Trump’s Board of Peace collides with the reality of Hamas’s power in Gaza

US President Donald Trump on Thursday convened the Board of Peace in Washington for a significant kick-off meeting on his 20-point plan for Gaza.

As usual, Trump glorified the board and some of its members and participants and did not spare himself from self-aggrandizement and some exaggerated declarations about the peace agreements he had achieved in extremely short periods of time. He then referred to Gaza, stating that the war was over, except for a few small flames here and there.

The president also praised his team for helping to implement his plan and expressed confidence regarding dismantling Hamas, noting that the terror organization has pledged to disarm but will be disarmed by force if it does not do so voluntarily and peacefully.

Although the US president pledged $10 billion to the board’s budget and program, managed to mobilize several world leaders to support it and even join as members, and secured commitments from five countries to inject money into the board’s coffers and to send troops to the International Stabilization Force (ISF), the gap between these lofty declarations and the practical reality on the ground in Gaza is no less embarrassing.

If this gap is not closed, or at least reduced, Gaza’s residents will sink into a continuing reality of a life of hardship in a devastated region devoid of vitality and future. Israel will face a complex security challenge, which may escalate and spill over into other arenas. Regional security stability may be undermined, with further and dangerous erosion in relations between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.

The essence of the gap between the vision, the festive atmosphere, the lofty declarations, and the reality on the ground stems from Hamas’s demonstrable and declared refusal to disarm.

It has denied its previous promises to disarm, and the group’s leaders have publicly reaffirmed their intention to retain weapons and continue the armed struggle against Israel until the end of the “occupation,” with some statements not necessarily clarifying the nature of the “occupation.”

Beyond that, Hamas is working vigorously to restore its military and governmental capabilities, including governors, ministers, and other officials, who, in its view, should be integrated into the new technocratic governmental system.

It demands the integration of 10,000 security personnel from its apparatuses into the new security system that will be established and operated by the technocratic government and has even vetoed the entry of Sami Nasman, the prospective internal security minister, into Gaza, essentially forcing him to operate outside the enclave.

In the reality that is emerging and concretizing with each passing day, Hamas is preparing the infrastructure for the “day after,” creating mechanisms to influence the functioning of the technocratic government.

In fact, it is perfecting Hezbollah’s model in Lebanon: a terrorist organization that dictates the agenda and the scope of action of the civilian government by force. 

Hamas’s control of all state institutions and the fact that the technocratic government will not be able to import teachers from India, engineers from Kazakhstan, doctors from Indonesia, and professionals from other countries, means the Gazan workforce – employed by Hamas, identified with the organization, and committed to or fearful of it – will not go against the terror group, even on the day its salary is paid by the technocratic government.

As long as Hamas is not disarmed and ceases to be an effective and present governing entity in Gaza, the technocratic government has no real chance of establishing alternative governance to Hamas and preparing the conditions for the beginning of the process of rebuilding the Strip.

The same is also true of the ISF, which has not yet been established.
Five countries have already announced their willingness to send soldiers to the task force, and Egypt, Jordan, and even European countries such as Italy have announced their willingness to train Palestinians who intend to serve in the security apparatuses in Gaza. An online tender for recruiting people for the new security apparatuses has even been published.

Yet, there is not a single military force that is ready and capable of dealing with Hamas and disarming it and demilitarizing the enclave. There is not a single country or government that is ready to send its soldiers to fight Hamas. And since the terror group is not ready to disarm voluntarily or by virtue of cooperation with the 20-point plan, this is nothing more than an embarrassing show.

The only chance of narrowing the gap between the launch and establishment of the Board of Peace and the beginning of a process of reconstruction and real change in Gaza is by disarming Hamas and dismantling it as a political/governmental force and by demilitarizing the enclave.

It would be better if President Trump were to succeed in leading Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt to force the move on Hamas, but the chance of that is almost nonexistent. These three countries, certainly Turkey and Qatar, cannot realize such a goal.

