Will Temple Mount Tensions Spark Another Arab-Israeli Crisis?

By Eitan Dangot

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Temple Mount has served as a narrative that Palestinians and extremists from the Arab-Israeli community have used to institutionalize the culture of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This is a culture that arouses the masses, is emotional, and can mobilize the Arab-Israeli street and the Palestinians, as well as the Arab street in other Sunni countries.

Events surrounding the Temple Mount can pour fuel on the fire of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and ignite an inferno, literally, within hours.

On the Israeli-Jewish side, the issue also serves as a detonator for extremist radical elements, who preach incessantly for the establishment of a Jewish foothold on the Temple Mount and wish to fly a red flag in front of the bull. Activities of this nature can upend Israeli government policies and the State of Israel’s ability to maintain law and order in Jerusalem.

In Benjamin Netanyahu’s new cabinet, several parties have full-fledged right-wing lawmakers coming to power for the first time. The Temple Mount is part of the political hardcore environment that they grew up in.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s ascension to the Temple Mount on January 3 has far-reaching implications as it threatens the delicate security balance in Jerusalem, in the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and in Gaza. His decision to ascend the Temple Mount in one of his first acts as a minister was a deliberate provocation against Arab citizens of the State of Israel, Palestinians, and the Arab states of the region. It is clear that from now on, every move and every statement made by Ben Gvir and some of his colleagues will come under scrutiny and in the near future will trigger a response, perhaps in words but also possibly in actions.

Before ascending to the Temple Mount, Ben Gvir should have adopted the maxim, “think first, act later.” Still, it is important to clarify that the status quo on the Temple Mount has not changed, and there is no plan to change it.

Netanyahu had the option—one that he has adopted in the past—to instruct his ministers to refrain from visiting the Temple Mount and allow only rank-and-file ministers of the Knesset to do so. So far, he has yet to implement such a policy this time around.

At the same time, Hamas has good reasons to avoid going to war over this issue. The current situation (where Gaza is quiet, but the West Bank is witnessing an increase in terrorist attacks and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli forces), together with the declining status of the Palestinian Authority, serves Hamas’s strategy well. This has been the case since May 2021 when Hamas initiated a conflict with Israel to portray itself as the protector of Al Aqsa.

Hamas is currently hard at work rehabilitating its military force in Gaza, while at the same time exploiting opportunities to improve the strip’s economy and alleviate some of the pressure on it.

Israel has granted some 20,000 work visas for Gazans, who bring much-needed cash into the Gazan economy. Meanwhile, Hamas is strengthening its collaboration with Hezbollah, Iran, and regional terror elements to optimize its position on the day the ceasefire is called off.

In the near future, the Islamic holiday of Ramadan, which begins on March 26, could have game-changing potential in the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. And the Temple Mount’s role could be critical here.

The month preceding Ramadan is historically associated with an increase in hatred and religious agitation. This is when it will be easiest to spark an explosion among Palestinians and Arab Israelis on the streets of East Jerusalem and in Israel. Israel’s strategy, particularly that of this new government, must be aimed at preventing this scenario wherever possible. 

---

Major-General Eitan Dangot concluded his extensive career as the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (C.O.G.A.T.) in 2014. Prior to that post he served as the Military Secretary to three Ministers of Defense; Shaul Mofaz, Amir Peretz and Ehud Barak. Read full bio here.

The government’s reforms risk politicizing the Israel Police

By Shaul Gordon

Over recent weeks we have witnessed bitter arguments in the Israeli media and in public discourse over reforms demanded by the new public security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has renamed his position to national security minister.

Before assessing the value and possible ramifications of these reforms – among them are the powers to govern the Israel Police and outline its general principles of action – we should first examine the status quo.

According to Clause 8A of the Police Ordinance, 1971, the commissioner of police is appointed by the government following the recommendation of the public security minister.

According to Clause 9 of the ordinance, which can be traced back to the British Mandate period, the role of the commissioner is to “supervise the Israel Police, its management orders, activation and all of the expenses tied to it, and the supplies at its disposal.”

In both practice and theory, the minister recommends to the government his or her preferred candidate for commissioner and the government accepts the recommendation. There is no precedent for the recommendation being rejected.

The minister also authorizes all of the appointments of senior police officers – officers from the rank of deputy commander and up – after examining their professional and ethical suitability to their proposed positions. The minister can reject the appointment of a specific officer but cannot decide to appoint an officer who has not been recommended by the police chief.

On all matters pertaining to ongoing police activities, up until now, no public security minister has ever intervened in the commissioner’s work by issuing orders on how and where to deploy and operate the various police units. The minister’s involvement has usually been limited to the general guidance of the police.

Thus, for example, the minister can instruct the commissioner to prepare for certain events but cannot instruct him on how to deploy forces, in which locations or how many offices to deploy.

The role of the minister and the ministry is to represent the police to the government and to secure suitable budgets and personnel. The internal distribution of the police budget is presented to the minister but it is not subject to his approval.

How will Ben-Gvir change Israel's police?

Ben-Gvir’s coalition agreement with the Likud involves far-reaching changes to the law. These changes will enable him to determine policies that will govern the police and which will in effect subordinate the police to the minister, including the ability to alter the police’s rules of engagement.

In addition, the Border Police in Judea and Samaria, today, subordinate to the IDF’s Central Command but will be subordinate to Ben-Gvir.

To justify these steps, the new minister has sought to give the police equal standing to that of the IDF. Ben-Gvir has claimed that just as the IDF is subordinate to the defense minister and his policies, so too should the police be subordinate to the national security minister and his policies.

At face value, this argument is appealing since the minister has been voted in by the public in democratic elections to promote certain agendas. If the minister cannot determine the policies and priorities that guide the police and only the commissioner can decide in these areas, then how can the minister fulfill his obligations to the public?

YET THESE demands not only create significant legal and constitutional difficulties, they could also lead directly to the politicization of the police, to severe harm to human rights and potentially, to violent incidents that could claim lives, as well as harm the international status of Israel.

The claim that the police’s stance needs to be equal to the IDF is baseless since the legal basis governing the military – Clause 2 (A) of the Basic Law: The Military states that “the military is subject to the authority of the government,” and not to the defense minister.

According to Clause 3(B) of the aforementioned Basic Law, “the chief of the general staff is subject to the authority of the government and subordinate to the defense minister.” – means that the military cannot be ordered by the defense minister on his own and without a government decision, to go to war. As such, there is no basis for the claim that the military is subordinate to the defense minister and no basis for the claim that the police should be subordinate to the public security minister.

Beyond legal arguments, the comparison of the police to the military is wrong for reasons of substance, too. Unlike the IDF, the police is designed to serve and protect the Israeli public from domestic threats. The police must act on the basis of equality without the victim of the crime or the offender’s religion, race or gender playing any part in its actions.

Therefore, the decision to place the minister – not just Ben-Gvir, but any minister – as being in charge of police policies in dealing with offenses or rioting is an opening for the politicization of the police and could lead to the alarming scenario of over or under-policing of one sector or another depending on its identity.

Imagine a situation in which a minority seeks to protest against the prime minister or a public body and that the decision on whether to allow the protest is taken by a political element. Could the minister truly ignore his political beliefs and the political affiliation of the protesters? Those pushing the reforms seek to calm critics by saying that the minister will have no ability to intervene in investigations and that the police will remain sovereign in its ability to investigate any individual on suspicion of any offense.

While this position is important and necessary, it is not sufficient. The minister can, under the reforms, set budgets for investigating units whose activities he does not view in a favorable light.

In addition, the minister will, under the reforms, be able to dictate how police respond to disturbances, as well as set policies in classic policing missions among the various sectors of Israeli society, including minorities. This represents a slippery slope that could easily lead to drastic future changes.

Similarly, Ben-Gvir’s demand to command Border Police forces in Judea and Samaria is extremely problematic. From the perspective of international law, Judea and Samaria are classed as zones under belligerent control, meaning that a military commander – in this case the head of the IDF’s Central Command – is sovereign there. Subordinating them to the minister is not only contrary to international law and could be interpreted as an act of annexation but could create chaos on the ground by creating multiple chains of command in the same area.

These steps appear, therefore, to form a real revolution and can lead to disturbing consequences on Israel’s standing, image and values, which have been shaped by generations.

---

Brigadier General Shaul Gordon has extensive experience serving in a legal capacity within the Israel National Police (INP) and the Israel Defense Forces, including holding the position of Senior Legal Advisor to the INP from 2006-2016. Read full bio here.

Survivors’ Courage: Educate and Empower

By Michael B. Snyder

It has not been difficult for the majority of American Jews to “pass.” That is, other than physical stereotypes, Jews who did not identify by wearing religious items (e.g., head coverings), especially light-skinned Ashkenazim, physically could pass for white Americans and thus may have escaped being the target of antisemitism; this could and cannot however reasonably disavow knowledge of the problem. 

Jewish-American Pulitzer Prize winner Bernard Malamud whose fiction work included survivor trauma “before the Holocaust was integrated into the American historical or cultural imaginary,” was acting as a historian and a prescience when he said, “If you ever forget you're a Jew, a Gentile will remind you.” American Jews have always been sufficiently reminded but an effective response is elusive perhaps because the comparison is most often to the lack of pre-Holocaust remedies. The appropriate response to American antisemitism today however should be based upon following heroic survivors’ and Israeli historians’ principles to a Judeo-centric model.

By way of background, Hitler in Mein Kampf credited Jews with a backhanded compliment worth noting: “[The Jews] apparently great sense of solidarity is based on the very primitive herd instinct that … leads to mutual support … as long as a common danger makes this seem useful or inevitable.” Yet survivors arriving in pre-state Palestine or the newly created Israel were met with the feeling, if not the direct accusation, that they had acted, as the biblical analogy goes, like “sheep to slaughter,” by having lined up passively for deportation, selection, and death, without sufficient resistance.  Many Jews preparing for and fighting existential wars on the new land finally recognized their bravery and heroism when fighting side by side with these heroes who had worked their way through the destruction still blamed on Jews and around British blockades knowing they faced immediate savage combat. 

Even Israeli studies of the Holocaust beginning at the end of WWII had these victims’ experiences as a side-narrative in a Nazi-centric historiography until the topic evolved to a systemized historical field with the norm becoming a focus on reconstructing the “internal life” of Jews under the Nazis. Thus, in retrospect, it is not surprising that historians in the early study of the Holocaust analyzed the end result without a full examination of the Jewish perspective of, for example, considering the creation of a partisan resistance group, as did those nationalists who came together as countrymen. Historians’ full examination revealed the virtual impossibility of such a large-scale Jewish partisan movement, revealing instead that Jews consciously deliberated the potential impact on family and community who would suffer from group retribution.

These Jews either in hiding or ghettos also were operating without benefit of reliable information regarding concentration and subsequently death camps, as opposed to the premature conjecture of historians concluding that both Germans and European Jews were aware of what was the true definition of “deportation.” Predating the Yad Vashem memorial’s opening in 1953, Israeli historians began acquiring personal testimonies of survivors thereby beginning to bring the Jews’ experience to full light, a revolutionary academic evolution that eventually led to global initiatives including but certainly not limited to Stephen Spielberg leading a gathering of 54,000 personal testimonies. 

Appropriately researching and collecting data constructing the appropriate narrative to more accurately define today’s continued and mainstream American antisemitism must rely on these past mistakes and subsequent recalibration. Despite that antisemitic tropes claiming that Jews control the government, banks, Hollywood – in fact the entire world and outer space – there is not yet a sufficient response to what is being called an “outbreak” by traditional media. To the contrary, it is well-documented that antisemitism has been the norm throughout history, including in the quiet parts of America, and the outlier here is the attempt to frame today’s recognition as unique or somewhat of an unsuspected rally against a cultural norm.  

To borrow a phrase from those who lived under the Nazi regime, American Jews may be operating under the “if this is as bad as it gets, we will be fine” and/or “we are loyal citizens and this is only temporary” illusion. This is not to assign blame to those under attack, but a necessary question as to whether those are reasonable responses by those living in a country where (outside of Israel) the adage is, “Jews have never been as accepted or successful.”  Unfortunately, that phrase is exactly how the unsuspecting Jews in Nazi Germany appropriately described themselves pre-1933 and the advent of Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws began the rape of Jews’ humanity.

