Hamas attack

I will still add something here, because I don't think many people think about it that way, and I'm sure it will also upset a lot of people (you'll see it here soon).
My wife Dafna came up with an interesting idea. The failure in Yok gave Egypt a picture of victory and allowed them to reach a peace agreement with us. Maybe there is an advantage here for Hamas's great victory (which in fact was a real victory, unlike the Egyptian narrative regarding Yok). If they have such a picture of victory, it's time to tell them that we surrender and release all the prisoners in exchange for the hostages, provided that they reach a comprehensive agreement. With a strong stick and a lot of carrots, maybe this actually creates a historic opportunity.
The problem is that I don't trust the intelligence and motivations of this government. Certainly in its vision and its ability to "surrender" to productive surrender. It will have to be with Gantz and Lapid without the crazy ones.
We need to understand that they now need to stop themselves with four divisions ready on the Gaza border and offer Hamas this option, otherwise we will not see eye to eye and we will go wild (the stick). The public will have to digest surrender and the lack of an appropriate Zionist response. But now everyone, especially the Smotrichs and the Ben Gvirim, want blood, and it will be difficult for them to do what is right. In my assessment, they will probably do another round, perhaps more powerful than before as a catharsis for the public and themselves, which, as usual, will not benefit us in any way.

In the margins of my remarks, I must say that maintaining my rationalist position in the face of the crazy mess that happened yesterday is becoming very difficult. If there is anything that seems clearly supernatural, it is the crazy oversight that was here. 4-5 terrorists control the town and its people are besieged and massacred, while there is ongoing telephone contact with them, and the glorious IDF fails after 16 hours (!) to send an infantry division to handle this joke. And I didn't mention the intelligence and operational failure that makes Yom Kippur a ridiculous joke. Now all we have to do is wait for the learned theological explanations for this colossal blindness sent to us from on high: It happened because they opposed separation in second rounds and in general, or it happened because they wanted to separate. And these and these are the words of the living God.

What is the advantage of the agreement over the current situation?

Bibi will never give up on the crazy people. He is not ready for a unity government without Ben Gvir and Smotritz.
After all, he has other cases to deal with.

Rabbi.
Do you think we learned from this attack that if the army had more soldiers, for example, most of the haredi public, we would be safer?
I ask because it is often claimed that the IDF has enough fighters.

Elhanan, that's exactly what I thought. We're constantly told that the IDF doesn't need the Haredim, so beyond the obvious immoral inequality, it would seem that at least we're "getting by without them." Today, in light of the problem of the Sadak, which sent battalions to Samaria to guard the Sukkah of Smotrich and Ben Gvir's company in Huwara (as the media reported), it feels like we're actually missing a Sadak.

What agreement exactly would satisfy them (really) besides negating the existence of the State of Israel?

U,
The advantage depends on the content of the agreement. But an agreement can give us legitimacy for harsher reactions in the event of a violation, and also create a situation in which Hamas and the Palestinians have something to lose.

Elhanan,
I don't know the data, but my impression is that the problem is not the SDK, but the shocking functioning of the army. In my opinion, there is no problem with the existing SDK bringing a platoon or even an infantry company to every kibbutz in such a situation. Of course, if there are more soldiers, everything is easier, but that is the easy solution. The army needs to function, and if it doesn't function, no SDK will help. Yesterday, our army functioned like the Shek units of Zimbabwe.

A,
Until we try, we won't know. If they don't agree to the agreement, there is always the military option that they are now focusing on.

Since the rabbi is engaged in Torah and mitzvot all day, he is apparently disconnected from all social networks. My little brother showed me selected videos so the rabbi could check them out. I think that later the rabbi would rather write all kinds of nonsense in the style of Shalom, but rather grab his belongings and flee Lod, lest the Arabs there start their own ideas.

Rabbi Zini with a slightly more logical message

Yes, it is known that those who want reliable information for decision-making will connect to social networks. This is about the level of Rabbi Zeini's stupid and hackneyed slogans.

What's not to believe about clear videos coming from the enemy and the dead lying on the street floor????
And in the Rabbi's writing style, “it's just skepticism if everyone shows you videos that seem more or less full of murder, there's no reason to think it's a lie”

What is meant by a comprehensive agreement? What will be in it?

