Mentioned frequently in the Bible, the ibex—a type of wild goat—was once widespread in the Land of Israel, especially in the Negev desert. But by the time of Israel’s founding it had disappeared almost completely, having succumbed to the proliferation of firearms among Bedouin. Thanks to more recent conservation efforts, however, there has been a resurgence in the population. Alon Tal writes:

The psalmist singled out two habitat-specific species of the Negev: “The high mountains are for the wild goats; the cliffs are a refuge for the rabbits (hyrax)” (Psalm 104:18). The book of Samuel describes a hysterical King Saul pursuing David in front of the Rocks of the Wild Goats.

Ibex . . . need to live near drinking water. These water sources were well known by the locals, and the goats became easy prey. The conventional wisdom I heard among the older generation of Israel’s nature lovers was that during the British Mandate, ibex provided the stock for a popular Bedouin soup. It didn’t take long until there were simply none left to shoot. Against all odds, however, a few ibexes apparently were sufficiently crafty (or remote) to hold on.

Once the new state of Israel was established, Heinrich Mendelsohn—the father of Israeli ecology—and his colleagues convinced the government to enact stringent regulations that enabled nature to rebound. Hunting was outlawed. . . . The few surviving ibex enjoyed some respite. Slowly but surely, their numbers grew.

Although wildlife censuses are notoriously imprecise, official government sources estimate that [as] many as a thousand ibex at times roam the southlands and the Golan Heights.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.