We must return to the lessons of the Holocaust without the unworthy comparison of the German government and the potential for an American parallel.  Instead, the heroic movement of survivors to educate the world about the personal impact of antisemitism and its generational trauma must be brought to the forefront if the phrase “never again” is to be considered something to work towards rather than a hopeful bumper sticker.  It is time to approach antisemitism from the Jews’ point of view, utilizing testimonies describing the impact on individuals from today’s burgeoning attacks.  Like survivors’ testimonies, this will broadcast the personal trauma with factual accounts and, if nothing else, create community among Jews against the common enemy of antisemitism.  It reverses the apparent trend of generations in America being unable or unwilling to pass down personal experiences with antisemitism, including being refused employment at professional firms and corporations, subjected to quotas both as professors and students, systematically barred from country clubs, banned from buying homes in “white” neighborhoods (both officially by deed restrictions and unofficially through sellers rebuffing Jews).  Historical data shows clearly that while American antisemitism took a break during WWII (when it was un-American to side with the enemy Nazis by disparaging Jews), antisemitism until today is as much a part of Jewish-American history as Nobel prizes and Pulitzers. 

Just as survivors overcame well-documented trauma and tragedy, unable to tell their stories even to their closest family members, their bravery in coming forward is the ideal model that not only ties Jews to their past but could possibly accomplish the original goal of the survivors’ testimonies: educate to empower. It is time to, as the testimony of each survivor did, change the narrative from antisemitism as an attack against Jews as a group to each instance being a crime against a person, e.g., a child in middle school, a senior citizen, or a religious person going to pray. When a target is an innocent person with a voice and face instead of a maligned, disdained faceless entity, those who might otherwise turn away may find compassion and Jews may begin to take down established walls within communities.  At the very least, it will place the problem squarely in front of all Jews in an impactful way thus making it more difficult to turn aside from something which the viewer may believe is not that troubling, or not happening in his or her neighborhood.

Relying upon teachings from the past has sustained Jews since Biblical times, and learning from survivors recognizes and utilizes that tradition. Unleashing Judaism’s most effective weapon – the continued yearning of return to the collective path -- can be accomplished by utilizing a successful model that once again could bring redemption from a villainous enemy.

---

Michael B. Snyder is a publishing contributor at The MirYam Institute, he is an attorney with over 35 years of experience in the areas of children’s rights, human rights and Non-Government Organizations in the United States, Israel and Africa. Read full bio here.

Welcome to the new Netanyahu era

By Danielle Roth-Avneri

After five tumultuous election cycles held in the space of three-and-a-half years, and a government that lasted not much more than a year, the sixth Netanyahu government has reached the runaway and is ready to take off and deliver political stability for the State of Israel.

Political stability will be this government’s first goal since that is precisely what has been lacking in Israel. As in any country, instability causes citizens to suffer, so wherever one may be on the political map, political stability will be a positive development.

The current mood among sections of the Israeli public is reminiscent of the 1970s, when, in 1977, Menachem Begin and his Likud party were elected for the first time, triggering hysteria.

Then, as now, some Israelis are overjoyed that they got the government they voted for. The pro-Netanyahu camp is also happy that a prime minister from the largest political party formed the government, unlike the former setup, which was based on a government led by a prime minister (Naftali Bennett) at the head of a party with just six Knesset seats.   

Fueled by the largely left-wing Israeli media, the anti-Netanyahu camp is frightened to the point that some of its members believe that the LGBT community is facing Iranian-style repression.

This fear is completely baseless. There are always extremist views in any government, right or left, but these are generally fringe voices. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, for example, was a volatile hilltop youth activist who came from the extreme fringes of the political map in the past. Yet today, Israelis elected him to restore their sense of personal security. While many issues compete for the Israeli voter’s attention, personal security is a fundamental one that wins elections and places people in positions of power in this country.

Now, the State of Israel has a full-on right-wing government, reflecting the majority of the voters’ will. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, is still distributing roles – and already, he has unhappy campers in his party to deal with.

Likud Knesset Members Eli Cohen and Yisrael Katz will alternate as foreign ministers. This isn't the most sensible setup; will international leaders have to go online to find out who Israel’s foreign minister is on any given day?

Netanyahu also named close confidante Ron Dermer as minister for strategic affairs. This is truly an unusual move. Dermer was not elected, yet now is in a cabinet position. Only time will reveal whether the appointment will pay off and whether it will set a precedent for future professional appointments.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu implemented a brilliant maneuver by appointing the only gay Likud Knesset Member, Amir Ohana, as Knesset Speaker.

This position is one of the seven official symbols of state sovereignty. While political observers were waiting to see whether Netanyahu would appoint the moderate Likud figure of Ofir Akunis, or the firebrand politician Dudi Amsalem as Speaker, Netanyahu surprised everyone and selected Ohana, thereby contradicting the claims that his new government will be homophobic.

Several MKs have been designated ministers without portfolios, which is a shame since the government should be prioritizing its civilians over the needs of politicians.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s inauguration ceremony on December 29 was both stormy and jubilant, depending on where one sat in the Knesset.

Unlike prior governments, which relied on strained, artificial political arrangements and the narrowest of majorities, Netanyahu has a comfortable majority this time and has more room to maneuver. Even if he is pressed by the more extreme elements in his government, he has the margin to deal with that pressure.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri who was convicted of criminal tax misconduct will serve as both health and interior minister in this government, two important positions, begging the question of just how far Netanyahu is prepared to go to placate his coalition partners.

Ultimately, the real showdown now is between Netanyahu and the Israeli media.

In each of the five election rounds so far, pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps battled it out, and this time, the Netanyahu camp triumphed.

Netanyahu was always certain that he would win. He went out into the “wilderness” of the opposition, patiently bided his time, and returned.

This government is facing an avalanche of criticism before it has even got to work. But it is important to keep in mind that it also had a lot of public support in Israel.

The big question now is how will it perform. Will it fail as its detractors predict? Or will it follow in the footsteps of Begin, who went on to sign a peace treaty with Egypt and disproved the fears that dominated sections of the country in the 1970s?

---

Danielle Roth-Avneri is a political commentator & panelist on Morning World and various current affairs news programs on television. She is a former Knesset reporter, news editor and columnist for the newspaper Israel Hayom. Read full bio here.

Israel's new government braces for Palestinian escalation

By David Hacham

With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forming his new government, the Palestinian Authority has little to no expectation that the diplomatic process with Israel will be resumed in the near future. Since Netanyahu’s victory in the November 1 election, Palestinian rhetoric toward Israel has been radical and antagonistic.

From the Palestinian perspective, the new Netanyahu government with its overtly right-wing coalition partners places a breakthrough with Israel in the realm of the impossible. In late December, the Fatah Revolutionary Council led by Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas described the incoming government as “a gang of murderers who will prove beyond question that Israel is an apartheid state.”

The council added that the government’s planned agenda for the future of the West Bank will trigger a major explosion if the international community does not intervene “and prevent Israel from realizing its bloody ambitions.” The council also endorsed Palestinian resistance measures, noting that these should be conducted in accordance with international law.

Abbas addressed the council meeting in Ramallah and offered his pessimistic outlook. Radical figures have risen to power in Israel, he said, obligating Palestinians to oppose the fascist new government.

Of the many, potentially unacceptable decisions, from the Palestinian perspective, that are likely to be made by Israel, legalizing outposts in the West Bank and paving new byroads for settlers are some of the most immediate concerns. The PA states such moves will make a future Palestinian independent state essentially unattainable.

Netanyahu will act responsibly, but the Palestinian arena is volatile

Netanyahu is clearly aware of these worries, which exist not only on the Palestinian side but also among pragmatic Sunni Arab states, including the Gulf States that are now in open partnership with Israel under the Abraham Accords.

Jordan, Egypt, the Gulf States, the United States administration, and European Union members have all recently declared their unwavering support for the goal of an independent Palestinian state.

As a result of these pressures, Netanyahu will likely act as a responsible adult and support a balanced, pragmatic approach toward the Palestinians while reigning in his government’s more radical elements. In addition, Netanyahu’s stated goal of broadening the normalization circle to include Saudi Arabia will depend on the adoption of such a pragmatic approach.

In the meantime, the Palestinian arena is volatile, with escalating security incidents reaching near-boiling points. The determination of terrorist organizations and individuals operating outside of organized frameworks to conduct attacks against Israeli targets is currently sky-high, as is planning for the execution of such attacks.

The significant spike in tensions and security incidents in the West Bank, the continued protests by Palestinian security prisoners in Israeli jails, particularly around the issue of administrative detention, combined with growing fears about the Israeli government’s capacity to manage radical ideological elements within its ranks could set the stage for a third intifada.

EARLY SIGNS of such a scenario are already visible. Frequent violent clashes occur regularly between the IDF and Palestinian terrorists, as well as between Israeli civilians living in the West Bank and Palestinian civilians.

Attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians by Palestinian gunmen who have a clear organizational affiliation, as well as those with no such affiliation, have risen starkly this past year. Clashes are also taking place in known flashpoints between the IDF and Palestinian rioters, as well as between Israeli and Palestinian civilians.

Meanwhile, there have been numerous incidents of firebombings, rock throwing, and the planting of explosives by terrorists along West Bank roads and at other flashpoints in the territory. According to figures from various sources, some 170 Palestinians have been killed in clashes with the IDF since the start of the year, with most of them, although not all, involving armed combatants and terrorists.

As a result, the PA leadership is attempting to take advantage of the large number of Palestinian casualties in order to destroy Israel’s credibility, undermine its worldwide reputation and rally the international community against the incoming Netanyahu government.

Abbas voiced this escalatory and adversarial strategy in his comments to the Fatah Revolutionary Council when he vowed that the PA would expand political and popular protests, though he did not go into details regarding what those protests would look like.

Abbas has long-held a dual approach to the issue of Palestinian violence, condemning armed terror attacks on Israelis in the past but also supporting all recent terrorists, irrespective of whether they opened fire, stabbed or threw explosives at Israelis.

It is worth noting that in a recent media interview, Abbas stated that he had previously opposed armed conflict with Israel but warned that his opinion could change in light of Israel’s behavior. Such comments reflect the stress and frustration that Abbas and the PA are currently experiencing. Nevertheless, security coordination between Israel and the PA is continuing at this stage.

Under these circumstances, Palestinians continue to stand still, failing to move toward any of their political and strategic objectives. Meanwhile, against the backdrop of increased tensions and violence in the West Bank, the relative calm in Gaza stands in stark contrast.

From its vantage point in Gaza, Hamas will keep a close eye on events at sensitive ignition points, particularly the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and on the escalating situation in the West Bank, searching for new ways to boost its foothold there.

Hamas is exploiting the current escalation, planning its next moves and marketing itself as the future leadership of the entire Palestinian people in place of the PA and Fatah.

In light of this, PA security forces have begun a campaign of arrests of Hamas operatives and it is fair to assume that Israeli intelligence is enabling some of these arrests.

Under these conditions, Israel must project the message that the political process has not been removed from the table, as part of an effort to prevent escalatory patterns that could quickly spin out of control.

---

David Hacham served for 30 years in IDF intelligence, is a former Commander of Coordination of Govt. Activities in the Territories (COGAT) and was advisor for Arab Affairs to seven Israeli Ministers of Defense. Read full bio here.

Israel Is Preparing For A Third Lebanon War

By Avishai Levi

Quietly, the Israel Defense Forces is preparing intensively for its main war scenario – a potential Third Lebanon War against Hezbollah.

The primary threat posed by Hezbollah is its mammoth rocket and missile arsenal, which includes long-range and precision weapons.

In the event of war, the Israeli Air Force together with the Israeli ground forces will have to deal with this grave threat to the home front.