The other option is to order the IDF to complete the mission, which should have been completed long ago and which was also defined by the Israeli government as a war goal. Under current conditions, this is a completely possible mission due to Hamas’s relative weakness compared to its situation a year or two ago and due to the lack of hostages in the field, which greatly limited the IDF’s maneuverability.

President Trump will be able to reach this decision only after exhausting all other options and becoming convinced that there is no chance of implementing his own plan without dismantling Hamas and demilitarizing Gaza and that only the IDF can do this job.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2026.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.




Hamas’s delayed death announcement signals confidence, not weakness

On December 29, 2025, Hamas issued a statement confirming the deaths of five of its senior leaders, including Abu Obeidah, the organization’s iconic spokesperson; Mohammad Sinwar, commander of the military wing; Mohammad Shabana, commander of the Rafah Brigade; and Ra’ad Sa’ad, one of the masterminds behind the October 7 attack. The timing of this announcement – months after the IDF had already declared their deaths – raises important questions: Why now, and why in a single, consolidated statement?

The delay appears to be a calculated move by Hamas to undermine the credibility of the IDF’s reports, especially in the absence of independent verification. By postponing the announcement, Hamas sought to prevent demoralization among its operatives and to maintain its standing in the eyes of the local population. The organization aimed to project resilience and stability, despite the significant blow to its leadership. 

The remaining leadership needed time to regroup, rehabilitate, and appoint successors. Now, with Hamas having reestablished control over western Gaza, its confidence has grown, and it has managed to fill key positions–even if not all appointments have been made public.

The new spokesperson was given the symbolic nickname “Abu Obeidah,” signaling continuity and stability, and preserving the organization’s tradition of fighting spirit.

Such a dramatic announcement by Hamas is never random; it serves a clear strategic purpose. The timing seems linked to the upcoming meeting between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the pressure on Israel to advance the second phase of Trump’s 20-point plan.

Increasing pressure on Israel

Hamas’s statement is designed to project stability, determination, and above all, self-confidence. With Turkish and Qatari backing, this message is intended to increase pressure on Israel to soften its demands regarding Hamas’s disarmament and the demilitarization of Gaza.

Hamas’s leadership understands the US president’s resolve to push forward with his plan, as well as the reservations of Arab and other countries expected to participate in the Stabilization Force (ISF) about confronting Hamas. 

Hamas acts both practically–by consolidating its control–and declaratively–by announcing the deaths of its senior figures while reaffirming its commitment to the resistance narrative. The goal is to leverage current circumstances to ensure its continued presence in Gaza as an influential and unavoidable actor.

The announcement also serves as a message to Gaza’s population: a message of continuity that transcends mere survival. It is a declaration of capability and strength that goes beyond the importance of individual leaders. Hamas seeks to present itself as a viable, stable organization, capable of rapid recovery even after painful losses.

What should Israel understand from this? The announcement is further evidence of an unfinished mission–a war objective not yet achieved. Hamas continues to exist, operate, defy, and control, creating conditions for its renewed empowerment. If the organization is not disarmed, Gaza will not be demilitarized, and no real alternative government will be established. 

Without reconstruction and a viable alternative to Hamas, the stage will be set for the next conflict, which, even if it does not resemble October 7, could be dangerous and ignite additional fronts. Only the IDF can complete the task, and Israeli leadership must find a way to ensure this happens–sooner rather than later.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, December 30, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.




The future of Gaza: Israel must implement Trump’s plan gradually, safely

The ceasefire that came into effect on the basis of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan, leading to the release of all living hostages and 26 of the 28 deceased hostages, constitutes a significant achievement for Israel, all the more so given that it was secured while the country continued to hold 53% of the Gaza Strip at this stage.

The plan, subsequently endorsed in UN Security Council Resolution 2803, mandates the disarmament of Hamas, the demilitarization of the enclave, the establishment of a technocratic government backed by an international stabilization force under the guidance of a Board of Peace, and the exclusion of Hamas from governance and from the reconstruction process.

