What were the terrorists in Gaza practicing, while the IDF watched them and refrained from intervening?

An unusual security incident occurred this week in the Gaza Strip - apparently an "exercise" involving dozens of Hamas terrorists. Why "exercise" in quotation marks? Because after October 7, there are no more exercises or "models"; any such organization should be treated as a possible raid aimed at murdering Israelis.

If so, why was this "unusual activity" not thwarted? Because Israel has been pushed into a very uncomfortable corner in the Gaza Strip - long before the question of who is to blame arises.

On one hand, Israel is committed to a political process that could have serious security consequences, some would even say triggering the countdown to another massacre.

On the other hand, at least according to what is known to the public (an important caveat when things are closed between leaders who are not always truthful), there are several conditions in this process that could prevent a security deterioration, such as the demand for Hamas to disarm, in parallel with an Israeli withdrawal.

Let it be said immediately: some of the criticism from the opposition ranks is tainted with hypocrisy. Why? Because the demand for the return of the hostages always ended with the two words "at any cost" - while now they complain about the cost...

Apparently, they have already forgotten the euphoria that gripped Israel on the day of the release, perhaps the only day of true joy that encompassed all parts of the people in nearly three years of war.

But even after giving the government this significant benefit of the doubt, it is hard to understand what exactly Israel wants from itself, from its enemies, or from the mediators who are now in Gaza in the form of a "peace council" - they are there to stay.

Who asks Israel Katz?

With each passing day, the gap between the pompous declarations and the grim reality on the ground widens, not only in Gaza. Tonight, for example, the White House addressed the boastful words of the Minister of Defense, the "armored" Israel Katz, according to which the IDF will remain in Lebanon "indefinitely". In diplomatic language, Washington clarified that "the remarks are contrary to the spirit of the agreement".

If translated into non-diplomatic language, the meaning is: "Shut up, fool, one might think you are the one deciding". It is grim, but this is the reality into which Israel has fallen after three years of fighting - complete dependence on a position derived from American interests: in Iran as in Syria, and in Lebanon as in Gaza.

Let us return to the security incident in Gaza, as it is a swallow that heralds Hamas's intention: not the reconstruction of Gaza, but the continuation of the war against Israel.

It is doubtful that there was any Israeli factor that initially believed that Hamas would voluntarily disarm and turn from a terrorist organization into some kind of Gazan WIZO, but even if someone was naive enough, it seems that the organization's activity in the limited territory under its control speaks for itself.

We said that Israel was pushed into a corner? Well, perhaps it is worth rephrasing: Israel pushed itself into a corner - and amazingly, it is still pushing itself there.

Foreign policy that is all internal

Imagine if Israel had said something like: we are committed to a peace solution, in the spirit of the points on which the agreement relies - and we will act for its implementation so that every Hamas confidence-building step, such as gradual disarmament and demilitarization of the Strip, will be met with an Israeli withdrawal.

Would anything have been lost from Israel's ability to defend itself? On the contrary - with an improved international standing, which recognizes Israel as a peace-seeking country and not a country eager for battle, it would have been easier to present cases of Hamas refusal as violations of the agreement.

It would not have changed the words, but what a difference in the melody: a song for peace instead of an IDF march.

The same is true in Lebanon - instead of babbling about a presence without limits in southern Lebanon, Israel could have defended its security interest on the ground, while issuing statements full of honeyed words about the hope for a political settlement with a sovereign Lebanon, where Hezbollah is supposed (theoretically, of course) to hand over the weapons to the Lebanese army.

As mentioned, the chance that such a thing would happen in practice is almost zero, but Israel would have moved from a position of an invading country into the sovereign territory of a neighboring country, to one that is just waiting for the other side to fulfill its obligations so that it can reach the long-awaited day when it can return its army home.

Instead, we received at the beginning of the week the belligerent speech of Netanyahu according to which Israel rejects outright the plan (to which it had already committed) in Gaza - and later in the week the routine nonsense of the Minister of Defense about an indefinite stay in Lebanon.

Security is crashing into the abyss

What is serious is that the more belligerent and inflammatory the statements are, the greater the gap between them and the instructions given to the military echelon.

Did the IDF want to respond severely to a blatant violation of the ceasefire agreement by Hezbollah? The political echelon blocked it (at the request of the US President, which is equivalent to an order).

Does the IDF identify an unusual organization of dozens of militants, above which flashes like a neon sign the inscription "October 7"? Again, its hands are tied by the order of the political echelon.

And in Hamas they see the sights, in Hezbollah they hear the voices - and the next confrontation will begin, from the point of view of both terrorist organizations, from an improved position.

All this to remind us, because of inflammatory rhetoric, whose entire purpose is to wink at the base in public opinion in Israel and which has turned Israel from a partner in the pursuit of peace into a country that must be restrained, by order.

It is inconceivable, even horrifying, because this rhetoric, which might bring another mandate to the political camp or perhaps prevent cracks in the "bloc", is already taking its toll on the ground: the "model" that Hamas carried out yesterday is tomorrow's murderous raid, and the fact that the IDF's hands are tied to cut it off in its infancy is only because of the boastful nonsense of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense.

Thus, words sometimes have the power to destroy - Israel's security falls into the gap that widens every day between what is said and what is on the ground.