In the opening phase of a war, the IDF will need to be able to launch air and ground strikes of various types to target Hezbollah’s long-range projectiles.

If necessary, the ground forces will, parallel to these strikes, have to move into Lebanon in order to reach launch zones and suppress fire against the Israeli home front.

The IAF has a strong ability to operate under fire, even with Hezbollah targeting its airbases. Israel possesses the most advanced air defense systems in the world.

These defense systems will defend the State of Israel, including critical civilian infrastructure, and they will also be able to defend themselves in the face of expected Hezbollah attempts to harm Israel’s air defense batteries.

The IDF has an entire combat doctrine for operating under this type of threat and is fully aware that it would be a major target of Hezbollah’s firepower in a future conflict.

Offensively, the IDF has built up a large database of different types of targets. This is the product of hard intelligence work, aimed at enabling the IDF to strike during the opening phase, as combat progresses, and through to the end of the war.

Israel must be able to target Hezbollah’s precision and statistical projectile launchers, as well as its array of unmanned aerial vehicles, themselves part of Hezbollah’s precision strike capabilities.

One of the IAF’s main objectives in such a scenario will be to shorten the length of the war. This can be done by targeting Hezbollah’s leadership, its command centers, and other pressure points, including targets belonging to the Lebanese state.

The IDF’s meticulous preparations include such operational planning.

The IAF is able to strike thousands of targets per 24 hours and knows the precise coordinates for its targets. All it needs to do is prioritize which targets to hit first, and those priorities will guide the IAF’s actions on the given days.

In addition, the IAF will be able to gather information on new emerging targets in real-time. Even without such new targets, the IDF has sufficient numbers of targets in its databases to operate effectively for weeks.

In addition, in such a scenario, the IDF must be able to deal with disruptive activities from Syria, such as electronic warfare incidents. While the IDF has an interest in isolating the Lebanese arena during a future war, it must also be prepared for scenarios such as Syrian and Russian interference operations, though these are unlikely to be kinetic.

During a war, Iran can be expected to attempt to resupply Hezbollah with weapons through cross-border smuggling from Syria to Lebanon. This means that the IDF must be able to detect and interrupt these resupply efforts, just as it does during routine times in its campaign between the wars.

Russia’s presence in Syria cannot be discounted. Russia remains a major power with the ability to influence what Israel can and cannot do in the northern arenas.

This means that Israel will have to coordinate with Russia in the event of a war with Hezbollah in terms of communicating to it what Israel is doing, where and when, and to make it clear that this does not contradict Russia’s strategic interests. Doing so will minimize Russian interference operations.

If Israel reaches a situation during a war in Lebanon in which it must attack targets in Syria, such as in Damascus, Aleppo, or along the Syrian-Lebanese border, due to Iranian weapons supply efforts, its air platforms may face disruptive measures from Russia.

Israel will need to tread carefully in this kind of scenario.

A ground maneuver component in Lebanon will be critical to winning the war rapidly and effectively. This means being able to deceive the enemy and to land ground forces in ways that surprise it, while deploying forces to where they are needed.

The Lebanese state will also end up paying a price for being Hezbollah’s host. At the same time, the IDF will make every effort to avoid harming civilians.

Messaging the Lebanese population will be an important IDF goal, which will communicate to the Lebanese why they are being evacuated from Hezbollah-held areas, and explaining to them that Lebanese skies will be closed for a certain period of time.

The IDF will also communicate to the Lebanese people that Hezbollah is threatening Lebanon’s most critical infrastructure, and disrupting ordinary peoples’ daily lives.

As a result, communications will be a necessary part of the Israeli strategy, so that Hezbollah is held accountable for suffering caused to Lebanese civilians.

Communications with partners like the United States and United Kingdom will also be vital, and Israel is already preparing its Western friends for these scenarios

Israel’s current campaign between the wars, a shadow campaign to keep Iranian entrenchment out of Syria, contributes substantially to Israeli deterrence, and it is deterrence that may just be able to postpone a Third Lebanon War -- for the time being. 

---

Brigadier General Avishai Levi served for 30 years in the Israeli Air Force (IAF), a career that culminated as the Head of Intelligence and Reconnaissance for the IAF from 2007-2010. It was during his tenure that the Israeli Air Force successfully detonated the Syrian nuclear reactor. Read full bio here.

Is Israel's Incoming PM Selling Out Israel?

By Sharon Roffe Ofir

Soon after the ballots were counted and Benjamin Netanyahu had sealed an election win that was set to see him return to the premiership for a sixth term, he set his next goal: swearing in his new government around the same time that the Knesset would be sworn in. 

Even veteran political commentators believed that forming a coalition between the ruling bloc parties would be a walk in the park, and that before long the new ministers would be comfortably settled into their new bureaus.

But reality has a tendency to catch everyone by surprise and it appears that the time elapsed since the November 1 elections, during which Netanyahu has been forced to walk a rocky path, contains plenty of clues about his government’s future.

In this theater of the absurd, there is one lead performer, Netanyahu, who is being coerced and has become a hostage in the hands of his tormentors, who smell his weakness. The citizens of Israel are caught in the crossfire, and some of them have yet to realize the price they are going to pay.

The world’s attention, particularly that of the US, which is closely monitoring developments, is now focused on Israel. According to media reports, American officials have warned their Israeli counterparts that they will find it difficult to work with extremist elements appointed as ministers in the next government. Netanyahu is aware of the cost the State of Israel is likely to pay for this coalition, but he has persisted in forging ahead nonetheless.
Netanyahu’s ambition has been to swear in a government as quickly as possible. He reasoned that, as opposed to the previous government comprising disparate parties with little in common, in this incoming coalition, the parties speak the same language. 

And yet, the reality on the ground quickly disproved this theory. The cracks rapidly emerged, with Netanyahu’s partners demanding that all agreements be anchored in written documents prior to the government being sworn in. Their demands were fueled by the realization that they are dealing with a designated prime minister who is weak, vulnerable to extortion, and willing to sell out the country. 

Under such conditions, they reasoned, why not raise the costs they demand for joining the government?

Negotiations began on November 5 with the first visitors to Netanyahu’s office – representatives of the Shas Party. They set the stage for the surreal demands that have piled up on Netanyahu’s table – demands that will change the face of Israel, and which carry a combined price tag of 100 billion shekels.

These demands include: A doubling of stipends for married religious seminary students; discounts in public transportation subsidies for yeshiva students, matching those received by university students; a shift to “kosher” electricity production; a bill defining Torah study as a means to avoid military enlistment for yeshiva students; forcing school pupils to study Talmud; reducing housing costs for ultra-Orthodox citizens; and splitting various government ministries and rotations in government roles. The above make up just some of the demands.

In a government where everything is justified as serving a national cause, the head of the Otzma Yehudit party, Itamar Ben-Gvir, insisted that he be referred to as the “National Security Minister” instead of the traditional Public Security Minister. Ben-Gvir raced to draft a new law stating that an array of police powers and budgets will be subordinated directly to him, as well as giving himself veto rights in the important ministerial legislative committee.

Meanwhile, Avi Maoz, the chairman of the far-Right Noam Party, will be appointed as a Deputy Minister in charge of the Jewish National Identity Authority, and he will now oversee educational programs. Moshe Gafni, chairman of the Degel Hatorah party, stated unequivocally that under his vision for the future, half of the people would study Torah and the other half would serve in the military.

The leader of the Religious Zionist party, Bezalel Smotrich, demanded and received the Finance Ministry and declared that if we follow the Torah we will be rewarded with economic prosperity. He also demanded, and was granted, responsibility over the IDF Civil Administration and powers over the Defense Ministry unit, known as the Coordinator of Government Activity in the Territories.

Orit Struck, a member of Smotrich’s Religious Zionist Party, will serve as a “Minister for National Missions,” while Arye Deri, chairman of the Shas Party, has paved a path to return to power as Interior Minister and, as a bonus, also received the Health Ministry – despite his rich criminal history.

These looting campaigns by Netanyahu’s coalition partners were met with official silence by Likud Knesset members, but internal divisions and political turmoil rapidly followed. Netanyahu recognized that he was walking across a minefield; he has since attempted to avoid domestic conflict or the resignation of members of the Knesset from his party.

To avoid such gaffes, he immediately approved a measure increasing the minimum number of MKs who can break off from a party, as part of a flurry of new legislation placed on the Knesset’s desk even before the government was sworn in.

What will happen next? Likud MKs will not likely respond to this perceived insult, but their bitterness will not go away, and the lack of trust among coalition members will only grow, as will friction between them.

In its 75th year of independence, Israel stands at a fateful crossroads. Ironically, it was Likud MK, David Bitan who once said that “the start does not bode well for the future.”

May God help us all.

---

Sharon Roffe-Ofir served as Knesset Member in the 24th Knesset. She has served as a deputy local council head at Kiryat Tivon, and has worked as a journalist and as a senior lecturer in academic institutions for 24 years. Read full bio here.

Monthly Israel Brief

By Yaakov Lappin

Israel’s political system and its public remain deeply divided as the designated right-wing coalition headed by Benjamin Netanyahu headed into the final stretch of difficult negotiations between the majority Likud party and its future partners in government.

The negotiations contain multiple signs that the incoming government will break from the status quo that has defined decades of Israeli politics in terms of its determination to redefine the balance of power between the government, the legislative branch (Knesset), and the judiciary in unprecedented ways – and giving unprecedented powers to government.

On December 19, the avalanche of legislative reform planned by the coalition took the form of a bill brought to vote in the Knesset plenum after clearing a special Knesset committee. The law is designed to remove authority from the Israel Police Inspector General and place it in the hands of designated National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, head of the Jewish Strength party.

These powers include the ability to set direct, specific policing policies, make decisions on investigations and on budgetary matters which have direct consequences of police prioritization. Ben Gvir claims that his version of the bill includes compromises with its critics, since it includes a commitment to consult with the Attorney General about such decisions. While it does include a clause giving Ben Gvir power to make decisions about prosecutions, the latest version of the bill states that this will be done in consultation with the Attorney General and the police chief.

During the committee meeting, Ben Gvir clashed with Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon, who stated that the bill is “unbalanced.” Limon said that in a democratic state the authorities in question have dramatic consequences on issues such as freedom of protest and handling investigation files. Limon warned that great caution is needed when passing reforms in such areas and that the professional echelon should receive an influential role. “This process is too fast for such a complex issue,” Limon cautioned, adding that there are too many vague statements in the bill that leave much room for interpretation.

Such reforms join other changes being instigated by the incoming government, such as giving designated Finance Minister and Religious Zionism party head Bezalel Smotrich powers over the IDF Civil Administration’s policies in the West Bank, and inventing a new position for the far-right designated deputy minister Avi Maoz over extracurricular educational programs – a move that triggered a wave of commitments by secular Israeli municipalities to disregard Maoz’s authority and decisions.

West Bank warning lights are blinking red

Meanwhile, as political instability and tensions mount domestically, the security situation in the West Bank has deteriorated significantly over the past year.

On Sunday, Israeli security forces arrested a 47-year-old suspected Palestinian gunman for conducting a drive-by shooting attack on an Israeli vehicle north of Ariel. According to MirYam Institute senior research associate Maj. Gen. (res.) Eitan Dangot, who is former head of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Unit, the fact that a growing number of terrorists over 40 are getting involved in violence, and that some have ties to Fatah, is a warning signal.

“A growing number of Fatah or Tanzim (a faction of Fatah) members are joining the cycle of terrorism – warning signs of an escalation and the shift to an intifada of terrorism,” Dangot tweeted.

Figures possessed by the IDF back up this warning. In the past year, there has been a major increase in the number of terror attacks in the West Bank and Israel – nearly 300 such attacks - compared to 91 in all of 2021.

The IDF’s Operation Break the Wave launched on March 31 2022 in response to a spate of murderous terror attacks in Israeli cities has foiled hundreds of terror plots and quashed localized terror groups in the northern West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority has lost its ability to govern.

