Most excellent writing and mighty words of truth. I still recall the wave of nausea I felt when Rabin shook hands with that satanic terrorist Arafat. A painfully fateful handshake
A profound and insightful analysis. But the religious dimension needs to be discussed at some point. Is it not because of secularism that so many Israelis have the dream of an Israel that is essentially no different from Holland or Belgium?
Thanks for the personal account of life in the Israeli army. I have read several books describing their experiences by Americans who served there.
About the 36 and the 35, I had never heard of either.
The general concept is important: we need righteousness in the world, and we need those who will fight to defend it. However, I don't believe in the existence of thirty-six righteous individuals who sustain the world by their righteousness. God created the world and sustains it with no human assistance (though we are privileged to participate in God’s will and purposes).
I see that the concept of the 36 righteous, the Lamed Vovniks, is found in the Talmud and in the Zohar, neither of which I have read. I do read the Hebrew Bible and have done so for years (in English, alas), but consider it divinely and uniquely inspired and do not place later writings of men on the same level.
I should add, that I speak as an outsider, since I believe in the Christian Bible as well, and think the two testaments contained therein combine as ultimate arbiters of spiritual truth – although of course many gifted and insightful writers have written valuable books since then.
This is somewhat off topic, but I do believe that the survival of the Jewish people over the centuries, their return to their biblical homeland, their victories over their enemies in subsequent wars, and future developments are not accidental, but rather the will of God, in preparation for the final establishment of the kingdom of God on earth according to Isaiah chapter 2, and Christian prophecies as well.
About the thirty-six righteous being an unparalleled moral engine, I think the idea expressed in Daniel 12 is much more compelling:
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
"And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever."
About the second link, which I also read with interest:
I thought the ending of the parable of the wall was inconclusive, maybe because I misinterpreted it..
If the Jews of the wall represent the followers of traditional rabbinic Judaism (?), then the ending where the Elder shifts his attention to the observable universe seems like a denial of the religious tradition (or was it an extension of the tradition into the world?). They both remain Jews, radiating from the same source, but some could read that as meaning that they both remain human beings, radiating from the same source in which case the tradition is not relevant.
Very possibly I am missing something somewhere, and welcome correction.
I have read about the Karaites, who believe that the written Torah, or Tanakh, is the sole authority for Jewish religious law and theology and reject the authority of the oral law. There may be as many as 30,000 in Israel.
Surely the destruction of the temple by the Romans and the complete cessation of the sacrificial system that plays such a significant role in Torah must have some deeper meaning. Man cannot change God’s laws and commandments, but cannot God himself change them? Did he not reveal things to Abraham that were unknown before, and reveal things to Moses that were unknown to Abraham? And then the expansion of the kingdom under David and Solomon and the construction of the temple also added ne elements.
If the parents tell their five-year old child he may not go play in the park by himself, but then later on remove that restriction, they are not contradicting themselves. God can also legislate for different situations.
I agree. I don't think there has ever been a truly Christian country, but the Christian influence in America was very strong in the past, and that made a real difference. Now that that is disappearing, things are going to get worse, more likely than not. So, "looking up" is what we need to do now - I say that in a Christian context.
I was here for all of it, but was busy with family and trying to make a livelihood. I didn’t really understand what was happening. Just the feeling of fortifying ourselves in our houses (during the early 2000’s), and my small children not understanding why I was balling my eyes out on the day after Tisha B’Av, while they removed Jews and Jewish gravestones from the beautiful Gush Katif (Gaza). You have explained it well, and of course the mechanisms behind it all. So here we are.
America? Absolutely not. It’s not worth even mentioning anymore, sad as that used to sound. The public division is superficial and will disappear soon.
The time is coming, soon , when Israel will be hit by the reality of Oct. 7. Until now, we have been distracted by the war and have distracted ourselves with the demonstrations. When that time comes, the Jews will be mad. Jewhad mad.
I agree. It's interesting to me that Israel is suffering the same suicidal factions as is the United States - who (nearly 50%) simply cannot bear "too much reality", or, more aptly any reality.
The difference being (for the time being) that all the factions in Israel have been mugged—big time. We are changing, and the change is preceding its description; a new lexicon is needed, and it is beginning to appear.
