Pope Francis, in an October address, declared not only that the “state of Israel has every right to exist in safety and prosperity” but that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. In doing so, writes Kevin Madigan, he has reversed a longstanding tradition of Catholic opposition to Jewish statehood:

What had been the authoritative Catholic view on Zionism reaches back to the 5th century and to the church father Augustine of Hippo. For Augustine, Jews had been exiled from their land and dispersed among the Gentiles for their guilt in the death of Jesus. There they would be condemned to wander and to live, until the end of time, in a state of anxiety, misery, and servitude to Gentile emperors and kings. . . .

This Augustinian “theology of the Jews” was . . . the dogmatic ground for Catholic opposition to Zionism. Indeed, the Vatican did not recognize the state of Israel until December 1993. When Theodor Herzl, perhaps the most important father of modern Zionism, asked Pope Pius X to lend his support to the establishment of a Jewish homeland, the pontiff infamously responded, “Non possumus” (“We cannot”). This was the beginning of what seemed, until Francis’ historic remarks, to be indefinite papal opposition to Zionism. . . .

In historical context, Francis’ statement must be perceived for the welcome and fundamental reversal it is.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.