Shalom all,

There is a recurring temptation in diplomacy: to declare victory on paper before it exists on the ground. The latest Gaza proposal – touted as a breakthrough that would see Hamas “completely” disarm while Israel withdraws – fits that pattern all too well. It promises closure to a grinding war. It offers a narrative of progress. And it risks unraveling the very gains it claims to secure.

Strip away the rhetoric, and the deal rests on a single, brittle premise: that Israel should trade enforceable control for unenforceable assurances from an adversary that has built its strategy on patience, deception, and survival.

That is not peace. It is a wager – one that may force Israel to trade tangible military gains for intangible promises from an enemy it has every reason to distrust.

The Illusion of Reciprocity
The framework is presented as balanced: phased Hamas disarmament matched by phased Israeli withdrawal, overseen by international actors and followed by a new governing structure in Gaza. In theory, it aligns with Israel’s long-stated objectives – demilitarization and the end of Hamas rule.

In practice, it hinges on a question that has no satisfactory answer: who moves first, and who ensures compliance? 

Hamas insists on simultaneity – disarmament alongside Israeli withdrawal. Israel insists on sequence – disarmament first, withdrawal later. This is not a procedural dispute. It is the fulcrum on which the entire arrangement turns.

If Israel withdraws before full, verified disarmament, it forfeits its leverage. If Hamas delays or dilutes its commitments – as it has done before – the burden of proof shifts to Israel to re-engage, at higher cost and under greater international constraint.

Call it what it is: asymmetry masquerading as diplomacy.

The Contradiction at the Core
The deal asks Israel to accept two mutually exclusive propositions at once: that Hamas is sufficiently defeated to justify withdrawal, and sufficiently credible to honor a disarmament process.

Both cannot be true.

If Hamas retains the capacity to negotiate from a position of strength, it retains the capacity to regroup. If it lacks that capacity, there is no reason to condition Israeli withdrawal on its consent.

This is the central contradiction – and it is not a theoretical concern. It is a strategic fault line.

“Everyone Is Right” – and That’s the Warning
Proponents argue that the framework bridges competing narratives. It affirms Israel’s claim that the war aimed to dismantle Hamas by embedding disarmament in the deal. At the same time, it validates critics who contend that military force alone cannot resolve the conflict, by pivoting to negotiation and withdrawal.

A compromise that satisfies all arguments often resolves none. By attempting to reconcile irreconcilable positions, the deal risks producing the worst of both worlds: a partial rollback of Hamas without its elimination, and a partial Israeli withdrawal without lasting security.

From Victory to Management
After more than two years of war – after lives lost, reserves mobilized, and deterrence reasserted at great cost – the stakes are not semantic. They are strategic.

This framework risks redefining the outcome:

From dismantling Hamas to managing Hamas

From decisive victory to conditional restraint

From strategic clarity to perpetual ambiguity

A “phased disarmament” that allows weapons to be stored rather than surrendered is not disarmament; it is deferral. An international presence without clear authority is not enforcement; it is theater. A withdrawal without verified compliance is not progress; it is exposure.

Israel has seen this sequence before: withdrawal followed by regrouping, rearmament, and renewed conflict. Repeating it now – after October 7 – would not be pragmatism. It would be willful amnesia.

The Enforcement Gap
Every durable security arrangement rests on one question: what happens when one side violates it?

Here, the answer is conspicuously thin. Few states have committed to a robust stabilization force, fewer still to rules of engagement that would compel compliance, and none to bearing the political cost of confronting Hamas if it resorts to its base nature of lying, deceiving and refusal to honor its commitments.

Without credible enforcement, verification becomes guesswork, and deterrence becomes aspiration.

Agreements that depend on good faith from actors who benefit from bad faith do not end conflicts. They defer them.

The Political Bind
The strategic dilemma is compounded by a political one.

Accept the deal, and Israel’s leadership will be accused of granting Hamas a survivable outcome after a devastating war. Reject it, and it will be blamed for prolonging a conflict the world is increasingly impatient to end.

This is not diplomacy in a vacuum. It is diplomacy under pressure – external and internal – where the demand for closure can eclipse the requirement for durability.

A Test of Strategic Discipline
The impulse to end a long war is understandable. The desire to translate battlefield gains into a diplomatic framework is rational. But not every framework deserves endorsement, and not every ceasefire constitutes progress.

The measure of this deal is not how it reads, but how it works when tested by incentives.

What compels Hamas to relinquish the instruments of its power, rather than conceal them?
What mechanism prevents delay from becoming strategy?
What consequence follows noncompliance – and who enforces it?

Until those questions have credible answers, the proposal remains what it is: a high-risk bet that substitutes hope for structure.

The Bottom Line
Israel’s objective has been clear since October 7: to ensure that Gaza no longer serves as a launchpad for organized violence under Hamas rule. Any agreement that leaves that objective contingent – on sequencing, on interpretation, on goodwill – does not secure it.

Peace that exists only on paper is not peace. It is a prelude.

“There is a time for war and a time for peace.” (Ecclesiastes 3:8) The more difficult task is recognizing when the language of one is being used to disguise the reality of the other.

Whatever the situation might be, remember: Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all.

There are numbers that measure time – and then there are numbers that measure something deeper. In Israel today, 1,000 days since October 7, 2023 is not just a marker on a calendar. It is a psychological landscape, a spiritual wound, a national argument that refuses to be settled.

An article appearing today in Hebrew captures this tension with unusual clarity: “Israel is now divided between those who cannot sleep… and those who think it is legitimate to joke about these days.” That line alone may be one of the most honest summaries of Israeli society in this moment.

But to understand how we got here and what these 1,000 days have meant, we need to step back and listen across the spectrum of Israeli and Jewish media. What emerges is not a single narrative, but a fractured chorus.

The Trauma That Still Breathes
Across various Israeli news outlets, one theme has remained constant: October 7 did not end. It continues to live in the bodies and minds of Israelis. Reports over the past months describe a society living and grappling with widespread PTSD, insomnia, and anxiety. The “1,000 nights” do not represent an abstract concept. They are lived out in the hearts and memories of survivors, family, friends and the broader consciousness of the nation.

Other tabloids have repeatedly highlighted the long tail of trauma – among survivors, soldiers, and families of hostages. The war may evolve, but the emotional state of the country remains suspended between grief and vigilance.

Yet even here, nuance appears. Some voices in these outlets stress resilience: communities rebuilt, reservists returning to work, a fragile but persistent normalcy. Trauma and endurance co-exist.

Competing Narratives of Responsibility
If trauma unites Israelis, responsibility divides them.

A line often associated with more critical news outlets and in Israeli discourse, is the claim that the government – particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – has avoided accountability for the failures of October 7. This critique appears in various forms: calls for a state commission of inquiry; accusations of narrative manipulation and concerns about political survival overriding national reckoning.

Other writers have framed the issue not only as political, but moral – arguing that a democracy must confront its failures transparently or risk eroding public trust.

Still other media sources often present a different emphasis: the scale of the intelligence and operational failure across the security establishment, and the necessity of unity during wartime rather than prolonged internal blame.

For some, October 7 has already become history, analyzed and debated, while for others it remains an unending present marked by loss, absence, and lives permanently altered. Drawing on the understanding that lived time differs from clock time, we are compelled to conclude that these 1,000 days are not experienced equally – those who have resumed routine live in a different reality than those still trapped in trauma. That is why one writer argues that  habituation, while necessary for survival, risks dulling moral sensitivity, turning real people into abstract categories and their suffering into background noise. Remembrance should lead to responsibility: to seeking truth, to repairing failures, to caring for victims beyond media attention, and to rebuilding trust and community. Have these 1,000 days deepened our compassion and accountability, or merely hardened divisions and numbed our response to others’ pain?

Still others tend to frame the past 1,000 days within a broader story of existential struggle – highlighting military achievements, hostage recovery efforts, and what they see as moral clarity in confronting terror. Dealing from the same perspective, some argue that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempts to position himself as the one responsible for the victories that have taken place against some of our enemies since October 7th, but has not taken responsibility for the failures that allowed the disaster of that Black Saturday to take place. Critics argue that this is narrative control. Supporters argue that it is reality. Both claims cannot fully coexist. Yet both persist.

War, Victory, and the Language of Meaning
Another striking divide across these publications is not just what happened, but what it means.

Some look at Israel’s response to October 7th in strategic and geopolitical terms: deterrence, regional signaling, and long-term security recalibration. The emphasis is less emotional and more analytical – what has been achieved, what risks remain. While on the other end of the pendulum are those who publish a wide range of op-eds that wrestle openly with moral ambiguity: civilian cost, the limits of force, and the difficulty of defining “victory.” 

And finally, there is the theological layer, hinted at in the closing line of the above Hebrew article:  As for whether we have gone through a thousand nights of nightmares, lies, and propaganda, or a thousand extraordinary days of divine intervention. That is not a rhetorical question. It reflects a real divide in how Israelis interpret history itself.

Media, Messaging, and the Battle Over Reality
One of the most unsettling themes running through the vast array of media coverage is the idea that the war is not only being fought on the ground, but over truth. 

Critical voices warn about politicization of information, about attempts to shape historical memory in real time and about the blurring of journalism and advocacy. While at the same time, more right-leaning outlets argue that: media bias has long distorted public perception; that wartime requires narrative cohesion and that external criticism often ignores Israel’s security reality. With so many differing opinions, all trying to capture the attention of the population, as well as to affect their understanding of audience, we come to a conclusion that since October 7th, Israel has become a society of two populations living not just in disagreement – but in different interpretive worlds. 

Protest and Faith in Democracy
Another shared thread across outlets is the persistence of protest. Coverage in different well-known media shows that demonstrations – whether over hostages, government policy, or accountability – have remained a constant feature of Israeli life during these 1,000 days.

To some observers, this is a sign of democratic health: a society that refuses to remain silent. To others, it is a dangerous fragmentation during a time of war.

The Hebrew article reflects this tension in a single image: applause for the Prime Minister in a television studio, protests against him in the streets. Both are real. Both are Israel.

The Human Core Beneath the Argument
It is easy, after 1,000 days, to become numb to numbers, narratives, and positions. But beneath all the analysis – across all of the outlets referred to – there remains a shared, quieter truth: Families are still destroyed. Grief is still fresh. Fear has not fully receded. 

Even the most ideological media publications return again and again to the human stories: hostages, soldiers, survivors. That is the common ground.

Toward the Next Chapter
The question of what these 1,000 days mean may ultimately be decided soon at the ballot box. That may be true politically. But deeper questions will remain long after any election: What does accountability look like in a time of war? Can a society hold both unity and criticism at once? How does a nation remember trauma without being defined by it?

There is no single article from any of the news outlets that can answer these questions fully. But perhaps that is exactly the point. 

After 1,000 days, notwithstanding ongoing threats from Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and others, and notwithstanding antisemitism and widespread hatred of Israel and the Jewish people, Israel is still arguing – not because it is broken, but because: Am Yisrael Chai! – Israel is alive!

And for those who want to claim that they are responsible for Israel’s existence, I have this to say: We have a friend Who sticks closer than a brother, mightier than all, who will never leave us nor forsake us.

So bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Nothing captures the turmoil of Israel’s regional environment like this simple truth: the nation is simultaneously facing diplomatic pressure, military threats, and a rising tide of global antisemitism – all while working to contain a volatile peace process. Against the backdrop of fragile ceasefires and political maneuvering, one question hangs over everything: Can Israel secure both peace and safety in 2026?

