Suddenly, a reversal: Instead of Israel begging for information, offering concessions, and shouting “everyone now!” about the hostages in Gaza, Hamas is the one demanding proof of life and the immediate release of its members, who are of course vile murderers, not innocent civilians. The real number is apparently below 200 — much lower. Life in tunnels under the boots of the IDF is not exactly a recipe for longevity.
The Rafah story is a critical test — a turning point in Israel’s relationship with its enemies. For decades, Israel normalized a “protection racket” culture — paying the bully so that he won’t bully. Hamas and Hezbollah invented countless forms of extortion — border marches, balloons, Qassam rockets, tunnels, tents — and Israel was willing to pay dearly, just for quiet.
That equation flipped on October 7. From that moment, and for the past two years, Israel was the one saying, “hold me back.” We remember the campaigns: “just not a ground maneuver,” then “just don’t enter Lebanon,” “just don’t strike the Dahieh,” and “just don’t enter Rafah.” Every time Israel initiated an attack, the world had to pay to make it stop.
So it was too with the strike in Qatar. The mediators, Hamas, and the entire axis were sure Israel had lost control. They were ready to pressure Hamas in ways they hadn’t for two years — just to calm down “the Zionists.” That’s how the deal bringing 20 hostages home was cooked up.
Now, with the ceasefire, the whole world is trying to push Israel back into a defensive stance. The same country that once adopted a doctrine of keeping wars within its borders fought on seven fronts simultaneously. The world doesn’t like that. Jews, after all, are expected to defend, not attack.
And so we arrive at the 200 terrorists in Rafah. The mediators demand Israel releases them in exchange for quiet, for some grand peace plan. And this is the test: will Israel revert to what it was two years ago, or has the lesson been learned? Will the world pay Israel to calm down, or will it be the other way around?
Khan, Caliph, Emperor
The Israeli embassy in Ankara has been closed and gathering dust since October 7, while our consulate in Istanbul opens only rarely, when two brave diplomats risk their lives and go there for a few days each month.
The Turks, on the other hand — take note — have no fewer than 50 diplomats here: 30 in Tel Aviv and 20 in Jerusalem. They’re not cultivating ties with Israel — they’re working to undermine it from within. When Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran some 15 months ago, the Turkish flag at the embassy in Tel Aviv was lowered to half-mast in mourning.
The ayatollah regime in Tehran has not yet fallen, but one can already see on the horizon the prophecy of the legendary Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis — that Iran would become Turkey, and Turkey would become Iran. 37 percent of Turks see Israel as an existential threat. Last year, Israel was added to the famous “Red Book” — Turkey’s national security threat list.
Is Israel aware of the danger? Absolutely. Is it acting against it? Not nearly enough.
Erdogan. Photo: EPA
A well-informed Israeli explained that Turkey accuses us of what it wants to do. When Erdogan claims that Netanyahu desires “Greater Israel,” it’s because Turkey itself has not abandoned dreams of imperial expansion. When it accuses Israel of genocide — this comes from a state that itself committed a monstrous genocide, second only to the Holocaust.
We clash with them in Syria yet fail to grasp the magnitude of the threat.
Erdogan wants to be everything — Khan, Caliph, Emperor. Khan of all Turkic peoples (the “-stan” countries), Emperor of the Balkan states once ruled by the Ottoman Empire, and Caliph of the entire Muslim world. That’s why Turkey builds military bases in Sri Lanka, supplies air defense systems to Bangladesh, and aids Pakistan against India.
Israel is stuck like a bone in the throat. There was a brief thaw in 2023, climaxing with a Netanyahu-Erdogan meeting just before October 7. Back then, people in the President’s Office jokingly called him “Erdogan Don’t Answer.” Back then, he was in distress, facing a hostile Democratic administration in Washington. Now he’s a dear friend of Trump, and if another Democratic administration takes power — Israel will not exactly find an open door. And so, the antisemitic genie won’t be returning to its bottle anytime soon.
There is something Israel can do: close the Turkish cultural institute in East Jerusalem, a hub of incitement in and of itself; reduce the size of the Turkish diplomatic mission; fight relentlessly against any Turkish presence in Gaza; and cooperate with India against the shared threat from Ankara.
But this is a dangerous and complex threat — no less than the Iranian one, and much harder to handle. A few weeks ago, after the attempted assassination in Doha, a senior American official told their Israeli counterpart: “You know they’re NATO members — if you’d attacked in Istanbul, we’d have been obligated to defend them.” He pretended to joke, but the Israelis didn’t laugh.
Two presidents, two proposals
Two presidents presented two proposals this week to end Benjamin Netanyahu’s trial. Former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak suggested that Netanyahu should confess, express remorse, retire from political life — and in return, face no punishment. Donald Trump proposed that Netanyahu not confess, not express remorse, and not be punished — all so that he can remain prime minister full-time and without having to ask the court’s permission to make phone calls. What will Netanyahu choose? Quite the dilemma.