On paper, full implementation of the plan would deliver all the objectives of the war. In practice, however, the likelihood of implementing the plan and the UN resolution with Hamas’s cooperation is nearly nonexistent. Consequently, Israel faces three possible scenarios.

Three possible scenarios for Gaza’s future

The first scenario envisions implementation of the Trump plan only after the IDF – in the absence of any other actor that has both the will and the capability – resumes fighting against Hamas, effectively freezing Phase B of the plan. The IDF would become the sole actor responsible for dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities, enforcing demilitarization, and creating the conditions for the plan’s eventual execution, with maximum operational freedom.

The second scenario would see gradual implementation, beginning with reconstruction efforts and the establishment of a stabilization mechanism east of the Yellow Line, alongside the resumption of IDF operations against Hamas in the western Gaza Strip to dismantle it and demilitarize the area until conditions are set for expanding the mechanism’s responsibility to the entire enclave.

The third scenario involves only partial and inadequate implementation. Under this scenario, Israel would face restraints and operational limits in its campaign against Hamas, resulting in a de facto division between eastern Gaza and western Gaza, with Hamas remaining in control west of the Yellow Line. This would effectively cement a new border and stall progress toward realizing the plan.

Each scenario presents Israel with challenges and tensions vis-à-vis core national interests. Since full implementation of the 20-point plan would meet all war objectives as defined by the Israeli government, the preferred scenario from Israel’s perspective is the second, provided it can be reached quickly and backed by American support for renewed military action.

However, if the United States is slow to conclude that Hamas cannot be disarmed or Gaza demilitarized through cooperation with Hamas or via Turkish and Qatari pressure and that only renewed IDF action can achieve these goals, then the first scenario becomes more favorable to Israel. This would entail an intensive military campaign aimed at dismantling Hamas and fully demilitarizing the enclave, potentially leading to a significant crisis with Washington.

In our assessment, the scenario that would entrench a divided Gaza – east under IDF control and west under Hamas – is both the most likely and the most problematic, as it would almost certainly lead to another round of fighting. Only this time, Hamas would enter that conflict from a strengthened position, having rebuilt its military and governing capabilities in the territory under its control and having eroded some of the gains Israel accumulated over two years of fighting.

Therefore, at this juncture, and in order to create the conditions that would increase the likelihood of the preferred second scenario, it is in Israel’s interest to allow the United States the space and time to act according to its own approach, until Washington reaches the inevitable conclusion that Hamas cannot be disarmed or Gaza demilitarized through persuasion alone.

Until then, Israel should avoid becoming an obstacle and instead deepen coordination and mutual understandings with the US, including limiting the roles and influence of Turkey and Qatar, preventing any Turkish military presence in Gaza, preserving American backing for disproportionate responses to Hamas violations of the agreement, and building legitimacy for renewed military action to complete the task, meet the war’s objectives, and enable fuller implementation of the Trump Plan.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, December 03, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.




The day before the day after in Gaza

PRIOR TO October 7, 2023, most people – Jews and Israelis included – believed that atrocities like the ones perpetrated were an unimaginable nightmare.

Now we are all a little wiser. This means that any physical rebuilding of the Gaza Strip must rest on the following three essential pillars:

First, Hamas and other terror groups must be disarmed, their terror tunnels destroyed, and a new educational system firmly established.

Second, the world – and especially the US – must work to curb Qatar’s influence, as it remains the leading state sponsor of Muslim Brotherhood radical ideology worldwide.

Third, there must be an end to all forms of indoctrination and incitement against US, Israel, Jews, and other minorities in Egypt, Jordan, and the West Bank.

In today’s interconnected world, hate knows no borders. Even if Gaza undergoes major reform and rebuilding, genuine and enduring change will remain elusive so long as that hatred continues to spread across the region.

Disarming Hamas

Without the full disarmament of Hamas – a condition outlined in President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza ceasefire deal – the situation would remain perilous, not only for Israelis or for Gazans but also for any external forces tasked with managing the territory’s rehabilitation.

