Still, I’ll add something here, because in my opinion many people don’t think about it this way, and I’m sure it will also annoy a lot of people (you’ll see that here in a moment).
My wife Dafna raised an interesting idea. The failure on Yom Kippur gave Egypt a picture of victory and enabled them to reach a peace agreement with us. Maybe here too there is an advantage to Hamas’s big victory (which in this case really was a victory, unlike the Egyptian narrative regarding Yom Kippur). If they have such a picture of victory, this is the time to tell them that we surrender and release all the prisoners in exchange for the hostages, provided that we reach a comprehensive agreement. With a big stick and plenty of carrot, maybe this actually creates a historic opportunity.
The problem is that I have no faith in the wisdom and motivations of this government. Certainly not in its vision and in its ability to “surrender” in a productive way. This would have to be with Gantz and Lapid, without the lunatics.
One has to understand that they now need to restrain themselves with four divisions ready on the Gaza border and offer Hamas this option, otherwise we’ll show no restraint and go wild (the stick). The public would have to digest surrender and a lack of a proper Zionist response. But right now everyone, and especially the Smotriches and Ben-Gvirs, wants blood, and it will be hard for them to do what is right. My assessment is that they will probably do another round, maybe more forceful than before, as a catharsis for the public and for themselves, which as usual will not help us at all.

As an aside, I have to say that holding on to my rationalist position in the face of the insane fiasco that happened yesterday is becoming very difficult. If there is anything that clearly looks supernatural, it is the insane failure we had here. Four or five terrorists control a community while its residents are trapped in safe rooms and being slaughtered, with ongoing phone contact with them, and the glorious IDF can’t manage after 16 hours (!) to send an infantry platoon to deal with this joke. And I’m not even talking about the intelligence and operational failure beside which Yom Kippur is a ridiculous joke. All that remains now is to wait for the learned theological explanations for this colossal blindness that was sent down upon us from on high: it happened because people opposed gender separation at the second hakafot and on Yom Kippur, or it happened because they wanted to separate. Both these and those are the words of the living God.

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

Bibi will never give up the lunatics. He’s not willing to have a unity government without Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.
At the end of all this, he still has legal 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 people often claim that the IDF has enough combat soldiers.

Elchanan, that’s exactly what I thought. They keep telling us that the IDF doesn’t need the Haredim, so beyond the blatantly immoral inequality it seemed that at least they were “managing without them.” Today, in light of the force-structure problem—that they moved battalions to Samaria to guard the sukkah of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir’s friends in Huwara (that’s what was reported in the media)—it feels like we really are short on manpower.

What agreement exactly would truly satisfy them, other than denying 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 responses in case of violation, and also create a situation in which Hamas and the Palestinians have something to lose.

Elchanan,
I don’t know the data, but my impression is that the problem is not manpower but the army’s shocking functioning. In my view, there is absolutely no problem with the current force size bringing an infantry platoon, even a company, to every kibbutz in such a situation. Of course, if there are more soldiers everything is easier, but that is the easy solution. An army needs to function, and if it doesn’t function no amount of manpower will help. Yesterday our army functioned like the equivalent of Zimbabwe’s PX units.

A,
Until we try, we won’t know. If they don’t agree to an arrangement, there is always the military option they are now thinking about.

Since the Rabbi spends all day occupied with Torah and commandments he is probably disconnected from all social media. My younger brother showed me select videos for the Rabbi to check out. I think afterward the Rabbi will no longer write all kinds of nonsense in the style of peace, but will rather grab his belongings and flee Lod lest the Arabs there start getting ideas of their own, Heaven forbid.

Rabbi Zini has a somewhat more sensible message https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRK8NYIWVMw

Yes, of course, everyone knows that if you want reliable information for decision-making, you should connect to social media. That is about the level of Rabbi Zini’s stupid, worn-out slogans.

What is unreliable about clear videos coming from the enemy side and about dead bodies lying on the street floor????
And in the Rabbi’s style of writing: “That’s just skepticism; if everyone is showing you videos that look more or less full of murder, there’s no reason to think it’s a lie.”

