11/02 Links: Omer Neutra confirmed as one of three slain Gaza hostages returned to Israel on Sunday; The Arab World Rejects Hamas While New York City Glorifies It

From Ian:

When Truth Splits in Two: The Arab World Rejects Hamas While New York City Glorifies It

The Great Moral Reversal
In the Middle East, proximity to Hamas’s rule has produced clarity. People who live under or near Islamist militias know the cost of their fanaticism. They have seen the beheadings, the executions, the corruption, and the cruelty. They know that Hamas, like the Houthis or Hezbollah, does not liberate, it enslaves.

In the West, by contrast, ideological distance paired with obsession of the oppressor vs oppressed narrative breeds delusion. The further one stands from Hamas’s victims, the easier it is to romanticize its violence. Western activists, many of whom would never tolerate a prayer led by a homophobic priest or a law that could affect a woman's right to control her own medical decisions, suspend all judgment when those same forces wrap themselves in Palestinian flags.

It is an irony only modern politics could produce. Arab liberals call for Hamas’s elimination, while American progressives dance beneath its banners.

Why This Matters
The implications reach beyond moral outrage. When American cities normalize pro terror rhetoric, they erode the social immune system that protects against radicalization. When politicians legitimize extremists in the name of diversity, they invite violence and antisemitism into civic life.

One world is waking up. The other is descending into moral sleep. In Riyadh, Cairo, and Manama, journalists write that Hamas’s “role has ended.” In Brooklyn, protesters shout that “resistance is glorious.”

The former seeks peace. The latter seeks purpose. The former has seen war’s reality. The latter plays at revolution from the safety of American democracy.

The lesson is painfully clear: moral clarity still exists, but you will find more of it today in the Arab world than on the streets of New York City, a city now poised to dive even deeper into fanaticism and moral inversion.

The Qatar Problem

Knowledge Production and Narrative Control
Tensions between Saudis, Iranians, and Qataris had simmered for years, and I could still feel the heat at a security forum in Europe in late August 2023. After I led a teach-in on the Middle East, the Qatari ambassador to Canada, Dr Khalid bin Rashid Al Mansouri, approached me to ask if I needed funding for my initiatives. I declined. Mid-sentence, a Gazan social-media activist cut in: “Will you keep financially supporting our people in Gaza even now that Saudi is normalising with Israel?” The ambassador turned, took his hands, and answered, “We will never ever stop supporting our Palestinian brothers.”

That was not a humanitarian promise, it was policy. Qatar has bankrolled Hamas since 2007, when the group seized Gaza after a bloody rampage that overthrew the Palestinian Authority. In 2012, Qatar’s then-Emir made a red-carpet visit to Gaza and pledged US$400 million for projects, a watershed moment that signalled Doha’s unabashed embrace of Hamas’s rule. Patronage matured into a routinised cash flow, and by 2021, about US$30 million per month was entering Gaza, framed as “humanitarian” transfers that sustained Hamas-run salaries and government operations.

At the same time, Qatar was investing heavily in Western knowledge production and narrative control. Since 2001, US colleges and universities have reported an estimated US$6.25 billion in Qatari funding, making Qatar one of the five largest foreign donors in American higher education. Think tanks and policymakers were folded in, too. Qatar gave upward of US$9.1 million to US think tanks between 2019 and 2023. The Brookings Doha Center and related initiatives received US$14.8 million in a single three-year pledge, part of a broader, longer-running relationship that raised persistent questions and prompted FBI investigations about policy manipulation and censorship across the Beltway ecosystem.

Lobbying followed the same template. In a single recent year, Qatar retained 33 FARA-registered PR and lobbying firms, spending around US$18 million to create surge capacity for bookings, op-eds, and Hill and press engagement. To give you a picture of the scale of Qatari reach in DC, I spent several months after 7 October trying to publish a piece titled, “Qatar Is a Leading Saboteur of Regional Integration.” I sent it to everyone I know in media and policy, including Ambassador Dennis Ross who promised, when I begged him at a Washington Institute event in November 2023, to get it published. I had hit multiple walls, including at a think tank of which I am a member.