Shalom Ehud. This is a powerful exposition of a specific lens for viewing the Oslo years and the Sharon years. It may surprise you, but I think you are mostly correct. A messianic spirit took over large sections of the Labor party and a part of Israeli society that followed its lead. That spirit, led by people like Yossi Sarid and Yossi Beilin, believed in a mythic form of peace and failed to recognize when their vision had run aground. Mainly, I think that they failed to understand the depth of Islamic supremacism in Palestinian society, but that is a topic for a different discussion.
I think your schematic of what happened misses a few points that are important to understanding the failure of Oslo and its disastrous consequences. First, the people who actually led the country were not fantasists. Rabin made mistakes, but he was not given to fantastical thinking. This ties us to the second point which is to recall the times. The Soviet Union had collapsed and the Cold War ended. The ramifications for the Middle East were dramatic. If the USSR could fall, well then anything could happen is how a great many sober people were feeling. We now know that the gamble failed, but declaring the people who promoted it simply fools or suggesting that they lacked moral fiber, is to misunderstand both them and what happened. Third, you may recall Begin's unfortunate essay in favor of "optional wars" milhamot reshut." He was defending the First Lebanon War which was as bad a failure as was Oslo. The notion that wars are awful and we should avoid them if we can, that our wars should be wars of no-option, was a response to that failure and played a profound role in the thinking of supporters of the Oslo Process. It was not that most of us had closed our eyes to the possibility that it would fail, that it was a gamble, but I recall thinking that my young boys (then aged 2, 6, and 7) would have to fight if we didn't make peace and I needed to be able to look them in the eye and say that I had done all I could to save the country from that situation. As it turned out, they grew up and had to fight, but they did so knowing that we had gone the extra mile to prevent their wars.
Regarding the separation, I think you have it wrong when you suggest that it came from the Left. The first separation was during the First Gulf War when Shamir was PM and Palestinians were refused entry to Israel. The key book on the rationale for the Separation was Dan Schueftan's Korah Hahafradah (The Necessity of Separation). Schueftan is a hard-nosed scholar deeply critical of Arab society.His book's rationale was that Arab society, dominated by Islamic supremacism, is incorrigible so we will not be able to know peace unless we separate from them. I think that is something we can discuss, but it is a world away from Yossi Beilin's fairy tale.
Thanks for this piece. I hope you will develop what you mean by the idea of Jewhad. As in Islam, it suffers vastly different meanings from Holy War, to Inner Struggle with Sin.
I'm leaving most of this standing. I appreciate your thoughts, and I am happy for my readers to be exposed to your point of view. Your writing is well researched and as such challenges me to improve my own. Thank you for that. The one thing that I will reply on is your description of the First Lebanon War as a failure as big as Oslo. In its main objective it was a great success. I do not have to remind you of the dire reality in northern Israel during the years that the PLO-run "Fatach Land" existed on the other side of that border. That was untenable and there was no option for a negotiated agreement because that part of Lebanon was not under Lebanese control. Not only Fatach Land was cleaned up, but the PLO itself was on the verge of being destroyed. Somehow, Reagan was convinced to put in a good word for the child-rapist Arafat, and to allow what was left of the PLO escape to Cyprus, and then to Libya, where they were doomed to insignificance. Lo and behold, Arafat was lifted up from the ashes and invited back to continue where he left off, now with an imprimatur of the Israeli government. Resurrecting this monster, forcing him to inhabit a Passion Play of Israeli design, that is evidence of ignorance and lack of any moral direction whatsoever, and Rabin was a full, enthusiastic partner to this. That is the very definition of not only fantastical thinking, but fantastical policy-making, that has led us in a direct line to where we are today.
The local Arabs themselves wanted nothing to do with these "bad Arabs," as they called them. See:
Rauvan, Thanks for your comment. The talking-heads for or against Israel will be less relevant now, and will fade into the background when we kick off the big battle. We hope for the US government's support, but we have learned that it is tenuous and dependent on internal US politics over which we have no control.
Interesting to see all these cards on the table, Ehud. But what happens after “the big battle"? What does the world look like? I ask because your language is heavily inflected with an end-of-days vibe.
So, an actual battle (tanks, bombs, drones, prisoners, mass death, etc) that wipes out "the enemies of the Jews"? If so, who exactly is on the enemies list?
