The head of the Shin Bet hinted at the strategic failure in the Gaza Strip, clarifying: "At the border of peace – defense (should be) along the border; At the border of war – defense (should be) on both sides of the border"

The head of the Shin Bet said the words yesterday alongside the Chief of Staff, in a way that suggests that they were said in the opinion of both. On the other hand, the Israeli government continues to lie that the long stay in Gaza is due to Hamas's refusal to compromise. The head of the Shin Bet even hinted that there is a solution to the exile of Hamas by saying that the entrenchment of Hamas in Lebanon will increase "because they will leave Gaza"

By Mati Cohen

The prolongation of the non-war in the Gaza Strip turns into shuffling, killings, the abandonment of the kidnapped and the tattooing of the Israeli legacy of redeeming prisoners, rescuing the wounded, and returning everyone from the battlefields; The long stay that became a shuffle allows Russia, Iran, Egypt and Turkey to formulate a strategy that isolates Israel. Last week we described the Egyptian-Turkish strategy here; This strategy is already alienating Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries – to a point of view that allows them to examine the new reality created from the shuffling in Gaza. Yesterday, the Russian Foreign Minister warned Israel – probably following the strategic agreement that Russia and Iran intend to sign: "If any threats are made to damage Iran's civilian nuclear facilities, this will be seen as a serious provocation by the international community."  Russia and Iran, on paper, see themselves as authorized interpreters of the decisions of the international community, by virtue of being in their eyes an opposite pole and an equal power to the Western Pole. The next step could be, Turkey-Egypt getting closer to Russia-Iran in a way that would allow the four to formulate a common strategy against Israel. Such a strategy, if it happens, will further weaken Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, and may even reduce the desire of the US to be so deeply involved in the boiling cauldron of the Middle East.

 Regarding the words of the head of the Shin Bet – which in our estimation are an implicit wake-up call, within the limits of what the security establishment is allowed to say in the civilian arena, it is necessary to specify in their interpretation: Israel does not have a war within peaceful borders, therefore when the head of the Shin Bet describes the deployment of the security forces within a peaceful border And by the border of war, he mainly means Gaza and Lebanon. His words about Hamas, which are said immediately after the statement about the limits of peace and war, make it clear that they are said mainly about Hamas. In other words, the head of the Shin Bet sharpens alongside the Chief of Staff the reality in the Gaza Strip, more than the clear reality now in Lebanon. The content of the words in this context therefore expresses a sharp criticism of a war that is not substantive, compared to the course of a substantive war that he and the Chief of Staff describe. In a substantive war, if we understood the hint, when a war is being waged with the enemy – the presence of the IDF on the other side of the border is required as well as military freedom of action. But when a state of non-war returns, the Israeli military force returns to the Israeli side of the border. And Israel has not been doing this in the Gaza Strip for many months. The result of this political and military behavior is the deepening of the regional threat to Israel.

In this context, we will repeat our reports in recent weeks according to which the Hamas leader is ready to compromise regarding the Philadelphia axis. But more than that, we need to go back to January of this year, when Hamas as a military and governmental organization was eliminated, and the Palestinian Authority was ready to commit to the demilitarization of the Strip, to disarming Hamas (in agreement with the oppressor), and to work for the release of the abductees. A matter-of-fact political behavior would have at least examined the move and freed up at that time to overwhelm Lebanon and Iran. Without leaving Iran, Russia, Turkey and Egypt enough time to make threatening moves.

However, the statement of the head of the Shin Bet yesterday in southern Lebanon, does not imply that the time for a substantive course of action has already passed. From his words, it appears that the possibility of taking substantive steps is still valid. Even requested. Or more than that, urgent.