1.
Several days ago, the former IDF Military Intelligence Directorate chief Amos Malka published an opinion piece in Israel Hayom, sharing his personal thoughts. His main point: Netanyahu is the root of all evil, uninterested in a deal to free the hostages. He concluded with: "What's at stake is a deal or a Coalition; leadership or abandonment; hostages or Itamar Ben-Gvir..." These are the depths of his arguments. And he's not the only one hurling such disgraceful accusations at the prime minister in the midst of our existential war. Like him, there are other "former officials" excelling in similar "analyses." The article presented an ad hominem attack on Netanyahu, without any serious argument (ad factum). Sigmund Freud would see this as a psychological projection of the accuser's own flaws onto his rival.
To our shame, we've grown accustomed to Benjamin Netanyahu's character being fair game. He's supposedly uninterested in freeing the hostages and held captive by "extremists" (I was waiting for National Security Minister Ben-Gvir's name to appear in the article and wasn't disappointed; it's a well-known demagogic argument in our circles). The prime minister also allegedly doesn't know how to weigh historical and security considerations and lacks independent thought. How fortunate we are that at least Malka's opinion remains to illuminate our ignorance.
2.
What's in this deal that Malka is so eager to accept without elaborating? Hamas demands negotiations without an end date, meaning we'd have no option to return to fighting. The terrorist organization demands withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor, the Netzarim Corridor, and the Gaza border, essentially losing our territorial gains. The terrorist organization would remain in the area, with its leader emerging victorious from the tunnels, disgracing our fallen, slaughtered, and murdered. Only a small number of hostages would be released, with the rest remaining in captivity.
The implications of such a deal are surrender and an existential threat to Israel. The laws of the Middle East are even more ancient than the former intelligence chief's assessments. They're written in blood and teach us that such displays of weakness will only encourage further massacres accompanied by civilian and soldier abductions. The condition for their release will forever be this: an end to fighting. And what will we do then? The Amos Malka of the day will urge us to agree to the next surrender plan, because Netanyahu supposedly prefers his Coalition's survival over collective suicide.
3.
According to Malka's logic, Netanyahu is the rejectionist, not Sinwar. But who said the Hamas leader wants a deal? It's in his interest for us to keep squabbling while he holds onto the hostages. They're his insurance policy and leverage for the disintegration of Israeli society. Sinwar wants elements in our social elite to disrupt our agenda and tear us apart with shocking statements like: "As far as Netanyahu is concerned, not 1,600 but a million could die," "Nooses are waiting for you," "A bullet to the forehead," "We'll erase Netanyahu's memory" – and the Philistine (Palestinian) daughters rejoice. All this while the attorney general's whistle doesn't even produce a march tune against this terrible desecration. To Malka's credit, he was more subtle, but his conclusion is similar: Netanyahu doesn't care about the hostages or the State of Israel, only about Ben-Gvir.
4.
Could it be that the former intelligence chief has forgotten the historical lesson about the terrible damage of civil war and factional hatred in the face of an enemy who has declared war on us? The reasonable person stands astonished at the sight of "former officials" who have forgotten the Jewish survival instinct and exchanged friend for foe. This, in the midst of fighting in the south and on the eve of war in the north. Oh, the shame.