Apart from the moral effect, which is not unimportant, any agreement regardless of its content will encourage the continuation of such events. The terrorists in Judea and Samaria will see, and so will they. And besides, who believes them and their agreements anyway?

I don't pretend to think I have a solution to this, and I doubt anyone does, but when there is no magic solution, we do the trivial thing: strike back. Even if it doesn't solve the problem, it will reduce the number of people who cause it.

A pretty stupid idea. Do you really not know the academic material on Hamas? They are a resistance organization. War is their basic DNA. Control and power in Gaza are an important and indulgent bonus, but it is a means, not an end. An agreement is not something they are capable of at all in any constellation. They have no fundamental interest in it at all.

The symbol of Hamas (for those who know Arabic) is the biggest sign that we do not have a platform for peace with them! , Haven't 70 years been enough to convey the message that we are fighting a culture of rape/murder/degradation of bodies/annihilation? , We have not fought an organization that wants territory and there are opinions here and there, We fought a culture of moral evil, We are not fighting only anti-Semitism or something like that, This is against a culture whose entire essence is crimes against humanity, the DNA of which science will change someday and we will be able to overcome it, But with culture it is much more difficult, Another thing, I personally do not know of any country that operates solely according to moral laws, The United States, Germany, Great Britain are full of examples but we should not strive for moral values alone We should equally strive to protect our security in order to survive, hoping for better days 🇮🇱

Rabbi Zini's slogans are infinitely more logical and sober than the novel idea of peace with Hamas.
The disgusting cocktail of abysmal hatred of Israel with savage and barbaric cruelty is not something with which one can make a peace treaty.
I wonder how it is possible that an intelligent and wise person like you does not see that these savages are not objects of peace but of war.

A few questions for the Rabbi
Why don't you support the option of crushing Hamas and flattening the Strip (destroying everything)? Because of the prisoners there or because it's unrealistic or immoral?
Do you think it's justified for the IDF to kidnap children and women of Hamas members and that this will be a bargaining chip in negotiations for the return of the prisoners?

In my opinion, everything is legitimate. Kill every resident of Gaza. Whatever is useful. But the rants that come from the stomach of Rabbi Zeini or anyone else (including politicians and military personnel) do not necessarily stand on the ways that will be effective and bring results. Now everyone is speaking from the stomach, and that does not help. This is what happens all the time, that our response is determined by what we have taken away instead of by what will achieve our goals. Hamas is active and we are only reacting. A campaign to topple Hamas now would also be a response from the stomach, and in my opinion it would not succeed either. They should be harmed regardless of what they are doing, and whether they succeeded or not. The fact that they had a successful operation and that we were discovered naked is not a reason for any action. It is just a catharsis for public anger. We need to think about what will be optimally useful for our goals. If it is to kill the families of Hamas leaders, children, women and infants - then go ahead. But doing it just because we are angry is illogical and therefore immoral.

I understand
(Just to make sure I understand you correctly) So all the talk in the studios about how after such a blow we received there is no longer any justification for Hamas to exist and it needs to be wiped out because it has crossed every boundary and every norm (according to them, this is also to create deterrence so that all our enemies will know that such murderous actions will exact a price from which there is no resurrection) is not true in your opinion?

The statement is correct, and it was also correct a year and five years ago. The only thing that has changed is that the IDF has been exposed and Hamas has been exposed as being ten times superior to it. Therefore, such a statement is not a course of action, and it is clear that it is nothing more than a stomach growl. What is needed is creative thinking and action, and not more of the same. In my uneducated assessment, no one will wipe out Hamas. This is idle chatter. As usual. There will be another operation that will bring no benefit (maybe it will bring peace for another year or two. As always).

If anything, what we have learned from these events is not that Hamas has no right to exist. As mentioned, we knew this before. We learned that the IDF cannot do it, neither operationally nor intellectually. As I wrote in a parallel thread, the lesson is that the thinking must be removed from the IDF and the government. They are not capable of it. We need a multidisciplinary team of creative and experienced people to formulate a proposal for a structured policy on how to handle the situation, and in relation to the Palestinians in general. We keep repeating the same thing over and over again, hoping that this time it will work. Einstein already said what he thought of such an approach.