Simply asking Hamas or other terror groups in Gaza to lay down their weapons is futile. Terrorists simply do not do such things – even if they say they do. Rather, Hamas must be forcefully disarmed by the only military force able and willing to do so: the IDF.

The terror group’s network of tunnels must also be completely neutralized. It serves no other purpose than to allow murderous terrorists to murder again.

The most crucial step toward lasting reform in Gaza is ending indoctrination in schools, media, mosques, and politics throughout the Arab world.

Only once these steps are completed can outside forces safely enter the Gaza Strip to begin the next phase: overhauling Gaza’s educational system. Newer schools must be physically rebuilt. This will be the cornerstone of de-radicalizing an intensely indoctrinated population.

Gazans unwilling to wait for this essential “cleaning process” should be invited to emigrate. The rest should be granted access to an educational model similar to that of the United Arab Emirates, which has reformed its education to promote tolerance and progress.

If the economic lure of rebuilding Gaza tempts investors to overlook the need to disarm Hamas, eliminate its tunnels, and establish a UAE-style educational framework, the entire effort will be nothing more than yet another expensive exercise in futility.

Without these foundational changes, Gaza’s reconstruction will again be reduced to rubble the next time Hamas or another extremist faction attacks Israel.

Weakening Qatar

Another vital step before the “day after” in Gaza is confronting Qatar’s duplicity.

Since October 7, Doha’s role has become unmistakably clear. Its funding of the Muslim Brotherhood’s radical ideology and its influence within the West can no longer be ignored.

This should compel Washington to reconsider rewarding Qatar with military protection or the presence of American bases.

Although relocating American forces from Qatar is costly, maintaining a military presence there will, over time, prove far more expensive – particularly in human lives.

Western governments must also take legislative measures to limit Doha’s reach. They should outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood as many Arab and Muslim states have already done.

Additionally, laws must be enacted to ensure full transparency regarding Qatari funding of Western institutions and individuals.

End to indoctrination

The final and perhaps most crucial step toward lasting reform in Gaza is ending indoctrination in schools, media, mosques, and politics throughout the Arab world.

The amount of hatred expressed in Egypt, Jordan, and the West Bank is staggering. Without putting an end to such rhetoric, no meaningful reconstruction of Gaza can succeed.

After a brutal two-year war with immense human suffering and loss of life, we stand at a crossroads – a rare opportunity to effect genuine change in Gaza and across the region.

Instead of rushing into another shallow, temporary arrangement, leaders must seize this moment to craft a new and lasting legacy.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, November 19, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.




Israel’s Rafah test could show path to toppling Hamas

The debate over the fate of Hamas terrorists trapped in tunnel networks under IDF-controlled territory in Rafah may seem like a minor incident amid the constant flow of events, but its outcome could decisively shape how our enemies and regional states assess whether Israel is truly determined to dismantle its adversaries or can be appeased with superficial fixes.

Hamas’ military wing made clear early this week that fighter surrender or weapons abandonment remain off the table. Mohammad Nazzal, a senior Hamas official abroad, rejected exile outside Gaza and urged mediators to intervene.

Turkey wasted no time seizing this as another diplomatic opportunity, with sources saying it is “working to ensure safe passage for approximately 200 ‘Gazan civilians’ trapped in Rafah tunnels” – as if 200 civilians simply got stuck in underground passages.

 The deteriorating relationship between Ankara and Jerusalem, sparked by Turkish arrest warrants and Israel’s response, combined with Israeli opposition to Turkish participation in Gaza’s multinational force, will feature in Jared Kushner’s discussions with Netanyahu, though not as the central focus.

Washington’s primary objective is stabilizing the ceasefire. Meeting this goal requires advancing to stage two of the Trump plan and generating implementation momentum. With everyone occupied by processes and mechanisms, reality on the ground will shift toward non-combat, enabling Trump to pursue his broader diplomatic ambitions.