The Iranian regime. They’re on the list. So are all Islamists and their friends. Fatah and other secular Palestinian nationalists. Far-right white supremacists. Far-left woke LGBTQ Palestinian sympathizers. Thugs in the Gulf states. Remnants Saddam’s anti-Zionist pan-Arab fantasists in Iraq. Most members of the United Nations. They’ve all attacked Israel in one way or another. Are they all on the list?
FYI: Once the immediate physical threat is eliminated (the “big battle” kills off Hamas & Hezbollah), the secondary and tertiary Jew-haters will be ready to take up arms. The bench runs very deep. Turtles all the way down.
Shorter version: We’ll never shoot our way out of this hole.
The time to archive our hope in “tikkun olam” beyond our communities is upon us for the foreseeable future. Preservation and security by all means is now.
Strange, I cannot find this comment on the threads below the original article. You did make this same point earlier when the article came out.
Here is my answer:
We have been going it alone from the beginning of this war. We have defeated the two immediate enemies (there is still work to be done). We have no choice but to attack Iran. I do not believe that the US will get involved regardless of who is president. In my opinion the involvement is not needed and is not desirable.
Why does it seem to you such a terrible situation?
I regret the term "Jewhad." Too cute by far and drew attention away from the points I was trying to make. I will edit it out at some point.
Your insights are always appreciated, including antagonistic ones. 🙂
Diana Murray has messaged me that she flat-out does not believe that Israel can go it alone. I answered her that we have been going it alone from the start. She doesn't consider that an answer. If she is talking about say, green lights from America, then Israel has prevailed over both Hamas in Gaza and Hizballah in Lebanon in spite of America's on-again off-again support. The delays caused by the American schizophrenia delayed Israel's victory and caused unnecessary loss of Israeli (and Arab) life. We are posed to attack Iran. It is in Israel's capability to completely neutralize Iran as a military power. If Israel does the right thing, we will be for the first time free of serious threats. Israel will be the dominant power in the Middle East. Then Israel can reevaluate partnerships. There are options. If America continues to be a fair-weather friend, Israel must develop alternatives. I think that Czech/Hungary/India/Saudi/Emirates partnership would be the best. Raw materials, capital, and world-leading engineering. For this to happen there is a need for visionary leadership. That is something we have to pray for.
Ah, okay. “*Forty* years of quiet.” Which isn’t final at all. More bloodshed to come!
I’m obviously not arguing against Israel defending itself. If it’s a matter of Jewish survival, sure, take out the mullahs. But as I’ve said before, the swords don’t become ploughshares and the spears don’t become pruning hooks by unsheathing all the swords and spears and running up the body count.
This has been part of our disagreement all along. Implacable enemies must be defeated to the extent that they cry “uncle.” Anything less, there will be more of the same a few years along. “Forty Years,” is a euphemism meaning that there will be peace for at least a few generations.
No unconditional surrender, no surrender accepted —- If the residents of Gaza wave the white flag , return the remaining hostages and agree to any terms of ceasefire you want to do what with those left alive?
Most excellent writing and mighty words of truth. I still recall the wave of nausea I felt when Rabin shook hands with that satanic terrorist Arafat. A painfully fateful handshake
Nausea is the word.
I was too shocked to be nauseous.
A profound and insightful analysis. But the religious dimension needs to be discussed at some point. Is it not because of secularism that so many Israelis have the dream of an Israel that is essentially no different from Holland or Belgium?
Well Joe, you laser-beamed right into the crux of the matter. I have dealt with this in two previous posts:
https://www.pisgahsite.com/p/the-thirty-five-and-the-thirty-six
https://www.pisgahsite.com/p/the-western-kingdom-of-tel-aviv-and
They might interest you. Let me know what you think. Also, I still have a few drafts on the subject. Eventually they will be published, God willing.
About the first link:
Thanks for the personal account of life in the Israeli army. I have read several books describing their experiences by Americans who served there.
About the 36 and the 35, I had never heard of either.
The general concept is important: we need righteousness in the world, and we need those who will fight to defend it. However, I don't believe in the existence of thirty-six righteous individuals who sustain the world by their righteousness. God created the world and sustains it with no human assistance (though we are privileged to participate in God’s will and purposes).
