Lights Out

No More Electricity

As Israel promised they are cutting off power to Gaza in a growing attempt to make it clear the free lunch for Hamas is over as we read in a report from The Times Of Israel:

Energy Minister Eli Cohen on Sunday instructed the Israel Electric Corporation to immediately cut off the supply of electricity to the Gaza Strip, in an apparent bid to pile pressure on the enclave, where 24 hostages presumed to be alive, and the bodies of 35 more, are still held.

Cohen made it clear why when he said this:

“We will employ all the tools available to us so that all the hostages will return, and we will ensure that Hamas won’t be in Gaza on the ‘day after,’” said Cohen in a short video statement.

Cohen’s office circulated a letter sent to the IEC ordering it to stop selling electricity to Gaza power stations.

It sounds harsher than it really it, though since the power was cutoff in 2023:

However, an Israeli official told The Times of Israel that Cohen’s decision is less dramatic that he made it appear. Electricity from Israel to Gaza was cut off after October 7, but in November Israel announced it was renewing supply to a desalination plant near Deir el-Balah in central Gaza. Israel cut the power to that plant, said the official.

And it’s not like Gaza will be without clean water either:

The plant serves more than 600,000 Gaza residents through tankers or the networks of Deir el-Balah and Khan Younis governorates in central and southern Gaza, respectively. It is one of three such seawater processing facilities in the Gaza Strip, which before the war met around 15 percent of the 2 million-plus residents’ need for water.

It’s more symbolic than anything else, and the halting of humanitarian aid is also symbolic:

The move came after Israel announced on March 2 that it was halting the entry of goods into Gaza, over what it said was the Hamas terror group’s refusal to accept a proposal to extend the initial stage of the ceasefire and hostage release deal and threatened “additional consequences” and a return to war. The stop to aid drew criticism from Western governments, as well as condemnation from Arab countries that accused Israel of using “starvation” as a weapon. The US backed the move.

As we know, there already enough stockpiles to last 4-6 months so no one is going to starve:

Israel has said there is enough aid already accumulated in Gaza to meet the needs of its population, and that Hamas uses the supply of goods to bolster its control of the enclave and fund its attacks on Israel.

Stopping electricity to one of three plants is just to let Hamas know Israel means business:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that he was prepared to raise the pressure and would not rule out cutting off all electricity to Gaza if Hamas didn’t budge on its demands in talks to free the hostages and end the war. The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that Israel has plans for an escalatory campaign against Hamas if Netanyahu eventually decides that hostage talks are fruitless or that the terror group’s demands are too high. The report pointed at Israel possibly cutting off electricity and water as a next stage.

Taking Back Land

With the Trump plan to take over the Gaza Strip already on the table, there is also a move to take back Judea and Samaria as we see in an article from The Media Line:

Israeli politicians, settler leaders, and Christian advocates are calling for full sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, while critics warn of long-term political and economic consequences.

As anticipation builds, all eyes are on the White House for what could be a pivotal shift in US policy toward the region.

US President Trump suggested he would give his opinion on such a move but hasn’t done it yet. In Israel, many in government back the concept:

In Israel, a significant number of legislators support the move.

Last month, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana endorsed calls for Jerusalem to extend its sovereignty over the West Bank, arguing that full control over the territory was the “one and only way” to achieve peace in the region.

Ohana sees the land as part of the territory God originally promised to Israel in the Bible:

“These biblical, original parts of our land, which in the Bible tells the story of our people, are intended for us, for the people of Israel, need to be in the territory of the State of Israel, under the ownership of Israel, under full Israeli sovereignty,” Ohana said.

However ceding the land to Palestinians is a worse option:

Previously, MK Dan Illouz told The Media Line on the sidelines of the B’Sheva Jerusalem Conference that handing over any part of the West Bank to the Palestinians would be “suicidal,” warning that it could become a terror stronghold, much like Gaza before October 7.

Several legislative proposals, including by Illouz, have already been introduced, either advocating for Israeli sovereignty or, at the very least, aiming to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in these areas.

Many believers in America also agree the land should be back in Israel’s hands but acknowledge that such a move comes with challenges. But so did moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and that didn’t start World War III as some predicted. One Israeli spokesperson says Arabs should welcome the move and that the timing is perfect:

“We are offering an end of conflict” with sovereignty, Yishai Fleisher, international spokesperson for the Jewish city of Hebron said. “We are offering Arabs a decent life. We live in a Trumpian era. Israel has to match the speed Trump is offering.”