From Israel’s perspective, however, the ceasefire is not the end goal. Particularly not now, after recovering living hostages and most deceased remains. Eliminating enemy capabilities and removing weapons from the territory remain Israel’s core objectives, which cannot be sacrificed to ceasefire demands or satisfied through cosmetic arrangements.

Furthermore, Israel’s approach in Gaza will directly impact Hezbollah arrangements (and the reverse), leaving no room for creative half-measures that sound good but deliver nothing.

Even without this consideration, regional discourse is already showing such formulas emerging. Examples include attempts to limit disarmament definitions to offensive weapons only – excluding tunnels, personal arms, and other capabilities from discussion. Another involves establishing an “administrative committee” for civilian Gaza governance, supposedly without Hamas participation, when the terror group already influences personnel selection and will clearly control such governance as the Strip’s dominant force.

Returning to the besieged in Rafah – their number remains unclear. Media reports citing Israeli sources estimate 150 to 200. Foreign press mentioned lower figures, while Hamas websites simply stated the military wing withholds information due to sensitivity, describing them as “Qassam elite” facing high risk “while contending with medical supply shortages, electricity deficits, and the need to secure tunnels after extensive war damage.”

Hamas spokesmen have raised no claims about broken commitments on this matter. They frame the connection to recovering IDF soldier Hadar Goldin’s remains through humanitarian considerations and stability interests.

Given these circumstances, Israel possesses every advantage to transform this incident into a powerful symbol of its Hamas dismantlement commitment. Time favors us here, and provided our forces can block attacks from the besieged or other directions, no rush exists. Regardless, this event’s conclusion must be decisive – mass surrender, detention or terrorist deaths. Images and publicity carry value. This is how regimes fall. Exile, as some mediators suggest, while not inherently rejected, should only acceptable as a post-surrender, post-arrest step, never as a replacement.

Al-Resalah Hamas website editorial characterized the besieged issue as testing Hamas’ capacity for post-war challenges. “It combines military, diplomatic, and humanitarian aspects and conveys an important message to the Palestinian public and the world regarding Hamas’s ability to protect its people and manage humanitarian crises, in an extremely complex environment and under international supervision.” This equally tests Israeli determination, providing further reason Israel cannot accept any solution Hamas would claim as an achievement.

Published in  Israel Hayom, November 11, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.




The dilemma of victory: Israel, Hamas, and Trump’s role in Mideast peace

In recent speeches, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emphasized that the second stage of the Trump-Netanyahu framework – disarming Hamas – can proceed in one of two ways:

“By peaceful means,” namely, that Hamas voluntarily lays down its arms; or by force, if Hamas refuses to disarm peacefully.

It is worth recalling that in the first days after the Hamas attack, the prime minister made it clear that Israel was in a state of war, not merely another “round” of hostilities. In subsequent phases, he repeatedly stressed that the objective of Israel’s military action is complete victory: “My main expectation,” he said in January 2024, “is complete victory. Nothing less. There is no substitute for victory.”

What is victory?

“Victory” in war, certainly complete victory, is not an abstract notion. It has clear parameters: unconditional surrender; regime change; alterations of the constitutional order of the defeated entity; constraints on its ability to rebuild military power; and a transformation from militant, militaristic conduct to a commitment to peace. Such were the outcomes of the First and Second World Wars.

In the current war against Hamas, after more than two years of intense fighting, Israel has not yet achieved victory – certainly not “complete victory.” It is doubtful, in our view, that the defense minister’s emphatic declaration this week that “we have defeated Hamas” is grounded in reality.

Despite the heavy blows it has sustained, Hamas is far from accepting unconditional surrender. It continues to demonstrate resilience, retains control over large areas of the Gaza Strip, and is treated as a legitimate partner for negotiations.

Under these circumstances, Israel finds itself in a tacit confrontation with the US administration. It appears that President Donald Trump’s administration shares, to one degree or another, the approach of the “mediating states,” which seek to prevent Israel from realizing a comprehensive victory.

