GNITN - Special Edition

Israel At War – Day 105

Pushing The Two State Solution - Again

Now It Makes More Sense

In our previous report, a member of the war cabinet in Israel called for new elections. It’s come out today that this cabinet member doesn’t think the IDF can defeat Hamas completely. We read about this from a report from The Times Of Israel:

War cabinet minister Gadi Eisenkot appeared to criticize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s management of the ongoing war with Hamas in Gaza, suggesting in an interview Thursday that talk of complete victory over the terror group was unrealistic and indicating that new elections should be held within months to restore public trust in government following the devastating October 7 attacks.

As I noted previously, Eisenkot lost his son and nephew in the war days apart and his feelings about the war could very well be affected by his loss. Regardless, he is a respected man and served as the IDF chief of staff at one time. He tells us what he thinks of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement that Israel will “bring complete victory” over Hamas:

“Whoever speaks of absolute defeat is not speaking the truth,” Eisenkot said in the interview. “That is why we should not tell stories… Today, the situation already in the Gaza Strip is such that the goals of the war have not yet been achieved.”

He went on to further show his distrust of the PM when he added this:

Asked whether Israel’s current leadership is telling the public the truth, Eisenkot responded simply, “No,” and appeared to take a jab at Netanyahu’s refusal so far to take direct responsibility for the October 7 intelligence, military and leadership failures.

“I am already at the stage and at an age where I do not trust this or that leader with my eyes closed, and I judge a man by his decisions and the way he leads the country,” he said. He noted that he does not rely personally on Netanyahu in the stewarding of the war but, rather, on the decisions taken by the war cabinet.

Eisenkot feels Netanyahu needs to claim responsibility for the attacks on October 7th and blames him for not discussing what will happen after the war:

“You have to show leadership in the ability to tell the truth to people, the ability to chart a path,” he told Uvda.

“The goals of the war have not yet been achieved, but the [number of soldiers on the ground] is now more limited… You have to think about what’s next,” he said.

Attack On Hezbollah Was Averted

We’ve heard talk about an October 11th strike on Hezbollah that was stopped. Numerous reports attribute the aborted plans to United States intervention, but Eisenkot says that internal pressure halted it:

In the candid interview, his first since his son was killed in Gaza, the usually laconic Eisenkot said he and National Unity leader Benny Gantz, also a former IDF chief of staff, prevented Israel from preemptively attacking the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon in the days after the murderous October 7 attacks.

Eisenkot said that on October 11, Israel was on the verge of striking Hezbollah but he and Gantz managed to convince officials in the war cabinet to hold off.

“I think our presence there prevented Israel from making a grave strategic mistake,” Eisenkot said.

He believes that had the attack on Lebanon occurred, a regional war would have broken out:

“If — according to the publications — a decision was made to attack Lebanon, we would have realized [Hamas’s Gaza leader Yahya] Sinwar’s strategic vision of immediately bringing about a regional war,” he said.

“We would have immediately brought the entire axis in Syria, Iraq, Iran, with [the war with] Hamas, which caused us the greatest damage since the establishment of the state, would have become a secondary arena,” he said.

According to other reports, such a regional war could still happen and the attack would have just started it sooner. To be fair, it is hard to predict what terrorists will do next and such statements are like the tall tales Eisenkot mentioned earlier about Hamas not being totally eliminated.

Hostages Should Be A Priority

Later in the interview Eisenkot talked about the hostages which he said need to be released before taking out Hamas. He cautioned people to think that another rescue like the one in 1976:

On the remaining hostages, Eisenkot told Uvda that there will be no Entebbe-like operation to save them.

A daring rescue like the 1976 operation by an Israeli elite commando squad that saved 98 hostages from Palestinian and German terrorists in Entebbe, Uganda “will not happen,” he said.

On June 27, 1976, the terrorists hijacked an Air France jet flying from Tel Aviv to Paris diverting to Entebbe airport in Uganda, where the hijackers were welcomed by dictator Idi Amin. The legendary, storied mission claimed the lives of four hostages and that of Yoni (Yonatan) Netanyahu, Netanyahu’s older brother, who led the rescue squad.

Eisenkot believes the hostages are spread out and getting them back is not looking good:

Troops “are still making every effort and looking for every opportunity [to save hostages] but the likelihood is low, and to say that [it’ll happen] is a delusion,” said Eisenkot.