The world insists on speaking to Israel in the language of patience, proportionality, and optimism. Israel, meanwhile, is reading intelligence reports, counting missiles, burying victims, and watching Jews murdered far beyond the Middle East. The gap between these two worldviews has rarely been wider – and the past week has made it impossible to ignore.

While diplomats debate peace plans and reconstruction fantasies, Iran is rebuilding its missile forces, Hamas remains intact, and Jews are gunned down at a Hanukkah celebration on a beach in Sydney. These are not disconnected events. They are symptoms of the same global failure: moral evasion in the face of Islamist violence and antisemitism, paired with strategic denial about Iran’s ambitions.

Iran Is Not Pausing – It Is Accelerating
Israel’s foremost security concern today is Iran’s determined push to restore and expand its missile capabilities. According to The Times of Israel, Israeli officials have warned Washington that Iran may use large-scale missile exercises as cover for actual attacks, a tactic consistent with Iranian doctrine.

More troubling are assessments reported by The Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom indicating that Iran is rapidly rebuilding missile production lines damaged in earlier strikes and sabotage operations. Israeli intelligence estimates suggest Tehran aims to restore — and eventually exceed — its previous output of long-range ballistic missiles, many capable of reaching Israel.

Iran insists its missile program is “defensive” and “non-negotiable,” a claim echoed repeatedly in Iranian statements reported by The Times of Israel. Israel, which lives under the shadow of those missiles, sees no such ambiguity.

This is why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to place Iran’s missile buildup at the center of his upcoming discussions with former U.S. President Donald Trump. According to The Times of Israel, Netanyahu plans to present concrete options for addressing Iran’s advancing capabilities – diplomatic, economic, and potentially military.

Peace Plans Without Power
At the same time, Israel is being urged to move forward with Phase Two of the U.S.-backed peace framework for Gaza, part of Trump’s broader multi-point plan. Phase Two envisions reconstruction, international involvement, and long-term stabilization.

But as the above Jerusalem Post article reports, discussions have effectively stalled. Israel is unwilling to advance while Hamas remains armed and while regional threats, especially Iran, continue to grow unchecked.

The idea, floated by some U.S. and international figures, that Gaza could be transformed into a “Mediterranean Riviera” or luxury coastal enclave ignores the core reality: you cannot build beachfront hotels on top of terror tunnels. Economic visions collapse without security foundations. Israel’s reluctance is not ideological; it is experiential.

Murder on Bondi Beach – and the World’s Shrug
Then came Sydney.

On December 14, a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach was turned into a massacre. Fifteen people were murdered simply for being Jewish. The attack sent shockwaves through Jewish communities worldwide and forced an uncomfortable reckoning: Jews are no longer safe even in countries that pride themselves on tolerance.

Israeli leaders across the political spectrum condemned the attack. Ultra-Orthodox party heads explicitly linked the massacre to the global surge in antisemitism since October 7 and warned that hesitation and euphemism are enabling violence.

According to coverage in Time and Gatestone Institute, the Bondi massacre was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern: antisemitic rhetoric normalized in public discourse, enforcement delayed, and warning signs ignored until blood is spilled.

Australian leaders condemned the attack and promised reviews. Memorials were held. Flags were lowered. Yet Jewish leaders have asked a harder question: why did it take mass murder for governments to act decisively?

The Pattern Israel Recognizes
From Jerusalem’s vantage point, the pattern is unmistakable.
Iran advances militarily while the world debates.
Terror groups rearm while diplomats plan conferences.
Antisemitism metastasizes while leaders issue statements.
And Israel, repeatedly targeted, is told to show restraint.

This is why trust is eroding.

Israel no longer believes that international assurances will stop missiles, dismantle terror networks, or protect Jews abroad. That skepticism is not paranoia; it is the product of observation.

As Gatestone Institute has repeatedly argued, Western hesitation toward Islamist violence — whether in Tehran, Gaza, or Sydney – creates a permissive environment in which extremists test limits and push further.

A Clear Choice
History may repeat itself, but it also shows that darkness does not have the final word. Even in times of missile threats, moral confusion and rising hatred, resilience is forged by truth, courage and faith. Israel’s story – and the story of the Jewish people – has always been one of survival, not by illusion, but by steadfast trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It pursued clarity of purpose and endured with moral strength.

The choice facing the world is stark. Either confront the realities Israel confronts daily – missile proliferation, terror ideology, and antisemitism – or continue down a dumbing down path of denial punctuated by tragedy.

Israel is not rejecting peace. It is rejecting illusion.

May this moment not lead to despair, but to resolve – to stand for what is right, to protect life, and to remember that light endures, even when the night feels long, because the darkness cannot extinguish it. And until the world proves it is willing to match words with action, Israel will continue to act as though it stands largely alone – because experience has taught it that, too often, it does.

Missiles are being built. Jews are being killed. And moral evasion has consequences.

The LORD is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The LORD is the defense of my life; Whom shall I dread? (Psalm 27:1)

Don’t let the world dictate your behavior. Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Israel at a Crossroads: Peace Talks, Pressure, and the Christmas Irony

As the global calendar turns toward Christmas – a season when billions of those who call themselves Christians proclaim messages of love, peace, goodwill, and reconciliation – the Jewish state of Israel finds itself under intense and coordinated international pressure. This pressure comes precisely at the time when the world reflects on the birth of Jesus: a Jewish Messiah, born in the Jewish city of Bethlehem, foretold by Jewish prophets, and raised among the Jewish people.

The contradiction could not be more glaring.

Even as diplomats speak the language of peace, Israel faces mounting demands to accept security arrangements that many Israelis believe would endanger their lives. Simultaneously, antisemitism is surging worldwide – often openly, violently, and without shame – during what is supposedly the most moral and compassionate season of the year.

A Fragile Ceasefire, But the Core Issues Remain

Over the last two weeks, a brittle and temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has remained in place. Israel continues cautious security operations along the “yellow line” separating Israeli-controlled areas from the rest of Gaza, maintaining a defensive posture while avoiding large-scale hostilities. Israeli leaders have made clear that any transition to a second phase of President Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan is contingent on Hamas returning the remains of the last Israeli hostage – an issue that is not symbolic, but moral and humanitarian. 

On the ground, however, Hamas continues to claim that it cannot find the remains of the last hostage and also continues to oppose full disarmament. It has signaled only conditional willingness to discuss limited steps, explicitly tying any reduction of arms to political demands such as ending what it calls “occupation” or establishing a “Palestinian” state.

Israel’s position remains firm: there will be no sustainable peace without disarmament.

The United States and “Phase 2”: Diplomatic Momentum, Strategic Ambiguity

The Trump administration’s 20-point Gaza plan envisions a phased process:

Phase 1: Ceasefire and hostage returns
Phase 2:

• Demilitarization of Hamas

• Deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF)

• Gradual Israeli force withdrawal

• Governance transition and reconstruction

U.S. officials have stated that deployment of a multinational force could begin as early as 2026, with details still under negotiation.

A high-level planning conference is scheduled for today, December 16, 2025, in Doha (Qatar), bringing together over 25 countries. Guess which country is not invited to be present physically? Even though Israel will not be present, the U.S. plans to involve an Israeli representative via Zoom to present Israel’s views. Reports note that Israel holds veto power over who participates in the future stabilization force and has used that influence (for example to oppose certain countries’ involvement). But, it is not sending an official delegation to the conference itself.

Central questions remain unanswered:

• Who will actually enforce Hamas’s disarmament?

• Will foreign troops confront Hamas if it refuses?

• What are the rules of engagement?

• Who governs Gaza when the dust settles?

Without clear answers, “Phase 2” risks becoming diplomacy without security.

Qatar’s Diplomatic Pressure: Preserving Hamas’s Role

Qatar plays a central role as mediator and interlocutor with Hamas. Its leaders have repeatedly framed the ceasefire as merely a “pause,” insisting that stability requires full Israeli withdrawal and unrestricted movement in and out of Gaza.

This framing deliberately shifts the discussion away from disarmament, portraying security as secondary to political outcomes. The practical effect is unmistakable: Hamas’s political relevance is preserved, while Israel’s demand for total demilitarization is weakened.

Turkey, the Multinational Force, and the F-35 Controversy

Turkey has pushed aggressively for a role in the proposed stabilization force, while simultaneously arguing that disarming Hamas should not be the force’s first priority.

At the same time, a major controversy has erupted over the possible sale of U.S. F-35 stealth fighter jets to Turkey, which has experienced some forward motion between the two countries.

However, a Gatestone Institute analysis warns that selling F-35s to Turkey would:

• Undermine Israel’s air superiority

• Empower a government that supports Hamas

• Reward a NATO member that purchased Russian S-400 systems

• Create long-term strategic risks once U.S. political constraints fade

For Israel, this is not an abstract concern. It is a matter of deterrence, survival, and regional balance.

Hamas’s Refusal to Disarm: The Central Obstacle

Hamas remains the core obstacle to peace. It refuses to surrender its weapons unconditionally, treating disarmament as a bargaining chip rather than a prerequisite for stability. Israeli leaders have warned that any withdrawal absent verified disarmament will simply lead to the next war – deadlier than the last.

Rising Antisemitism: From Rhetoric to Bloodshed

While diplomats debate Gaza, Jews around the world are being targeted.

On December 14, 2025, a mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, left more than a dozen Jews dead and many more wounded. Australian authorities described the attack as terrorism and “evil antisemitism,” convening emergency security meetings.This was the deadliest attack on Jews in Australia in decades – and it occurred during a Jewish religious celebration, in December. The hero of the day turned out to be a Syrian Moslem, who attacked one of the two terrorists, with the result that many lives were saved.

Jewish communities worldwide report on:

• Rising harassment

• Vandalism of synagogues

• Physical attacks on Jews in public spaces

The message is unmistakable: antisemitism is no longer whispered – it is acted upon. And while politicans and media personnel express regret over blatant antisemitism in their midst, one is hard pressed to find official acts to combat this rampant disease that cannot be cured by a vaccine, but only by a changed heart. 

A Necessary Denunciation: Christmas Rhetoric Without Moral Courage

It must be said plainly:

Those who proclaim Christmas as a season of love while excusing, tolerating, or fueling hatred of Jews are not celebrating peace – they are mocking it.

There is something profoundly corrupt about lighting candles, singing carols, and speaking of goodwill toward mankind while:

• Pressuring the Jewish state to accept mortal risks,

• Rationalizing terror as “resistance,” and

• Remaining silent as Jews are openly attacked in the streets.

A world that venerates a Jewish Savior, while demonizing the Jewish people, has learned nothing from history – and worse, refuses to learn.

Chanukah is the Festival of Light; Christmas reminds us of the One Who is the Light of the World. And yet, the behavior of the world reflects the fact that it loves the darkness rather than the light, because its deeds are evil and that darkness continues to spread worldwide against the Apple of His eye. 

Yesterday, they came for the Jew, but people did not speak out, because they were not Jewish. Tomorrow they will come for the Christian, and people will not speak out, because they are not Christian. One after one will be the target and people will not speak out, because they are not in the target group. And finally, they will come against the rest, who did not speak out. But, there will be no one left to speak out for them! See.

Peace Without Security Is Not Peace

The facts are stark:

• The ceasefire is fragile.

• Hamas refuses disarmament.

• Qatar and Turkey complicate enforcement.