But the ongoing operation has not diminished the motivation of Palestinians to join the violence – a sign of trouble up ahead in the coming year. The volatile situation in the West Bank and in Jerusalem, the potential of the Temple Mount to ignite new violence, the ongoing attempts and incitement by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and others to add fuel to the fire, and future potential decisions by the new government could all see delicate attempts by the Israeli defense establishment to prevent a new intifada fall by the wayside. These attempts include promoting economic prosperity among Palestinians and granting them work visas – 150,000 Palestinians from the West Bank (representing 30% of the PA’s GDP in their earnings) and 17,000 Gazans have received such permits.

Since January 2022, 32 Israeli civilians and members of the security forces were killed in Palestinian attacks, and some 160 Palestinians, most of them armed terrorists and combatants, were killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank. A further 50 Palestinians were killed in Gaza during Operation Breaking Dawn, half of whom have been identified by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center as terrorists.

Israel to become first Western state to have aerial drone medical supply network

In late November, Israeli aero-logistics firm Gadfin and the Netanya-based Sarel medical purchasing and logistics company made history, when they announced that Israel will become the first Western country to receive a working drone medical delivery network linking all major hospitals.

The Rehovot-based Gadfin company will deploy its Spirit One unmanned aerial vehicle that takes off and lands vertically, and folds out its wings to fly like a plane after using rotors to take off. 

Scenes that not long ago would have been considered science fiction will shortly become reality as the drone network picks up critical deliveries from Sarel’s logistics center in Netanya to fly them to Israeli hospitals within a 200-kilometer range.

“This will make Israel the first Western country in the world to have an automatic, on-demand medical delivery aerial grid,” the companies said in a joint statement. The drones will transport medicines, medical equipment, blood, serum, lab samples, vaccines and more in frozen containers when necessary, saving critical time and lives.

---

Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He provides insight and analysis for a number of media outlets, including Jane's Defense Weekly, a leading global military affairs magazine, and JNS.org, a news agency with wide distribution among Jewish communities in the U.S. Read full bio here.

The Palestinian issue is about supremacy, not justice

By Yochai Guiski

Two weeks ago, we marked, as we do every year, November 29, the date of the historic United Nations decision to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. It has also come to be designated by the UN as “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” But even as the Palestinians and their supporters seek to rebrand the day and to cast Israel as a colonial, apartheid state, and an unscrupulous violator of human rights, one must point out the unflattering truth -- the Palestinian campaign is about privilege and supremacy of the Arabs and Palestinians and not about justice. 

Many readers will be scratching their heads at this point as privilege and supremacy are usually associated with white Europeans and Americans and not the seemingly poor and oppressed Palestinians. But they would be missing the obvious truth -- privilege and supremacy are not exclusively white but are borne of deep-seated perceptions of superiority by those groups who are in power, especially if they have held power for a long time. Some societies manifest it in a caste system, others do so by formally making religious or ethnic minorities into second-class citizens.

Jews were second-class citizens in the areas controlled by the various incarnations of Arab or Islamic rule over the centuries, and this only ended after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. This happened all over the Middle East including in the Holy Land, where Jews have been living for centuries in holy cities such as Jerusalem, Tiberias, Hebron and Safed.

Jews were taxed for being non-Muslims; ofttimes they were persecuted (although less than in “enlightened” Europe), and were treated, as one Egyptian Jew described it, as “guests in their own home.” For most of that time, Jews were unable to own land, were confined to live in certain areas, and were subject to random acts of violence from their neighbors.

It is no wonder that when the “second-class” Jews were suddenly equal rights citizens under the British mandate, the Arabs chafed under what seemed sacrilegious -- a Jew enjoying the same rights as an Arab. No land was confiscated from Arabs and no houses were demolished; mostly uninhabited lands were bought and developed, but the anger simmered.

Even as the British tore away parts of the land destined for the Jewish homeland and created the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Jews were building hamlets and prospering by the fruit of their labor without depriving the local Arab population. Yet, the Arab anger continued to grow. It was “unjust” and “unnatural” and the “good Arab boys” indeed took matters into their hands -- Jewish homes, businesses and hamlets were the targets of brazen criminal behavior and outright racist attacks, especially during “the Great Revolt” (1936-1939) against the British that saw Arabs destroy Jewish communities in Hebron, Jerusalem, the Galilee, and the Negev, killing over 400 Jews (though Arab casualties were far more severe, over 5,000 dead).

Palestinian apologists try to explain it away as budding nationalism and anger at the demographic changes, but this happened all over the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) – it was far from confined to the Holy Land. In Iraq, the notorious Farhud in 1941 saw Iraqis kill at least 180 Jews, wound over 2,000 and ransack the homes and properties of thousands. In Egypt, attacks on Jews in Cairo occurred in 1938 and 1945. The racist treatment intensified to a crescendo of violence against Jews as Israel was established – attacks on Jews were the norm, their properties were confiscated, and many were arrested or detained in camps. Around nine hundred thousand Jews were thus forced to migrate and leave most of their property behind. Second-class residents indeed.

Why is this about racism and privilege and not mere discord between nations? First, it was widespread and commonplace throughout the MENA region; there was not a single Arab or Middle Eastern country that didn’t see its Jewish community decimated and abused -- in the same way that no state in the American Confederacy treated blacks as nothing but slaves, and less than whites, after the civil war.

Second, the rejection of the right of Jews to self-determination in their ancient homeland is pervasive. The notion of Zionism, the national movement of the Jewish people, is described in the most derogatory terms – colonialism, racism, Apartheid, crimes against humanity. The rejection of the right to be an Israeli or a Zionist is evident in academia, sports (including harassing Israeli journalists in the “safe environment” of the soccer World Cup in Qatar), culture, and literature, just for the crime of supporting Jewish self-determination in the Holy Land.

Third, the Palestinians and their supporters are out to redefine history as part of denying Jewish claims to the Holy Land. In the Palestinian version of reality (which was adopted by UNESCO, in a controversy that led the US to exit the agency), only Muslims have a sacred connection to the Temple Mount (known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif). Make no mistake about it, this is racist to the core.

Fourth, when the Palestinians rose against the British, they did so after rejecting the idea of a pluralist country with a common parliament for Jews and Arabs. They were not fighting to get more rights -- their rights were never compromised -- but to return to the “good old system” where Jews “knew their place” and were kept nicely under the boot of the Arabs. Even if one accepts the notion of a local nationalist awakening, one must reject its racist elements against the Jewish minority.

Fifth, the utter rejection of the notion of Jewish indigenousness. Not only were the ties between Jews and their homeland denied, Palestinians and their supporters also deny Jews of Arab descent their hard-earned heritage. They harass Jews for cooking their traditional Middle Eastern foods or singing in Arabic and accuse them of cultural appropriation from the Palestinians, even though these are part of their centuries-old Middle Eastern heritage.

Sixth, Palestinians maintained their privilege through the decades. They are the only refugees that have their own agency, which has received tens of billions of dollars over the years, and their refugee status is permanent and passed on to their descendants. They also have two other dedicated UN agencies.

If you do not believe me, you can just look at the signs the Palestinian supporters carry. They do not hide their racist agenda and they yearn openly for the “good old days” – just look at the sign with several maps depicting the shrinking of Palestine, and you will see a pristine map showing 100% ownership of land by Palestinians prior to 1917 (though many signs now remove that map and only show the situation during 1917).

Stating this is not a defense of the wrongdoings that occur (way too often) as Israel continues to occupy the West Bank. One can, and should, criticize Israel for actions that fall outside appropriate and lawful action to defend its citizens from attacks, and for the unjust seizure of lands owned by Palestinians. Israel’s legal system is largely attentive to such issues and attempts to correct them (if not always in a timely or satisfactory manner in the eyes of its detractors). This very system is now besieged by those who find it too lenient toward the Palestinians.

But none of it matters to Palestinian supporters. They continue to proudly put these vile maps on signs, to contrast the “evil” Israeli occupation, with the seemingly natural and “good” status before 1917. Yet, we all know which system creates such “pristine” maps -- it is called Apartheid. The centuries of Apartheid that Jews had to endure under the Arab control of the Holy Land. Are the maps and those who proudly hold the aloft racist or not? You be the judge.

---

LT. Col. Yochai Guiski is a 23 year veteran of the IDF. He retired in 2020 as a Lieutenant Colonel after serving in the Israeli Military Intelligence. Yochai served in various roles including: Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (C.O.G.A.T.), Strategic Planning Division and the Ministry of Defense (politico-military directorate). Read full bio here.

Military Aid to Israel Must Remain Unconditional

By Danny Ayalon & CHUCK FREILICH

Israel’s new hard-right government has yet to be inaugurated and a crisis is already brewing in United States-Israeli relations. Unsurprisingly, it is starting with the Jewish community.

Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer, highly respected former administration officials, argued in The Washington Post that the US should continue to support Israel’s legitimate security needs, but should not provide offensive weapons or other assistance for malign Israeli actions in Jerusalem or the occupied territories.

Tom Friedman bemoaned the demise of Israel that we once knew, which probably existed more in his fond imagination than in reality. Abe Foxman, the grand doyen of American Jewish leaders, whose support for Israel was always emphatically unconditional, now says that it is and that he will be unable to support an Israel that is not an open democracy.

Statements such as these, by prominent and mainstream American Jews, should terrify any Israeli premier. As Benjamin Netanyahu understands better than most, little is more important for Israel’s national security than the special relationship with the US. Netanyahu, however, has far more important strategic considerations today: how to stay out of jail.

The anguish over the new government’s impending policies could not be more appropriate. Netanyahu has already demonstrated that there is no outrage, no damage to Israel’s democracy and legal system, that is too great, to secure the support of his nationalist, ultra-religious and even racist coalition partners. The Likud itself is no longer just a nationalist party, but a radical and corrupt one.

Israeli society will undergo unprecedented stress, including to the already fraught relations between Jews and between Jews and Arabs. The IDF chain of command and its organizational unity are already under strain. The final opportunity to curtail the runaway Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) population explosion has probably now been missed and by 2060 they will constitute fully one-third of Israel’s Jewish population.

They already present a growing burden to Israel’s society, economy, democracy and national security. Israel’s secular plurality, the phenomenally creative population that has long provided for its scientific and high-tech prowess, and carried the defense burden, is severely demoralized. Many will emigrate.

Netanyahu’s dependence on his coalition partners means that massive settlement and at least de facto annexation will soon be underway. A two-states solution, or some other means of separating from the Palestinians, are likely now things of the past. Israel’s critically important ties with the Abraham Accords states (UAE, Bahrain and Morocco) cannot but be badly affected.

The special relationship with the US, including the Jewish community, the world’s second-largest and critical pillar of the relationship, may also be severely damaged. The relationship is far more than just military assistance and includes a de facto security guarantee, joint strategic planning, intelligence cooperation, support for Israel’s negotiating positions and the US veto in the Security Council, which has shielded Israel from sanctions for decades, including over its purported nuclear capabilities. It also includes deep economic, scientific and cultural ties.

Will Netanyahu straining Israel-Diaspora Jewry ties impact military aid?

NO ONE in Israel is more deeply concerned than the IDF, which fully understands the critical importance of Israel’s dependence on the US. It will take years to undo the damage. Some will prove irreversible.

There is a fundamental difference, however, between alienation and even fury towards specific Israeli policies and governments, and Israel. That is where Foxman and others go too far. It took the Jewish people 2,000 years to restore our national sovereignty. It is far too early, after a mere 75 years, to distance oneself from Israel. Sorry, it’s unacceptable. Support for the state must remain unconditional and inviolate.

It might also behoove Jewish critics to demonstrate greater humility nowadays; American democracy has not been at its best. In Israel, transfers of power have been unchallenged. Israel’s Supreme Court remains a beacon of moderate jurisprudence.

The US dodged a bullet in the recent elections, barely. Israel was less fortunate, but only due to electoral hubris and miscalculation by the Labor Party. The pro-Netanyahu camp actually won by just a few thousand votes, a majority magnified in the Knesset by a quirk of the electoral system.

Moreover, antisemitism in the US is rampant in a way that most American Jews probably thought could never happen. Israel, for all its myriad faults, remains the ultimate haven. We have your backs.