Both deals are problematic. Children born the day the first investigation against Netanyahu was opened will celebrate their tenth birthday next month. Most key witnesses have already testified, including the prime minister himself. The panel of judges has already suggested shelving the bribery charge. Cleaning house, especially in light of what was revealed during the trial, demands that justice be served. Then we will know whether the “house” in question belongs to Netanyahu and his court, or to the judicial system and its extensions.
President Herzog. Photo: Maayan Toaf/GPO
Barak’s proposal revives an old suspicion: that Netanyahu’s ouster was the goal of the process, not its result. Not to put him in prison, but to get him out of Balfour Street, his residence when the investigations began. Trump’s proposal, too, is disconcerting, carrying a whiff of foreign interference in domestic Israeli affairs. Of course, it would be surprising to discover that it wasn’t coordinated in advance with Jerusalem.
Different though they are, the question — just as in the war against Iran — is which of the two, Netanyahu or Trump, will take the final step. It’s inconceivable that this whole operation from Washington was launched only to end with a polite refusal from Israel’s president. Will Trump push for sanctions against judges and prosecutors, as he did in Brazil and threatened to do elsewhere when former president Jair Bolsonaro was put on trial? His polite letter to President Herzog emphasizing respect for judicial independence does not suggest that.
Rather, it is more likely to have been laying the groundwork for Netanyahu, for the day a letter will be sent from the Prime Minister’s Office to the President’s Residence requesting a pardon. Netanyahu could adopt the approach once used by the Shin Bet heads in the 1984 Bus 300 affair: they admitted the facts, but not guilt. Then-Shin Bet chief Avraham Shalom even inserted a blatant lie in his letter, claiming Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir had ordered him to kill the terrorists.
In our case, most of the facts are not disputed — only the interpretation is. Netanyahu doesn’t deny contacting senior Walla editors; he just claims everyone does that. He doesn’t deny receiving cigars as gifts; he merely argues that such gestures are allowed between friends.
So what will President Herzog do? And what will the Supreme Court judges do?
My impression is that there is a strong desire to end the nightmare of Netanyahu’s trial, but also a great fear of how opposition protesters would respond to any move that might reignite — yes, it’s odd to write this — Netanyahu’s political career, this time without the legal baggage. In plain Hebrew: it’s a question of to what extent Herzog will follow in his father’s footsteps — and to what extent the Supreme Court justices will not follow in Barak’s.
Let Hamas have a state, but feel like it didn’t
In their statement this week outside their home, the Goldin family surprised many by pointing an accusatory finger at a long-forgotten decision — one that, in their view, expressed the abandonment of their son Hadar. “They could have conditioned the Covid vaccines on Hadar’s return,” said his mother, Leah.
Few remember that debate from February 2021. The Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee convened — plexiglass dividers between members, masks on their faces. On the table: a plan to transfer 500 vaccines to Hamas leaders.
“Anyone who prevents medical staff and civilians from being vaccinated is responsible for the illness or deaths of those people,” said MK Ahmad Tibi.
“I don’t see Yahya Sinwar taking his vaccine and giving it to the kind nurse in Gaza,” replied committee chair Zvi Hauser.
Hauser demanded that the government clarify whether it intended “to condition this on the return of the soldiers’ bodies and the hostages, or at least to request a Red Cross visit or some information about them.” The answer, needless to say, was negative. No one except Hauser emerges unscathed from that throwback — neither Netanyahu nor the opposition.
At the time, Haaretz erupted in outrage. “Zvika Hauser held one of the most disgraceful committee discussions ever,” wrote Zehava Galon. “When we deny vaccination to a Gaza resident who did us no harm, we lose part of our humanity,” she said. Yariv Oppenheimer added: “Wait a second — what’s the difference between electricity, water, and vaccines? By his logic we should cut off everything.”
“This discussion is shameful, and in 20 years your children will be ashamed of your stance,” concluded Tibi.
Five years later, indeed, the discussion seems shameful — but not for the reasons they thought.
The core failure the Goldin family identified in real time was Israel’s decision to let Hamas have a state but feel like it didn’t. Sinwar outsourced governance: he built tunnels, not shelters; collected taxes, but provided no services. Whenever the citizens of Gaza needed anything, Israel was the one expected to provide or at least enable it. Thus came Qatari cash. Thus came the vaccines.
Israel fought Hamas (supposedly) as if it didn’t care about Gaza — and cared for Gaza as if Hamas weren’t ruling it. There was always someone pressing Jerusalem to “separate the population from its rulers,” and always someone at the top who gave in.
There was also a tragic side effect that led to that fateful night of October 6-7: those who think they face a terror organization prepare for a raid — not for an army preparing a full-scale cross-border assault.
So the kidnappers got vaccines, and from the hostages we heard nothing. Let’s hope this sickness finally finds a cure — though it’s far from certain that it will.
