An intentional and contrived Israeli uproar

A self-inflicted uproar in order to be a directed and intended message set off by the occupation army, with its decision to announce a “tactical truce in military activities” in a section of the southern Gaza Strip, which it defined as starting from the Kerem Shalom crossing, up to the Salah al-Din Road, and then north, and its motives, as stated by the army. The occupation “for humanitarian purposes will be implemented from 8 a.m. until 19 p.m., daily until further notice.”

Netanyahu and his political team, including Defense Minister Yoav Galant, did not know about the decision, and were not consulted. As Netanyahu said, he heard about it through the media, and of course he criticized the content of the decision, its goal, and the method of announcing it, and that he was not consulted with it, nor was his opinion taken into account, and he considered it a violation of all followed procedures and regulations!

The fundamental question is: What are the army’s motives in announcing this step? Did humanity suddenly appear in them? Did they realize the extent of the suffering and hunger of the Palestinians, and sympathize with them? Is it because the Palestinians received them with open arms after the two operations of bombing for three weeks, and the destruction and deliberate killing of civilians for more than eight months, since October 7, which led to the killing and wounding of tens of thousands of Palestinians? So they were satisfied with this number, which exceeded one hundred thousand, in response to the operation of October 7, and as a price. she has? Or did they see that throwing this target could “soften” the hearts of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and make them lenient in negotiations to release Israeli prisoners?

The decision of the occupation army, from a principled and procedural standpoint, did not satisfy Netanyahu and his coalition team, and conflicted with their policies. So why did the army take this step, which caused an uproar at the local, regional and international levels, and imposed global interest and legitimate questions about the role of the United States and the American army, which has an advisory team working with The occupation army provides it with the required cover to achieve victory, or at least to prevent defeat? Was this decision made under American guidance and imposed on the occupation army without coordination with Netanyahu and the political team?

But the reality of the occupation army’s motives is that it wanted this decision to achieve a goal, which is to hold the political leadership responsible for the consequences of the crimes committed by the occupation army against Palestinian civilians, and it wanted to convey a message to the International Criminal Court that its partial decision, which aimed to summon Netanyahu and Gallant, and invite them to appear before the court, and if... If they do not respond, they will be pursued and arrested on the grounds of committing crimes against humanity. The Criminal Court’s decision not to include the leaders and officers of the occupation army is justified, and here the occupation army is taking measures of a humanitarian nature by providing the necessary needs and bringing aid to the people of the Gaza Strip through the crossing. Abu Salem, which indicates that the occupation army is responding to international resolutions, and is doing so openly, without consulting the political leadership, which does not accept and reject the decision. If it is withdrawn for any reason, this means that it is up to the political leadership to withdraw from the “humanitarian” decision. Not the army leadership, which must submit to the decision of the political leadership.

The occupation army achieved its goal, through the uproar raised against it by the political leadership, and appeared as if it were an army that adhered to international standards. It did so on its own, without the approval of the political leadership or consultation with it, and while it was fighting the Palestinians it did so under duress, taking into account humanitarian standards. !

The decision of the occupation army was not implemented, and the “tactical truce” was not implemented. The decision and direction regarding it were implemented, and the army recorded that it sought a truce with humanitarian motives, but was unable to implement it for reasons beyond its control!

The occupation army wanted this decision to achieve a goal, which is to hold the political leadership responsible for the consequences of the crimes committed by the occupation army against Palestinian civilians.