Although JStreet and others tend to blithely ignore this, Israel is far more than the Palestinian issue, critical though it is, and it continues to face dire threats. Iran’s advancing nuclear program may once again pose an existential threat to the Jewish people. Hezbollah’s mammoth rocket arsenal threatens unprecedented destruction to Israel’s home front. Hamas is a growing threat.

In this light, Miller’s and Kurtzer’s words cannot but feed into the growing calls on the Democratic Left for a dangerous change to US policy, that would condition military aid to Israel on the nature of its policies. Even if they were careful to limit conditionality to a specific policy area, it is the principle that is so troublesome. In the real world, distinctions between offensive and defensive weapons are rarely truly feasible and those between legitimate and malign actions are entirely in the changing mind of the beholder. Military aid must remain unconditional.

It may be hard to remember, but the US-Israeli relationship was quite limited until the late 1960s and even many American Jews had little to do with Israel until its dramatic victory in the Six Day War suddenly made them proud to be Jewish. Now, many are sincerely distressed, others merely ashamed. Tough. Israel never promised the Diaspora a Jewish Disneyland, or a rose garden, and the level of knowledge most American Jews have of Israel’s complex society and security is embarrassingly superficial.

Those of us who live in Israel and who are trying to build a vibrant Jewish state, society and culture, do not have the luxury of hand wringing or ill-advised expressions of conditionality. We still have to send the kids to school and defend Israel’s borders until conditions improve.

---

Ambassador Danny Ayalon served as Israel’s Ambassador to the United States from July 2002 to November 2006. Read full bio here.

Professor Chuck Freilich, serves as Adjunct Associate Professor of Political Science, Dept of Political Science at Columbia University. He is a former deputy national security adviser in Israel and long-time senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center, has taught political science at Harvard, Columbia, NYU and Tel Aviv University. Read full bio here.

The Flawed U.S. Middle East Policy Establishment

By Jeremiah Rozman

In a presupposition-laden Washington Post article entitled Biden Should Respond Boldly to a Radical Netanyahu Government, former State Department negotiator Aaron David Miller and former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer espoused numerous falsehoods and provided unsubstantiated and logically flawed policy advice at a level that should be beneath the standards of publication in a serious outlet. Every paragraph is filled with blatantly false statements and shoddy logic. This article demonstrates exactly why the U.S. Middle East policy establishment has failed so abysmally in recent decades.

The authors advise the Biden administration to cut offensive arms sales to Israel, cut diplomatic ties with Israeli ministers, pressure Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, pressure the Abraham Accords countries to rethink their positions that led them to make peace with Israel, and support measures against Israel in biased international institutions. They make no attempt to explain how or why their desired “bold” response to Netanyahu’s future government would serve U.S. interests.

The authors begin by claiming that Netanyahu’s future government possesses “antidemocratic values inimical to U.S. interests.” They do not define what interests these values are “inimical to.” Some argue that a strong relationship with a secure and technologically advanced democracy at peace with its neighbors and collaborating with them and the U.S. on security, research and development and intelligence sharing precisely serves U.S. interests. While there certainly may be valid counterarguments, the authors fail to provide any.

The title presupposes that Netanyahu’s future government is “radical” while the authors fail throughout the article to mention that relative to the governments of its neighbors with which the U.S. has solid diplomatic and security relations, Israel’s government is among the most moderate by any metric. Indeed, it is the only democracy with liberal protections and free elections in the entire region.

Perhaps the authors are confused about the democratic process. They state that “Benjamin Netanyahu has midwifed the most extreme government in the history of the state.” In fact, Israel’s democratic parliamentary government was not “midwifed” whatever that means. Rather, it was elected by voters. Had they voted differently, this government would not exist. Perhaps the authors should be asking why Israel’s population chose a right-wing government?

The authors go on to attack Minister Avi Maoz, whom they claim, “espouses a fierce anti-LGBTQ agenda.” They might note that Israel is the only country in the entire region where it is legal to be LGBTQ. Its neighbors, many of whom have strong diplomatic and military relationships with the U.S., have punishments for homosexuality ranging from public beatings to imprisonment to death.

Miller and Kurtzer then warn that under this future government “Palestinian terrorist groups are likely to intensify their attacks against Israelis.” Israelis are painfully aware that Palestinian violence preceded this government and indeed any Israeli government. If outcome Y predates treatment X, clearly treatment X did not cause it. Perhaps the authors should dig deeper?

Netanyahu’s new government, the authors also argue, may “trigger another serious round of fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.” They fail to note that for nearly two decades there have been continuous attacks from Gaza and intense episodes of fighting every couple of years. Hamas’s charter calls to kill all Jews and fight until Israel is replaced with an Islamic theocracy. I am unfamiliar with the Article in its charter that states that it will continue violence until Israel elects a left-wing LGBTQ-friendly government.

The authors go on to warn that the new government might “change the status quo by legitimizing Jewish prayer on the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount.” They do not explain why allowing Jewish prayer in a Jewish holy site alongside Muslim prayer in a Muslim holy site is something the Biden administration should oppose. They also do not explain why they are calling to single out the only country with religious freedom in the region.

The authors ask Biden to “make it clear to Israel that his administration will have no dealings with Ben Gvir, Smotrich or their ministries if they continue to espouse racist policies and actions.” They also think that “Israel should know that the Biden administration will be on the alert for Israeli actions that deserve to be called out and condemned.” This follows on the heels of the Biden administration proposing full immunity to Saudi leader Mohammed Bin Salman over the Khashoggi killings and continuing to deal with many of its Arab partners with deeply entrenched racism, and homophobic and misogynistic laws.

Shockingly, the authors want the Biden administration “to inform the Abraham Accord countries that their evident lack of interest in the plight of the Palestinians will undermine their relationship with Israel and damage their credibility in advancing other regional objectives with the United States.” This makes very little sense—why would lack of interest in the Palestinians undermine their relationship with Israel? The authors give no explanation. Nor do they explain what regional objectives with the U.S. would be harmed or how.

Perhaps the most blatant falsehood in this entire article is the authors’ assertion that “for a U.S. president to put pressure on a democratically elected Israeli government would be unprecedented and controversial.” Every U.S. administration, since Israel’s independence, including even the Trump administration, has put significant and well-documented pressure on democratically elected Israeli governments.

The authors do offer a single sentence regarding the Palestinians. They argue that “the Palestinian leadership, for its part, should be plainly told that U.S. support depends on its willingness to hold elections, build a responsible democratic government and curb violence and terrorism.” The authors surely know that this has never been the case and is unlikely to come about anytime soon.

This article is so inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and flawed that it likely would not have been published absent the outlet’s agreement with its tone and absent the authors’ credentials. It reads more like a temper tantrum that Israel elected a government that the Beltway foreign policy establishment does not like, than a thoughtful analysis or sound policy advice.

---

The views expressed do not reflect the position of the U.S. government or military and are the author's own.

Jeremiah Rozman currently works as the National Security Analyst at a DC-based think tank. From 2006-2009 he served as an infantryman in the IDF. His regional expertise is in the Middle East and Russia. He designed and taught an undergraduate course on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Read full bio here.

Jordan is preparing for an ultra-right-wing Netanyahu government

By Tomer Barak

If an outsider were to analyze Israel-Jordan ties in the weeks following returning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's election victory, he would be led to the mistaken assumption that the peace between the two countries is stable, if not good.

Following the Israeli elections on Nov. 1, Jordan's King Abdullah II and Israel's President Isaac Herzog held warm meetings (at the COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh), and a follow-up pact was agreed upon to promote the implementation of the electricity-water project (in which Israel sends the parched Hashemite Kingdom desalinated water, and Jordan sends Israel electricity from its solar panels).

Later, the two parties signed a letter of intent as part of a collaborative endeavor to restore and improve the Jordan River's ecology.

In addition, a public phone call was held between Netanyahu and King Abdullah. Both sides described the call as favorable.

But the above does not reflect the animosity and deep distrust between Abdullah and Netanyahu. Neither does it reflect Jordan's concerns over regional security and thus the stability of the kingdom itself. These concerns have grown significantly in light of Netanyahu's election win and the coalition he is forming with far-right parties.

The fears over Netanyahu's return are crystal clear to anyone reading the Jordanian newspapers which depict him as the leader of an extremist cabinet that will include several figures seen as regional pyromaniacs, foremost among them, the designated minister of national security, Itamar Ben Gvir.

To put it simply, this Jordanian interpretation of Israel's election results draws a direct link between the radicalization of Israeli policy in Judea and Samaria, as well as in Jerusalem, with Jordan's stability, and King Abdullah's status in particular.

Jordan's elites are concerned about three main issues.

First and foremost, there is the domestic front.

For years, the king has been more or less successful in balancing the Jordanian public's deep anti-Israeli sentiment with the need to rely on Israel when it comes to stability, and the kingdom's water and energy needs. The issue of security is also important, but since most security cooperation between the two countries is conducted away from the public spotlight, it usually continues without significant challenge. Coordination between the two countries has even reached new heights in recent years, in the face of a series of shared regional threats.

Abdullah has chosen to continue purchasing gas from Israel (at a reduced price) and receives crucial water supplies for his parched state. He has also signed further deals with Israel despite strong opposition from the public and parliament, including mass demonstrations.

The Jordanians, however, are concerned that provocations on the Palestinian issue could result in widespread, fierce public protests calling for the cancellation of the peace agreement with Israel.

Such developments could well force the authorities to take steps that would undoubtedly damage ties in order to placate the Jordanian street. This might even affect the profound Israeli strategic understanding that the peace with Jordan is a strategic asset for Israel and needs to be preserved at all costs.

Another front is Jordan's status in Jerusalem.

Jordan sees its unique position in regard to the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif) as one of the keys to maintaining both King Abdullah's stature as the custodian of the holy places, and the stability of the Hashemite system as a whole.

It is worth mentioning that Jordan has often been able to use its unique position as the responsible adult to 'switch off' escalating tensions on the Temple Mount before they got out of hand. The kingdom has been the subject of praise for this role.

At the same time, Jordan lives under a continuous sense that its special role in Jerusalem is under threat from Israel and from other Arab and regional powers who seek to take a leading role at its expense.

On that matter, even if Netanyahu is perceived by Jordan as being committed to the status quo, Amman sees the emerging Israeli government as a real threat to its place in the Holy City.

The ultra-right-wing government could not only accelerate a dramatic increase in the number of Jews who visit the Temple Mount and pray there but could also abolish the status quo by allowing Jewish prayer on the Mount itself, or by establishing within the compound areas for Jews only. Currently, Jews are not allowed to pray at the compound that sits on top the mount.

It is clear to many in Jordan that any change to the status quo will trigger a deadly landslide, igniting internal Jordanian instability and heightening competition in the Arab world for control of the Temple Mount and dealing a blow to Abdullah's standing.

The third front concerns Israel's actions in Judea and Samaria.

Jordan's concerns have been stoked by the possibility that the new Israeli government could take unilateral measures such as annexation of the Jordan Valley or stepping up the settlement project.

Moreover, friction and violence in the West Bank could easily escalate, particularly during the Ramadan period in March and April next year.

Jordan appears to be less concerned about a scenario involving broad Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria, due to the severe international ramifications that this move would induce. Such a move would also constitute a breach of the Abraham Accords, the pinnacle of Netanyahu's regional-diplomatic legacy.

Moreover, the new Israeli government's approach to Gaza and belligerent comments from designated cabinet members regarding possible confrontation in the Gaza Strip are setting off alarm bells in Amman.

On the bright side, it appears that Jordan's leadership still views the peace accord with Israel as a strategic asset that provides the kingdom with significant political, economic, and security advantages, and it does not want the treaty to be weakened. In light of the above, it appears that the near future holds the potential to drastically strain—and damage—Israeli-Jordanian relations. In the best-case scenario, the two sides, under U.S. and regional encouragement, preserve the old equation: Enhanced yet low-profile security cooperation, selected areas of additional cooperation, and mutual mistrust and political tensions.