Against this backdrop, Trump said in his speech to the Knesset on October 13, 2025: “Israel, with our help, has won all that they can by force of arms. You’ve won. I mean, you’ve won. Now it’s time to translate these victories against terrorists on the battlefield into the ultimate prize of peace and prosperity for the entire Middle East. It’s about time you were able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.”

Israel has not achieved victory

In our assessment, under current conditions, achieving Hamas’s disarmament “by peaceful means” may be viewed as an important Israeli accomplishment – but not as an Israeli victory. In that scenario, the “crown of victory” would, to a considerable extent and with some justification, be placed on Trump’s head. Israel would emerge from the campaign feeling it had not fully achieved its principal objective: complete victory over Hamas.

The conclusion apparently taking shape within the Israeli government is this: To realize complete victory over Hamas, Israel must continue along the military path, against the backdrop of Hamas’s refusal to honor its commitment to disarm.

Israel’s relationship with the United States now depends, to a great extent, on Hamas’s conduct. If Hamas persistently refuses to disarm, it is reasonable to assume that Washington will grant Israel authorization to resume the war, thereby preserving Israel’s option of achieving complete victory.

By contrast, if Hamas agrees to disarm in a manner that satisfies the administration, Israel will face a difficult dilemma: whether to resume the war in order to impose a tangible defeat on Hamas – at the risk of a confrontation with Washington – or to end the war with “half its desire fulfilled” and turn to the path of peace in light of Trump’s vision, which presently appears uncertain.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, November 05, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.




What’s really happening at Gaza’s new command center?

The international command for the Gaza Strip, the – Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) – rapidly established in Kiryat Gat, is becoming a pilgrimage destination for American officials visiting Israel and sparking interest through the diverse composition of nations represented within it. Yet it remains completely unclear how this facility is meant to assist in achieving Israel’s primary objectives concerning Gaza.

One can reasonably estimate that its primary preoccupation will involve coordinating civilian aid entry into the Strip and preventing escalations that threaten the ceasefire. In both domains, Israel will probably be the principal address for pressure. Conversely, it’s challenging to envision this headquarters accomplishing anything beyond declarations concerning the more crucial areas for Israel: stripping Hamas of weaponry, preventing smuggling operations, and demilitarizing the Strip.

During a weekend interview with Al-Jazeera, Khalil al-Hayya, the Hamas leader, referenced the international forces’ role as providing separation and border supervision, along with managing ceasefire monitoring. He indicated his organization seeks elections leading to unified government, and presently doesn’t dismiss transferring “administrative control” to a mutually agreed committee and managing the Strip through “a national figure residing in Gaza.” One needn’t be an expert to comprehend which options this criterion eliminated.

  

Al-Hayya proceeded to lament Gaza’s humanitarian conditions and stressed it requires 6,000 aid trucks each day, plus entry of specific materials Israel currently prohibits. One can anticipate this message will reach mediating nations and every international actor. Winter’s approach will likely bring an accompanying “Gaza is freezing to death” campaign.

Hamas refuses to disarm

Concerning Hamas disarmament? Al-Hayya responds diplomatically, “The matter remains under discussion with factions and mediators,” and lest we harbor false expectations he clarifies, “Hamas’ weapons are connected to occupation and aggression’s existence. Should the occupation conclude, the weapons will transfer to the (Palestinian) state.”

Similar statements have been audible throughout recent periods from the organization’s spokespeople and senior officials. They’ve consistently emphasized: Our weapons are legitimate, we won’t disarm . Admittedly, in formal announcements they carefully stress their commitment to the agreement and avoid provocative declarations that might antagonize President Trump and his administration or mediating nations, but regarding the disarmament provision they leave no ambiguity about their stance.

While the Kiryat Gat headquarters continues taking shape and determining its functions and operational approaches, Hamas in Gaza has regained its footing. It operates efficient command and control systems, is restoring order throughout Gaza’s devastated streets, suppressing opposition, deterring and dominating. It allows everyone to debate agreement details’ interpretation and drafters’ intentions while concentrating on fundamentals: strengthening its position, replenishing forces, securing supplies, planning reconstruction.