A friend at one of these publications told me: “I think they [the editorial team] have an issue with the fact that they have an upcoming partnership in December with Qatar. One of the directors flagged it as problematic and might put them in a delicate situation and prefer to go with another piece they had commissioned with a lighter touch on the subject. Sorry for that.” I asked if there was somewhere I could send it where there would not be a conflict of interest. “It is hard in DC,” my friend replied. “Everyone has interests with the Qataris.”

Even public grief was asked to stand down in deference to Doha’s leverage. After 7 October, several planned protests by hostage families in front of the Qatari embassy were quietly shut down. A source close to the Hostage Families Forum in DC told me they were explicitly warned not to “endanger” diplomatic talks with the only mediators deemed capable of securing releases. I do not fault the families for yielding, especially when even Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff continue to celebrate Qatar’s role as the indispensable mediator for peace.

WAPO: Palestinian Talks on Gaza's Future Could See Hamas Help Shape Its Rule

Palestinian political factions are holding closed-door discussions that could see Hamas play a role in shaping a postwar administration in Gaza.

The eight Palestinian factions and armed groups involved - including Fatah, which leads the Palestinian Authority based in the West Bank, and Hamas - are working to reach a consensus over key elements of an interim administration.

To avoid a protracted postwar insurgency, Hamas must be included in any political settlement, say Palestinian political factions and mediators from Arab countries.

A pivotal question is whether Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu or President Trump would object to a Gazan government born out of talks between Hamas and Fatah.

For Israel, nearly every aspect of the inter-Palestinian talks is unpalatable.

"The fear for Israel is that Hamas will open the gates of Gaza and say to the PA, 'You're the boss here. Just bring money to Gaza and you can declare yourself the minister of agriculture or education. Just don't touch weapons, and we'll be the dominant player,'" said Michael Milshtein, a former Israeli military intelligence analyst.

Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said, "There is a risk that the end state that emerges will be what we wanted to avoid....Hamas is battered and bruised but hanging on to power, preparing for the next round."

WSJ: Hizbullah Is Rearming, Putting Ceasefire at Risk

Hizbullah in Lebanon is rebuilding its armaments and battered ranks, defying the terms of a ceasefire agreement, and raising the prospect of renewed conflict with Israel, according to Israeli and Arab intelligence.

The intelligence shows Iranian-backed Hizbullah is restocking rockets, antitank missiles and artillery. Some weapons are coming in via seaports and still functional smuggling routes through Syria. Hizbullah is also manufacturing new weapons itself.

Under the agreement that ended a two-month Israeli campaign against the group a year ago, Lebanon is required to start disarming Hizbullah in parts of Lebanon, before continuing to the entire country as per a previous agreement.

Israel is losing patience after new intelligence findings highlighted Hizbullah's rearmament. "Should Beirut continue to hesitate, Israel may act unilaterally - and the consequences would be grave," Tom Barrack, U.S. ambassador to Turkey and a key American envoy for Lebanon and Syria, said in October.

The standoff highlights the difficulty of quashing an established militia with a base of support among the population even when it has been badly beaten. The difficulties are also evident in Gaza, where Hamas is resisting demands that it disarm and relinquish power.

Athens vs. Jerusalem: How Western Philosophy Chose the Wrong Foundation

Every philosophy student eventually asks: "Why should I be moral?"

It's a reasonable question. If I can get away with something—if no one will know, if I won't get caught, if the benefit outweighs the risk—why shouldn't I?

Western philosophy, built on Greek foundations, has been trying to answer this question for millennia. The responses vary: because reason demands it (Kant), because it maximizes utility (Mill), because it perfects your character (Aristotle), because God commands it (Aquinas), because that's what it means to be human (existentialists).

None of them work. Not really. Not in the moment when you're actually deciding whether to lie, to cheat, to look away from suffering. The answers feel either too abstract (categorical imperatives), too calculated (utility functions), too aspirational (virtue), or too external (divine command).

The problem isn't that these philosophers were stupid. The problem is that they started with the wrong question—which means they started with the wrong unit of reality.

Around 500 BCE, two civilizations were developing radically different approaches to understanding reality, truth, and morality.

In Athens, philosophy began with being. What is real? What is true? What is good? The Greek mind sought to isolate, categorize, and perfect. The fundamental unit of reality was the individual—the substance, the soul, the rational agent standing alone before the cosmos.

