In a radio interview with Radio ‘103 FM’, he stated: ‘We are on the brink of disaster. This is our fate. We have lost control over the humanitarian aspect in Gaza. There are large quantities of food, but most of it reaches the Palestinian ‘Hamas’ movement, not the civilian population.’ Tal strongly criticized Israel’s inability to manage civil affairs within the sector, explaining that this shortcoming undermines the military gains achieved on the ground, according to Israel’s ‘Jerusalem Post’.
He added: ‘You cannot wage a war in a controlled area without establishing an entity to manage humanitarian and civilian affairs. This failure is negatively affecting us now. Militarily, ‘Hamas’ is almost paralyzed, but it still controls the entire civilian reality. The army should have taken advantage of this by establishing an alternative leadership within the sector.’
Yiftah Ron Tal also called on the Israeli government to clarify its objectives publicly and avoid the ongoing state of hesitation. When asked about the withdrawal of the Israeli army from areas within Gaza, Ron Tal acknowledged that the forces are clearly exhausted. He said: ‘The reserves are very tired. The army is in a state of waiting after completing its missions in the Gideon’s Chariots operation, and it is now halted awaiting political decisions. ‘Hamas’ should not be left in Gaza after the war ends, as it is not a partner, nor can it be considered a neighbor, and it should have no status near us.’
Tal emphasized the importance of Israel maintaining its regional control within the sector, asserting that it is necessary for the state’s security. He explained: ‘We currently control a large area of the sector. A clear defensive line must be established, and these areas should be included under administrative and military control. These areas can be secured with a limited number of soldiers if we do not repeat the Lebanese model, where we only respond when infrastructure threatening us is built. But if we do not do this, what is the alternative? Withdrawal?’
In conclusion, Yiftah Ron Tal expressed his rejection of the hesitation in imposing military rule in Gaza, emphasizing that the fear of appearing as an occupier is not a justification for a lack of decisiveness. He added: ‘The opposition to the idea of military rule stems from a desire to avoid appearing as an occupying power, but we must remember that the Israeli army does not own the state; rather, the state owns the army. This American concept that the army should be separate from civilian governance is not suitable for our reality, and now we see its results.’