---

Lieutenant Colonel Tomer Barak concluded his military career in 2021 after 21 years of service in the Israeli Military Intelligence and in the Strategic Planning Division. Read full bio here.

For new Israeli government, urgent security decisions await

By Eitan Dangot

The next Israeli government will not have a grace period. Before its ministers settle into their new offices, the government must deal with urgent security matters.

The Islamic month of fasting, Ramadan, is quickly approaching and will commence in late March 2023. The Ramadan period is notorious for a surge in religious extremism, clashes between Israeli security forces and Palestinians, Israeli-Arab domestic terrorism, and other incidents.

On day one, the clock will start ticking for the new government to make quick policy decisions to deal with such scenarios.

A key priority for the new government will be to formulate a policy on how to deal with the ongoing wave of terrorism in the West Bank, which has been carried out both by organized cells and lone-wolf assailants. It will also need to chart its course on Hamas in Gaza.

Within Israel itself, the government will need to deal with the out-of-control availability of firearms in the Arab-Israeli community.

It will also have to decide immediately how to handle the fractured Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, which has seen a systematic loss of sovereignty and control.

The power vacuum has been filled by local terror groups that have banded together based on their geographical location, rather than organizational affiliation. This has occurred in Jenin and Nablus, and Hebron could be next.

This is occurring against the backdrop of a developing economic crisis within the PA stemming from an inability to cover a growing deficit, sustain its administrative machinery, or initiate future development projects.

At the same time, the United States, which heads the international system, is signaling to the incoming Israeli government that it intends to be more involved in the Palestinian arena, especially in the West Bank. This in turn has led to growing European involvement, as neighboring Arab states, primarily Jordan and Egypt, are closely observing what will be done in response to the PA’s situation.

Countries that are part of the Abraham Accords and are internally affected by events in the West Bank are closely watching too.

Likud Chairman and incoming prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu views establishing ties with Saudi Arabia as a major goal for expanding the Abraham Accords and seeks to achieve swift diplomatic success with Riyadh in his first year in power.

Yet this goal is overshadowed by the objectives of Netanyahu’s right-wing political partners, who want to transform the status of the West Bank, known in Israel as Judea and Samaria. They wish to see these territories become a de facto part of Israel and their strategy includes removing the Israel Defense Force’s (IDF) Civil Administration from the Defense Ministry, legalizing illegal outposts, and changing laws governing the Jewish population of Area C of the West Bank.

It is also worth asking what kind of policy Netanyahu and his government could adopt regarding Gaza and Hamas, the terror entity that rules the Strip. For its part, Hamas is attempting to ignite the West Bank, undermine the PA, weaken President Mahmoud Abbas, encourage terrorism within Israel, and pursue its strategic goal of taking over the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and increasing its power in the West Bank.

Israel, under both outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid and during previous Netanyahu governments, sought to create a truce in Gaza and reinforce it by offering humanitarian-economic steps for the Strip. Currently, that means enabling some 17,000 Gazans to enter Israel for work daily even as Hamas builds up its military-terrorist capabilities and calls for Israel’s destruction while enhancing cooperation with Hezbollah, Iran, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Syria. Meanwhile, there has been no breakthrough in efforts to secure the release of two Israeli civilians and the remains of two IDF personnel held by Hamas.

Judging from his past record as prime minister, Netanyahu supports the current Israeli policies in place in the West Bank and Gaza. There is no reason to believe that Netanyahu would have chosen a different course of action than the one recommended and implemented by the defense establishment (the IDF, Shin Bet, and Israel Police) over the past two years.

Had he presided over a balanced centrist government, Netanyahu could well have chosen to maintain the status quo in the coming six months: Fighting terrorism in the West Bank, working to avoid the economic collapse of the PA—but not considerably strengthening it politically—and sustaining the status quo in Gaza, which has seen Israel grant de facto recognition of Hamas’s rule there. Yet Netanyahu will face challenges from some of his new coalition members if he does this.

In an era in which the world is experiencing an energy crisis and heightened superpower tensions, the challenges of preserving Israel’s global standing and freedom of maneuver will be another issue knocking on Netanyahu’s door. It is a challenge that will be exacerbated by the fact that Israel’s policies toward Palestine will be the first significant discussion between Netanyahu and the Biden administration.

The divisions and historical baggage between the Democrats and Netanyahu are well documented and go back to the Obama administration. While Netanyahu and Joe Biden appear to have a good personal relationship, the Democratic Party’s internal dynamics oblige Biden, a supporter of Israel, to strike a certain balance on the Palestinian issue.

Israel, for its part, has a vested interest in safeguarding the critical strategic military and political alliance with the United States and working with Washington to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as well as its military-terrorist activities throughout the Middle East. It is not possible to truly disconnect Israel’s ability to work with the United States against Iran from the Palestinian issue.

These factors can help Netanyahu explain the need to prevent maneuvers by his new government that would isolate Israel and harm its supreme strategic interests.

---

Major-General Eitan Dangot concluded his extensive career as the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (C.O.G.A.T.) in 2014. Prior to that post he served as the Military Secretary to three Ministers of Defense; Shaul Mofaz, Amir Peretz and Ehud Barak. Read full bio here.

A Blood Libel on Netflix

By Mark Goldfeder

On Thursday, December 1, Netflix will start streaming a blood libel.

The Jordanian film Farha focuses on the experiences of a young girl during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The protagonist, Farha, spends much of the movie watching as fictionalized, heartless Israeli soldiers brutalize Palestinian families, viciously killing men, women and children in cold blood. There is of course no documentation (Israeli, British, or Arab,) of any of the events in the film because they never actually happened; at the very least the film admits that it is ‘dramatized’ and does not pretend to be factual. But that does not mean it will not have an outsized impact on anti-Jewish hate and violence. Many people will watch the movie; few will stop to wonder if perhaps the whole thing was made up.  

And it is not just the demonizing, dehumanizing, and deceitful depictions of the ‘Jewish soldiers’ that are problematic. The movie is meant to depict the events of the ‘nakba’- a fanciful retelling of the 1948 war in which the would-be genocidal Arab armies failed to destroy a newborn Jewish state (and kill all its inhabitants in the process), along with those who tried to help them do it are romantically recast as the helpless victims of a horrible catastrophe. The foundational myth of forced displacement is at the root of much of modern anti-Zionism, and it is demonstrably false. There are primary sources- from the Arab side- attesting to the fact that the vast majority of Arabs who left their homes did so voluntarily, or under orders from the invading, not the Israeli, armed forces. Facts do matter, even when the people you are lying about are Jewish, and the entire story at the heart of this film is a lie.

Here are some things that the movie will not tell you: From the moment the two-state solution was announced, the Jewish community consistently called for peace and cooperation with its Arab neighbors. Instead, five Arab armies immediately launched a war of extermination against them- and urged the Palestinian Arabs to help their cause by getting out of their way. Many of them did just that, confident that the combined power of the Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, and Egyptian armies would make quick work of the Jews and then they would come home.

The contemporary accounts of these orders to leave come from a variety of Arab sources. For example, the Jordanian newspaper Filastin reported that “The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.”  A refugee quoted in another Jordanian newspaper, Ad Difaa, explained: “The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.” In the words of Haled al Azm, the Prime Minister of Syria during the war, “Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”

The nakba myth removes all these facts- along with the Arab rejection of the UN Partition Plan; the additional wars designed to push the Jews into the sea; and the uncomfortable truth that an approximately equal number of Jews in Arab nations were forcefully expelled from their homes and absorbed into Israel. In its place, it presents a fabricated fairy tale that continues to serve as an open justification for killing Jews. The statements over time of Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, are a case study in the development of nakba mythology and the dangers it presents. 

In 1976, when he was the PLO spokesman, Abbas told Falastin a-Thaura (the PLO’s official weekly publication) that “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.” (emphasis added). By 2011, however, his historical memory had faded in direct proportion to the rising popularity of the nakba story, so he now believed “Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened.” This year, he used the commemoration of the ‘nakbah’ as an excuse to reaffirm and justify his government’s ongoing commitment to ‘pay for slay’- the Palestinian Authority policy under which terrorists who kill Israeli or American citizens are rewarded monetarily.

This is not a matter of perspective or worldview. A movie that malevolently depicts Israeli forces murdering defenseless Arab children at the founding of the State in order to feed the nakba mythology is nothing short of a modern blood libel. The nakba itself is a prime example of how dangerous lies, spun over time, eventually give license for rhetoric to turn into deadly violence.

In a world of rising antisemitism, demonstrably tied to anti-Zionism, it is dangerous and disgusting for Netflix to feed false and anti-Jewish information to the masses by giving a film like this a platform.

---

Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq. has served as the founding Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series on Law and Judaism, a Trustee of the Center for Israel Education, and as an adviser to the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations. Read full bio here.

Antisemitism on the March

By Micah Jones

Over the past few weeks, Jews around the world have been subjected to a significant amount of antisemitism in the form of violence and vitriol. On November 23, in Jerusalem, innocent Jews were attacked, and 16 year old Aryeh Schupak, was murdered, when terrorists detonated bombs during peak commuting hours. At the time of this writing, no terrorist group had claimed responsibility and the murderers were still at large.

Two days earlier, across the world in Brooklyn, New York, members of Israel United in Christ, one of the largest factions of the virulently anti-Semitic Black Hebrew Israelites, held a rally outside of Barclays Center before the National Basketball Association game in which Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving was returning after an approximately month-long suspension. The Black Hebrew Israelites chanted “we are the real Jews” and “time to wake up” as they marched through Brooklyn in support of Kyrie Irving’s reinstatement following his suspension after sharing an antisemitic documentary.

And in my adopted state of Massachusetts, fall out continues from the “Mapping Project”, a Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (“BDS”) affiliated group, that has provided the names, addresses, and contact information for all Jewish, and pro-Israel organizations within Massachusetts and specifically the greater Boston area. In particular, the Mapping Project declares that Zionism—the belief that Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland—is a “harm.” The goal of the Mapping Project is to “dismantle” and “disrupt” these Jewish and pro-Israel organizations. The Mapping Project is silent, however, on how those goals can be achieved.

These three recent examples of Jew hatred should serve as a reminder to Jews the world over that antisemitism, although always present, is very much undergoing a resurgence. And as much as it would be nice to ignore these events and believe that they are anomalies, Jews must understand how each are connected and how we can combat each one. As such, I believe Jews need to focus on three areas to effectively understand and counter the current rise in antisemitism: (1) influence; (2) intersectionality; and (3) anti-Israel and anti-Zionist ideology.

The sheer scope of Kanye West’s and Kyrie Irving’s influence is what makes their antisemitism so dangerous. West and Irving have a combined total of approximately 37 million followers on Twitter. By contrast, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC has approximately 350,000 Twitter followers. Simply put, at any moment West and Irving can connect with over 100 times more people than the DC Holocaust Memorial can.

Each man wields significant influence and can use his respective stardom as a bully pulpit for hate. Furthermore, many of Irving’s and West’s followers are younger individuals who may not have any connection to the World War II generation that lived through the Holocaust and who may not have any historical context regarding the unspeakable tragedies that Jews endured during that time.

Intersectionality is the idea that the world can be divided along lines of “oppressors” and “oppressed” and that there is a “hierarchy of victimhood.” In this twisted world-view, the color of one’s skin is a predominate factor in determining where a person falls on the hierarchy. Generally speaking, individuals who are darker skinned are deemed to be “victims” and “oppressed” by those individuals with lighter skin. Intersectionality, however, lacks depth and historical context as Jews are deemed to be “oppressors” because of the fact that many Ashkenazi Jews historically hail from Europe. Intersectionality, however, ignores the fact that many Jews are from North Africa and the Middle East and have no connection to Europe. Furthermore, intersectionality does not believe that Jews have historically been victims because, especially in certain parts of the United States, Jews have been disproportionately successful despite their small population. This combination of professional success and perceived “whiteness” makes Jews an easy target for groups that are deemed to be “victims.”

Intersectionality connects with the above-mentioned influence factor because, for example, both Irving and West can claim to their followers that they, as “black victims,” are being financially injured by “white, Jewish, oppressors”. As heard during their demonstration, the Black Hebrew Israelites, who have engaged in violence against Jews on multiple occasions, including a violent attack in December 2019 against a kosher market in Jersey City, NJ, genuinely believe that Irving and West have been harmed by Jews. Irving’s and West’s millions of followers may also have reason to believe this slander as well, which only further entrenches this ruthless antisemitism.

Anti-Israel and anti-Zionist ideology, both home and abroad, is the third factor that Jews must be cognizant of and work to counter. The Mapping Project shares a similar mindset to the terrorists who murdered Aryeh Schupak—that Jews have no right to live in their ancestral homeland, Eretz Israel. Although the Mapping Project has not yet called for actual violence against Jews, per say, the fact that it is a BDS affiliate demonstrates that it is sympathetic to those terrorists who do commit violence against Jews. 

Jews, and friends of Jews, can counter the influence of figures like West and Irving by donating to organizations like the MirYam Institute that engage with young leaders in substantive conversations about Israel and countering anti-Semitism. In addition, Jews and allies must pressure legacy and social media outlets and business organizations to reconsider their partnerships with these individuals. Although West and Irving are entitled to say whatever they want via free speech protections, they should not be rewarded for doing so. Their sponsorships should be cut, their Tweets downvoted, and their ideas consistently called out and debunked in the public square.

Regarding intersectionality, Jews must realize that this left-wing ideology is fundamentally dangerous to the Jewish people. Jews must reject this world view in academic and social circles. School board members that embrace such beliefs should be voted out during elections and Jews should not financially support organizations that agree that intersectionality should be taught in schools.

Jews must also realize that anti-Israel and anti-Zionist ideology is inherently antisemitic and can lead to actual violence against Jews both home and abroad. Jews can counter this ideology by treating anti-Israel and anti-Zionist rhetoric the same as they would when they hear antisemitic bile. In addition, Jews must take these threats and ideologies seriously. This means hiring security for temple services and day-school classes. It means being vigilant for active threats and internalizing a mindset of action to actively counter and subdue any physical attack.

In understanding that antisemitism is once again on the march, Jews will be better prepared to meet it in the breach and ensure that it does not metastasize into a larger threat.

---

Micah Quinney Jones is an attorney, a US Army veteran, and a pro-Israel advocate. He is a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal for Meritorious Service. Before attending law school, Micah served for over five years as a Military Intelligence branch detail Infantry officer in the United States Army. He was honorably discharged as a Captain in 2016. The majority of his military service was spent in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. Read full bio here.

A new, grim reality sets in

By Sharon Roffe Ofir

A month has passed since Israel’s last round of elections and judging by the demands placed on the negotiating table by Benjamin Netanyahu’s future coalition partners, it appears that Israel’s incoming government will change the face of the country.

The emerging coalition agreements will damage the standing of the legal system, erode women’s and LGBT rights, undermine the war against the delegitimization of Israel, harm the country’s relations with the Diaspora, among other things by changing the Law of Return, while the agreements also include a plethora of dangerous, misogynist demands that will set us back light years from the path envisioned by the visionary seer of the State of Israel, Theodor Herzl.

The religious priests that Herzl sought to leave in their temple are the ones who are running the coalition negotiations, and when a coalition is formed it will be they who chart Israel’s new path. The reality being dictated is one where a Zionist democratic state will be replaced by a Halakhic state. In order to grasp the depth of events, we must look at what has happened over the past month.

The dust has yet to fully settle from the fifth round of general elections in four years, but the opening shots tracing the reality that lies ahead have already been fired.

The first to appear on the political field was Religious Zionist Party Chairman Bezalel Smotrich, who protested in a letter to the chairman of the Israel Football Association the fact that games are held on the Sabbath.

“Soccer on Shabbat is not sportsmanlike and not Jewish,” wrote Smotrich, sparking a firestorm of controversy, and with it, the new political era.

Of course, the story is not about soccer, but rather, the character of the State of Israel and the future of its residents – all of us. To understand matters comprehensively, we must get back to basics regarding Herzl’s vision for the State of the Jews.

In his book, “The Jewish State,” Herzl laid out how he saw the power structure, society, economy, defense, and the religion- state axis in the future Jewish entity.

“Will we allow the priests of our religion to govern us? No! While faith is something that unites us, we must seek out with force wisdom and sciences. And therefore, we will surpass all tricks by our priests who will say they should govern us, because we will know to imprison them in the godly temple,” he wrote.

In prophetic text, Herzl noted, “But in regards to the affairs of state, whose honor they will seek, they have no business, to ensure that they do not bring disgrace from home and abroad on it.”

The contribution of Herzl’s vision to the state that was eventually established is undeniable, but Israel’s contemporary reality is one in which ultra-Orthodox religious institutions receive state budgets but leave Herzl and the heads of the Zionist movement out of the classroom curriculum.

In an era in which it is permissible to rewrite history and to forget where we came from and where we are headed it is also possible to change course and to change the existing political structure

Examples of how this is so are piling up rapidly: Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yossef has demanded that coalition negotiations include a clause that overrides the rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court and an increase in budgets for yeshiva students; meetings have been held in the home of Rabbi Haim Drukman in order to strengthen the political power of his disciple Smotrich, and the rabbis have supported his demand to be made defense minister and have intervened in Israel’s defense policies. When the demand to make Smotrich minister of defense failed, they evolved into a new demand that he be appointed finance minister. 

Add to this the dangerous vision of Rabbi Zvi Thau, one of the spiritual leaders of the Noam faction of the Religious Zionist list who has already closed a deal with Netanyahu that will make him a deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s office from where he will be able to exercise his master’s vision.  And then there is the Hasidic Admor of Gur who instructs United Torah Judaism party chief Yitzhak Goldknopf to appoint one of the rabbi’s disciples to be director-general of the Construction and Housing Ministry, which Goldknopf is set to lead.

Religious priests are those who manage our lives, and the above is just a partial list of recent examples.

United Torah Judaism Chairman Moshe Gafni declared at an election event that “without a clause to override the Supreme Court, a government will not rise,” receiving thunderous cheers from those present, and who understand well the significance of the rally.

A day after that event was held, media reports carried news of a series of demands made by Shas, including the enshrining of a draft exemption law, demands that Jewish conversion be left in the hand of the chief rabbinate, and allocations for yeshiva students in the state budget , as well as bringing ultra-orthodox education budgets in line with those of secular education programs, doubling stipends for married yeshiva students, and granting yeshiva students discount fares on public transport similar to those received by university students. 

But if we are really fighting for equality, perhaps it is time to distribute stipends to university students too. They after all serve in the military, and after completing their degree will return the money to the state through the taxes they pay when they head out to work and help carry the economic burden?

Meanwhile, the Religious Zionist party and the ultra-Orthodox parties are demanding a cancellation of the grandchild clause in the Law of Return, a reform branded by rabbis as a special opportunity to “fix a miserable law,” according to a letter sent by Chabad Rabbi Yitzhok Yehuda Yaroslavsky. He apparently forgot that the law is the essence of Zionism. Add to this the   Yitzhak demand for gender separation in public events paid for by the taxpayer (let’s not forget who is paying most of these taxes?) and the misogynistic remarks made by  Maoz and his friends, as well as comments on the LGBT community, female IDF service, changes in the content taught at schools, and the call to cancel the gender advisor position to the IDF chief of staff (with the justification that the role injects foreign values to the IDF). A full right-wing government? Far from it. And darkness came over the land.

The incoming government could change the face of the State of Israel. There will be no more checks and balances, and the vision of a Zionist state will slip away into the distance. Claims about this being the ‘will of the people’ are unconvincing. In Iran in the 1970s, most of the people supported the revolution – but no one told them that sometimes it’s better to be careful what you wish for.

---

Sharon Roffe-Ofir served as Knesset Member in the 24th Knesset. She has served as a deputy local council head at Kiryat Tivon, and has worked as a journalist and as a senior lecturer in academic institutions for 24 years. Read full bio here.

Antisemitism Then and Now: Distinction with An Amazing Difference

By Michael B. Snyder

Invoking the pre-Shoah climate as a comparison with today’s antisemitism is a distinction with a difference requiring that the appropriate gravitas be given to Israel’s existence and stature, both as a target and a Jewish state. In contrast to the 1930s and early ‘40s when Jews faced closed borders in America after first losing their citizenship, possessions and finally their lives without country or hope, Israel was created to provide a safe-haven for Jews as a direct response to the Shoah; such a resolution would have zero probability of being actualized today.

Despite published and verified reports of the murderous Nazi rule, the meager and illusory 1,500 annual quota of Jewish refugees into the United States was not allowed to be met during those years. Nazi actions in Germany and its conquered countries were legal under Nuremberg laws and their progeny, just as American border policies were enforceable US policy, and together contributed mightily to the six million.  Inexplicably, the highest percentage of Jews in Presidential election history voted for President Roosevelt -- 85% in 1936 and 90% in 1940 and ’44— despite his inaction. Reliance on laws not made by Jews about Jews were murderous, even as American Jews effectively voted in record force against their European families.

Current data reflects the burgeoning threats to the future of Judaism. For example, more than 60% of students in poll results released in September said that at some point they felt unsafe as Jews on campus or in virtual campus settings; about half of respondents felt the need to hide their Jewish identity at college. In Nazi Germany it was illegal for Jews to attend college; if Jewish students’ rights are not protected in America, protective laws and college policies not enforced will eventually have the same impact as Nazi law.

Today with American Jews at their strongest ever financially and most accepted and ingrained (for now) in its society, and Israel willing and able to defend its borders, people and existence, outrage is expressed at her hard line and declaring the 1967 8-mile-wide border an existential threat. All the while, Israel’s destruction is directly and loudly threated by a regime that America chases to bring to the negotiating table on the heels of a prior agreement verifiably violated. But it’s complicated.  America is the guarantor of every agreement with regional neighbors, including the gas deal struck with Lebanon in October; the US also provided $1 billion in military aid over the past year. Despite historical cooperation, antisemitism is empowered by the American administration’s day-to-day actions. We have yet to hear a plausible explanation.

With much respect and kudos to Dara Horn’s People Love Dead Jews, a logical conclusion is that America Hates A Powerful Israel. The message to Jews is clear: we mourned you at your weakest, but powerful, self-governing Israeli Jews determining their own fate are objectionable, as are American Jews who understand the need for the Jewish state. Perhaps because of historic cooperation, America expects compliance with its overreaching wishes, but it is well-settled that America’s leadership and popular press allow and sometimes leads the burgeoning public antisemitic, anti-Zionist position that Israel needs a political attitude adjustment.  American Jews are seemingly left with no appealing political choices: 1. an unfamiliar Democratic party where its youth is anti-Israel and its elders will soon age out of stopping that wave; 2. a Republican party considered untrustworthy due to racism and antisemitism as well as being too conservative for the non-religious; or 3. being unrepresented.  

Thomas Friedman in a post-Israeli election column in The New York Times may best illustrate America’s position on Israel, albeit he has less influence than the problematic Kayne West (entertainer, 31.8 million followers) or Kyrie Irving (professional athlete, 4.7 million Twitter followers). It should be noted that their combined number of followers is 250% greater than the number of Jews in the world, and 300% more than the total number of Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf purchased from 1925 through 1945. 

When Israel meets with Friedman’s sensibilities, he writes with a nostalgic fondness of Israel fighting for its existence, winning unwinnable wars, taking in Shoah survivors and even holding an unmet hand out in an attempt to negotiate with those who refuse to reach back. When she is against his politics, he blames Israel for America’s right wing and being a harbinger of wider trends in Western democracies!  Friedman believes that Netanyahu’s comeback will “roil synagogues” in America with: “Do I support this Israel or not support it?” as if decisions have not previously been made and broadly declared. At least he recognizes it will haunt pro-Israel students on college campuses... yet not because of antisemitism (see above data), but because it’s a difficult choice for students. In the same column, he calls Mansour Abbas of the United Arab List, part of the outgoing government, a “rather amazing Israeli Arab religious party leader who recognizes the State of Israel and the searing importance of the Holocaust.”  “Amazing” is thus defined by recognizing well-established, undisputable facts... something that parties to the Abraham Accords and many other Arab and Muslim-majority countries currently do.