In Jerusalem, thought began with relationship. Not "What is?" but "If I am only for myself, who am I?" The fundamental unit wasn't the isolated self but the covenant—the bond between God and humanity, between person and person, between present and future self.

This wasn't a minor difference in emphasis. It was a difference in ontological architecture—in what counts as real.

The Greeks built philosophy like geometry: start with axioms, derive theorems, eliminate contradictions, arrive at perfect forms. Truth was static, eternal, complete.

Jewish thought built like engineering: start with structure under load, test assumptions, expect failure, build in correction. Truth was dynamic, relational, asymptotic—something you approach through integrity but never fully possess. Structure was not to create perfection but to make moral choices more probable.

Western philosophy chose Athens. It's been trying to solve Greek problems ever since  problems that don't even arise in the Jewish philosophical mindset.

If you begin with the isolated individual as your fundamental unit, certain problems become unsolvable:

The Free Will Problem: Either your actions are caused by prior states (determinism) or they're random (chaos). There's no logical space for meaningful choice. Philosophers have been trying to thread this needle for centuries. Compatibilism tries to reconcile the two, but it feels like verbal gymnastics—because it is.

The Is/Ought Problem: You can't derive moral obligations from factual descriptions. Hume showed this, and no amount of clever reasoning has bridged the gap. Facts live in one realm, morality in another, and never the twain shall meet.

The Meaning Problem: If you're a collection of atoms following physical laws, why does anything matter? Existentialists told us to create our own meaning, but that just pushes the question back: why should I care about the meaning I create?

The Morality Problem: Why be good if you can get away with being bad? Every Greek answer either appeals to external enforcement (divine punishment, social consequences) or internal perfection (virtue makes you happy)—neither of which actually explains why you should care.

These aren't just abstract puzzles. They're the fractures running through modern civilization:

• We can't agree on what rights are or where they come from
• Our institutions cannot self-correct and are vulnerable to hijack
• We can't make AI systems that remain moral as they scale more towards agency
• We've lost the ability to talk about meaning without sounding either religious or relativist

All of this traces back to starting with the wrong ontological unit.

The Jewish intellectual tradition—formalized in Talmudic reasoning, encoded in halakhic structure, lived through covenant—never made this mistake.

It begins with a different axiom: reality is fundamentally relational. You don't exist in isolation; you exist in a web of obligations, connections, and mutual influence. You have a family, a tribe, a community, a nation. The self isn't an atom; it's a node in a network.

Once you start here, the hardest problems of Western philosophy simply dissolve:

Free will isn't about escaping causation—it's about biasing probabilities within structure. You operate in a field of constraints (biology, history, circumstance), but you have the capacity to reweight outcomes toward good. You're not breaking the laws of reality; you're participating in their unfolding. Freedom becomes meaningful because it's freedom within structure, not freedom from everything.

Values aren't separate from facts—they're properties of relationships. To say "cruelty is wrong" isn't imposing preference on neutral reality; it's recognizing that cruelty fractures the relational fabric that makes reality coherent. "Ought" isn't imported from outside; it's the direction that flows naturally from what "is."

Meaning isn't invented—it's discovered in relationship. You matter because others are affected by your choices. Your actions ripple through a network of obligation and care. Meaning emerges from how your choices affect others, not from internal conviction.

But the most important shift is this: we can now answer "what is morality?" in purely secular terms.

Morality is what increases the universe's creative capacity. Immorality is what diminishes it.

Free will comes from our choices in relationships. That means that our capacity for creativity is in our moral choices. By choosing, we can strengthen our bonds with others. Those bonds are new reality - they are created where they didn't exist before.  Creativity is the full spectrum of generative human possibility: the capacity to build, connect, imagine, repair, and transform. It's what allows people to participate in the ongoing creation of meaning, relationship, and value.

Why does this work where Greek answers failed?

It's relational by definition: Creativity isn't solitary. A painting has no value if no one sees it. A song means nothing if no one hears it. Even private creativity—writing in a journal, solving a problem alone—is implicitly addressed to someone, even if that someone is your future self. Creativity is always relational, which means morality (increasing creativity) is always about how we affect others.