It presumes Gaza remains lodged like a bone in Trump’s and other regional leaders’ throats, who seek to dispose of it as swiftly as possible to advance implementing major regional initiatives. Its expectation is that under these conditions they’ll accept a formula offering the semblance of resolution and permit it to capitalize on the “gaps” within it and the exhaustion from interminable debates regarding its interpretations.

Despite the intense desire to advance peace visions, we cannot compromise on critical matters for us in the Gaza Strip. We must eliminate the vagueness concerning headquarters and mediation and coordination entities, and also explain to the public what these will ultimately contribute toward accomplishing Israel’s objectives.

The rearming issue under humanitarian aid and reconstruction means’ cover demands particular Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee oversight and public reporting, preventing us from burying our heads in the sand and exploiting the secrecy veil typically covering this activity.

MK Amit Halevi’s public announcement about intensifying rules of engagement for IDF forces regarding Strip suspects requires IDF response and clarifications. It’s completely inappropriate to heighten risks merely from ceasefire collapse fears. Even those concerned about this should recognize that harming our soldiers could similarly cause that, beyond the immediate price paid.

Furthermore, rather than awaiting agreements and mechanisms, we should shape reality. Hamas tunnels should face attack not solely responding to harm against us. If avoiding casualties is desired, we can provide advance warning. We must leverage Hamas’ weakened position and all living hostages already being in Israel. Such an approach could enhance Israel’s and mediators’ negotiating position regarding weapons disarmament.

Concerning the international headquarters for the Gaza Strip, we must acknowledge this mechanism’s risks and also that participating in it might constrain the IDF and direct it toward preferring dialogue channels as default over operational activity. We need to establish what Israel gains from this mechanism, and concurrently determine rules now for our conduct within it, in ways that diminish its risks.

Published in  Israel Hayom, October 27, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.




Hamas racing to entrench itself in Gaza as ‘dark cycle’ continues

Prof. Kobi Michael: Hamas showed every sign of racing to redefine the reality on the ground in post-war Gaza so as to make them impossible to dislodge, whatever the Trump plan says.

Every day they are making lots of progress. Hamas has not changed its DNA; they do not intend to disarm themselves. They do not intend to leave the Gaza Strip and not be part of the day after.

I don’t think they take it too seriously because they understand President Trump. They see that he is mainly interested in the first phase, the end of the war, and he will leave the details of the second and third stages to the professionals, to the clerks.

Published in The Telegraph, October 25, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.

Hamas racing to entrench itself in Gaza as ‘dark cycle’ continues shutterstock - Anas-Mohammed




Ceasefire or Mirage?

Prof. Kobi Michael: The deal is not really fleshed out enough to be called a plan. It is a framework, principles that pave the way toward a general vision of President Trump to create a new regional architecture.

Published in Ami Magazine, October 21, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.

Ceasefire or Mirage? shutterstock - Gaza - Survival Journey




Two years to October 7: The Strategic Costs of the IDF’s Operational Inadequacy

Main Points

  • Israel neutralized Hezbollah’s missile threat but failed to dismantle its ground forces or Hamas’s rule in Gaza.
  • The IDF lacks a coherent concept of operational maneuver – the coordinated use of ground forces to destroy enemy capabilities and achieve strategic goals.
  • Brilliant air and intelligence operations were not matched by decisive ground campaigns, leaving enemy forces largely intact.
  • Operations in both Gaza and Lebanon unfolded too slowly, allowing the enemy to recover and denying Israel strategic momentum.
  • The IDF repeatedly fought over the same areas instead of seizing and controlling critical ground to deny Hamas sanctuary and supply.
  • These operational shortcomings weakened Israel’s deterrence and may embolden regional actors, notably Egypt, to reassess Israel’s military credibility.
  • The IDF must relearn the art of operational maneuver – integrating speed, initiative, and decisive ground action – to transform tactical superiority into strategic victory.

 The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.

Press here to read the full publication