They slaughtered 1000 of our people. Surrender? Are you normal? From whom did you learn the doctrine of war? Or alternatively the doctrine of Islam? That you know with such certainty that surrender will lead to a better reality? I suggest you choose the most logical path in moments like this: not to speak things from the heart that are not proven by reason.

And I will add: How dare you write: “4-5 terrorists control the settlement and its people are besieged and massacred, when there is ongoing telephone contact with them, and the glorious IDF fails after 16 hours (!) to send an infantry division to deal with this joke.” Were you there? Friends of mine were killed there, whom I know from the distant past as heroic, brave and wise people, and they fell despite this. I am sure they did everything and despite this there is the element of surprise that helped them a lot. Let's wait for the investigations before drawing conclusions. I very much hope that if it turns out that you were wrong here in a big way and slandered the IDF in vain during a war and weakened the hearts of our soldiers in vain, that you will resign from your position and stop spreading unverified opinions in any way.

According to what they say, until now they didn't think Hamas needed to be destroyed. Hamas had something to lose (work permits, supplies to Gaza) and they didn't care. The approach until now was to build on the fact that they had something to lose and therefore they wouldn't do anything if there was a deterrent against them. Now it has become clear that this is an organization that really needs to be destroyed and cannot be dealt with in a situation where it is deterred.
I really don't understand how you think you should just surrender after clearing the area. Don't you think this is too dangerous an experiment on humans? It seems to me that in this case, gut feelings express honest intuition.

It turns out that behind every stupid man there is a stupid woman.
Your attempt to neutralize reactions projected with a stomach ache and a desire for revenge disrupts your common sense.
Without getting into the error in the historical facts in your words and the lack of understanding of the differences in character between Hamas and Egypt, I will touch on two points:
1) Even if we say that indeed the image of victory of Egypt allowed them to sign the agreement with us - how can you ignore so many other factors that were part of the situation in those days and assume that even today, based only on imagination in one aspect, we will reach the same result? This is simply foolishness
2) In what I opened my words with - I really want to ask you - is it Niralek an insight that common sense confirms? Is it really lawful for you to take such a step in the current reality? (I ask also assuming that such an action will indeed bring about the results you perhaps anticipate)
It seems that just because your proposal contradicts everything that the Israeli gut would say at this moment, you find it appropriate to stick to it.

To elaborate on Yehuda's words on point 1) – Besides the outward appearance of victory for the Egyptians, the Egyptian leaders understood very well that they had suffered a resounding military defeat, so much so that they despaired of being able to defeat Israel militarily in the foreseeable future. In addition, they received a huge territory, Sinai. In addition, Egypt did not really have any real claims on Israel to begin with, and Egypt also received a transition to American patronage.

The image of victory allowed the Egyptians not to portray themselves as complete losers whom Israel had crushed in the Six Days with zero effort, and then with the real considerations (mentioned above – military desperation, territorial achievement, political achievement, a war that was not motivated by a clear interest in the first place) they agreed after years to sign a very cold peace agreement.

Therefore, in Gaza, we must first demonstrate to them (not in theory with a stick in our hand, but in practice with a stick that is repeatedly hit) what a resounding military defeat and the payment of a heavy price look like. And then, if more chaos is heard in our country and if someone finds something reasonable that can be brought to Hamas to make it agreeable territorially (hint: there doesn't seem to be anything like that that still leaves Jews wandering around Petah Tikva and Givatayim) and politically, then he can also incorporate the issue of national self-respect into his ideas.

In addition to Lavie's words, I would like to point out that Sadat was assassinated by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization (which belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood movement just like Hamas), partly because of the agreement he signed with Israel.

Question for the Rabbi
I don't understand security at all and I don't have a military background yet (before conscription) but why doesn't Israel decide to gradually destroy Hamas over the years, meaning instead of declaring on every platform that the war won't end until Hamas is completely destroyed, telling the public that from now on we are changing the equation (indeed, a big question, what happened suddenly that the equation with Hamas changed and the Rabbi has already discussed this) and working to destroy Hamas over the years, however long it takes (with intelligence gathering and everything necessary to make it effective and efficient)