Which Is More Zionist: Gideon's Chariots or the Egyptian Plan?
Well, we have reached another Shabbat, the end of another week in our Zionist journey of faith. And the article that perfectly sums up how I am feeling at this juncture is The Debate That Isn’t Happening: “Gideon’s Chariots” vs. the Egyptian Plan by Ofer Guterman and Udi Dekel at the Institute for National Security Studies. Here is the abstract of this important policy briefing:
The Israeli government has authorized the IDF to finalize preparations for “Gideon’s Chariots”—a plan to conquer the Gaza Strip and defeat Hamas, concentrate the population of the Strip in its southern region, and encourage emigration from it. The execution of this plan would come at a heavy cost: the killing of hostages and the loss of information regarding their whereabouts; additional casualties within the IDF; a decreasing likelihood of achieving normalization with Saudi Arabia; a deepening of internal divisions in Israel due to the expected military toll and the political tensions that would escalate as a result; heavy economic costs; increased exposure to legal and diplomatic risks; and the moral consequences of the IDF’s anticipated actions. All this comes at a time when it is unclear whether the State of Israel currently possesses the diplomatic, military, and societal stamina necessary to achieve the objectives of the plan. In contrast stands the Egyptian proposal—backed by the Arab League—for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and the establishment of a Palestinian technocratic administration in Gaza under regional and international auspices. While the Egyptian alternative entails a renunciation of the full military defeat of Hamas, its implementation would advance the release of hostages, promote security stabilization and civilian reconstruction of the Strip, increase the chances of expanding the circle of the Abraham Accords and achieving normalization with Saudi Arabia, and help address the socio-political crisis within Israel.
This raises the question which plan - the Egyptian proposal or Gideon's Chariots - is in fact the most Zionist?
The argument on the right, which Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Katz have accepted, is that maximum military pressure on Gaza is the best way to bring Hamas to the negotiating table (cf. IDF launches sweeping new Gaza offensive; Palestinians say dozens killed in strikes | The Times of Israel and Katz claims Hamas has returned to hostage talks after start of fresh IDF offensive | The Times of Israel).
But the argument on the right is not universal. In a masterstroke of diplomacy, President Trump has shown remarkable empathy for Prime Minister Netanyahu without explicitly endorsing Gideon's Chariots (cf. Trump says he's not frustrated with Netanyahu: 'Bibi, he’s an angry man, and he should be because of Oct. 7' | The Times of Israel). And Italy's center-right Foreign Minister has called on Israel to halt the attacks (cf. Italian FM calls for ceasefire-hostage release deal: 'Enough with the attacks' | The Times of Israel).
The argument on the left is perhaps best summed up in an opinion article by Gideon Levy in Haaretz: Israel's New Gaza Operation Should Be Called 'Chariots of Genocide'. Volker Türk puts it at ethnic cleansing: "This latest barrage of bombs … and the denial of humanitarian assistance underline that there appears to be a push for a permanent demographic shift in Gaza that is in defiance of international law and is tantamount to ethnic cleansing" (from Israel accused of ethnic cleansing after more than 140 killed in Gaza in 24 hours | Israel | The Guardian).
Does the argument on the left have teeth? We should not think that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is fatally imploding under the twin pressures of politicization and sexual misconduct. It will take some time for the ICC to sort itself out, including on the question of jurisdiction over Israel in the Palestine case, and the suspension of arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant in the meantime. But I don't think the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute want to see the ICC fail, and there are some very resilient states in the mix. On a related front, Trump's Executive Order 14203 levying sanctions against the ICC may not hold up under legal scrutiny (cf. Legal Challenges Mount Against Renewed U.S. Sanctions on the ICC | Lawfare). None of us should want the question of jurisdiction in the ICC case to be mishandled. Finding a reasonable middle ground between legal purity and political reality may or may not lead the Court to lean in a more conservative direction on jurisdiction. I am not sure the Court shouldn't have jurisdiction in this case in part because I am not sure the UN Security Council should not have been expected to refer the matter accordingly.
There is another aspect of this problem to consider, which Neomi Neumann expertly parses for the Washington Institute in Will Israel’s New “Chariots” Plan Trample or Strengthen Hamas? Neumann writes:
Ultimately, the Trump administration may conclude that whatever Israel can achieve militarily via Gideon’s Chariots is not necessarily worth the cost to other U.S. interests in the region. Whether Israel goes ahead with all phases of the operation or accepts some degree of Hamas involvement in postwar Gaza, the movement will likely maintain a significant presence in the area. To prevent Hamas from becoming dominant and reduce its influence on the Gaza public, interested parties must find an alternative governing body that can assume responsibility for civilian control and public order.
In my view, the alternative governing body in Gaza should be a UN command under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, if the UN is up to the job after 79 years of field lessons learned (including the latest round of lessons from the Middle East) and has enough of a budget after 79 years of fundraising.
But this viewpoint I am expressing is not about faith in Zionism, alone. It is more about lonely faith in Christian UN Zionism. Here is a chart from Pew on Who should control Gaza? Fewer Israelis now say Israel | Pew Research Center:
