Is Bibi’s Gaza “Day After” plan feasible?

Depending upon whom you ask, the response will give you an idea where people stand on the “day after” plan floated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as to how we move forward with a restart for Gaza.

Journalist James M. Dorsey’s YouTube clip calls the plan a non-starter, citing that it fails to provide a pathway to the conflict for Gazans but, rather, suppresses national aspirations while perpetuating Israeli control. He also believes that the goal of completely destroying Hamas is unachievable.

Likewise, Arab news outlet, Al Jazeera claims the plan is “destined to fail,” given that there will be “no unilateral recognition of Palestine.” Times of Israel says that the plan has drawn a cool U.S. reception, while the Jerusalem Post poses the question as to whether or not it contradicts the U.S. vision for Gaza.

So, what does the plan entail?

· Continued Israeli security control over Gaza

· Establishing a security barrier in the South to stop any smuggling from Egypt

· Transferring control of Gaza to Palestinian civilians and technocrats; and

· Rehabilitation of Gaza by a foreign power agreed upon by Jerusalem

If the concept is, indeed, to re-establish Gaza, as a habitation for the people who were its residents, an idea with which many Israelis disagree, for obvious reasons, then why shouldn’t Israel take every precaution to maintain some kind of guarantee that our security is not compromised in any way? We’ve already seen where being too trusting gets us. Part of that security would definitely involve a southern deterrence, in cooperation with Egypt, making it impossible for smuggling to occur either above the ground or under it. So far, this all makes sense and seems to be the prudent thing to do.

Allowing civilians and technocrats to have self-determination, under a moderate but reasonable government, also sounds logical, and, finally, permitting an agreed-upon foreign power to rebuild and restore Gaza is also a practical and sensible idea to most people. So why is there opposition to measures that appear, on their face, to be sound?

An article, on the subject, in Israel’s left-leaning Haaretz, online news, which calls the plan, “no more than a paragon of engineered stagnation, claims that it “leaves one with the impression that the day after will be very similar to the day before.” In fact, the writer accuses Netanyahu of “playing with words” for the purpose of placating the international community which is anxious to see some kind of long-term blueprint as to how things will return to some normalcy for Gazans. 

Depicting it as a non-plan, there is an assertion that all of the implementations, which are intended to be initiated are, in fact, things that could have been adopted prior to October 7. While that may be true, no one can argue with the fact that now that we are smarter and much less naive, it’s more than likely that we will never again leave ourselves unguarded and ill-prepared for an attack as we were before we realized with whom we were dealing. 

It’s possible that Bibi may be playing for more time, in the hope that future developments will aid Israel in knowing how to better navigate the best course to take as we consider the safety of our citizens. Let’s face it – people are not standing in line to offer any real comprehensive solutions to how Gazans can return to their communities without imperiling our southern residents, many, if not all, of whom will carry this trauma with them throughout their entire lives.

Of course, it goes without saying that any plan for Israel would be predicated upon a complete demilitarization of Gaza. To that end, Netanyahu “wants to implement a plan for what he calls the radicalization of all religious, educational and welfare institutions in the Gaza Strip...with the involvement and assistance of Arab countries that have experience in promoting de-radicalization in their territory.”

Any return to Gaza would mean that no military arm could exist, no recruiting and indoctrination of children to take up arms, in the belief that this is their life’s purpose, and no fueling of hatred through the means of educational books, designed to brainwash each successive generation with the twisted ideology that Israel is an avowed enemy which must be eradicated. In short, someone would have their work cut out for them as it relates to erasing the status quo mindset and creating a new one that would foster tolerance and goodwill.

For those who are still clinging to the path of a two-state solution, none of these proposed outlines come close to what they hope will be their vision of two nations, finally living side-by-side in peace – each having their own military capabilities but not employing their use, because a healthy respect for the other is being observed.

Anyone who is deluded enough to believe that those who have spent their entire existence hating us and envisioning our demise, will actually be the leopard that changes its spots, should be likened to a fool who invests their money in swamp land. Because those dreams sailed away on October 7 when we, along with the rest of the world, got a first-hand look at the most unimaginable atrocities committed by barbarian savages devoid of a conscience.

Much to our regret, it was under the watch of our own prime minister who, given his vast experience and years of leadership, should have anticipated the dangers that were lurking and laying in wait, as they planned to permanently scar and disfigure our nation. In this case, however, because Bibi broke it, he is also obligated to fix it. 

Consequently, if his plan is predicated upon reinhabiting Gaza, every country must understand that Israel cannot be a passive onlooker, who takes no active role in the prevention of another disaster, because, as bad as it was, this time, next time might be even more disastrous.

At the risk of garnering much criticism, anyone who is familiar with human nature might agree that, given the disposition and mindset of Gazans, who celebrated our massacre and still pledge their allegiance to the same terror group, which is ultimately responsible for the loss of their homes, personal belongings, family members and livelihoods, does not constitute a people who have the fortitude or aspiration to change their attitudes by suddenly agreeing to abandon their animosity towards us which they have held for too long. 

In other words, giving them another bite of the apple might end up being a Groundhog Day rerun – where the same thing happens time and again with no end in sight. So, if anyone has a better plan, as the saying goes, “Let him speak now or forever hold his peace.”