I see that the concept of the 36 righteous, the Lamed Vovniks, is found in the Talmud and in the Zohar, neither of which I have read. I do read the Hebrew Bible and have done so for years (in English, alas), but consider it divinely and uniquely inspired and do not place later writings of men on the same level.
I should add, that I speak as an outsider, since I believe in the Christian Bible as well, and think the two testaments contained therein combine as ultimate arbiters of spiritual truth – although of course many gifted and insightful writers have written valuable books since then.
This is somewhat off topic, but I do believe that the survival of the Jewish people over the centuries, their return to their biblical homeland, their victories over their enemies in subsequent wars, and future developments are not accidental, but rather the will of God, in preparation for the final establishment of the kingdom of God on earth according to Isaiah chapter 2, and Christian prophecies as well.
About the thirty-six righteous being an unparalleled moral engine, I think the idea expressed in Daniel 12 is much more compelling:
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
"And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever."
About the second link, which I also read with interest:
I thought the ending of the parable of the wall was inconclusive, maybe because I misinterpreted it..
If the Jews of the wall represent the followers of traditional rabbinic Judaism (?), then the ending where the Elder shifts his attention to the observable universe seems like a denial of the religious tradition (or was it an extension of the tradition into the world?). They both remain Jews, radiating from the same source, but some could read that as meaning that they both remain human beings, radiating from the same source in which case the tradition is not relevant.
Very possibly I am missing something somewhere, and welcome correction.
I have read about the Karaites, who believe that the written Torah, or Tanakh, is the sole authority for Jewish religious law and theology and reject the authority of the oral law. There may be as many as 30,000 in Israel.
Surely the destruction of the temple by the Romans and the complete cessation of the sacrificial system that plays such a significant role in Torah must have some deeper meaning. Man cannot change God’s laws and commandments, but cannot God himself change them? Did he not reveal things to Abraham that were unknown before, and reveal things to Moses that were unknown to Abraham? And then the expansion of the kingdom under David and Solomon and the construction of the temple also added ne elements.
If the parents tell their five-year old child he may not go play in the park by himself, but then later on remove that restriction, they are not contradicting themselves. God can also legislate for different situations.
I agree that the secularism is an important factor in the cultural divides both in Israel and the USA, the latter with in which I live in everyday.
Our national motto is "In G-d We Trust". Very few are "looking up" these days.
I agree. I don't think there has ever been a truly Christian country, but the Christian influence in America was very strong in the past, and that made a real difference. Now that that is disappearing, things are going to get worse, more likely than not. So, "looking up" is what we need to do now - I say that in a Christian context.
I was here for all of it, but was busy with family and trying to make a livelihood. I didn’t really understand what was happening. Just the feeling of fortifying ourselves in our houses (during the early 2000’s), and my small children not understanding why I was balling my eyes out on the day after Tisha B’Av, while they removed Jews and Jewish gravestones from the beautiful Gush Katif (Gaza). You have explained it well, and of course the mechanisms behind it all. So here we are.
So here we are.
A short summary
https://youtu.be/5iyTDD4dKGc?si=i9U9jEZLFi6bhhM8
Todah & ShalomAloha
Excellent.
"proto states, what should have been the perfect testbed to demonstrate their desire and ability to join the wider league of nations."
100% They proved that they're a blot on humanity.
But I have doubts about this "Jewhad." I'm sorry to say I don't think we have it in us. I hope I'm wrong.
I know…but I’m deciding to think like Deborah and Yael…everything has changed and this is war. Both Israel and America.
America? No. The Americans will not be a party to this. Israel will have to go it alone and with a divided public.
I'm skeptical.
America? Absolutely not. It’s not worth even mentioning anymore, sad as that used to sound. The public division is superficial and will disappear soon.
Grab the tent pegs and a hammer. Sinwar can be first.
The time is coming, soon , when Israel will be hit by the reality of Oct. 7. Until now, we have been distracted by the war and have distracted ourselves with the demonstrations. When that time comes, the Jews will be mad. Jewhad mad.
I agree. It's interesting to me that Israel is suffering the same suicidal factions as is the United States - who (nearly 50%) simply cannot bear "too much reality", or, more aptly any reality.
The difference being (for the time being) that all the factions in Israel have been mugged—big time. We are changing, and the change is preceding its description; a new lexicon is needed, and it is beginning to appear.