• International diplomacy prioritizes optics over security.

• Antisemitism is rising, visibly and violently.

• All of this unfolds during a season supposedly devoted to peace.

Israel seeks peace – but peace that leaves Jews unsafe is not peace at all.

If the world truly believes in “peace on earth and goodwill toward men,” it must begin by extending that goodwill to the Jewish people – and by allowing Israel the right to defend its citizens without apology. 

Anything less is hypocrisy dressed in holiday language.

For those who celebrate the Feast of Lights with us, may you have a healthy, peaceful and joyful Hanukkah!

“The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?” (Psalm 27:1)

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)

Wherever you are and whatever you are involved with, remember: bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Hag Sameach (Happy Holiday)!

Marvin

The November 2025 UN Security Council vote approving a U.S.-drafted “stabilization” plan for Gaza is being sold as the long-awaited turning point toward peace. It promises reconstruction, new governance structures, foreign oversight, and eventually – with enough diplomatic creativity – a “credible pathway” toward “Palestinian” statehood.

But diplomacy that ignores reality is not peacebuilding; it is wishful thinking dressed in respectable language.

For Israel, the logic of the plan contains a fatal flaw: it initiates Phase Two (reconstruction, normalization, political arrangements) before there is full compliance with Phase One (complete disarmament of Hamas and other terrorist factions). The result is not stability but a dangerous illusion – one that hands Hamas time, legitimacy, and diplomatic cover.

At its core, this moment tests Israel’s ability to think clearly and relationally: to understand both the rational consequences of the plan and the shifting commitments of its closest ally, the United States.

This post will briefly examine the risks Israel now faces – including Washington’s willingness to sell stealth fighters to Saudi Arabia, America’s softening on disarmament requirements, and the growing threat of Hezbollah’s rearmament – and why reason, not rhetoric, must prevail.

The Illusion of Progress: Diplomacy That Lets Hamas Terrorists Off the Hook

On 18 November 2025, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, a central piece of President Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan. It includes:

1. A transitional “Board of Peace” (BoP) to guide reconstruction.

2. An International Stabilization Force (ISF) mandated to oversee demilitarization and the “permanent decommissioning of weapons.”

3. A “credible pathway” to Palestinian self-determination.

The problem? Hamas rejects the core premise.

Hamas leaders have publicly refused to disarm, rejecting the ISF as partisan and claiming its disarmament function “strips the force of neutrality.” Meanwhile, 100–200 Hamas terrorists remain entrenched in tunnels beneath Rafah, refusing to surrender, even in exchange for exile and are ready to fight to the death.

This alone should have halted any move towards Phase Two of the Gaza Plan. Yet Western diplomats continue acting as though paperwork can accomplish what force of arms has not.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that: “This area will be demilitarized and Hamas will be disarmed – either the easy way or the hard way.” Defense officials have already made clear that if the ISF fails: “Gaza will be demilitarized down to the last tunnel … by the IDF”, if necessary.

The contradiction is glaring: an international plan demands disarmament, but the primary player, Hamas, refuses and the international community simply looks the other way.

Weak and Counterproductive Regional Actors Undermine the Plan

1. Arab States Want Peacekeeping – Not Peace-Enforcement

Fourteen Arab states supported the resolution, but none offered troops to enforce it – except Turkey. Jordan’s King Abdullah made the situation painfully clear a month ago: “What is the mandate of security forces inside Gaza? … [W]e hope it is peacekeeping, because if it’s peace-enforcing, nobody will want to touch that.” A stabilization force that cannot enforce anything is not a stabilization force. It is a symbolic presence – a political ornament.

Turkey even offered to supply 2,000 troops – a stunning irony given Ankara’s support for Hamas – but Israel rejected the proposal outright: “There will be no Turkish boots on the ground”, although it is willing to accept some Turkish involvement through humanitarian aid.

2. Turkey and Qatar Maneuver to Protect Hamas

Turkey and Qatar, both long-time supporters of Hamas, are working to secure influential roles in Gaza’s future. Such involvement is not “neutral.” Their strategic interest is clear: preserve Hamas as a political entity. 

Israel’s relations with Turkey are, at best, unstable and Jerusalam views Turkey as a quasi-enemy state – if such a term can be used. It openly allows Hamas to operate an office in Istanbul, using it as a base from which political, media, and even terror-related activities are carried out.  But, Turkey also has ideological and geopolitcal motives, that are part of its broader regional strategy, which looks towards re-establishing the Ottoman Empire, only modernized by Islamic politics of the 21st century. Allowing it to become part of the ISF would provide a level for Ankara to exert influence over “Palestinian” politics and limit Israel’s freedom of action.

But, more problematic is the apparent disconnect between Israel and the United States regarding the role of Turkey in the reconstruction/rehabilitation of Gaza. Washington views Turkey as a strategic partner, with influential and resource capability. Jerusalem, on the other hand, takes a more pragmatic approach, viewing events and partnerships in the Middle East from an existential security point of view, not as a potential real-estate transaction. In this regard, Israel’s concern is that the U.S. fails to see and to understand the threat to Israel’s strategic interests posed by Turkey. For an excellent discussion of the present dynamics between Israel and Turkey, see Jonathan Spyer’s article that appeared this week in Middle East Forum.

3. Saudi Arabia’s New Leverage: Normalization for Statehood, Not Security

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) told President Trump that Riyadh wants to join the Abraham Accords – but only on the condition Israel accepts a clear path to a Palestinian state. Reports indicate MBS privately pushed for a final-status agreement within five years, including full statehood. Prime Minister Netanyahu has warned unequivocally that such a state in the geographic heart of Israel would be an existential threat.

Saudi priorities are clearly emphasized: “Palestinian” statehood takes precedence over Hamas disarmament. This provides Hamas with significant diplomatic oxygen.

Washington’s Troubling Drift: Security Guarantees in Question
In addition to the apparent disconnect between Jerusalem and Washington concerning Turkey’s involvement and presence in Gaza, as mentioned above, two additional developments reveal a concerning shift in U.S. policy, raising questions about Washington’s long-standing commitment to Israel’s security.

1. U.S. Willingness to Sell F-35 Stealth Fighters to Saudi Arabia

The U.S. has agreed to sell Saudi Arabia dozens of F-35 fighter jets as part of a massive trillion-dollar deal on energy, AI, minerals, and defense. Israel’s defense establishment immediately warned that this sale risks eroding Israel’s regional air superiority – the foundation of its deterrence.

This isn’t theoretical. Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) is not a preference; it is American law: Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. §2776(h). Approving such a sale without making Saudi normalization with Israel a condition signals something uncomfortable: The U.S. appears willing to compromise the security of its closest ally for regional leverage and commercial benefit. This is a relational injury, not just a strategic one. A friend who strengthens your enemy forces you to rethink the nature of your relationship.

2. U.S. Softening on Phase One (Disarmament)

The original 20-point plan insisted that disarmament was non-negotiable. But Washington is now signaling openness to postponing Gaza’s demilitarization, if not to acquiesce in its failure to disarm at all. This reverses the order of the plan’s logic – and undermines the very foundation of desired peace in the region. Reconstruction without disarmament is the rebuilding of a fortress.

As noted in the Jerusalem Post: “Hamas is rebuilding control despite the ceasefire, raising doubts over Gaza’s future and the 20-point plan”. With the repeated ceasefire violations by Hamas, it is only a matter of time before the entire ceasefire will collapse. Major international reporting and policy analysts warn that the present ceasefire is a tactical break, not a durable fix, unless the ISF is empowered to enforce disarmament, not to act solely as “peacekeepers”. We’ve seen what the U.N.’s “peacekeepers” failed to do and we do not need a repeat performance. But, we should also take heed of King Abdullah’s statement that peace-keeping, not peace-enforcement, will be acceptable to Middle East nations. This is where intention needs to be put into practice, failing which, we are simply biding time until another flare-up occurs, igniting and involving not only the Middle East, but the international community as well. And while the U.S. is considering the value of Middle East real estate, and the desire to move negotiations along, events north of Israel must not be ignored.

The Hezbollah Factor: A Parallel Threat That Cannot Be Ignored

As the world fixates on Gaza, Hezbollah has been rapidly rearming in the north. Iranian resupply chains are active again. missile stockpiles have grown. Fortifications expand by the week. If Hamas remains armed in the south and Hezbollah strengthens in the north, Israel faces an intolerable two-front strategic chokehold. No rational nation would accept such a scenario.

Relational Wisdom: When Trust Is Strained

In human affairs – and in geopolitics – trust is built on consistency. When consistency breaks down, trust erodes. Proverbs 18:19 teaches: “A brother offended is harder to win back than a fortified city.” That statement should speak for itself.

Israel increasingly senses that the U.S. is willing to trade Israel’s security for diplomatic gains and economic incentives. Such actions wound not only the logic of the relationship but its emotional foundation. In Israeli discourse, a common refrain has long been heard: “We have no one to rely upon except our Father in Heaven.”Allies matter, but alliances that ignore reality and the needs of its partners can become liabilities.

The High-Stakes Choice: Containment or Empowerment?
The world faces a decisive crossroads. If reconstruction proceeds without verifiable disarmament, the consequences are entirely predictable:
Hamas survives.
Hamas rebuilds.
Hamas regains legitimacy.
Hezbollah accelerates its buildup.
Iran celebrates.
Israel walks into its most dangerous strategic configuration in decades.
This would be Hamas’s greatest victory since its founding.

If, however, the U.S., Israel, and the Gulf states tie every dollar and every step of reconstruction to complete, verifiable disarmament, then true stability, although for a season, becomes a potential reality.

Reason demands it.
History confirms it.
Relationships depend on it.
Peace without security is not peace.
Reconstruction without disarmament is not reconstruction.
A ceasefire without enforcement is not a solution – it is an illusion.

Unless the international community drives Phase One to completion, the “stabilization” of Gaza will become not a foundation for peace, but a dangerous pause – punctuated by repeated Hamas ceasefire violations – a pause that widens, rather than resolves, the region’s deepest fault lines.

And miles away, across the Big Muddy, there is the person to be sworn in as the next Mayor of New York City, who believes that, holding a meeting in a synagogue where Jewish people are encouraged to make aliyah – to immigrate to Israel, is against international law! What will be next? No right to pray outside of a church or synagogue?

As was stated a number of years back – The times they are a changin’.

Enough said.

We are about to begin a new week. May it be a blessing and a joy for you, as you remember:

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all, 

International myopia and shortsightedness seem to dominate whenever the subject is Israel. As noted in yesterday’s post, the global community has long viewed Israel’s security challenges through a lens limited to surface impressions – momentary emotions, fleeting images, and diplomatic convenience. Such dulled vision inevitably leads to distorted responses. Yet even amid this haze, there are occasional rays of clarity – voices able to see the reality more sharply and to offer insight that Israel is the answer, not the problem. If only others would listen.

Hezbollah’s escalation: two-week surge, re-arming, and northern threat

While much diplomatic attention has focused on Gaza, Hezbollah has made tactical leaps and built deeper arsenals in the past two weeks. Israeli sources say weapons are being smuggled from Syria into Lebanon, new anti-tank missile caches have been formed south of the Litani, and Hezbollah drone incursions tested Israeli responses.

Key implications:

• Multi-front war risk: If Hezbollah opens a second theatre, Israel must split resources while still battling Hamas underground.