It solves the is/ought problem: If reality is fundamentally relational, and creativity is the generative capacity of relationships, then morality isn't imposed on reality—it's built into it. To act morally is to align with the structure that makes reality coherent. To act immorally is to fracture that structure. "Ought" becomes the direction that restores integrity to "is."

It explains why we should care: Because creativity is the only dimension where we have genuine agency. Everything else—our genetics, our history, the laws of physics—is deterministic. But in the moral dimension, we can bias probabilities. We can choose what kind of world we're creating. By consistently choosing good, we change ourselves for the better and can climb to the next level of morality. That's not a burden imposed from outside; that's the only arena where we're genuinely free.

It provides a moral floor without metaphysics: Anything that crushes human creativity—murder, tyranny, cruelty, dehumanization, silencing—is wrong not because it violates a rule, but because it destroys the generative capacity in yourself or in others that makes life worth living. You don't need God to ground this. You just need to recognize that humans are creative beings, and anything that systematically destroys that capacity is evil.

It handles constraint: Creativity doesn't mean chaos. Every creative form has structure—sonnets have 14 lines, jazz has chord progressions, engineering has physical laws. Morality isn't about unlimited freedom; it's about finding the structures that channel freedom into generative possibility. That's why even modesty in clothing or choosing not to use certain offensive words aren't opposed to creativity—they are boundaries that enhance creativity.

It's imitatio Dei—without theology: If there is a Creator, the primary divine act is creation itself. To be moral is to mirror that: to make space for others to create, to protect their capacity for agency, to build structures that enable rather than crush. If there isn't a Creator, the pattern still holds: we are creative beings, and morality is what allows that creativity to flourish across the network of relationships we inhabit.

This is what Jewish ethics always understood: saving a life isn't just preventing death—it's preserving someone's capacity to create meaning. Not standing by while harm occurs (lo ta'amod al dam rei'echa) prevents harm and protects generative possibility. Mutual responsibility (areivut) isn't altruistic sacrifice—it's recognizing that creativity is collective, that we create through and for each other.

Humility is an essential difference between Greek and Jewish philosophy. To the Greeks, human perfection is possible. To Jewish thinkers, the idea of human perfection in a world where there is a supremely perfect God is laughable. The best we can do is to keep improving, forever.

The Jewish intellectual tradition has been continuous for over two millennia. It developed sophisticated methods for handling paradox, testing assumptions, maintaining coherence under uncertainty. Talmudic dialectic is as rigorous as anything Aristotle produced—arguably more so, because it doesn't pretend contradictions are always errors.

So why did Western philosophy ignore it?

Partly language—most of it was in Hebrew and Aramaic. Partly prejudice—it was dismissed as "theology" rather than philosophy. Partly Christianity's complicated relationship with its Jewish roots. Partly the fact that Jewish thought doesn't fit neatly into academic categories; it's simultaneously legal reasoning, ethical reflection, and spiritual practice.

But the cost of this oversight compounds every generation. We've been trying to solve problems that only exist because we chose the wrong foundation.

The stakes have never been higher. We're building artificial intelligence—systems that will make decisions affecting billions of lives. And we can learn from AI.

AI, today, is neither deterministic nor does it have full agency. It is probabilistic. It will almost always come up with a reasonable answer, based on probability. And this is how people are, too: we are shaped by our upbringing, by our environment, by our experiences. We are highly unlikely to kill the next person we see walking down the street. Our free will is manifested in a much narrower range - like should we keep the elevator door open for the person down the hall.  When we make moral decisions, we change ourselves - it is the ultimate in creativity. 

The alignment problem (how do we ensure AI remains beneficial as it becomes more capable?) is essentially the free will problem in digital form: how do you create agency within structure? Greek philosophy can't solve it because Greek philosophy can't handle probabilistic agency within moral constraint. The Jewish model already understands how to optimize moral outcomes within reality instead of theorizing perfect morality. 

We're facing institutional collapse—governments, corporations, universities losing public trust because they can't self-correct without breaking. Greek thinking builds perfect forms that shatter under stress. Jewish thinking builds resilient structures that bend, repair, and learn.

