The Stalemate of the October 7th War

It was reassuring to see and hear Netanyahu’s statement in Hebrew on the eve after Pessah 5795. For the first time in as long as I can remember, here was a man—a leader of Israel—telling the truth for what it is. He spoke about the dangers of surrendering to Hamas, about what a surrender to Hamas would look like and mean for Israel. How Israel could not agree to guarantees of peace in return for the remaining hostages, and then turn around and crush Hamas the day after. Such agreements, likely falling under pacta sunt servanda, would bind Israel and would not be accepted as legitimate conduct internationally. He rightfully told his pundits that Israel could not deceive Hamas to its face. “They may be vile murderers, but they are not stupid,” he said.

For the first time in a very long time, I agree. However, as reassuring as the statement was, it should have been delivered half a year ago, when the “Bring Them Home” movement was even more vigorous, rising to a tempest that held all of Israel in its wake. Instead, when newly elected President Donald Trump sent his emissary Steve Witkoff to Israel, Netanyahu bent a knee. It was not the first time. On October 26, 2024, Netanyahu, with high hopes that Donald Trump would side with him, retaliated against Iran. While he levelled its air defences and knocked out part of its ballistic missile production facilities, he did not strike the Iranian nuclear program.

His hope was likely that U.S. President Donald Trump would see things his way. Netanyahu had his shot to damage the head of the snake; instead, he left it up to others.

As such, at the time of writing, Iran’s nuclear program remains. Perhaps it was sabotaged in multiple ways, as Netanyahu pointed out, but Steve Witkoff is busy negotiating a nuclear deal between Iran and the United States as this op-ed is written. On the surface, the agreement appears very similar to Iran’s previous nuclear deal, which Donald Trump withdrew from during his earlier term. The deal will likely, in the short term, accomplish precisely what Trump says it will: prevent Iran from finalizing a nuclear weapon.

However, the Iranians—or rather the Persians before them—are the founders of chess. They know very well when to attack directly and when to play the long game. Sometimes, it is better to take a step back, to reposition toward an opening that is advantageous. For the moment, a revived nuclear deal is advantageous to both Iran and the United States.

For Donald Trump, who was reelected on an “America First” platform, any move to shy away from interventionism suits his agenda. As witnessed with his engagement with global tariffs, he would prefer an America withdrawn from global conflicts, focusing instead on itself. The world is a space of needless American expenditures and countries that use the USA while providing little in return. Unless the territory in question holds a direct American interest (such as the Panama Canal, Greenland, and—one could argue—acquiring Gaza as real estate), the tendency is to focus inward on the United States. This has been his rhetoric. If it is his strategy, why has Netanyahu not seen it?

The war in Gaza’s days are numbered. A recent report indicates that Hamas is prepared to abdicate governance of Gaza and even relinquish many of its weapons and tunnel-building efforts in return for a hudna that may last up to 15 years. The current strategy of conquering buffer zone territory for the release of hostages is likely temporary, and as soon as a hostage deal is finalized, Israel will withdraw again. Regardless of Netanyahu’s proclamations that “he will not surrender,” an agreement resembling one is likely in the works. Perhaps at best, Israel will maintain a few observation points in Gaza as it has in southern Lebanon, calling it a buffer zone. In the end, Israel will withdraw from most of Gaza; thousands of Palestinians—including many, if not most, of the remaining terrorists who killed Jews in cold blood—will be freed, the living and dead Israeli hostages will eventually be returned and international guarantees will be given to end the war. Hamas may no longer be in power, but one must ask: is this victory?

Over the Passover holiday, I visited the Yitzhak Rabin Museum in north Tel Aviv. There I was impressed with a portrayal of an Israel from another time. An Israel that was fearless in the face of its enemies and toward its own friends. An Israel that, despite hardships, looked toward the future. A unified Israel that, once attacked, rallied and won major victories. This was the case in most of the wars of Rabin’s lifetime—from the War of Independence to Suez, to the Six-Day War, to Yom Kippur, and even the Lebanon War of 1982.

Today’s Israel is not the same. Fearful of the Americans and of the mere prospect of “occupying Gaza,” in 18 months we could not do what our forefathers accomplished in one day in 1967. Our government is afraid of acting—both in Iran and in Gaza. While it is true that the government acted against Hezbollah in Lebanon, largely neutralizing it as a support front (and therefore also indirectly collapsing the Assad regime in Syria), neither were our principal threats. Iran, the head of the snake, remains our nemesis and was not addressed in a significant manner in this war.

Instead, the war’s outcome shows an increasingly dependent Israel, beholden to American dictates, and an internal division that has fractured society. Saving one Jew is like saving the world, it is written, and none of us would ever want to have a family member taken hostage. However, what happens if future Jews are killed because of our actions today? Does killing one Jew destroy the world?

The next time in the future mass Jews are kidnapped and taken hostage, our enemies may demand the end of Israel as a Jewish state. A new strategy needs to be devised on how to handle Jewish hostages, for the rhetoric in society and in some political circles, while understandable on an emotional level, is simply unacceptable in a practical manner.

I will leave you with the following thought. As much as one may want to blame the government or Trumpian isolationism, perhaps G-d is the real heralder of events. We as a society did not suddenly become divided on October 7; the schism started years before. Perhaps a stalemated war will result in some peace. Perhaps the American vision for Israeli–Saudi Arabian peace will finally materialize. Trump is, after all, a master “deal-maker,” and there is opportunity whenever dynamics change.

However, the geopolitical situation has changed. Turkey’s relations with Israel have collapsed, Russia is increasingly antagonistic, and South Africa and others continue to delegitimize the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.

Two and a half thousand years ago, the prophet Ezekiel prophesied the “End of Days” Gog and Magog war, when a multinational army would invade an Israel inhabited by a people returned from exile, living in unwalled cities (Ezekiel 38). The nations of this war are mentioned: Magog, Persia, Gomer, Tubal, and their allies. Magog is a vast empire in the far north (likely Russia); we know Persia is Iran; and according to Josephus Flavius, Gomer is likely the Turks. Many nations will join them—but notably, the Arabs (Ishmaelites) are not included among them.

The October 7 War will likely end. My prediction is that it will result in a new government in Gaza, but otherwise a tactical stalemate with Iran. However, the long game continues. Perhaps some beautiful years of peace will follow. However, our enemies will continue to plot our downfall, learning from their mistakes and capitalizing on their successes. When peace arrives, we need not be naïve—we must prepare for the next war, which will be far more destructive than anything we have seen in the past two years.