What do you mean by a comprehensive agreement? What would be in it?

Aside from the moral effect, which is not unimportant, any agreement regardless of its content will encourage the continuation of events like this. Terrorists in Judea and Samaria will see it and do likewise. And besides, who believes them and their agreements anyway?

I don’t presume to think I have a solution, and I doubt anyone does, but when there’s no magic solution, you do the obvious thing: strike back. Even if that doesn’t solve the problem, it will reduce the number of people causing it.

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

The Hamas emblem (for those who know Arabic) is the biggest sign that we have no platform for peace with them! Haven’t 70 years been enough to convey the message that we are fighting a culture of rape/murder/humiliation of corpses/extermination? We have not until now been fighting an organization that wants territory and where there are opinions this way and that; we have been fighting a culture of moral evil. We are not fighting only antisemitism or something of that sort; this is against a culture whose entire essence is crimes against humanity. DNA—maybe one day science will change it and we will manage to overcome it, but culture is much harder. One more thing: I personally am not aware of any country that acts only according to moral laws. The United States, Germany, Britain—there are plenty of examples. But we should not aspire only to the value of morality; we should equally aspire to protecting our security in order to survive. Hoping for better days 🇮🇱

Rabbi Zini’s slogans are incomparably more sensible and clear-eyed than the vile idea of peace with Hamas.
The disgusting cocktail of profound hatred of Israel together with savage, barbaric cruelty is not something with which one can forge a peace treaty.
I wonder how it is possible that a clever and wise person like you does not see that these savages do not desire peace but war.

A few questions for the Rabbi:
Why don’t you support the option of toppling Hamas and flattening the Strip (destroying everything)? Because of the captives there, or because it isn’t realistic, or because it isn’t moral?
Do you think it would be justified for the IDF also to kidnap the children and women of Hamas members so that this would serve as a bargaining chip in negotiations for the return of the captives?

In my view everything is legitimate. Kill every resident of Gaza. Whatever is useful. But the outbursts that come from Rabbi Zini’s gut or anyone else’s (including politicians and military people) do not necessarily focus on the methods that will be effective and bring results. Right now everyone is talking from the gut, and that doesn’t help. This is what happens all the time: our response is determined by what we took instead of by what will realize our goals. Hamas is active and we only react. Even a campaign to topple Hamas now would be a gut reaction, and in my opinion it also would not succeed. We need to hit them regardless of the question of what they do, and whether they succeeded or not. The fact that they had a successful operation and that we were exposed in our nakedness is not a reason for any action. It is merely a catharsis for public anger. We need to think about what will optimally help our goals. If that means killing the families of Hamas leaders, children, women, and little ones—then go ahead. But to do it only because we are angry is not rational and therefore also not moral.

I understand.
(Just to make sure I understand the Rabbi correctly:) so all the talk in the studios that after a blow like this there is no longer any justification for Hamas’s existence and it must be erased because it crossed every boundary and every norm (in their view this is also to create deterrence so that all our enemies know that such murderous acts will exact a price after which there is no recovery)—that is not correct in your view?

The statement is correct, and it was also correct a year ago and five years ago. The only thing that changed is that the IDF was exposed in its nakedness and Hamas was revealed to be ten times better than it. So such a statement is not a course of action, and it is clear that it is nothing but a guttural cry. What is needed is thought and a creative course of action, not more of the same. In my unlearned opinion, no one will erase Hamas. This is empty chatter. As usual. There will be another operation that brings no benefit (maybe it will buy quiet for another year or two. As always).

If anything, what we learned from these events is not that Hamas has no right to exist. As I said, we knew that before too. We learned that the IDF cannot do it, neither operationally nor conceptually. As I wrote in a parallel thread, the lesson is that the thinking must be taken out of the IDF and the government. They are not capable of it. What is needed is a multidisciplinary team of creative and experienced people to formulate a proposal for an orderly policy on how to deal with the situation, and with the Palestinians in general. Again and again we keep doing the same thing in the hope that this time it will work. Einstein already said what he thought about such an approach.

