There must be a commitment to creating a new governing entity in Gaza, one that can provide stability without Israel needing to carry the burden
February 13, 2025 16:38
When Israel was established as a state in 1948, its raison d’être was grounded in a singular, moral imperative: that the Jewish people would never again experience the horrors of the Holocaust.
This sentiment has been repeated through the years by Israel’s leadership, most notably Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who, over the course of his long term in office, has said that his main mission has been to keep Israel safe.
He reinforced this message just eight months ago, on the first Holocaust Remembrance Day after the October 7 Hamas attack. Speaking at Yad Vashem, Netanyahu declared: “Never Again is now… As the prime minister of Israel, the one-and-only Jewish state, I pledge here today from Jerusalem... If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone.”
The Hamas-led invasion on October 7, followed by the brutal massacre of civilians throughout southern Israel, shattered this very idea. If Jews are massacred in numbers not seen since the Holocaust, do we not have to ask ourselves if Israel has failed in its mission? Have the foundational principles of the state been compromised?
The question gained further weight on Saturday when three hostages – Or Levy, Ohad Ben Ami, and Eli Sharabi – were released from Hamas captivity. They returned frail, emaciated and weak, evoking memories of another time when Jews were freed in such a state. It was a painful reminder that, in many ways, the shadow of our nation’s past still lingers.
On the one hand, the hostage crisis, along with the images of Hamas rallies that fuel concerns about Gaza’s future, highlights an urgent challenge. On the other hand, we cannot ignore how the landscape in the region has shifted since October 7 for the better. While Israel has undeniably made some strategic mistakes, particularly regarding the post-conflict scenario in Gaza, the broader picture is one of improvement. Israel is safer, its enemies are considerably weaker, and its security outlook is better.
Hamas may still maintain control over Gaza, but its leadership has been decimated, its infrastructure obliterated, and its weaponry severely degraded. Hezbollah too has been significantly weakened – its rocket stockpile halved, key leaders eliminated, and the successful Israeli beeper attack exposed vulnerabilities previously thought unimaginable. Meanwhile, Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has been toppled and Israeli airstrikes have dismantled much of its remaining military capabilities – fighter jets, surface-to-air missile systems, and even chemical weapons stockpiles.
Iran, too, finds itself in an increasingly precarious position. Once an unchallenged regional power, its influence is now eroded. Its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, have been decimated, and the Islamic Republic’s own defence infrastructure – including its advanced Russian-made S300 surface-to-air missile systems – has been methodically dismantled by Israeli airstrikes over the last year. Iran’s vulnerability has shifted Israel’s calculus regarding a potential strike against the regime’s nuclear installations since now, in this new Middle East, the cost of retaliation has never been lower.
It is against this backdrop – with Hamas still in control of Gaza but the region undergoing significant transformation – that we must evaluate the war’s outcome. It is both a success and a failure, a complex scenario in which achievements are tempered by ongoing conflict.
This situation is rooted in a failure of Israeli leadership to adequately prepare the public for what was to come. Rather than openly acknowledge the challenge of completely eliminating Hamas, and the need for a broader political solution, the government pushed the narrative of “Total Victory” even as it knew the eventual outcome would not look like that. Military operations can degrade Hamas and eliminate its leadership, but it is only through a political solution that we can ensure Gaza does not remain in Hamas’s grip or allow the group to rebuild its capabilities.
Internal Knesset politics, however, led the government to pursue the illusion of a decisive military victory rather than engage in the difficult task of a political plan. This is why the release of hostages on Saturday was so painful. The images of frail hostages returning highlight both the human toll of this conflict and the stark reality that, despite all the losses Hamas has suffered, the group still remains in charge of Gaza.
For change to occur, courageous political decisions will be necessary. There must be a commitment to creating a new governing entity in Gaza, one that can provide stability without Israel needing to carry the burden.
Only with such political courage can we hope to see the return of more hostages and the potential for a different future. US President Donald Trump’s “ownership” plan for Gaza recognises this dramatic need for change. While we can question the realistic viability of such a plan, it is impossible to ignore the need to change the paradigm.
In the broader context, one possible turning point for Israel and the region is a normalisation agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. While the chances of this remain uncertain, it is clear that Trump sees this as a key priority and is likely to invest significant political capital in facilitating such a deal.
Beyond the direct benefits for both countries – in security and economic terms – a normalisation agreement would send a powerful message to the broader region. It would demonstrate that the past 16 months, which saw Hamas’s brutal massacre on October 7 and the ensuing war, does not dictate the future. It would reinforce the idea that, even in the face of such violence, moderation can triumph. The region, after such a long and painful conflict, desperately needs this shift. A Saudi-Israeli agreement would offer a vision for the future, one where collaboration rather than conflict defines the way forward. It would show the people of the Middle East that cooperation and stability are possible, even amid the scars of war.
Yaakov Katz is a former editor of the Jerusalem Post and a JC columnist