“It needs to be said, bravely, that… it’s not possible to return the hostages, alive, in the near term, without a deal,” he says, blasting “anyone trying to sell fantasies to the public.”

How will the hostages be released alive? Eisenkot says this on that:

Eisenkot said a pause to the fighting in Gaza “for a certain amount of time” will likely be required as part of any potential deal, pointing to the weeklong, Qatar-brokered agreement secured in late November.

He said the next pause will likely be longer “by three or four times, but after that, the war objectives will still be in effect.”

Eisenkot said returning the hostages needs to be the central priority, more urgent than destroying Hamas. “For me, there’s no dilemma: For me, the mission to save civilians comes before killing the enemy. The enemy can be killed afterward.”

He also said the IDF must avoid harming the hostages in Gaza even at the price of passing up an opportunity to eliminate Sinwar.

The Two State “Solution” Pushed – Again

Both in statements made at in Spain and in America by 15 Jewish Democrats, criticism of Netanyahu and his reticence to talk about a Palestinian state were strongly stated. We see what the American lawmakers said in a report from The Times Of Israel:

Fifteen Jewish Democrats, including some pro-Israel stalwarts, have slammed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after he rejected the idea of creating an independent Palestinian state after the Israel-Hamas war.

“We strongly disagree with the prime minister,” says the brief statement released this morning by the office of Rep. Jerry Nadler, the New York representative who is the unofficial dean of Jewish House Democrats. “A two-state solution is the path forward.”

The statement — which comes amid rising calls from some Jewish lawmakers for a ceasefire — signifies growing impatience among Democrats with Netanyahu as the war persists indefinitely. The prime minister, who heads a coalition with far-right elements, has openly rejected the Biden administration’s hopes of forging a postwar two-state outcome.

One democrat made this pointed statement:

Netanyahu’s tough talk appears to have triggered the two-sentence statement, along with other notes of reproval from pro-Israel Democrats. It also draws fire from at least one Jewish Democrat in the Senate, Brian Schatz of Hawaii. “He is, at every opportunity, making things worse,” Schatz tells NBC.

If you want to know who these people are we get that from an article in The Hill:

The statement was endorsed by 15 Jewish Democrats in the lower chamber, including prominent veteran lawmakers such as Reps. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; Jamie Raskin (Md.), the senior Democrat on the Oversight and Accountability panel; Adam Schiff (Calif.), the former chair of the Intelligence Committee; and Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), a chief deputy whip in her 26th year on Capitol Hill.

The other lawmakers signing onto the statement are Reps. Jake Auchincloss (Mass.), Becca Balint (Vt.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Dan Goldman (N.Y.), Seth Magaziner (R.I.), Mike Levin (Calif.), Dean Phillips (Minn.), Kim Schrier (Wash.), Brad Sherman (Calif.), and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.).

A “Forced” Two State Solution

While American lawmakers made statements of displeasure, a European voiced a stronger way to get a two state implemented in this report from The Times Of Israel:

European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said on Friday that the only peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict included the creation of a Palestinian state, and he suggested this might need to “be imposed from the outside,” without Israel’s agreement.

Borrell, in a speech at the University of Valladolid in Spain, said that without international intervention, the “spiral of hate will continue generation after generation,” according to multiple Spanish media outlets.

“The actors are too opposed to be able to reach an agreement autonomously,” Borrell said. “If everyone is in favor of this solution, the international community will have to impose it.”

How they would impose it is not known, but the very suggestion will not please God as we read in this verse in the Bible:

“In those days and at that time, I will return the riches of Judah and Jerusalem. 2 I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will judge them for what they did to My people Israel. They have sent My people out among the different nations, and have divided up My land. (Joel 3:1-2, NLV)

I like how an article from hope4israel.org states things about dividing the land given to Israel by God:

According to this prophecy, the nations will put pressure on Israel to divide the Land. And they will pay heavily for it. The reality is that whether or not there will be a Palestine on God’s Land, those who are responsible will pay dearly. God promises to enter into judgment with them, which is a terribly frightening consequence. It is not my intention to suggest the solution to this crisis, but rather to clearly state that a “Two State Solution” will only bring further chaos and bloodshed to this part of the world. His Word will not return void!