Currently Judea and Samaria were divided into three areas, A, B, and C:

The West Bank is divided into three areas under the Oslo Accords. Area A is under full Palestinian control. Area B is under Palestinian civil administration with Israeli security control. Area C is under full Israeli control.

Before any of this could happen, the area needs to be rid of the Palestinian Authority and all terrorists:

Fleisher also argued that Israel should first eliminate jihadist influences in the region by outlawing extremism, similar to laws in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Security checks would ensure that only those who do not support jihadism could remain, while others would be encouraged to relocate.

The IDF would need to handle these issues.

Not A New Idea

A former US Ambassador proposed the idea of taking back the West Bank:

Fleisher’s proposal is similar to one that former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman advocated in his book One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Some suggest that Israel just annex the part they already control, but that would limit access to key historical sites:

Such a move would also mean Israel relinquishing key historically Jewish sites, such as Bethlehem, where Rachel’s Tomb is located; Hebron, home to the Cave of the Patriarchs; and Shechem (Nablus), the site of Joseph’s Tomb. If Israel ceded even security control over these areas, Jews could lose access to them entirely—similar to the years when they were unable to visit the Temple Mount, which remains under the authority of the Jordanian Waqf.

For now, Israel doesn’t appear to be ready to actually make the move because the people aren’t ready to accept it:

Fleisher said he wished more Israelis would recognize the “common sense” of sovereignty and support it. Perry, however, argued that the long-term costs of such a move would outweigh any short-term gains in sovereignty or security.

He went on to note the difficult choices ahead with the move:

“Annexation would force Israel to make an impossible choice: Either deny Palestinians citizenship, becoming an apartheid state, or grant them equal rights, badly undermining its Jewish majority and national identity—and losing it altogether if Gaza were thrown in,” Perry explained. “Neither option is sustainable, but likely it would choose the former, ending its democratic character. Creating a system where two populations live under one authority but with vastly different rights would erode Israel’s moral standing, risk a major outbreak of violence, and gradually invite global pariah status, which would crush Israel’s export-driven economy.”

The international community would most likely step in to resist the actual move:

Perry warned that Europe, Israel’s largest trading partner, could impose severe economic sanctions, undermining Israel’s prosperity. He added that many countries would likely condemn Israel for violating international law. Additionally, it could jeopardize the peace and normalization agreements Israel has already secured with Jordan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan.

Perry mentioned polarizing support in America, too:

Perry further warned that annexation could polarize Israel’s vital support in the United States.

“It would become a partisan issue, alienating liberal and younger American Jews who overwhelmingly back a two-state solution and jeopardizing bipartisan backing that Israel has long relied on,” he said.

Why Does Israel Need US Approval?

Jeremy Issacharoff, former Israeli ambassador to Germany and a Jerusalem resident asks why Israel needs support for the decision by Trump:

A bigger question remains: Why is Israel waiting for the president of the United States to recommend—or even dictate—its policy in the West Bank? If Israel wanted to annex the land it won in the 1967 Six-Day War, it could do so. If not, then it shouldn’t, some analysts argue.

Issacharoff pointed out that just as President Trump appears to be driving policy on the hostage-for-ceasefire negotiations, it now seems as though he could decide Israel’s approach to sovereignty in the territories.

He argues that such moves should come from Prime Minister Netanyahu and his leadership:

“The prime minister is not deciding on critical issues pertaining to Israeli national security,” Issacharoff said. “I am not sure the president of the United States understands the implications of sovereignty.”

Trey Graham, senior pastor at First Melissa Church in Texas also doubts Trump totally understands why the move to take back the West Bank should come from within Israel:

Graham expressed similar sentiments. Although he is an evangelical Christian who believes the land belongs to Israel, he said it would be a mistake to view President Trump as “an expert in Israeli diplomacy, policy, and laws.”

“He cannot make those decisions, and American governments should not make those decisions,” Graham said.

He went on to note that the nuts and bolts of doing this can’t be dictated by Trump either:

“The American government should say we support that this is the biblical heartland given to Israel by God, and we believe you have the right to control it,” he continued. “But if and how you implement that is very complicated and cannot and should not be decided on by Mr. Trump or any American official.”

Overall, I don’t see how Israel doesn’t take control of Judea and Samaria at some point if only to end the terrorist haven it’s become. Just as they’ll do in Gaza, the threats of terrorist activity won’t just go away by itself nor can it just be contained. There are even reports of a tunnel system there as well. Biblically, the land was given to them by God and the majority of Israelis believe that according to recent polling. Yes there are messy details to figure out, but as with the whole picture of making Israel and Israeli’s safe, it must be done sooner than later. Never again must really mean never again.