Fate of the Philadelphi corridor will determine the fate of the day after

On September 2 Netanyahu held a rare press conference. Before an enlarged map of the Gaza Strip, he pointed to the borderline between Gaza and Egypt and stated categorically: this, the Philadelphi corridor, will remain in Israel’s hands in any hostage deal. Hamas’ execution of the six hostages was beyond what the Israeli public could bear. The subsequent demonstrations were stormy, blood boiled, and Bibi was accused by many of having the hostages’ blood on his hands. Netanyahu’s response was not long in coming. He took the stand and indirectly presented his position on “the day after.” Since the war’s beginning, army spokespeople and television commentators have sharply criticized Netanyahu who, according to them, refused to disclose his plan for the “day after.” With no political plan, they said, he was wasting the war’s military achievements.

Netanyahu’s response had been consistent. After we defeat Hamas and remove its military capabilities, we will be free to discuss the day after. In contrast, the army’s position and that of numerous experts was the opposite: an Arab, Emirati force, or an improved Palestinian Authority, would take governmental responsibility for Gaza in place of Hamas.

The press conference, however, solved the riddle of how Netanyahu sees the day after. In Netanyahu’s estimation, the phase in which Hamas lost its military power ended with defeat of the final battalions in Rafah. According to him, “Until now, focus of the effort against Hamas has been military, but now the focus will be to abolish the terrorist organization’s governing capabilities. There will be a change in the distribution of food and humanitarian aid.”

In a lead article published by the Israeli economic newspaper Calcalist on September 4, Yuval Sade writes: “Although the Prime Minister did not explicitly say this, from between the lines it is possible to understand Israel’s new official position: full control over all Gaza Strip borders and a complete rejection of ending the war inside this area.” To substantiate his assessment, Yuval Sade adds: “Last week, a new position was born in the IDF, when the IDF spokesperson announced that Elad Goren will be appointed head of the Gaza Strip humanitarian-civilian effort as part of the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories Unit and will be promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel.”

The answer to the interesting question – why Netanyahu, who knows how to speak eloquently, does not explicitly spell things out – is simple. Apart from the messianic, extremist right, return of Israel’s direct occupation of Gaza and establishment of a military government is the nightmare of most Israeli society. On behalf of the army, Defense Minister Gallant strongly opposes Israel’s direct control of Gaza. Yuval Sade also writes about this: “In a public speech four months ago, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant warned of the reality of military rule in the Gaza Strip and called for establishment of a governmental alternative in the form of Palestinian control accompanied by international forces. According to Gallant, in the absence of a governmental alternative, only two bad options will remain – Hamas rule in Gaza or Israeli military rule.”

Gallant’s problem is that for four months and more, “a governmental alternative in the form of Palestinian control accompanied by international forces” has not been found and will not be found. This is for a simple reason – the Palestinian Authority lost control over the West Bank, was expelled from Gaza 17 years ago, and no Arab force wants to enter the quicksand that Israel itself created.

The strategic significance of the hostage deal is thus fully revealed. If remaining in the Philadelphi corridor means return of direct Israeli occupation and establishment of a military rule in Gaza to deprive Hamas of its governing capabilities, then the practical meaning of abandoning Philadelphi, according to Netanyahu is accepting Hamas as the ruling force in Gaza. This is also what prevents the hostage deal.

The answer to the interesting question – why Netanyahu, who knows how to speak eloquently, does not explicitly spell things out – is simple. Return of Israel’s direct occupation of Gaza and establishment of a military rule there is the nightmare of most Israeli society.

Hamas’ position is clear. It demands Israeli withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, relying on the sharp internal division within Israel between the army and government. Hamas’ starting point for the October 7th massacre was its understanding that Israel has no governmental alternative in Gaza, and that Israel thus contained the incessant rounds of war and missile shooting at Israeli cities, including at Tel Aviv. This is the essence of the failed concept preceding October 7 – since we have no alternative to Hamas, all that remains is to try and appease it with money. That’s why even when the female observer soldiers on the Gaza border saw with their own eyes and warned their commanders that “they are coming at us,” all those who cultivated the illusion that we had disengaged from Gaza and would never return to it, simply refused to believe. This includes all politicians and all military personnel.

This, however, does not prevent a large part of the Israeli public, and especially the army, from continuing to throw sand in our eyes, telling us and themselves about an imaginary multinational force that will enter Gaza in our stead and that we can always return to Philadelphi. That is, we will only leave for 40 days, release the hostages, and then return. This perception is based on the hope that Sinwar is an idiot, and that the Americans don’t really mean what they keep saying – this war must end, and that a ceasefire will lead to the war’s end.

Netanyahu starkly presented this choice: either Hamas or Israel. This requires all Israelis to look at reality with open eyes and stop looking for culprits. For 30 years, Israeli society as a whole told itself stories that only it believed: that in Oslo we made peace; that what happens in the West Bank and Gaza is none of our business; that Palestinians are irrelevant; that the conflict cannot be resolved; that regional peace with the Gulf states proves that peace without the Palestinians is possible; that economic peace is the solution, and that we know how to manage the conflict.

The October 7 massacre put an end to all these illusions. We and the Palestinians are paying a heavy and bloody price for having transferred responsibility for their fate to Fatah in the West Bank and to Hamas in Gaza. We have reached the moment of truth, and the choices are difficult: either Hamas rule as implied by the army’s position, or occupation for an indeterminate time as presented by Netanyahu.

There is a third choice that Israeli society refuses to discuss, and that is to reach a political agreement with the Palestinians. Not an arrangement built on a “subcontracted” occupation as proposed by Labor leader Yair Golan – Israeli security control and Palestinian civil control. This is the formula that brought us October 7th. The subcontracting solution is over.

How many times does one have to repeat that there is only one real solution, built on the foundations of mutual recognition, equality, democracy, and shared life, in whatever political way you choose – two states or one state. Netanyahu knows how to emphasize the importance of controlling the Philadelphi corridor, but stutters in explaining its meaning, while Gallant strongly opposes the holding of the Philadelphi corridor but is also unwilling to admit the meaning of withdrawing from it. Both choices are unpopular and appear a recipe for disaster.

We in the Da’am Party opposed the Oslo Accords because they were in fact a “contracted corrupt occupation,” which later gave way to the popularity of Hamas, and became a disaster for the Palestinian people, above all Gazans themselves. This arrangement thwarted any political solution. We also opposed the Abraham Accords warning that they served to justify the extreme right who claim there is no need to end the occupation. But we will not suffice with saying “We were right.” We present to every person who looks to the future and wants to ensure our existence in the tiny area between the sea and Jordan, the real choice.

To anyone who tells us that we don’t have a partner, we say – yes, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are fascist organizations that disdain democracy and oppress their people. But on the other side there were many peace-loving Israelis who self-righteously said and still say “we don’t have the right to decide for the Palestinians who will lead them,” as if the Palestinians ever possessed the option to freely decide their fate, while at the same time feeding the monster Hamas, which few in the left contented.

The democratic forces in Israel can make a public and clear call, denouncing Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, as authoritarian regimes, calling on the Palestinian people to rise up against them, in the name of democracy, national and civic freedoms, and enable the immergence of a new democratic leadership, which will join hands with Israeli liberal and democratic forces. This call is missing. But, alas, only in this way can we end the occupation and defeat the Netanyahu – Ben-Gvir – Smotrich government, which continue to wreak havoc on Israeli society.