Shalom Ehud. This is a powerful exposition of a specific lens for viewing the Oslo years and the Sharon years. It may surprise you, but I think you are mostly correct. A messianic spirit took over large sections of the Labor party and a part of Israeli society that followed its lead. That spirit, led by people like Yossi Sarid and Yossi Beilin, believed in a mythic form of peace and failed to recognize when their vision had run aground. Mainly, I think that they failed to understand the depth of Islamic supremacism in Palestinian society, but that is a topic for a different discussion.
I think your schematic of what happened misses a few points that are important to understanding the failure of Oslo and its disastrous consequences. First, the people who actually led the country were not fantasists. Rabin made mistakes, but he was not given to fantastical thinking. This ties us to the second point which is to recall the times. The Soviet Union had collapsed and the Cold War ended. The ramifications for the Middle East were dramatic. If the USSR could fall, well then anything could happen is how a great many sober people were feeling. We now know that the gamble failed, but declaring the people who promoted it simply fools or suggesting that they lacked moral fiber, is to misunderstand both them and what happened. Third, you may recall Begin's unfortunate essay in favor of "optional wars" milhamot reshut." He was defending the First Lebanon War which was as bad a failure as was Oslo. The notion that wars are awful and we should avoid them if we can, that our wars should be wars of no-option, was a response to that failure and played a profound role in the thinking of supporters of the Oslo Process. It was not that most of us had closed our eyes to the possibility that it would fail, that it was a gamble, but I recall thinking that my young boys (then aged 2, 6, and 7) would have to fight if we didn't make peace and I needed to be able to look them in the eye and say that I had done all I could to save the country from that situation. As it turned out, they grew up and had to fight, but they did so knowing that we had gone the extra mile to prevent their wars.
Regarding the separation, I think you have it wrong when you suggest that it came from the Left. The first separation was during the First Gulf War when Shamir was PM and Palestinians were refused entry to Israel. The key book on the rationale for the Separation was Dan Schueftan's Korah Hahafradah (The Necessity of Separation). Schueftan is a hard-nosed scholar deeply critical of Arab society.His book's rationale was that Arab society, dominated by Islamic supremacism, is incorrigible so we will not be able to know peace unless we separate from them. I think that is something we can discuss, but it is a world away from Yossi Beilin's fairy tale.
Thanks for this piece. I hope you will develop what you mean by the idea of Jewhad. As in Islam, it suffers vastly different meanings from Holy War, to Inner Struggle with Sin.
May we know better days than these.
Respectfully,
Anan Sahadei
I'm leaving most of this standing. I appreciate your thoughts, and I am happy for my readers to be exposed to your point of view. Your writing is well researched and as such challenges me to improve my own. Thank you for that. The one thing that I will reply on is your description of the First Lebanon War as a failure as big as Oslo. In its main objective it was a great success. I do not have to remind you of the dire reality in northern Israel during the years that the PLO-run "Fatach Land" existed on the other side of that border. That was untenable and there was no option for a negotiated agreement because that part of Lebanon was not under Lebanese control. Not only Fatach Land was cleaned up, but the PLO itself was on the verge of being destroyed. Somehow, Reagan was convinced to put in a good word for the child-rapist Arafat, and to allow what was left of the PLO escape to Cyprus, and then to Libya, where they were doomed to insignificance. Lo and behold, Arafat was lifted up from the ashes and invited back to continue where he left off, now with an imprimatur of the Israeli government. Resurrecting this monster, forcing him to inhabit a Passion Play of Israeli design, that is evidence of ignorance and lack of any moral direction whatsoever, and Rabin was a full, enthusiastic partner to this. That is the very definition of not only fantastical thinking, but fantastical policy-making, that has led us in a direct line to where we are today.
The local Arabs themselves wanted nothing to do with these "bad Arabs," as they called them. See:
https://www.pisgahsite.com/p/the-day-i-was-more-powerful-than?r=8t6pg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
For J Street and Thomas Friedman, it is still 1993. I’m afraid that is also the case for Kamala Harris.
Rauvan, Thanks for your comment. The talking-heads for or against Israel will be less relevant now, and will fade into the background when we kick off the big battle. We hope for the US government's support, but we have learned that it is tenuous and dependent on internal US politics over which we have no control.