We're in a meaning crisis—secular modernity delivered material abundance but stripped away the relational fabric that makes life feel worth living. You can't solve that by telling people to "create their own meaning." You solve it by rebuilding the networks of obligation and care that make meaning real—that allow people to participate in collective creativity rather than drown in individual isolation.

This isn't about Jewish triumphalism or religious conversion. It's about recognizing that one of humanity's oldest continuous intellectual traditions developed a fundamentally different—and demonstrably better—foundation for moral reasoning, and we've been ignoring it.

Derechology is my attempt to formalize this tradition in language that's legible to secular philosophy, applicable to AI ethics, and useful for institutional design. It takes the core insights of Jewish relational ontology and translates them into systematic principles:

• Reality is relational structure
• Values are part of human reality
• Truth is what survives audit of assumptions
• Freedom is probabilistic agency within moral constraint
• Morality is what increases creative capacity across relationships
• Perfection is the enemy of the good
• Humility is what keeps systems self-correcting

The book (when it's finally finished, but it is shaping up nicely) will lay out the full framework. But the core insight is this:

We've been doing philosophy wrong. Not because the Greeks were foolish, but because they started with the isolated self and built from there. Start with relationship instead, and the hardest problems of Western philosophy dissolve.

The question isn't "Why should I be moral?"

The question is: "Given that I exist in relationship—that my choices affect others' capacity to create, that meaning arises from generative connection, that the only freedom I have is in the moral dimension—how could I be anything else?"

Morality isn't a burden. It's the only space where we're truly alive.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Hamas still stealing aid from WFP trucks, but not as much - they have other sources of income and power now

Since the Gaza ceasefire, the percentage of World Food Programme trucks that have been hijacked has gone down from 99% to about 6%.

The UNOPS dashboard shows about 1007 tons stolen out of 17,300 tons of food via the WFP since October 11.

Even though CENTCOM released their video of suspected Hamas gunmen stealing an aid truck, Hamas has pivoted to other means of survival.

 Hamas used the food as its cash cow during the war, but now that they can be out in the open it is more important for them to control Gaza as the de facto government - the NGOs bringing in aid are crediting their success at being able to coordinate with Hamas to bring the trucks in without incident. 

It is in Hamas' interest to control things on the ground - and the reason is that they see that commercial imports are increasing, and will only become a bigger slice of the imports as time goes on.

And you know that Hamas does with commercial goods? It taxes them. Heavily. That was their model before the war and it is the model they are trying to rebuild.

At the same time, now that things quieted down, digital crypto donations from Iran and other Hamas allies are almost certainly resuming and increasing to make it harder for anyone to dislodge Hamas from power, which is already seeming increasingly unlikely. Every day Hamas is in de facto control - like being the interface for NGOs - it becomes more difficult for any international force to even consider doing anything to get rid of them. I would guess that the theatre of returned bodies - sending only parts of bodies or people who weren't even hostages, in dribs and drabs - are a delaying tactic to keep Hamas in power long enough that they become permanent again. 

And so far, we are not seeing any serious plans from the US or the international community to get rid of Hamas. 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Mufti of Chechnya called Jews "enemies of Allah" whose ideas come from Satan; then backtracks when it hit the news

On the October 25, 2024, episode of the Grozny TV program "Chechen History: War and Peace," Chechnya's Mufti Salah-Hadji Mezhiev said:

Since ancient times, enemies of Allah have existed – the Jews and the currents they spawned, such as atheism. And it doesn't matter where this happens – in the Arab world or in Europe – pseudo-Orientalists are everywhere spreading lies. If you listen to the topics they raise and the questions they ask, it becomes clear: the source of their ideas is Satanism.

Russian newspapers publicized the statement, and Russia's Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar  strongly condemned it. 

Mezhiev then gave an unlikely explanation, saying, "My talk in the program was not only about 'enemies of Allah' but about 'enemies of all humanity, that is, the evil that united under one banner, which is the West,....Western European countries, under the pretext of freedom of expression, allow the insult of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the burning of the Holy Quran.' "

Which means he thinks the Jews control the Western world. 

He then claimed that he respects all nationalities, religions, and sects.

