The Israel Defense Forces has amassed a large contingency along the Gaza Strip border. The troops are awaiting a green light. This situation has served Israel well for the past few days, because the army has been able to shore up weapon caches and attend to equipment wear and tear. It has also upgraded its target repository and finalized the routes it could use during an invasion. But this has gone on for too long, to the point that it has compromised the troops' morale, and their dissatisfaction has percolated to the homefront. People who were mobilized in the run-up to the Six-Day War 47 years ago, who hunkered down in the trenches in Sderot and Ofakim as part of the war buildup, know what I am talking about. Back then, troops could be heard complaining to their superiors, saying that they might as well be sent home if they were not going to be sent into battle. The homefront joined this frightened chorus. But this negative sentiment had some positive ramifications. For example, the government felt compelled to appoint Moshe Dayan defense minister. He would ultimately decide that the troops should march into Sinai's Jabal Libni, and also reach the eastern bank of the Suez Canal. Thanks to that decision, then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin had a bargaining chip in his peace negotiations with Egypt 10 years later. But on a psychological level, a protracted waiting game involving no convincing argument for the troops breeds depression and anger, and results in shattered self-confidence. True, the very fact that the troops are there serves Israel well, because it adds to the political pressure on Hamas to cease the rocket fire and accept the terms Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has set, including his call for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip, which he communicated during a meeting with Italy's Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini. That said, a soldier who is lying in the trenches, submerged in the hot sand of July, would obviously find it hard to see how this passive stance helps Israel on the world stage and minimizes the danger he faces. The average soldier is overwhelmed by the heat and feels that his deployment has gone on for too long. In the 10 days that have passed since the launch of Operation Protective Edge, Hamas has been dealt heavy blows. Everyone has acknowledged this -- everyone except former Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, Internal Affairs and Environment Committee Chairwoman MK Miri Regev, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Even those who have advocated a more heavy-handed approach accept this fact. Israel has used the protective cover of Iron Dome throughout the campaign, while attacking the enemy and defending its homefront. The interceptor serves as a bridge that links these two realms. It has minimized the casualty rate on the homefront and has allowed Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz and his colleagues to plan a potential ground assault without having to experience the mental anguish that they would have endured had Israelis been hurt on a large scale. But Israel's leaders -- in both the civilian and military echelon -- know this campaign cannot be run as if it were some lab experiment that has no bearing on the outside world. They have had to contend with pressure, some of which cannot be justified, and this has exacerbated their situation by making the sand in the hourglass run out. The fog of war might clear out by the week's end. Not everything is dependent on Israel's stance. If Hamas continues to dither on the cease-fire -- presumably because it wants to have Qatar and Turkey serve as mediators rather than Egypt -- Israel will only be able to use force, or the lack thereof, to impact the outcome. It all boils down to whether Hamas sticks to its guns; if it does not compromise on its set of demands, it will have forced Israel to launch a ground invasion. Israel and Hamas are at a crossroad. A decision must be made. It won't be easy to tell in real time whether the right road was taken. Israel will have to rely on its gut-feeling and chance. King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, said there was "a time for war and a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:8). He did not, however, provide a formula to determine which is which.