Interesting to see all these cards on the table, Ehud. But what happens after “the big battle"? What does the world look like? I ask because your language is heavily inflected with an end-of-days vibe.
The enemies of the Jews are defeated. What's end of days about that? That will a beginning of anything.
So, an actual battle (tanks, bombs, drones, prisoners, mass death, etc) that wipes out "the enemies of the Jews"? If so, who exactly is on the enemies list?
They've declared themselves on the list by attacking Israel. If you do not know who are Israel's enemies to be destroyed, you haven't been listening.
The Iranian regime. They’re on the list. So are all Islamists and their friends. Fatah and other secular Palestinian nationalists. Far-right white supremacists. Far-left woke LGBTQ Palestinian sympathizers. Thugs in the Gulf states. Remnants Saddam’s anti-Zionist pan-Arab fantasists in Iraq. Most members of the United Nations. They’ve all attacked Israel in one way or another. Are they all on the list?
FYI: Once the immediate physical threat is eliminated (the “big battle” kills off Hamas & Hezbollah), the secondary and tertiary Jew-haters will be ready to take up arms. The bench runs very deep. Turtles all the way down.
Shorter version: We’ll never shoot our way out of this hole.
I think the opposing sides roughly fit the Chamberlain-Churchill divide. But I am not familiar with all of the details involved.
The time to archive our hope in “tikkun olam” beyond our communities is upon us for the foreseeable future. Preservation and security by all means is now.
Hi Diana,
Strange, I cannot find this comment on the threads below the original article. You did make this same point earlier when the article came out.
Here is my answer:
We have been going it alone from the beginning of this war. We have defeated the two immediate enemies (there is still work to be done). We have no choice but to attack Iran. I do not believe that the US will get involved regardless of who is president. In my opinion the involvement is not needed and is not desirable.
Why does it seem to you such a terrible situation?
I regret the term "Jewhad." Too cute by far and drew attention away from the points I was trying to make. I will edit it out at some point.
Your insights are always appreciated, including antagonistic ones. 🙂
Diana Murray has messaged me that she flat-out does not believe that Israel can go it alone. I answered her that we have been going it alone from the start. She doesn't consider that an answer. If she is talking about say, green lights from America, then Israel has prevailed over both Hamas in Gaza and Hizballah in Lebanon in spite of America's on-again off-again support. The delays caused by the American schizophrenia delayed Israel's victory and caused unnecessary loss of Israeli (and Arab) life. We are posed to attack Iran. It is in Israel's capability to completely neutralize Iran as a military power. If Israel does the right thing, we will be for the first time free of serious threats. Israel will be the dominant power in the Middle East. Then Israel can reevaluate partnerships. There are options. If America continues to be a fair-weather friend, Israel must develop alternatives. I think that Czech/Hungary/India/Saudi/Emirates partnership would be the best. Raw materials, capital, and world-leading engineering. For this to happen there is a need for visionary leadership. That is something we have to pray for.
I must have missed this when you first posted it.
Yikes.
Rereading it, I say “yikes” too. But I stand by the message.
What happens after the “final battle“? Does this final bloodbath usher in the messianic age?
(Shedding human blood in a final redemptive conflict sounds more like a Christian story than a Jewish one.)
The final redemptive conflict is the most seminal of Jewish stories. Christianity borrowed it.
After defeating Iran? It is enough for us to have forty years of quiet. I hope and pray for more, but that is enough.
Ah, okay. “*Forty* years of quiet.” Which isn’t final at all. More bloodshed to come!
I’m obviously not arguing against Israel defending itself. If it’s a matter of Jewish survival, sure, take out the mullahs. But as I’ve said before, the swords don’t become ploughshares and the spears don’t become pruning hooks by unsheathing all the swords and spears and running up the body count.
This has been part of our disagreement all along. Implacable enemies must be defeated to the extent that they cry “uncle.” Anything less, there will be more of the same a few years along. “Forty Years,” is a euphemism meaning that there will be peace for at least a few generations.
Yup, we’ve done this before.
You say “forty years” is a euphemism. Is “final” in “final battle” a euphemism too?
No unconditional surrender, no surrender accepted —- If the residents of Gaza wave the white flag , return the remaining hostages and agree to any terms of ceasefire you want to do what with those left alive?
Ask me after the dust settles.