• Proxy escalation: Hezbollah’s probing of Israeli air defences and borders is not random – it’s testing the limits of will and rules. And the Lebanese government is not acting more forcefully to curb the activities of that terrorist organization.

• Supply route resilience: Arms flows through Syria and Lebanon are harder to interdict than Gaza rockets; stopping them requires sustained intelligence and readiness.

Israel must treat the northern threat not as “latent” but as active, building into a broader Iranian-led war strategy.

The operational picture: integration of threats, geography and diplomacy

These threads – Gaza tunnels, hostage intelligence, corridor-talk, Hezbollah escalation – converge into one operational reality:

• Hamas remains operationally capable despite the cease-fire.

• Hamas uses symbolic gestures, such as the Goldin transfer, as tools of negotiation.

• Hezbollah is re-arming south of the Litani, using civilian infrastructure as cover.

• Diplomatic drafts risk changing geography before threats are neutralized.

For Israel that means a single strategic fact: security sequencing must come before political settlement – not after. Anything else is upside-down strategy.

Time is becoming a critical factor, as other “players” will enter into the field, leaving Israel on the sidelines. Israel needs to make its voice heard loudly and clearly, so that Washington, Brussels, Moscow and the U.N. should never be left guessing what Israel will or will not accept. 

Israel needs to make demilitarisation the baseline condition for any future action relating to Gaza. Any proposal must first deliver verified dismantling of tunnels, weapons, and fighters. 

It needs to link all movement or safe-passage to independent hostage verification. Not a deal, a sequence: hostages returned → disarmament verified → then movement considered. 

It needs to maintain military pressure on Hamas – every cease-fire violation must be met with severe consequences.

It needs to firmly reject any corridor that carves Israel’s geography without security control. Sovereignty over airspace, borders and defence must remain unbroken. 

It needs to sustain northern interdictions, prevent Hezbollah’s rearmament and sever Iranian supply chains via Syria and Lebanon, while preparing for a larger conflict. Israel must anticipate, not react and pay particular attention to its borders with Egypt and Jordan, and the possibility that “friendly neighbors” may quickly turn, join ideologically and militarily with our enemies, and return to the goal of eliminating Israel’s existence.

It needs to demand clear ROEs (Rules of Engagement) for any multinational force deployed. International troops cannot be symbolic – they must have enforcement capability, which means they would need to act against Hamas terrorists if necessary (a fact that causes some countries to hesitate to commit troops to the multi-national force). 

It needs to brief allies with operational maps and intelligence. The contiguous corridor geometry and tunnel network should be visualised for decision-makers, not left abstract. This is seriously problematic, as even providing such visuals could be interpreted as Jerusalem’s consent to the establishment of a “Palestinian” state.
It needs to build a national consensus on the long haul. In light of the present political chasms, this will probably be one of the most difficult tasks – to get the nation behind a multi-year strategy of deterrence, reconstruction, intelligence and diplomacy. 

Conclusion: Clarity must take precedence over selective empathy. 

The return of Lt. Hadar Goldin should be a clarion call – not just a moment of mourning. It should highlight the transactional nature of the enemy, the depths of the threat, the geometric consequences of diplomacy divorced from defence. Hamas played its part. Hezbollah watches. Meanwhile the world clicks “like” on every humanitarian photo and thinks it’s done its job.

Israel cannot and must not accept that narrative. If global optics dominate strategy, Israel loses before the first bomb falls. Israel must insist on sequencing, verification, and geographic clarity (in this regard, a picture can truly be worth a thousand words). The war may pause – but the fight for lasting security is only just beginning … again.

Foreign governments view the Arab-Israeli conflict through news cycles, press briefings, electoral calculations and a shrinking attention span. They do not see the tunnels reaching under their homes. They do not hear sirens at night. They do not bury soldiers a decade after their deaths, because terrorists treat their bodies as trophies.

Last week was not merely a list of events – it was a reminder.

A reminder of the enemies Israel faces.

A reminder of how badly the world misunderstands those enemies.

And a remainder that survival requires clarity, not wishful thinking.

And then there is Iran, still around, still active and still planning its moves against Israel, while focusing on developing a massive missile supply, so that it can bombard Israel with some 2,000 missiles per day. But, that is a story for a different day.

In the age of selective empathy, Israel must act with full attention. Because the world’s vision is blurred, Israel’s must be sharp. Israel’s task is not only to defend itself militarily – it is to tell the story the world refuses to hear, to draw the map the world refuses to look at and to ensure that mistakes made in distant capitals do not become dangers carved into Israeli soil.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

On your walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen; all day and all night they will never keep silent. You who remind the LORD , take no rest for yourselves; and give Him no rest until He establishes And makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth. (Isaiah 62:6-7)

Keep looking up!

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all, 

For too long the world has viewed Israel’s security problems through a narrow optic that privileges short-term appearances, emotive snapshots, and diplomatic convenience. The last two weeks make that myopia painfully clear. While Israel grapples with subterranean militants, hostage locations, and a steadily rearming Hezbollah on its northern border, many governments – distracted, earnest, or politically constrained – press the Jewish state toward policies that risk leaving it exposed. Israel needs to be guided by clarity of purpose – not selective empathy.

Israel is the only country that needs to constantly explain its history, as if it was presenting a press briefing. This past week compressed tunnels and hostages, U.N. resolutions and border escalation, among other things, into one dense package of strategic urgency. Many governments tend to respond with sympathetic statements or peace-talk proposals, yet too often miss the live combat realities beneath the surface and expose how badly foreign governments misunderstand the nature of Israel’s war for survival.

This is not just a story of policy or optics – it is one of real geography, real tunnels, real hostages, and real weapon flows. It is one of widening cease-fire cracks. It deals with the heart-wrenching return and burial of Lt. Hadar Goldin, with U.S. and Russian drafts at the UN, with a proposed contiguous corridor from Gaza to Judea & Samaria and with Hezbollah re-arming on Israel’s northern border. Read together, these events form a single, integrated narrative.

Cease-fire cracks and the underground threat

The accepted “cease-fire” is widely seen abroad as a sign of progress. For Israel, however, it remains a dangerous pause. Israeli forces repeatedly disclosed tunnel shafts and Islamist operatives beneath and across the “yellow line” – the nominal Israeli-controlled edge of Gaza. These tunnels provide ingress, egress, munitions movement and surprise-attack pathways. More alarming: recent assessments place 100–200 Hamas militants in those tunnel networks beneath Israeli-held areas near Rafah and Khan Younis, who are refusing to surrender and continue to pose a lethal threat to troops and civilians alike. This is a tactical reality that diplomatic frameworks seldom address: underground warfare that only claims light in surface negotiations.

In line with this, during the week, Israeli security services thwarted imminent shootings and bombings south of Jerusalem – a stark demonstration that small terror cells remain an active threat despite the “pause” in the fighting. According to Israeli reports, Hamas holds strategic hostage intelligence – they “know the locations of all remaining hostages.” The upshot: any suggestion of “safe passage” for militants must be conditioned on verified recovery of the bodies of the hostages remaining in the control of Hamas, as well as disarmament. Without that, Israel deals with more pie-in-the-sky empty promises. 

The return of Lt. Hadar Goldin – grief, symbol, and leverage

This week saw the long-awaited homecoming of Lt. Hadar Goldin, who was killed in 2014 during Operation Protective Edge and held by Hamas for more thaan 4,000 days. His funeral in Kfar Saba drew thousands. However, multiple sources indicate Hamas delayed the transfer of his body as a tactical offering, being part of broader negotiations over militants and cease-fire lines. This exposes a deeper reality: that humanitarian acts can be weaponized into bargaining chips. Every diplomatic framework must recognize that dynamic. If it fails to do so, then humanitarian aid and the protection of civilians risk becoming tools of coercion. This can undermine genuine relief efforts, incentivize bad-faith actors to manipulate suffering for political gain, prolong conflicts, and erode the moral and legal foundations of humanitarian norms.

U.S. pressure, UN drafts and diplomatic myopia

Washington’s diplomatic push this week focused on stabilization frameworks for Gaza and a pathway to “Palestinian” self-determination – a fancy term intended to substitute for the call for the establishment of a “Palestinian” state. Its efforts were marked by the circulation of a U.S. draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council.  Russia responded with its own draft, centered on humanitarian access and a simplified cease-fire guarantee, while resisting governance mechanisms that might impose a transitional authority.

The crucial problem is that while both resolutions attempt to redefine governance in Gaza and Judea–Samaria, the U.S. draft goes significantly further by incorporating an eventual pathway to Palestinian statehood – yet it pointedly avoids making Israeli security requirements a binding prerequisite. This omission is not a technical oversight, but a structural flaw: it establishes political expectations without embedding the security architecture needed to sustain them. By advancing statehood language absent enforceable sequencing, the U.S. proposal risks legitimizing political concessions without demanding the demilitarization, counterterror guarantees, and territorial controls essential for Israel’s safety. In practical terms, it pressures Israel toward an outcome while declining to anchor that outcome in the very security conditions that any responsible framework must require.

Deviations from the Trump 20-Point Plan

President Trump’s 20-Point Plan laid out a specific order: deradicalize Gaza, verify disarmament, secure the territory before granting political recognition – and preserve critical Israeli-controlled areas like the Jordan Valley. The U.S. draft this week diverges: it embeds stabilization and political horizons into the Security Council language before full verification of disarmament. That deviation is not technical. It means political settlement becomes the lever for security, rather than security being the foundation for settlement. For Israel, that inversion is perilous. Washington is pushing diplomatic deliverables, instead of confronting the nature of the enemy.

Why geographic contiguity matters – the Gaza-Judea & Samaria corridor

Diplomatic language likes the word “contiguity.” It sounds innocuous, but Israeli reality calls it a red line. If Gaza is linked to Judea & Samaria, Israel faces a corridor that slices across its body, splitting north from south and placing major population centres at risk. The corridor could be:

• A land route under the control of so-called “Palestinians”.

• A surface road or tunnel system under international supervision.

• A territory swap carving out Israeli sovereign land.

Each model creates strategic vulnerabilities: hostile seams, transit routes open to infiltration, and attack vectors previously absent. Even a “peace corridor” under international supervision is not bullet-proof. Decades of peace-keeping experience show that rules of engagement lag behind militant ingenuity. For Israeli defence planners, geography is destiny – compromising borders without security verification is not compromise, it is capitulation.

Any physical route connecting gaza to Judea & Samaria, whether above ground, below ground, surface roads, sovereign passageways, or even controlled lanes, would:

Create a permanent security vulnerability – a hostile corridor running across its midsection;

Place Israeli cities at risk – the corrector would pass within minutes of major population centers;

Create a logistical nightmare – Israel’s north-south contiguity would be interrupted, forcing rerouted traffic, military mobilization challenges and emergency-response delays;

Enable Iranian movement across the territory – a corridor would not just be a right-of-way for so-called “Palestinians”, but would become a strategic asset for Iran and its proxies;

Undermine every Israeli defensive doctrine – the IDF’s rapid-deployment model depends on internal geographic freedom. A corridor would shatter that.

Part Two of this post will be forwarded tomorrow.

Have a great week.

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all.

It’s been another turbulent week for Israel — a week that exposed, once again, the widening gap between political rhetoric and reality on the ground. We witnessed continued maneuvering over Gaza’s future, fresh talk in Washington of ceasefire “frameworks” that sound more like fantasies than feasible plans, and the harsh reminder that Israel’s enemies remain resolute in their aims.

