudah issued a directive stating, “Any person who declares in good faith that he is a Jew is to be registered as such; no further proof shall be required."

This directive touched on one of the unresolved questions that Ben Gurion had been avoiding since the establishment of the State: who determines who would be considered Jewish in the Jewish state.

Following the Interior Minister’s declaration, two ministers from the religious, Hapoel Mizrachi, Minister for Religious Affairs & Welfare Shapiro, and Minister of Post Burg, resigned from the cabinet.

Burg stated,

speaking not as a party man, but as a Jew in the broadest sense of the word, I say, let us not tear up the nations pedigree papers. Let us not tear up our nations unity. Let us not permit the registration of Jews without conversions. Let us not consent to separation of religion and nationality. It is our duty to strive both for our unity, and are you uniqueness. We cannot have one at the expense of the other. If a government has no religious faith, then there can be no confidence in it. Let us not permit the registration of Jews without conversion. Let us strive to preserve our unity and our distinctiveness.

Interior Minister Bar-Yehudah responded with a lengthy explanation of what is entailed in  personal registration was and what was not. Here’s an excerpt of Bar-Yehudah’s response:

The registration authority lacks the authority to determine personal status nor shall he rule on religious matters and that he was obliged to warn anyone registering personal data that such registration does not constitute legal proof of veracity but merely proof of the obligation of registration.

In an effort to resolve this crisis, Ben Gurion made the following announcement:

Nowhere in the world is Jewishness so deep, rooted, genuine, and rich as in Israel, and I have stated often on behalf of the government that this is a state of law not of Halacha. By their signatures to Israel’s Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948, all the parties sitting here committed themselves to freedom of conscience and religion. Now, this is the government's decision: to set up a committee of three, consisting of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Interior, to consider and draw up directives for the registration of children of mixed marriages, whose parents wish them listed as Jews. The committee will hear the opinions on this subject of sages of Israel, both in Israel and abroad, and the resulting directives shall taken into account accepted traditions in all Jewish circles and every trend, religious and secular, and special conditions obtained in Israel has a sovereign state guaranteeing freedom of conscience and religion, and serving as the center for the gathering and integration of exiles.

The committee met and ultimately gave in to Orthodox demands. The Minister of Interior issued new instructions in 1960, redirecting the Bureau of the Registration of Inhabitants to define a Jew by administrative fiat as “a person born of a Jewish mother who does not belong to another religion or one who has converted in accordance with religious law.”

Yesterday’s Radio Show