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