Freed hostage Avinatan Or arrives at his home in the Jewish settlement of Shilo, in Samaria, October 21, 2025. (Erik Marmor/Flash90)
It’s Thursday, October 8, and two people made a major contribution to Israel’s public discourse this week: Avinatan Or and Brett McGurk. One spent the war in Hamas’s tunnels, the other in the White House. Both laid out this week, in plain language, from right inside the events themselves, two positions that had until now been dismissed here as a desire for death, cynical politics and abandoning hostages. Or, held for two years in Gaza’s tunnels, explained in simple Hebrew why disproportionate deals with Hamas would only bring more kidnappings in the future. McGurk, Joe Biden’s senior adviser, explained in simple English that no such deal was ever really on the table anyway, until the military sword was at the terror organization’s throat.
I watched Avinatan Or on “Uvda” (the Israeli 60 Minutes) and felt ashamed all over again at how his mother, Ditza Or, was treated in real time for daring to say the same things. She and other parents from the Tikva Forum were portrayed as having abandoned their children, while those pushing for capitulation were cast as something like adoptive parents of our hostages. It was one more example of the distortion by which the people credited with bringing the hostages home aren’t the soldiers who risked their lives in Gaza, but those who protested demanding that Hamas’s demands be met (demands that, as noted, never actually crystallized into a real proposal). I also thought of Elchanan Kalmanzon, who fell in Be’eri on the morning of October 8, and who, months earlier at one of the Kaplan protests, had someone shout “you draft-dodger” at him, just because they saw his kippah. Certain elements on this side of the debate put no effort into actually arguing the case—only into trying to frame the opposing view as illegitimate.
I listened to Brett McGurk across a series of interviews and was reminded again how shallow, how skewed our discourse here really is. Only in a world like this could Nitzan Alon, who headed the IDF’s directorate for the hostage issue, toss out quotes like “they could have freed everyone earlier” into the public sphere without having to answer to the facts. In a world like this, you can publish books and “investigations” that portray Hamas as eager to make a deal and Israel as the hard-hearted, indifferent party determined to fight forever. Hostage families are allowed to say absolutely anything in real time (unless, of course, we’re talking about the Or and Mor families). But for commentators and experts, telling the truth is also an option.
Judged by results, and contrary to every accusation and prediction, every time a hostage deal was put forward, Israel’s government approved it by an overwhelming majority. The moment a proposal to end the war on terms Israel could live with landed on the table, the government backed it. The polls—in which Benjamin Netanyahu actually hit a high right after the deal was signed—also show just how foolish the claim was that Netanyahu wanted an endless war because it was the smart political move for him.
Until October 2025, and no amount of lying will change this, no proposal was ever put forward that would let Israel both get back all the hostages and avoid retreating to the old, bleeding border. As McGurk explained, patiently, as if to a struggling child, every framework involved an immediate withdrawal from Gaza down to the last Israeli soldier, with the hostages released in an agonizing drip-feed that, according to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, was never meant to end. Anyone who claims there’s no difference between a Gaza with hostages and no IDF and a Gaza with no hostages and an IDF presence is either ignorant or a propagandist and ought to be kept as far from public platforms as possible.
I also suspect the public has noticed—despite every attempt to muddy the waters—a strange pattern: the same people who argued for two years that Hamas had been defeated and the war could therefore end are now the ones arguing that Hamas is stronger than ever and the war is a failure. Voters will make Netanyahu pay for the gap between his promise of total victory and the reality on the ground. But if forced to choose at the ballot box between two ways of describing the situation in the Middle East—total victory or total failure—they won’t choose failure.
This is an excerpt from my weekly column in Israel Hayom.
The British consulate with its signs removed in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem.
Britain first opened its consulate in Jerusalem in 1838, decades before America abolished slavery or Jews could sit in Britain’s own Parliament. This week, after more than 150 years it narrowly escaped complete closure: only an eleventh-hour compromise kept it open, as a reduced mission.
In response to Britain’s sanctions on Judea and Samaria last month, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced the closure of the British consulate, which first opened in 1838. London answered with a threat to expel 27 Israeli diplomats from the UK.
Last-minute maneuvering, including a quiet visit by British national security adviser Jonathan Powell, de-escalated the standoff. Under the compromise, the consulate general has been downgraded to the “UK Mission, Jerusalem.” The consul general and 19 other diplomats will leave the country, while seven staff remain in the building. London, for its part, has shelved its threat to expel Israeli diplomats for as long as talks continue, while standing firm on the sanctions themselves.
British diplomats leaving the consulate this morning.
The rebranding is more than cosmetic. It is a historic demotion for the oldest consulate in the ancient city.
Israel’s response was the right one. The sanctions, and Europe’s wider policy in the region, reek of colonial pretension. As Europe’s global power has waned, it has increasingly turned to playing empire through diplomacy, and the Middle East, the Holy Land above all, has remained its playground long after the empires withdrew. Where prestige was once measured in territory, it is now measured in diplomatic action. It is a pathetic substitute, certainly, but if Europe insists on digging its claws deeper into the region, Israel is entitled to pry them loose.
But for all that, this compromise was still the best available outcome. There was no diplomatic maneuver that would have secured a reversal of the sanctions, less because British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband is so determined to save a Palestinian state and more because, with the Green Party now serving up an anti-Israel feast, Labour would not dare snatch back the morsel it had just fed to a ravenous anti-Israel mob. The objective of Israel’s response was to impose consequences and show that it will not bend its policies under international pressure, without sending the relationship into a destructive spiral. That was a real risk at a politically sensitive moment in both countries.
In the end, politicians in both countries got the ideal outcome: neither side explicitly backed down while still having their positions made clear.
It is a move Israel will increasingly have to execute in the coming years. The UK will not be the last European country to impose sanctions, nor the last to face consequences for doing so. The ideal will be measured escalation that does not destroy the relationship wholesale. The unfortunate truth of which the Europeans are all too aware is that Israel needs its ties with Europe more than Europe needs its ties with Israel. Diplomacy is a muscle Israel is less adept at flexing, but bombing Europe is not an effective anti-sanctions policy.
English Editor: Ari Tatarka
If you enjoy the newsletter, you can show your support by becoming a paid subscriber—it really helps keep this going. I’m also offering a special monthly briefing for a small group of premium members. I’d love to have you join us—just click below to find out more.
Thanks for reading It’s Noon in Israel! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
It is interesting to note that the British ensured the security of their 7 staff in the UK Mission, whilst Emily Thornberry questioned whether the Israeli's could even close the Consulate bearing in mind it's in 'Palestine'. If that is so, why does the UK Mission require Israel to provide any security at all? Against whom does it require security? From where does the threat come?
After Pearl Harbor generals and admirals were cashiered but FDR neither resigned was impeached or defeated in his 1944 election campaign. The notion that Bibi is responsible for the gross failure of the IDF and the security establishment is ludicrous