Amid this turmoil, one reality remains painfully clear: A month after the ceasefire agreement, Hamas still hasn’t returned all of the bodies of hostages killed in the 7 October attacks. Five families continue to wait in anguish, unable to mourn properly, while international diplomacy struggles to enforce even the most basic human decency.

At the same time, we heard a startling claim from Steve Witkoff, reported by World Israel News, that Hamas had privately agreed to disarm during a meeting with Jared Kushner before the ceasefire. If true, it’s the kind of statement that would have made headlines in any other part of the world – but in the Middle East, words are easy, weapons are not.

The “Disarmament” That Never Happened

According to Witkoff’s account, Hamas representatives told him and Kushner that they were ready to lay down their arms in exchange for an amnesty and a sweeping reconstruction plan for Gaza. In his telling, the U.S. was preparing a process – a kind of “decommissioning plan” — that would grant economic rehabilitation in return for genuine demilitarization.

It was a momentary spark of optimism. But the ink had barely dried on the news before Hamas made its real position clear: it has no intention of fully disarming.

Not only does Hamas continue to parade its fighters openly in Gaza, it maintains operational control of key neighborhoods, re-activates tunnel networks, and coordinates attacks under the cover of local “security units.” If this is what “disarmament” looks like, the word has lost all meaning.

Further undermining the credibility of the disarmament narrative is the recent report by the Algemeiner that Hamas and Hezbollah convened in Beirut and publicly rejected all regional peace initiatives and vows to continue fighting Israel, emphasising that weapons are central to their identity and survival. This declaration reveals the deep gulf between private assurances and public vows of resistance and war.

Together, these facts demonstrate that the word “disarmament” is a hollow term in Gaza, with no practical application.

This pattern – promise and pretense – is familiar to anyone who has watched Middle East events for any reasonable period. Western negotiators hear what they want to hear. Hamas says what it needs to say. And Israel, caught between diplomatic pressure and existential threat, is forced to navigate between illusions and survival.

A Pathetic Display of Gratitude

Adding to the irony was the visit of Donald Trump to Israel a month ago. The former U.S. president, hailed as a steadfast ally, was greeted with applause, photo-ops, and effusive words of thanks. He was praised as a friend of Israel, a man who “stood with us” – and, in many ways, he did.

But, beneath the smiles was something tragic. Trump’s earlier statements – that Hamas rule would end, that a ceasefire would mark the dawn of a new order in Gaza – now stand in stark contrast to the grim reality: Hamas remains entrenched, armed, and unrepentant.

The gratitude showered upon him feels misplaced. Not because Trump’s support for Israel was insignificant – it wasn’t – but because the optics of thankfulness without accountability cheapen the struggle for truth. The applause rings hollow when hostages’ remains are still being withheld, rockets can continue to fly, and the same terrorist leaders who vowed Israel’s destruction are still dictating terms and threatening to continue its actions against Israel.

Sometimes, the most painful truth is that good intentions and strong words are not enough. Israel doesn’t need another “deal” or “photo moment.” It needs its enemies disarmed – actually disarmed – and the world needs to stop mistaking symbolic gestures for progress.

The West Still Doesn’t Understand the Middle East

There is a deeper blindness at work here. The West still tries to view the Middle East through the lens of transactional diplomacy: “If you give us peace, we’ll give you aid.” It is the same formula that failed in Oslo, in Camp David, and in every round of “confidence-building” since the 1990s.

But this region doesn’t work that way. For Hamas, weapons are not bargaining chips – they are identity. Power in Gaza is not earned at the ballot box, but enforced at the barrel of a gun. The Western belief that economic incentives will tame militant ideology misunderstands the psychological fabric of a movement that glorifies martyrdom and despises compromise.

You cannot buy peace from an organization that sees negotiation as a tactic, not a goal. You cannot trade reconstruction for demilitarization when the act of surrendering weapons would destroy the very legitimacy Hamas claims as “the resistance.”

And you cannot impose Western diplomatic logic on a region where honor, survival, and “divine mandate” outweigh every rational cost-benefit equation.

The Multinational Mirage

Now, the same Western capitals that misread Hamas are floating a new “solution”, discussed last week: a multinational policing force to oversee Gaza “for the time being”.

On paper, it sounds reasonable – a neutral stabilizing presence to prevent further escalation. But anyone with memory knows how such forces perform in the Middle East. They arrive with noble language and limited rules of engagement. They report violations but rarely intervene. They “monitor” terrorism rather than stop it. If this force enters Gaza without full Israeli coordination and operational control, it will quickly become a hostage of Hamas itself – a shield for terrorists, not a guard for civilians.

Israel cannot subcontract its security. Not to the UN, not to NATO, and not to any coalition that lacks the will to fight the kind of war Hamas insists on waging.

Meanwhile in New York: The Political Earthquake

Thousands of miles away, Israel’s allies in the diaspora are facing their own wake-up call. The election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s new mayor – an outspoken anti-Israel activist aligned with the far-left Democratic Socialist movement – has stunned the Jewish community. See here and here.

Publications captured the sense of dread and disbelief. For decades, New York was a bastion of Jewish civic influence and support for Israel. Now, the city that once prided itself on standing with the Jewish people is led by a man who has openly praised BDS, called Israel an apartheid state, has been accused by critics of aligning with Hamas’s resistance narrative, and has said that the Palestinian cause was “central to [his] identity”.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has even launched a “Mamdani Monitor” – an unprecedented move to track anti-Jewish and anti-Israel actions coming from the mayor’s office.

The symbolism is profound: if the cultural capital of the Jewish diaspora can elect an avowed opponent of Zionism, what does that say about the shifting moral compass of the West? It should serve as a warning to all pro-Israel voices, Jewish and Christian alike, that silence and complacency carry consequences. Anti-Israel activism is not confined to Gaza or university campuses. It has entered the political mainstream of the Western world.

The Cost of Leaving Hamas Armed — and Hezbollah Reorganizing

Back in the region, the implications of leaving Hamas armed are immediate and dire. Every day that Hamas retains even partial control of Gaza’s arsenals, it strengthens its claim to survival. It can re-arm through tunnels from Sinai, receive Iranian funding, and rebuild its military infrastructure under the cover of “reconstruction”.

Worse, Hezbollah is already watching and learning. The longer Hamas is allowed to survive, the more it emboldens Hezbollah to re-organize and test Israel’s northern border. What happens in Gaza doesn’t stay in Gaza – it sets a precedent.

If Hamas survives politically, Hezbollah thrives strategically. Despite Iran’s humiliation in its 12-day war with Israel in June, both terrorist organizations remain Iranian satellites. Both depend on the same ideological oxygen: Israel must fall, the West must retreat, and Islamism must rise. Every ceasefire that leaves Hamas breathing is a warning shot for the next war.

What Israel — and Its Friends — Must Remember

Israel’s leadership must resist the temptation of optics over outcome. No disarmament without verification. No ceasefire without control. No trust in pledges whispered in hotel rooms while rockets can still fly. No consideration of a second stage of a 20-point peace plan when the first stage is incomplete and has been repeatedly violated.

And Israel’s allies – in America, in Europe, in the evangelical world – must remember that moral clarity is more precious than diplomatic comfort. There is no “both-sides” here. There is no moral equivalence between a democracy defending its citizens and a terror regime that hides behind its own.

The West must rediscover the courage to call evil by its name, and Israel must stay strong enough to stand alone, if necessary. This is increasingly significant in light of Israel’s present willingness to allow foreign troops to have boots on Israeli soil.

A Final Word: This week exposed a truth that polite diplomacy would rather hide: the promises of men mean little when the will to enforce them is absent.

Hamas has not disarmed. Hezbollah is re-arming. The West still misunderstands the region it seeks to “fix.” And in the echo chambers of global politics, applause and gratitude continue to substitute for courage.

But Israel’s security – Israel’s survival – has never depended on applause. It has depended on resolve. And that, thank God, is something Israel still has in abundance.

Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. (Psalm 146:3)
The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my Savior, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge; my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. (Psalm 18:2)

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all,

This past week brought into sharp relief a key piece of post-cease-fire planning for Gaza and marked a watershed moment in Israel’s modern history — not because of a battle fought on the ground, but because of what may be taking shape in the heart of the country: the establishment of a multi-national command and coordination center in Kiryat Gat. The southern city, strategically located between Tel Aviv and the Gaza Strip, has emerged as a central node in both the logistical and operational management of Israel’s response. Acting as a coordination center for troop movements, humanitarian operations, and reconstruction logistics, Kiryat Gat symbolizes Israel’s dual efforts: immediate defense and long-term stabilization.

According to various news reports, the center – officially termed the Civil-Military Coordination Centre (CMCC) – will be staffed by U.S. military officials alongside senior Israeli officers. Its declared purpose is to oversee “security, humanitarian, and reconstruction coordination” related to post-war Gaza. Yet beneath the bland bureaucratic phrasing lies a tectonic shift in Israel’s sovereignty, one that has stirred deep unease among security analysts and ordinary Israelis alike.

The Center in Kiryat Gat – Symbol or Precedent?

The decision to host such a center on Israeli soil, far from the war zones, is being hailed by some as evidence of unprecedented cooperation between Washington and Jerusalem. But others are asking a harder question: cooperation at what cost?

For the first time, foreign military and civilian officials – including representatives of allied and regional states – will be operating inside a facility that is directly involved in the strategic decision-making process regarding Gaza’s future. The coordination center is expected to handle not only logistics and humanitarian oversight, but also deeper policy alignment and real-time monitoring – potentially giving foreign actors an advisory or even veto-like influence over decisions that have traditionally been the sole prerogative of Israel’s cabinet and military command.

This development, while dressed in the language of partnership, raises a critical issue: does Israel retain full sovereignty over the fate of Gaza, or is it ceding ground – literally and politically – to an international framework designed to “manage” it?

Kiryat Gat’s location is noteworthy. It lies near major transportation corridors, within range of Israel’s southern frontier with Gaza, yet sufficiently inland to serve as a logistics and command node far from immediate cross-border flashpoints. In the Trump plan’s conception, Kiryat Gat is envisioned as a hub for reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, and regional draw-down: as Israeli troops relieve Gaza and devolve to a stabilisation posture, the city becomes the operational center for moving personnel, materials, and expertise into Gaza.

However, the placement of this coordination center represents more than a logistics hub; it may signal a soft internationalization of the Gaza question. While Israel continues to assert its right to self-defense and strategic autonomy, the growing U.S. footprint – under the guise of coordination – could gradually evolve into a form of shared management, especially as Washington and its allies push for post-Hamas governance arrangements involving Arab states, NGOs, and multinational oversight.

If allowed to expand, this model could normalize the idea that the international community, not the sovereign State of Israel, holds decisive authority over Gaza’s security architecture. Once established, such precedents are notoriously difficult to reverse. The sovereignty that Israel has fought so fiercely to protect may, ironically, begin eroding from within – through consent rather than coercion.

The Architecture of the Trump Plan

Trump’s regional framework – though not publicly detailed in full – appears to rest on three pillars:

1. Military Transition: Israel moves from combat operations in Gaza toward a phased draw-down and stabilization role.

2. Humanitarian-Reconstruction Surge: A broad reconstruction program in Gaza begins in earnest, with Israeli and international coordination, and Kiryat Gat as a staging area.

3. Regional Political Realignment: Gaza’s eventual wind-down dovetails with normalization deals, perhaps Saudi involvement, Gaza governance reform, and muting of Hamas’s dominance.

In this schematic, Kiryat Gat serves as both a logistical and symbolic center for the shift from war to reconstruction.

The Trump Plan’s Missing Links: Disarmament and Short-Sightedness

In parallel, renewed attention has been given to the 20-point plan proposed by Donald Trump, aimed at a long-term solution to the Gaza crisis. While the plan has won some support among U.S. conservatives and Israeli centrists for its strategic scope, it contains two glaring omissions, the first of which is: how exactly will Hamas be disarmed?

The plan calls for a “new Gaza authority” and a phased reconstruction process under international oversight, but it sidesteps the most essential question — who will enforce disarmament, and with what authority? Without a credible disarmament mechanism, the plan risks leaving Israel bound by diplomatic commitments that limit its freedom of military action while leaving Hamas, or successor militias, armed and operational under the radar.

Further complicating the picture is the continuing failure to return the bodies of all the Israeli hostages killed during the Hamas-led 7 October 2023 massacre or its aftermath. As of 30 October 2025, Israeli officials reported that 11 deceased hostages’ bodies remain held in Gaza, despite ceasefire arrangements and multiple exchange rounds.

More recently, forensic tests confirmed that three partial remains handed over to Israel did not belong to any of the known hostages, a devastating blow to bereaved families and public confidence in the negotiation process.

This incomplete fulfilment of the hostages-return obligation directly undermines Israel’s faith in any broader roadmap, such as the Trump plan: if one of the most tangible and emotionally charged deliverables – the return of the dead – is not being honored, it raises serious doubts about whether the plan’s security provisions, disarmament steps, or verification mechanisms could ever be reliably enforced.

Israel therefore finds itself in a bind: asked to cooperate with a restrictive plan, while critical security and humanitarian obligations remain unfulfilled. It is a dynamic that risks replacing genuine sovereignty with managed dependency.

For Israel, this is a trap disguised as progress. Accepting the plan in its current form would mean agreeing to a process that demands Israeli restraint and reconstruction obligations without guaranteeing total demilitarization of Gaza. In practical terms, it could lock Israel into compliance with a flawed roadmap that undermines both its security and sovereignty.

While the framework emphasizes a phased wind down of Israeli forces and reconstruction of the territory, it relies heavily on the assumption that militant groups can be contained or neutralized in the short term. But, without a credible mechanism to enforce disarmament, the plan risks leaving Israel exposed to renewed hostilities, undermining both the humanitarian and political objectives.

Moreover, a glaring gap in Trump’s plan lies north of Gaza, in the Lebanese theatre. Recent reports reveal that Hezbollah continues to rebuild its military capability – including missiles, drones, and underground infrastructure – despite heavy losses in the 2023 conflict. A senior U.S. envoy has warned that Hezbollah still fields some 40,000 fighters and 15,000–20,000 rockets, stressing that southern Lebanon remains a threat to Israel. Meanwhile, the Israel Defense Forces has carried out intensified airstrikes in Lebanon and reported the killing of some 330 Hezbollah operatives since the ceasefire.

This northern front undercuts Trump’s Gaza-centered framework in two related ways:

1. Resource Diversion: The envisioned regional wind down in Gaza and transition to reconstruction (anchored at the Kiryat Gat hub) cannot succeed if Israel has to keep major military resources tied to Lebanon addressing a resurgent Hezbollah threat.

2. Deterrence Credibility: The plan assumes that once Gaza is stabilized, the regional axis (Israel–Gaza–Saudi–others) will hold. But a major actor – Hezbollah – remains effectively outside the framework, free to rebuild and rearm.

In effect, the Lebanese dimension becomes the second missing link – without a coherent strategy to integrate Hezbollah’s challenge into Trump’s 20/21-point roadmap, the entire scheme risks fragmentation, leaving Israel obligated to maintain a dual-front military posture while Washington hopes to pivot toward diplomacy and reconstruction.

Strategic and Political Implications

The combination of the CMCC in Kiryat Gat and the Trump plan’s ambiguities reflects a broader strategic trend: a creeping dilution of Israel’s decision-making independence in the name of multilateral “partnership.”

While the U.S.–Israel alliance remains vital, Israel’s leadership must recognize the thin line between coordination and control. Once international actors are embedded in operational frameworks on Israeli soil, it becomes increasingly difficult to disentangle shared missions from shared authority.

Moreover, these developments have domestic consequences. Critics within Israel’s defense establishment warn that allowing foreign personnel inside strategic facilities could create unprecedented intelligence and operational vulnerabilities. Others point out that symbolic sovereignty matters no less than military sovereignty: when decisions about Gaza’s reconstruction, borders, or demilitarization are made jointly with foreign powers, Israel’s autonomy – the core of its nationhood – becomes negotiable.

For Kiryat Gat, the Hezbollah factor has direct consequences. The city must serve not only as a reconstruction hub but also as a staging ground for redeployed forces freed from the northern front. Its infrastructure, therefore, must be both robust and flexible to accommodate potential shifts in military logistics. Kiryat Gat’s role extends beyond Gaza: it may function as a contingency support node for any renewed northern conflict, reinforcing the city’s strategic significance.

From a broader perspective, Israel faces a complex balancing act: safeguarding sovereignty while coordinating reconstruction and humanitarian operations, all under the shadow of multi-front threats. The dual pressures from Gaza and Lebanon amplify the importance of Kiryat Gat as both a practical logistics hub and a symbol of national resilience.

Moreover, the Trump framework’s reliance on post-Gaza reconstruction as a stabilizing lever is only viable if both fronts are addressed. Without integrating Hezbollah’s threat into the strategic calculus, the plan’s credibility, effectiveness, and sustainability are jeopardized. This scenario underscores the need for Israel to maintain a dual-focus strategy, simultaneously pursuing reconstruction, deterrence, and multi-front security.

The Larger Question: Who Decides Israel’s Future?

Without doubt, decisions regarding the future of Israel are made by God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Creator of heaven and earth, whose plan for Israel is far greater than any human alliance can envision. But, from an on-the-ground, what-we-see, perspective, Israel is making efforts to navigate a post-war landscape fraught with moral, military, and diplomatic challenges. And in the process, it faces an uncomfortable question: will it continue to act as a fully sovereign nation, or drift toward becoming a managed participant in a regional or global governance scheme?

The presence of multinational forces – even under a “coordination” mandate – may be the thin end of the wedge. But, once such structures are normalized, the pressure for “international oversight” in other areas, such as Judea and Samaria, will only intensify. The precedent being set in Kiryat Gat could thus shape the contours of Israel’s sovereignty for years to come.

The Imperative of Clarity

Israel’s alliance with the United States is considered to be indispensable. But alliances must be built on mutual respect, not administrative dependency. The Coordination Center may offer tactical advantages, but strategically, it tests the boundaries of sovereignty. If Israel fails to define those boundaries clearly NOW, it may one day find them defined for it by others.

The past week has underscored Israel’s delicate balancing act: managing immediate defense, reconstruction logistics, and humanitarian obligations while navigating the enduring threats posed by militant actors on multiple fronts. Kiryat Gat emerges not merely as a logistical hub but as a strategic anchor in the unfolding regional plan – a center where the success of Trump’s framework, the stabilization of Gaza, and Israel’s sovereignty intersect.

Yet the full success of any plan hinges on accounting for every critical factor, including the resurgence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Without resolving the northern dimension, even the most meticulous coordination at Kiryat Gat may be insufficient to ensure comprehensive security and sustainable reconstruction.

We need to see things with spiritual eyes. God remains faithful to His promises to Israel. One day, war, sorrow, and death will be abolished (Isaiah 2:4; Revelation 21:4). Nations will not lift up swords against other nations, neither will they learn war anymore. From my perspective, the sooner the better.

Until then, bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all,

This past week has pulled into sharp focus the delicate balance between war-termination, diplomacy and Israel’s security red-lines. From the return of bodies of slain hostages, through the ongoing failure of Hamas to meaningfully disarm, to the heightened role of the United States and the unfolding architecture of a multinational stabilization force for Gaza, the central question facing Israel remains the same: can we move from crisis to credible security?

Here are the main developments and why they matter.

1. The return of the remains of hostages – a moral, operational and political pressure cooker

This week, Israeli authorities confirmed the identification of the bodies of two additional hostages. While this is a moment of closure for the families involved, the fact remains: a double-digit number of deceased hostages still remain in Gaza under Hamas control.

From an operational point of view, the grafting of this process onto the ceasefire/hostage-deal framework is revealing several points of distortion: locating bodies under rubble, verifying identity, coordinating cross-border transfers – these are all time-consuming, hazardous tasks. Hamas repeatedly cites the difficulty of locating remains under rubble and the need for heavy equipment. Israel doesn’t believe Hamas’s claims that it cannot locate the remains of the dead hostages whose bodies have yet to be returned.

Politically and morally, Israel is under intense pressure. Families of hostages and the wider Israeli public are demanding that every body be returned before moving to any further concessions. The slow pace feeds suspicion that Hamas is deliberately using the remaining bodies as leverage and Israeli officials are saying exactly that.

The implication is that until Israel has credible assurances of the return of all remains of the deceased hostages, any “next stage” of the deal will face both public resistance and operational uncertainty. In other words, the return of remains is not simply a humanitarian detail – it is part of the power-balance and sequencing of the deal.

2. Hamas remains armed – crisis in disarmament

If the return of bodies is the moral/operational metric, the disarmament of Hamas is the strategic one. Israel has stressed one uncompromising condition, that any viable peace architecture must include the demilitarisation of Gaza and the complete removal of Hamas, so that the horrors of 7 October 2023 cannot be repeated.

Hamas officials have already made clear they could not commit to full disarmament. Meanwhile, Israeli commentary warns that the deal will collapse if disarmament is not enforced.

Put simply: Israel is being asked to walk a tightrope. On the one had, there is the public/political pressure to move toward “normalisation” (a term that needs consensual clarification); on the other had there is the ever-present risk that a still-armed Hamas will be able to reconstitute its capability. Without real disarmament, the so-called “peace phase” is provisional at best and delusional at worst.

The policy implication for Israel is stark: if disarmament is not verifiable, then security fallback options must be retained, namely, Israel must have the right and responsibility to resume operations. A deal without that capacity is like a cloud without water.

3. U.S. role and Israeli diplomacy this week

This week saw intensive U.S.–Israel interaction. The J.D. Vance visit to Israel, and follow-up engagements by U.S. envoys such as Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, signal Washington’s commitment to ensure the Gaza ceasefire and the hostage deal don’t unravel. 

One key piece of the diplomatic puzzle is the U.S. establishing a “Civil-Military Coordination Centre” in southern Israel, amazingly with Israel’s consent, and deploying surveillance drones over Gaza to monitor implementation. Such a move, however, underscores the fact that Israel cannot proceed to act unilaterally. It also means Israel must accept a degree of external scrutiny and coordination of its operations and the enforcement of the ceasefire agreement.

On the bilateral front, Israel is using the U.S. connection to shape the composition of the international force for Gaza, insisting on certain red lines, for example, Turkish troops are reported to have been vetoed from the Gaza force. In effect, Israel is saying: yes to international partners, no to honey-traps that might compromise its security.

In sum, the U.S. is playing the role of architect and monitor. Israel is the guarantor and ultimate fallback. Any mis-alignment between them will quickly translate into operational and political risk.

