Dear Cookie Schwaeber-Issan,
Skepticism toward any postwar Gaza plan is not only understandable – it is responsible. Israelis have paid a devastating price for misplaced assumptions, broken guarantees, and leaders who spoke the language of peace while enabling terror.
After October 7, no serious proposal deserves blind trust, and no Palestinian voice should expect automatic credibility. But skepticism must be anchored in reality, not in collective moral condemnation that makes change structurally impossible.
The argument that Gaza’s future is “doomed” because Gazans are morally irredeemable – or because no credible Palestinian partners exist – is not a warning against naïveté. It is a prescription for permanent war.
Who are the professionals – and where were they?
The question of where Gaza’s professionals were during Hamas rule is a fair one.
The answer is uncomfortable but important: many were silenced, marginalized, threatened, or pushed out of public life precisely because Hamas ruled by force.
Gaza did not lack doctors, engineers, economists, educators, or administrators. It lacked freedom. Authoritarian systems do not elevate moderates; they suppress them.
To argue that the absence of visible leadership under Hamas proves the absence of capable leadership today is to misunderstand how coercive regimes function.
The same was true in Eastern Europe before communism collapsed. It does not mean civil society did not exist – it means it was crushed.
Responsibility without collective guilt
Yes, Hamas built tunnels. Yes, crimes were committed. Yes, parts of Gazan society were complicit – through fear, indoctrination, or opportunism. That reality must be confronted honestly. Accountability matters.
But collective moral disqualification is not accountability. It is surrender.
If every society that produced violence were deemed unworthy of rehabilitation until it achieved “repentance” acceptable to its adversaries, Germany and Japan would still be in ruins.
Societies reform not through humiliation, but through responsibility combined with agency. What Gaza needs is not absolution. It needs a system where violence no longer pays, where governance replaces militancy, and where dignity is earned through behavior, not slogans.
Security first – but security alone is not enough
No one serious about Israel’s security is calling for open borders, erased memories, or pretending October 7 never happened. That is a straw man.
Demilitarization, strict security oversight, and phased normalization tied to performance are not concessions – they are prerequisites. A technocratic administration is not about “trusting Palestinians.” It is about removing weapons from politics and replacing power with accountability.
Israel understands better than most that deterrence without governance is temporary. Military victory creates space; it does not fill it. If Gaza remains a vacuum – politically, economically, morally – it will be filled again by extremism.
That is not idealism. It is history.
On moral language – and moral responsibility
Calls for rebuilding “the infrastructure of the soul” sound noble, but morality does not grow in rubble, siege, or hopelessness. Ethics are reinforced by institutions, education, law, and opportunity, not sermons delivered from outside a broken society.
If the demand is that Palestinians must first prove themselves “worthy members of the human race” before being allowed a future, then no plan – Israeli, American, or international – will ever succeed. That framing guarantees endless war, not security.
The moral test is not whether Gazans are angels. The moral test is whether a system can be built that prevents monsters from ruling again.
Why a Palestinian voice still matters
A credible Palestinian representative engaging Israel is not about sympathy – it is about effectiveness. Israelis do not need Palestinian flattery. They need Palestinian responsibility.
Someone must speak to Palestinians in a language of reform, consequences, and change – while speaking to Israelis in a language of security, realism, and mutual interest. That role is not about personal ambition. It is about preventing the next war.
Peace is not built on illusions. But neither is it built on despair disguised as moral clarity. If Gaza is written off as irredeemable, then Israelis should be honest with themselves: the alternative is not safety – it is perpetual conflict with no exit.
That is not caution. That is resignation. And resignation is far more dangerous than hope grounded in structure, accountability, and hard-earned realism.
The writer is a Fatah political leader from Jerusalem, calling for Palestinian reforms, democracy dialogue, and coexistence with Israel.