The ‘day after’ deception that exploded in our faces
The weekend briefing that looks, at first blush, like dry diplomatic housekeeping is actually a historic indictment of the government: Benjamin Netanyahu’s long refusal to plan for Gaza’s “day after” has been exposed for what it was – not an oversight, but a political choice with a terrible human cost.
Late last week, Hussein al-Sheikh announced that the Palestinian Authority had established a “liaison office,” led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa, and was prepared “to carry out its full responsibilities in the Gaza Strip” as a channel of coordination with the office of Nikolay Mladenov and in consultation with U.S. representatives.
In short: after two years of bloodletting, delay and false promises that Hamas would be eradicated and no Palestinian authority would return to Gaza, we have arrived – precisely and inexorably – at the outcome the sober few warned about from the start: the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. Not because anyone here suddenly “wanted” it, and not because public opinion “broke” – but because reality, unlike political fantasy, does not bend to wishful thinking.
That avoidance of the “day after” wasn’t a managerial error. It was policy: a deliberate shirking of responsibility meant to preserve a fractious coalition – and, as a consequence, to perpetuate an endless war with no political horizon. As early as December 2023, reports said Netanyahu told confidants that “not only will there be no renewed Palestinian Authority in Gaza… there will be no Palestinian Authority in Gaza at all.” Yet now, with Mladenov formally welcoming a liaison office and with Gideon Sa’ar posing for photos alongside Qatar’s prime minister, Netanyahu continues to issue false statements and to deny a grim reality that refuses to align with his fantasies.
Who, then, duped whom? There were warnings and demands. Shortly after this government took power, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eizenkot insisted on a plan for the day after; in May 2024, they even issued an ultimatum out of desperation, demanding a blueprint, governance frameworks, and an international axis of responsibility. In other words, exactly what has landed on our doorstep now from abroad, too late and after irreversible damage. Senior military leaders, too, repeatedly said they did not understand what Netanyahu wanted, or how he expected Gaza to look once the fighting ended.
While every sensible person grasped that meeting our objectives in this war required abandoning fantasy and managing reality, Netanyahu clung to the extremists in his coalition. He could not – or would not – make a real decision. Or perhaps he decided precisely not to decide. A genuine decision, one that would arrange governance, establish a civilian alternative to Hamas and take responsibility for life in the Strip, would have shattered his coalition. And for Netanyahu, anything that risks breaking the government is taboo, even if the price is human lives. Nothing is more important than preserving the cabinet, not even our lives.
The consequence has been catastrophic. Because he refused to act when action could have freed hostages, 47 of them were killed or murdered in captivity. Hundreds of soldiers paid with their lives and thousands were wounded in body and spirit to achieve the very little this government has actually achieved. Not only has the Palestinian Authority entered the picture – inevitably so – but so have Hamas, Qatar and Turkey, to their obvious satisfaction.
Even after the elimination of senior commanders such as Yehia Sinwar and Mohammed Deif, Israel lacked the political courage to do what was required: to end the fighting with a clear political-civil horizon, and to present a credible governing alternative to Hamas. When you fail to present an alternative, you get the same thing, only worse. Recent reports suggest Hamas is reasserting its grip: appointing loyalists, running offices, collecting taxes, paying salaries and preparing to maintain influence even under a technocratic committee. We tell ourselves a story about “dismantling governing capacities” and “demilitarization,” while on the ground, the opposite is happening.
Into this vacuum steps a Trump-era America with a “Board of Peace,” a transitional phase, an international mechanism, pledged funding, ceremonies and declarations – and Israel lurches along. Within that mechanism, almost naturally, the Palestinian Authority re-enters because it is the only sane option left besides Hamas. We can pretend this is some kind of victory, but it is self-deception: a political defeat wearing a PR mask.
Those who refuse to present a plan end up with one imposed upon them. Those who refuse to decide have decisions forced on them. And those who promised the public “there will be no Palestinian Authority in Gaza” end up with exactly that – only after sacrificing hundreds of lives, thousands of injuries and dozens of hostages who never returned. The Palestinian Authority – the logical, pragmatic solution – takes its place, and it arrives with Hamas standing on its feet again, alongside the mediators in Doha and Ankara. Delightful – if your idea of delight is bitter irony.
Now comes the cruel, simple question with no “complex” answer: if the restoration of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza was inevitable, why didn’t we do it earlier when it could have saved lives? Why didn’t we do it when it might actually have enabled the removal of Hamas, when legitimacy existed?
The answer, sadly, is straightforward: we were ruled by charlatans, liars and cowards. They didn’t err out of ignorance; they understood perfectly well what would happen and chose to drag their feet, praying that the messy facts of reality would somehow conform to their prayers and fantasies. What begins as the delusions of Torah-based economy a la Bezalel Smotrich ends in God-based security, or, more terrifyingly, Erdoğan-based security. This is what happens when time is weaponized for political ends: time, as always, proceeds – and not in our favor.