4. The Multinational Stabilization Force for Gaza – design, pitfalls and impact

One of the week’s most under-reported, but strategically vital, items is the emerging architecture of the proposed international stabilization force for Gaza (the “ISF”). According to Israeli media, the core of the force will be drawn from two Muslim-majority states, Indonesia and Azerbaijan, following Israeli insistence that Turkey be excluded. The force is expected to number in the tens of thousands (though details remain inexact). The United States will provide oversight and a coordination hub, but will not place large combat units inside Gaza.

This is important, because for Israel, the presence of a credible external force provides a potential exit strategy: if Gaza is stabilised, Hamas demilitarised and reconstruction underway, Israeli forces can gradually withdraw and focus on high-risk corridors rather than continued full presence.

However, the pitfalls are numerous:

Legitimacy vs capability: While Indonesia’s peacekeeping credentials and Azerbaijan’s security ties with Israel are encouraging, deploying a tens-of-thousands-strong force in Gaza is uncharted territory. Will they have the legal mandate, the logistics and the trust of Gazans?

Rules of engagement & Israeli control: Israel insists it must approve any operations inside Gaza. This is a “yellow line” of demarcation on the ground, marked by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) this week. It is already a reminder that Israel’s position is that it will retain territorial and operational control until disarmament is assured.

Verification of disarmament: Even if the ISF deploys, what will it monitor? Without access to tunnels and weapons caches, the presence of the international force may become symbolic rather than effective. Indeed, one analysis warned that successful disarmament historically depends on an independent body that will have intrusive inspection powers.

Timing and sequencing: Israel is clear: the ISF’s deployment and Israel’s withdrawal must be conditional on Hamas’ compliance. The deal’s next phases cannot be front-loaded ahead of verification. (The legal framing of “what happens if Hamas violates the deal” remains alarmingly fuzzy.)

Bottom line: This force could provide a gateway out of perpetual war for Israel, but only if it is built on a solid foundation of Hamas disarmament, credible oversight and guaranteed Israeli involvement. If those plugins fail, the force could become a liability, providing illusions of stability while Israel remains exposed. In the absence of clear operational guidelines, the ISF’s mission will be doomed to failure and it should be renamed the IMF (“Impossible Mission Force”).

5. Implication for Security Policy and Domestic Priorities

Security posture remains paramount. Despite the diplomatic moves, Israel is not in “normalisation” mode. The slow pace of the return of the remains of hostages, the absence of real disarmament and the need to guard against a repeat of the October 7 devastation mean Israeli leaders must retain a robust fallback plan for renewed operations.

Domestic pressures are intense. Hostage families continue to dominate the public narrative. Any sense that Israel is conceding territory or reducing operational vigilance without full returns and verifiable disarmament will create political backlash. The past week’s developments show that the issue of the return of the hostages is a litmus test of Israel’s credibility.

Diplomatic stamina is required. Israel is leveraging its U.S. relationship but must remain vigilant that Washington’s demands (for sequencing, for international oversight) do not constrain Israel’s ability to act decisively when required. Israel’s ability to approve or reject participating states in the international force, for instance, reflects Israel’s insistence on preserving its security prerogatives.

Long-term change remains conditional. The promise of reconstruction, normalized relations with Arab states and a post-war Gaza are still in play, but they hinge on three pre-conditions this week: (1) full return of hostages/remains, (2) Hamas disarmament, (3) credible deployment of the stabilization force under Israeli-acceptable terms. Without all three, the status quo of frozen war and controlled presence in Gaza continues.

Final word

This week underscored a simple but uncomfortable truth for Israel: the peace deal is only as strong as the weakest link. That link now resides in the intertwined areas of remains-return, disarmament, and the architecture of international involvement. Israel is ahead on diplomacy and framing the deal, but the deal’s fragile nature means there is zero room for complacency.

For Israel, this means staying alert, maintaining operational freedom, and not handing over the keys before the door is unlocked. For policymakers, the lesson is clear: the devil is in the sequencing. If the returns aren’t complete, if Hamas doesn’t disarm and its the weapons remain hidden, if the international force lacks political heft or legitimacy, the deal may fall for lack of structure and operational authority.

Israel is not seeking war today; it is seeking security tomorrow. How this week’s maneuvers play out in the coming weeks will tell whether the peace track is credible, or merely another pause in a cycle.

One last point: Under the Gaza–Israel truce, Israel deported 154 convicted terrorists to Egypt rather than allowing them to remain in the territories under the control of the “Palestinian” Authority. A report claims many of them have been staying comfortably at a five‐star hotel in Cairo, raising serious security, accountability and political concerns about how the truce’s terms are being implemented. The article highlights the potential for these individuals to move, network and regroup, with little transparency on oversight or funding, and raises questions about the future stability and efficacy of the agreement. Freedom from an Israel jail and living it up in a luxury hotel after release, with minimal restrictions – it would seem that, at least for them, it pays to be a terrorist.

“They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, saying, ‘Peace, peace’, but there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14) 

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all,

There are moments when a nation inhales and the whole body seems to hold its breath. The return of the living hostages on October 13, 2025 felt like such a moment for Israel – a raw, ecstatic, exhausted inhalation after two years of torment. Twenty people who had been ripped from their homes on October 7, 2023, were finally back on Israeli soil. They were frail and starved. They had been beaten and tortured. Some were confused. But they were all loved by the millions in Israel who had informally adopted them as family. They are slowly being loved back into life. “Hostage Square” in Tel Aviv was packed by uncountable numbers, as people stood shoulder to shoulder, their eyes fixed on the large screens in front of them, waiting for the first group of live hostages to be returned and then for the second group, a total of 20 in all. And then, after two years of pain and anguish, the moment came. The hostages were in Israeli hands. A collective shout rose from across the nation. It was a time of jubilation in the streets, in homes, in offices and everywhere in Israel where the news was being broadcast: “It’s official: There are no more living Israeli hostages in Hamas captivity.” Hospitals, which had long prepared to render special care to returning hostages, began to be filled with 20 live hostages. Synagogues filled with prayers of thanksgiving. Even many who were strongly opposed to any “deal” with Hamas terrorists were carried along by the moment and shed tears of joy. Our sons had been brought back into the borders of Israel.

But, the relief was immediately shadowed by a different, corrosive emotion: betrayal. The U.S.-brokered “20-point” framework – presented as a hard-won mechanical list of steps to bring the living home, return the dead hostages, open crossings, and allow humanitarian relief – required more than applause. It required trust, painstaking verification, and the simple decency of returning every human that had been taken hostage. Within days, Israeli officials, grieving families, and pro-Israel outlets began to say bluntly that Hamas had failed to live up to the deal.

“Hamas has still not handed over the remains of 19 deceased hostages … violating its obligation under the agreement to release everyone who was abducted during the Oct. 7 atrocities.”

The concrete tally that matters to grieving families is stark and unforgiving. The living: 20 returned on Oct. 13, processed into medical care and homecomings. The dead: Hamas has handed over only a fraction of the 28 bodies Israel expected under the deal – many reports converge around nine returned so far, with families and authorities sharply disputing Hamas’s explanations that some remains cannot be reached. One of the returned coffins was discovered not to contain an Israeli hostage at all, but the body of a Gazan – a fact that brought back memories of the return of another body earlier this year that was supposed to be that of the mother of the Bibas children, but which was that of an unknown Gazan, before the alleged “mistake” was corrected. This present failure of Hamas to abide by the terms of the ceasefire agreement has become a focal point in accusations that the group is purposely obstructing or manipulating the process of returning the dead bodies of the hostages, who are still being held by Hamas. As of this writing, the remains of 19 hostages are still being held by the terror group. “This represents a blatant breach of the agreement by Hamas…The families of the deceased hostages are enduring especially difficult days filled with deep sorrow.”

That single misidentification is not a clerical error in a bureaucracy; for the families who have waited two years for the chance to bury their children, spouses, parents, it is an assault – a twisting of memory into bargaining chips. Reports captured the raw spectrum of human response: overwhelming joy as living hostages reunite with parents in streets and hospitals, and bitter fury from families who have not received the remains of their loved ones. The refrain heard at Israeli cemeteries and in hot lines to ministers is that we cannot permit history to repeat itself and our fight is not over until every last hostage is returned home.

Politically, the consequences are immediate and jagged. The right-wing in Israeli politics – voices who never trusted the deal – pounced, framing the mismatches and delays as proof that any concession is fertile ground for terror. Centrist and left-leaning factions, while grateful for the living returns, warn that a breakdown in compliance risks consigning Israel back to all-out war and the obliteration of fragile diplomatic inroads. The public mood is bifurcated: gratitude tangled with a gut-level sense of being deceived. Commentators from pro-Israel outlets argued in strong language that the breach – whether intentional or a consequence of chaos in Gaza – undermines any narrative of a stable cease-fire.

Yet one fundamental breach of the ceasefire agreement is not enough for the terror group. As noted in the Algemeiner headline of October 16, 2025: “Hamas Aims to Keep Grip on Gaza Security and Can’t Commit to Disarm.”

International reactions have been a study in careful choreography. The White House, while celebrating the hostage releases, publicly urged patience and verification, cautioning that recovering remains from a shattered urban battlefield “will take some time.” Other pro-Israel governments and pundits praised the return of the living but echoed Israel’s demand for full compliance on the dead and on opening Rafah crossing for humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, far-right outlets and commentators hailed the deal as a political victory for the U.S. administration, even as they pointed to the mismatched coffin and retained bodies as evidence that Hamas can – and will – flout agreements.

From the ground, the voices most often drowned out by geopolitics are those in private rooms and hospital beds. One freed hostage’s father described the reunion as “a miracle” and “the answer to prayers,” while other families, standing at the edge of freshly dug graves, described a sense of being cheated by an enemy that treats the dead as leverage and is lying about being unable to find dead hostages. These conflicting emotional traumas have fed political tensions: ministers and MPs demand clarity and immediacy; fathers and mothers demand coffins that hold their children, not excuses.

What does Hamas’s “breaches” of the ceasefire agreement mean in practice? For Israel, it means tangible policy levers: closing or restricting crossings, slowing aid, or even reinstituting limited military measures to pressure compliance. For mediators – the U.S., Qatar, Egypt – it means frantic diplomacy to prove the deaths were not the result of bad faith but of battlefield realities: tunnels collapsed, sites inaccessible, remains scattered. Pro-Israel outlets have been unsparing: the narrative they advance is that Hamas has both the capacity and the motive to delay or manipulate returns to maximise political gain.

And so the week closed on an uneasy holiday of relief and recrimination. The smiles in the hospital corridors cannot erase the empty chairs at so many Shabbat tables, nor can diplomatic rhetoric mend the raw wound of a wife, whose husband is still missing after two years, or the agony of a mother who has not received the child she buried in her mind. The deal brought the living home – a long, prayed-for event, but it also exposed a fault line: agreements without trust are brittle, and when the dead are bargaining chips, the whole moral architecture of peacemaking starts to crumble.

If diplomacy cannot convert the week’s fragile cease-fire into verified, complete compliance – full returns, open crossings, reliable aid – then Israel will be forced to choose between accepting partial justice and reopening the violence that consumed so many lives. In the meantime, the nation will carry both gratitude and grievance, the two emotions braided tightly together, as families wait, politicians argue, and mediators scramble to mend what may already be tearing.