In September 2023, the Mufti received a letter of appreciation from Russian President Vladimir Putin in recognition of his role in "strengthening the unity of Russian society and consolidating the values ​​of interfaith tolerance."

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

11/01 Links: The illusion of Palestinian peace; Hamas again hands over remains that don’t belong to hostages; CENTCOM posts footage of Hamas terrorists looting aid truck

From Ian:

The Balfour Declaration is a monument to humanity in this dark age of anti-Semitism

The revival of anti-Semitism has shown in a way no Zionist arguments ever could, the need for a state with a Jewish majority where Jews can live without fear.

The Balfour Declaration contained an important proviso – “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. It did not mention the national rights of Arabs, since at that time many believed that such rights were reserved for those of European origin.

All the same, “the civil and religious rights” of Arabs are better protected in Israel than in the murderous regimes and failed states which constitute much of the rest of today’s Middle East.

The early Zionists hoped for Arab acceptance. But a brief period of amity soon gave rise, inevitably no doubt, to a persistent and often violent conflict between two national claims, each backed by religion.

Balfour would not have been surprised. As chief secretary for Ireland in the 1880s, he had been accused of being unjust to Irish nationalists. “Justice” he mused, “there is not enough to go round”. And indeed in the Middle East there isn’t.

Nevertheless, Israel has become an insurance mechanism for Jews against anti-Semitism; and sadly no one can predict when or where that mechanism will be needed.

And that is why, as the diplomatic historian, Tom Otte, has argued, the Balfour Declaration stands as “one of the few monuments to humanity in the 20th century”.

The illusion of Palestinian peace

The “ecstasy” of jihad was visible on Oct. 7, in videos of young men calling their parents to boast about killing Jews with their own hands, and in the mobs cheering as kidnapped Israeli girls were paraded through Gaza’s streets.

Even academics in the West, such as Cornell’s Russell Rickford, revealed the same moral sickness when he called the massacre “exhilarating.”

Arab–Palestinian wars have always followed this script: an initial eruption of homicidal and suicidal ecstasy, followed by crushing defeat—the War of Independence (1948), the Six Day War (1967), the Intifadas, and now the war of Oct. 7. Yet from each failure, what remains in memory is the thrill of violence, not the price of it.

This mindset—rooted in the dream of expanding Dar al-Islam (the land of Islam) by erasing Dar al-Harb (the land of war)—turns every peace proposal into betrayal, and every act of terror into redemption.

Meanwhile, international institutions like the United Nations invert morality by cloaking this death cult in the language of “human rights.” The result is what the Arab intellectual Fouad Ajami called “a palace of dreams” turned into a trap of death.

The much-discussed “deradicalization” needed for a peace process is nowhere in sight. As this survey makes clear, the obstacle is not Israel’s settlements or borders—it is the culture of hatred itself.

Until that changes, peace will remain a Western illusion.

Hamas again hands over remains that don’t belong to hostages

Hamas transferred to Israel the remains of three individuals that do not belong to any of the 11 slain hostages still held by terrorist in Gaza, Israel’s broadcaster Channel 13 reported on Saturday.

The remains, which Red Cross intermediaries handed over to Israel overnight Friday, were examined by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv’s Abu Kabir neighborhood.

The Israel Defense Forces says that at least two bodies of deceased captives can be recovered immediately by the terrorist organization, while Hamas may truly not know the whereabouts of three to five others.

“We ruled out the possibility that the remains returned last night are linked to any Israeli hostage,” an Israeli official told Ynet on Saturday.

“Specifically, this incident does not constitute a violation, since from the outset we assessed with low probability that the remains belonged to hostages. We prefer that Hamas hand over findings so we can verify them. That said, Hamas continues its fundamental violation—the failure to return the bodies of the fallen,” the official added.

According to the ceasefire terms, in cases of uncertainty, remains should be transferred to Israel for verification.

However, Jerusalem believes that Hamas is deliberately slow-walking the return of the deceased hostages to avoid its disarmament, which is set to take place in the second phase of the ceasefire deal with a deployment of an international force in the Gaza Strip.

Instead, the Islamist group is buying time to reassert its control over territory from which the IDF has withdrawn, so it will have greater bargaining power in future talks regarding Gaza’s reconstruction.