They slaughtered 1,000 of our people. Surrender? Are you normal? From whom did you learn the theory of war? Or alternatively the theory of Islam? That you know with such certainty that surrender will lead to a better reality? I suggest you choose the most sensible course at times like this: not to say things from the heart that are not proven by reason.

And I’ll add this too: how dare you write, “Four or five terrorists control a community while its residents are trapped in safe rooms and being slaughtered, with ongoing phone contact with them, and the glorious IDF can’t manage after 16 hours (!) to send an infantry platoon to deal with this joke.” Were you there? Friends of mine were killed there—people I knew from long ago as brave, courageous, and smart—and they fell despite that. I am sure they did everything, and despite that there was the surprise factor, which helped them a lot. Let’s wait for the investigations before drawing conclusions. I very much hope that if it turns out you were gravely mistaken here and slandered the IDF in wartime and weakened the hearts of our soldiers for nothing, you will resign from your position and stop spreading opinions that are in no way verified.

From what people are saying, until now they did not 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 rely on the fact that they had something to lose and therefore, if there were deterrence toward them, they would not do something. 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 merely deterred.
I really do not understand how you think one should simply surrender after clearing the area. Don’t you think this is far too dangerous an experiment on human beings? It seems to me that in this case, the gut talk expresses a sound intuition.

Apparently behind every foolish man stands a foolish woman too.
Your attempt to neutralize responses because they are projected as gut-driven excitement and a desire for revenge is distorting your common sense.
Without getting into the error in the historical facts in your remarks and the lack of understanding of the differences in character between Hamas and Egypt, I’ll touch on two points:
1) Even if we say that Egypt’s picture of victory did in fact enable them to sign an agreement with us—how can you ignore so many additional factors that were part of the picture in those days and assume that today too, merely on the basis of similarity in one respect, we will reach the same result? That is simply foolishness.
2) As for what I opened with—I truly want to ask you: does this seem to you like an insight that common sense approves? Do you really think it is acceptable to take such a step in the current reality? (I ask even assuming that such an action would bring the results you perhaps foresee.)
It seems that simply because your proposal contradicts everything an Israeli gut would say at moments like these, you find it necessary to cling to it.

To spell out Yehuda’s point 1): aside from an outward picture of victory for the Egyptians, the Egyptian leaders understood very well that they had suffered a resounding military defeat, so they despaired of the ability to defeat Israel on the military level in the foreseeable future. In addition, they received huge territory—the Sinai. In addition, Egypt did not really have genuine claims against Israel to begin with. And in addition, Egypt also received a transition to American patronage.

The picture of victory merely enabled Egypt not to appear in its own eyes as utter losers whom Israel had smacked around in the Six-Day War with zero effort, and then, together with the real considerations (mentioned above—military despair, territorial achievement, diplomatic achievement, and from the outset a war not driven by a clear interest), they agreed years later to sign a very cold peace agreement.

Therefore, in Gaza one must first clearly demonstrate to them (not in theory with a stick in hand, but in practice with a stick that keeps pounding them again and again) what a resounding military defeat and payment of a heavy price look like. And afterward, if no more violence will be heard in our land, and if someone finds something reasonable that can be given to Hamas so that it would want it territorially (hint: it does not seem that such a thing exists that still leaves little Jews strolling around Petah Tikva and Givatayim) and diplomatically, then he can also incorporate into his ideas the matter of self-national honor.

In addition to what Lavi said, I would note that Sadat was assassinated by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization (which belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood movement exactly like Hamas), among other things because of the agreement he signed with Israel.

A question for the Rabbi:
I don’t understand security matters at all and I don’t yet have a military background (before enlistment), but why wouldn’t Israel decide over the years to collapse Hamas gradually? Meaning, instead of declaring from every platform that the war will not end until Hamas is completely destroyed, to simply tell the public that from now on we are changing the equation (indeed, a major question is what suddenly changed in the equation vis-à-vis Hamas, and the Rabbi has already discussed this), and we are acting to collapse Hamas over the years, however long it takes (with intelligence gathering and everything needed to make this effective and efficient).