In a Newsmax interview with Greta Van Susteren, former IDF spokesperson Jonathan Conricus delivered a scathing critique of Israel’s strategic retreat in Gaza, calling it a “strategic 180” that “all but [undid] four or five months of fighting in the Gaza Strip.” He said Israel “succumbed to [international] pressure” following Hamas’s propaganda campaign featuring photos of starving children. Many of those images, Conricus noted, were “debunked as children who suffered from pre-existing conditions.” With the reinstatement of UN agencies that enable Hamas’s access to aid, Conricus stated plainly, “That’s a win for Hamas.”
He also condemned the Israeli government for failing to articulate a clear post-Hamas vision for Gaza. “Prime Minister Netanyahu failed to present a plan that was coherent, that was palatable for the U.S. and for European countries, and to get them on board with how he sees Gaza, how he sees Israel defeat Hamas and what the future for Gaza is.” That vacuum, he argued, created the political space for European democracies to begin “falling over themselves to recognize a Palestinian state,” which he called a strategic victory for Hamas.
Conricus drew a straight line from October 7 to international recognition of Palestinian statehood, warning, “This really is a direct line between October 7… and then Palestinian statehood.” His message was clear. Israel’s indecision and failure to communicate a credible endgame did not just weaken its military position. It handed Hamas a narrative and diplomatic win that could reshape the region.
Could Israel have defined a postwar vision for Gaza while Hamas was still in a position to murder any locals involved in it?