Back to story
Perspective Shift

You read this story from where you sit.
Want to read it from somewhere else?

We'll re-present the same story as a thoughtful proponent of the security-imperative frame would. Not to convince you. To let you actually meet the argument.

Choose a vantage
Retold from the other vantage
Steelman · slot B
Never again means holding the ground
An Israeli security hawk would argue —
The October 7 massacre happened because we outsourced our security to a "conception" — that economic incentives, fences, and a contained Hamas could substitute for physical control of the territory next door. That conception is dead, and pretending we can return to it guarantees the next massacre. Holding the Netzarim Corridor splits Gaza operationally and denies Hamas the freedom of movement it used to plan October 7. A continuous Israeli presence on the ground — not raids that withdraw and let the enemy reconstitute — is the only arrangement that has ever actually deterred attacks on our communities. Son Har-Melech is saying out loud what the security situation requires.

If this read like a fair rendering of the argument — even when you disagree — it's doing its job. Steelmen aren't aimed at persuading you; they're aimed at what the other side actually believes when they're thinking clearly.