For millennia, the Jewish people have faced relentless attempts – through exile, persecution, forced conversion, and genocide – to erase their faith, identity, and existence, yet have endured as a testament to divine preservation and a promise that is as unchangeable as God Himself. This latest battle lasted two years. But, the war is far from being over. We’re experiencing only another ceasefire, already violated by a terrorist organization with no moral compass, whose signature on an agreement is a matter of convenience, not a matter of commitment. Your continued prayers would be appreciated for wisdom for Israel’s leaders, for comfort and compassion for the wounded and for grace for the families who wait for the return of the bodies of their loved ones, so that they can finally achieve closure.

Our soul waits for the LORD; He is our help and our shield. For our heart rejoices in Him, because we trust in His holy name. Let Your lovingkindness, O LORD, be upon us, according as we have hoped in You. (Psalm 33:20-22).

It’s the beginning of a new week and with new opportunities to be thankful.

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all,

The Human Toll Revisited

On Saturday, October 7, 2023, a day that was intended to be the “Great Day” of the most joyful Biblical holiday, the Feast of Tabernacles (“Succot”), Israel suffered a convulsive trauma, a national tragedy unparalleled in modern history: over 1,200 Israelis were massacred by Hamas terrorists in a single morning, and 251 were taken hostage – among them children, women, and elderly. The effects have echoed ever since – through entire families being extinguished, kibbutzim being razed, cities being scarred. During the two years of war that followed that Black Saturday, the nation mourned, fought, endured sirens and missiles, from Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and Yemen (of all places) and waited. That war claimed more than 1,152 defenders, including members of the IDF, Police, The “Shabak” (Shin Bet -Israel’s Security Agency), special operations forces, and members of local readiness squads, and nearly 1,000 civilians. For Israelis, the Gaza War was never a campaign of conquest. It was an existential struggle for survival.

The grief has not subsided. The memorial ceremonies that marked the two years since that dark day of infamy were saturated with sorrow and longing, a collective ache and cry for justice, for the safe return of all hostages, and for the healing of a nation that continues to suffer a seemingly endless national trauma.

The suffering extended beyond Israel’s borders, with thousands killed in Gaza. Communities in Israel and neighborhoods in Gaza lie in ruins. The devastation and loss is real and no speech or piece of paper can ameliorate the loss, the pain and the anguish. 

The Deal and Knesset Ratification

Yesterday, Israel and Hamas signed a draft ceasefire and hostage-release agreement under U.S., Egyptian, and Qatari mediation, the first tangible product of President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace framework. Within hours, the Israeli Cabinet and Knesset ratified the agreement by a clear majority. The deal’s first phase includes:

•       A verified ceasefire within 24 hours.

•       The release of all remaining Israeli hostages, both living and deceased, within 72 hours after Knesset approval of the draft agreement.

•       The release of approximately 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 serving multiple life sentences for their involvement in the murder of Israelis.

•       Gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops to designated zones inside Gaza.

•       International supervision of humanitarian corridors and reconstruction oversight.

The full text of Trump’s plan can be seen here and here.

Political Implications and Cabinet Analysis

The deal carries not only humanitarian and military weight but immense political consequence. For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the ceasefire and hostage-release agreement represents both a respite and a redemption of sorts. After two years of mounting public anger, protests, and a relentless erosion of trust following October 7, Netanyahu now stands to regain some of the legitimacy and stability that had been slipping away. The image of Israeli hostages returning home—children embraced by their parents, soldiers saluting amid tears—may provide a symbolic renewal of leadership at a time when his coalition has been internally divided and internationally criticized.

According to analysts cited by PBS.org, the Israeli Cabinet’s approval of the outline of the deal reflected not only the deep divisions within the government but also the shared recognition that a return of the hostages is a moral imperative that transcends politics. The PBS report noted that even Netanyahu’s most skeptical ministers voted in favor of the deal, aware that opposing the release of Israeli captives could be politically ruinous. Yet the report also underscored a tension within the Cabinet: while the agreement offers a short-term diplomatic victory, it may also weaken Israel’s strategic leverage by ending the war without decisively dismantling Hamas.

Domestically, Netanyahu benefits from the emotional relief sweeping the country. The ceasefire offers him breathing room from months of demonstrations calling for new elections and investigations into governmental failures on October 7. In the short term, this agreement allows him to reposition himself as the statesman who delivered Israel’s sons and daughters back from captivity – an image that may momentarily outweigh earlier criticisms. Internationally, the deal provides Netanyahu with a stage to appear as a pragmatic partner to U.S. diplomacy and to Arab mediators, countering the narrative of isolation that has surrounded his government in recent months.

Nevertheless, PBS and Israeli commentators alike caution that the long-term outcome may define whether this is Netanyahu’s triumph or his undoing. If the ceasefire collapses, if hostages are harmed, or if Hamas reconstitutes its power under the guise of reconstruction, the current political gain could quickly turn to renewed backlash.

Netanyahu’s Speech

Following the Knesset’s approval of the draft agreement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the nation early this afternoon. The Prime Minister repeatedly emphasized that Israel would not relent until all hostages are returned and its security goals are fulfilled. In his remarks, Netanyahu insisted: “Hamas never agreed to release all of our hostages while we remain deep inside the Strip . . . Hamas agreed to the deal only when it felt the sword resting on its neck … and it is still on its neck.” He also thanked President Trump for applying “massive diplomatic pressure” on Hamas, which he framed as a key factor in forcing the agreement. Netanyahu pushed back against pundits who claimed a full hostage deal would require Israel’s complete withdrawal, stating he knew that with “massive diplomatic pressure … this powerful combination will cause Hamas to give back all of our hostages, while the IDF remains deep inside the Strip.” Netanyahu also promised, by way of a threat, that “Hamas will be disarmed, and Gaza will be demilitarized . . . If this is achieved the easy way, great. And if not, it will be achieved the hard way.” He framed this objective as being non-negotiable.

He denied that the deal was viable earlier, saying the terms only became possible when Hamas was isolated and pressured. Netanyahu framed the war and negotiations as part of broader strategic aims, namely removing threats from Iran, breaking the Iranian axis, and ensuring Israel’s security.

A JNS article quotes Netanyahu calling the hostage-ceasefire deal a “diplomatic success and a national and moral victory for the State of Israel.” He declared: “With the approval of the first phase of the plan, all our hostages will be brought home”, noting “From the beginning, I made it clear: We will not rest until all our hostages return and all our goals are achieved.” 

It should also be noted that while critics aim to cast Netanyahu as the war’s scapegoat, when all the dust and fallout from the Gaza War settles, the opposite will become clear and that “only [Netanyahu’s] steadfast focus on denying victory to Hamas forced it to surrender to Trump’s demands.” 

A Joy Mixed with Pain

Across Israel, the news of the hostages’ release was met with tears of joy and heartbreak intertwined. Crowds gathered in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the Galilee to celebrate the names of those returning home. Flags waved. Families held pictures of their loved ones and whispered the “Shehecheyanu” prayer, thanking God for bringing them to this moment (“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has granted us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this occasion”).

But, amid the relief lies a gnawing pain. Hamas remains operational in parts of Gaza, its leadership remains intact, its ideology remains unbroken. On the one hand, we rejoice that the hostages will return home; but along with that, our hearts are torn, because the evil continues to exist in our midst.

Israeli media and security analysts echo the concern. Only weeks prior to the signing of the draft agreement, it was reported that “Gaza City has long been a central stronghold for Hamas, and beneath its streets lies a vast, strategic network of tunnels and terror infrastructure that has not yet been dismantled”. That being the case, it may well be that the cost of the ceasefire may be the seeds of future violence.

Similarly, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) warned that Hamas forces attacked Israeli positions even as the ceasefire was announced, and that the IDF remains “deeply concerned about kidnapping attempts” in border sectors. Such incidents reinforce fears that Hamas views ceasefire diplomacy as another theater of war.

Adding to the ongoing grief, an IDF soldier was killed by a Hamas sniper near Khan Yunis just hours before dawn – a stark reminder that peace expressed on a piece of paper has not yet silenced the guns. Over 15,000 Israeli soldiers have been wounded since the war began, many permanently disabled. For their families, the word “ceasefire” carries both hope and the ache of unfinished sacrifice. 

Difficulties and Dangers

Even as the Knesset’s ratification signals a form of resolve, Israel faces formidable challenges:

1.      Security Vacuums: Withdrawal from Gaza could allow Hamas and allied militias to regroup under humanitarian cover. Israeli defense officials are demanding guarantees that reconstruction materials will not be diverted to weapons manufacturing.

2.      Verification and Hostage Releases: Every name on the list is sacred to Israelis. We’ve already experienced deception in the return of the murder of the mother of two young children. Any further deception along these lines, or delay in the return of all of the bodies of the slain hostages, will ignite national outrage with potential serious consequences for breach of contract.

3.      Domestic Political Strains: Critics argue the Israeli concessions are too steep; supporters see them as a painful necessity. Both agree the price exacted from Israel is heavy.

4.      Global Pressure and Legal Risks: Israel must now navigate international investigations, media scrutiny, and moral expectations, all while ensuring its people remain safe.

5.      Potential Spoilers: Iranian-backed groups and Hamas hardliners could sabotage the fragile calm to undermine both Israel and moderate Arab partners.

The Ceasefire has begun – The timeclock for the release of the hostages is now ticking and in a stage of countdown.

Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, announced in his post on “X”: “CENTCOM has confirmed that the Israeli Defense Forces completed the first phase withdrawal to the yellow line at 12PM local time. The 72 hour period to release the hostages has begun.”

Fallout for Israel and the Jewish World

Around the world, Jewish communities stand in solidarity, but also in fear. Antisemitic incidents have surged to levels unseen since the 1930’s in Germany. Jewish students, synagogues, and organizations face hostility for merely expressing support for Israel’s right to exist. This, too, is part of the war’s fallout – a moral reckoning between civilization and barbarism. And with the Pandora’s box of antisemitism having been opened, it may be difficult to close it again and to diminish the surge of blind hatred that has already been released like a spreading disease for which there is no human cure.

Yet Israel endures. Despite isolation in world forums, despite global condemnation, despite sorrow, the Jewish state remains steadfast. The survival of Israel, battered but unbroken, is itself a living testament to God’s promise of Genesis 12:3:

“I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

That principle is not merely an historic statement, etched in the fibre of an eternal promise; it is an undeniable reality, still operational in the unfolding drama of nations. Every attempt to harm and destroy Israel will be a moral judgment and result in condemnation of the one who seeks Israel’s harm; every act of kindness toward it carries unseen blessings.

Reaching a crossroad

The signing of this ceasefire is not an ending; it is a crossroad between mourning and rebuilding. Israel has paid a staggering price in lives, in pain, in moral exhaustion. Yet amid the tears of remembrance and the uneasy quiet of a new truce, the faith of a people endures. It is being asked to pay an enormous price, not in currency, but in trust and faith. The question is: In whose arm are we going to trust? “Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish.How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in the LORD his God, Who made heaven and earth, The sea and all that is in them; Who keeps faith forever; Who executes justice for the oppressed; Who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free.” (Psalm 146:3-7)

The nation that buried its dead and still sings Am Yisrael Chai – “The people of Israel live” – remains a light that the darkness cannot extinguish. The world will watch whether this fragile attempt at peace brings healing or relapse. But one truth endures beyond politics: God’s promises to Israel, both as a people and as a nation, still stands. And so does its hope, which burns eternal. “Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.” (Rom. 15:13)

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin