Since October 7, the conflict involving Israel, the United States, and Iran has generated no shortage of commentary and concern. It has also generated a striking absence: a serious answer to what should be done. Commentary and concern, however sincere, are not enough.

Criticism has been abundant—of leadership, rhetoric, timing, temperament, political consequences, and global repercussions. These critiques may be valid, but they share a common evasion. They rarely answer the question that actually matters: What would you have Israel do?

Much of the international discussion has also collapsed into a referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu. He is an easy target—polarizing and often his own worst messenger. Reasonable people can object to his conduct and motives; I do. But even if every criticism is granted, it does not answer the question at hand. Leadership can be replaced. The constraints cannot.

So the question remains: what would you have Israel do?

This is not a rhetorical device. It is the dividing line between analysis and avoidance. Any position that cannot answer it—clearly, and under real-world constraints—is not a strategy. It is a critique without consequence.

Start with Gaza. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew—removing every soldier, every settlement, every........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)