At least there is consistency. The American press labeled three innocent murdered Israelis leaving 11 children fatherless as “occupiers,” their terrorist murderer as an “assailant” not a murderer or terrorist, and included the democratically-elected prime minister designate and the words “right-wing” and “far-right” in the fourth sentence of the article suggesting that made the killer’s actions defensible; the fifth describes that the “attack” (not the murder) occurred on the anniversary of the PLO’s proclamation of in independent Palestinian state that has never materialized.  Examples abound.

Israel and American Zionist baiting is well beyond politics and deeply ensconced in antisemitism and hatred despite or perhaps due to the deep political ties and support. Israel is not perfect, yet America challenges and attempts to bully her into a political position that agrees with the current administration by treating her as a despot nation despite its intact democratic principles, including a directive announced the day after mid-term elections that the FBI will investigate the death of a Palestinian journalist during an armed conflict. With each individual mis-step, Israel is called to task both politically and in popular American opinion with unforgiving, hateful and intentional overreaching descriptors of something it is not: not an apartheid state, not controlling America’s future, and not a crippling human rights violator like China, Russia, Iran and others.

In many ways, Israel surpasses America’s perceived personal freedoms, e.g., abortion, religious freedom, and LGBTQ rights, including being the only country to ever save Blacks in a foreign land when she sent troops and planes to rescue Ethiopian Jews moments before their would-be slaughter. The fact she faces a currently unnegotiable problem that began when it was repeatedly attacked from all sides is not going away with tired, impotent venom heard for thousands of years.America’s garbled rhetoric improves nothing except Israel’s resolve, unless one considers that it keeps the memory alive of its inaction around the Shoah... something American Jews should find amazing.

---

Michael B. Snyder is a publishing contributor at The MirYam Institute, he is an attorney with over 35 years of experience in the areas of children’s rights, human rights and Non-Government Organizations in the United States, Israel and Africa. Read full bio here.

MirYam's Analyst: Monthly Israel Brief

By Yaakov Lappin

After Israel’s right-wing parties came down from the euphoria of breaking a three-and-a-half-year political deadlock and decisively defeating a largely center and left bloc in the November 1 national elections, political hangover quickly set in.

The Likud party, the largest in the new Israeli Knesset, has been working to get agreements in place with its ultra-Orthodox political allies, but it has publicly struggled to reach compromise with members of the ultra-nationalist Religious Zionist list.  

On Monday, November 21, Israel Hayom reported that the ongoing impasse between Likud, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Religious Zionist list, headed by Bezalel Smotrich, had reached crisis point. One major issue of contention is Smotrich’s desire to gain influence and power over Israel’s policies in the West Bank (known in Israel as Judea and Samaria), and the Likud’s unwillingness for that to happen.

Smotrich has demanded the post of defense minister, a demand reportedly rebuffed by Netanyahu, who is facing significant pressure from the Biden administration in the United States not to appoint a far-right figure to the position. Israeli – American defense cooperation is extensive. Israel receives 3.8 billion dollars in American military assistance funds per year, much of which is spent on essential military equipment. The U.S. will send Israel 1 billion dollars for critical Iron Dome interceptors, and American banks loaned Israel some 2.6 billion dollars last year to fast-track the purchase of F-35 fighter jets, F-15 fighters, refueling aircraft, and transport helicopters under a government-to-government agreement.

The United States uses its veto at the United Nations Security Council to provide essential diplomatic cover for Israel against hostile motions that threaten to become binding motions if passed, thereby helping Israel avoid becoming an isolated state as it defends itself against a myriad of threats.

It is for these reasons – and more – that Netanyahu has so far been unwilling to allow Smotrich to become defense minister. Washington would almost certainly boycott Smotrich, and possibly take additional action, leading to severe damage to Israel’s security and political interests.

According to Hebrew media reports, Netanyahu has instead offered Smotrich the position of finance minister, but the Religious Zionist leader has demanded that any such compromise include provisions that would enable him to boost Israeli settlement building in the territories.

According to Israel Hayom, Netanyahu “rebuffed the Religious Zionist Party's request and said that Israel would have to show restraint on settlement issues for the next two years because of the changes in the U.S. political landscape.” Smotrich for his part has called on Netanyahu not to allocate such a high degree of importance to the Biden administration’s stance on settlements.

Reported agreement on police powers has senior officers up in arms

Fellow ultra-nationalist Itamar Ben Gvir, who heads the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Strength) party, which ran with the Religious Zionists in a technical bloc in the elections, looks likely to have his demands met to be appointed public security minister in charge of the police. But his call to receive powers currently reserved for the police commissioner, such as choosing how to deploy forces on the ground has been met with severe criticism by senior police brass, according to a report by Ynet.

“The significance of Ben Gvir’s demands would be that the commissioner would become a ministerial assistant. The commissioner’s authority must be safeguarded alongside that of the public security minister, to preserve democracy, which is today expressed through absolute separation [of powers],” said a senior police source. 

Miryam Institute research fellow and former Israel Police Deputy Commissioner Alon Levavi has outlined some of the police’s sensitive powers in a recent paper.

Israel’s campaign against Iran continues without cessation

Away from politics, Israel’s defense establishment continues to disrupt Iranian entrenchment in Syria.

According to Syrian state media, an Israeli missile strike on the Shayrat Airbase in Syria's Homs Province killed two members of the Syrian armed forces and injured three others on November 13.

Reuters said the strikes targeted "a runway in the sprawling air base," noting that the base was recently used by the Iranian air force.

Additionally, the Alma Center, an Israeli research organization specializing in security challenges on Israel's northern borders, said a truck convoy carrying Hezbollah weapons may have also been targeted.

This report is a reminder of the routine Israeli activity designed to stop Iran from building a war machine in Syria to target Israel in a future conflict, as Iran has been able to do in neighboring Lebanon with Hezbollah.

Earlier in November, a convoy believed to be smuggling Iranian weapons from Iraq into Syria was hit by airstrikes in eastern Syria near the town of Abu Kamal, a Syrian border town often used as a transit point by the Iranians for weapons deliveries.

The strikes reportedly destroyed several vehicles and killed at least ten people, including an unknown number of Iranians.

The objective of preventing Iran’s entrenchment efforts in Syria is being pursued by the defense establishment without connection to the turbulent political situation.

A first in the West: National drone supply network for medical logistics

This month, Israeli aero-logistics company Gadfin signed a historic contract with the SAREL medical group, a purchasing organization and logistics company. Under the terms of the contract, Israeli hospitals requiring urgent medical supplies, including blood units, will receive them via Gadfin’s autonomous, folding-wing, vertical take-off and landing drone.

The logistics grid will gradually connect all of Israel’s major hospitals within a radius of 200 kilometers, according to the plan, making it the first network of its kind in the West.

“This will make Israel the first western country in the world to have an automatic, on demand, medical delivery aerial grid. This contract will allow SAREL to have constant supply of medical equipment, medicines, vaccines, blood, serum, lab samples, and more… at less than one hour from call,” Gadfin and SAREL said in a joint statement.

Gadfin’s Spirit One air vehicle runs on hydrogen fuel cells, and, within three years, 18 of these systems will be used to fly up to 60 deliveries per day, or 21,000 a year.

---

Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He provides insight and analysis for a number of media outlets, including Jane's Defense Weekly, a leading global military affairs magazine, and JNS.org, a news agency with wide distribution among Jewish communities in the U.S. Read full bio here.

Is Left-Wing or Right-Wing Antisemitism Worse?

By Justin Pozmanter

There has been a sharp rise in antisemitism in the United States. It’s not yet Europe, but the trendline is very disturbing for the American Jewish community. As antisemitism has increased, there has been an ongoing debate about whether antisemitism described as “right-wing” or “left-wing” is worse. This debate itself is extremely dangerous.

What exactly are we debating? Does it matter if an antisemite is white, black, Christian, Muslim, a Trump voter or a ‘squad’ supporter? If anyone attacks Jews, verbally or physically, they should be condemned. The only reason to debate which is worse is to try and minimize or justify the antisemitism coming from your side of the spectrum.

An anti-Israel group on campus pushed to exclude “Zionists” from the public square? “But what about what Donald Trump said about Jews and Israel? The right is the real problem, not my side.”

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene made an egregious comment about Jews? “But what about what Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said? See, it’s really the left to worry about.”

If you care about the Jewish community, if you care about bigotry and hatred, there should be no ambiguity, there should be no debate and it shouldn’t matter if the bigot in question votes for the same party as you.

In fact, you should be more offended by antisemitism coming from your side. You should be more disgusted that someone otherwise aligned with you is a racist than someone otherwise opposed to you. And you should make that clear, publicly, without reservation or qualification.

It is much more powerful when a progressive denounces a progressive’s hate than when they condemn a conservative. Rather than minimize the antisemitism in your camp, call it out and eviscerate it.

Both right and left should make clear that antisemitism has no place in the conversative or progressive movements. Condemn the other side every chance you get, but if you don’t also deny the hatred in your backyard even a drop of oxygen, you are doing nothing to fight antisemitism. You are encouraging it.

Israel is often used as an excuse for antisemitism, and it is just that, an excuse. Even if every wild lie told about Israel were true, why would that justify antisemitism? A Lubavitcher Hasid in Brooklyn and a Reform Jew in San Francisco have at least two things in common: 1. They are Jews; and 2. They have no control over the policy decisions of the Israeli government.

Antisemites will use whatever excuse they can to justify targeting Jews. If they can point to an Israeli policy, they might. If not, they’ll make something up.

After the latest Israeli elections there has been concern that the rise of far-right candidates such as Itamar Ben Gvir will lead to a rise in antisemitism. There is no reason to believe this is true. I have no interest in defending Ben Gvir’s statements, many of which are indefensible, but the notion that he and Bezelal Smotrich leading a party that won around 10% of the vote somehow causes hatred of Jews in the United States is ridiculous.

Antisemitism is an evil that goes back over 2,000 years – it is not rooted in current Israeli voting patterns.

Over the last 18 months, Israel had a government that included six ministers from the farthest left parties on the spectrum (Meretz and Labor) and included the Arab-Islamist party Ra’am. Did antisemitism suddenly plummet? No, antisemitism rose. This had nothing to do with Israel having a broad government either, it simply had no effect. Even attitudes towards Israel itself saw no real change.

Those who hated Israel under a center-right government, hated Israel under a center-left government and will continue to hate Israel under a right-wing government. They hate Israel because it is the Jewish state, it does not matter if Israeli Jews are moderates, socialists or fascists, only that they are Jews.

Additionally, if political trends in someone’s ancestral homeland somehow cause a spike in racist attacks, why haven’t we heard about attacks on French Americans as Marine Le Pen rose in popularity, or people avoiding pizzerias because Georgia Meloni is Prime Minister of Italy? Not only have no attacks occurred, but there hasn’t been even the slightest concern they might.

If you believe antisemitic stereotypes or that Jews are any less worthy of safety, respect and self-determination, you are a bigot, no matter what else you can claim.

You can be supportive of the state of Israel for any number of reasons and still be an antisemite.

You can agree with the majority of American Jews on 90% of issues and claim thousands of Jewish supporters and still be an antisemite.

If you don’t believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, you are an antisemite even if you have Jewish friends, family or otherwise appreciate Jewish culture.

If you’re committed to combating hatred and bigotry only when it’s politically convenient, leave fighting antisemitism to others – criticizing the other side while ignoring or rationalizing antisemitism on your side does more harm than good.

If you are a true friend of the Jewish people, and find bigotry and racism vile no matter the source, speak up and make clear that the only tolerable level of hatred amongst your friends and allies is zero.

---

Justin Pozmanter is a former foreign policy advisor to Minister Tzachi Hanegbi. Before making Aliyah, he worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and practiced law. Read full bio here.