ISRAELI CYBER DEFENSE NEEDS A NATIONAL CYBER SYSTEM

By Doron Tamir

All countries today face a common dilemma: How to best protect critical national assets, in the age of ever more effective cyber warfare?

The importance of a country’s ability to defend key sites, such as power companies, ports, and airports cannot be overstated, since a successful cyber-attack on such sites can paralyze any modern state.

 The dilemma doesn’t stop at critical infrastructure. Banks, hospitals, health clinics, public transport, communications, trade, and agriculture systems all require robust defenses. All of these systems are computerized from start to finish, meaning that they are vulnerable.

In some cases, attackers can exploit one vulnerability to move around the system and harm other areas, much like entering a corridor and finding multiple interconnected corridors. An attack on a bank’s clearing system won’t hit the entire bank, but could still lead to massive damages as it could cause the bank to fail to make transfers in time, and as a result face enormous fines.

Even mid to low-level public and commercial computer networks need updated defenses. And states cannot neglect the ability of adversaries to use social media to attack them with disinformation campaigns. The ability to manipulate public perception is more powerful than any missile.

The solution, for both states and private organizations, is to create a synergy of defenses, rather than to keep adding one cyber defense product after another.

In the example of the bank, the institution’s chief information officer could, after the first attack, search out a product that defends clearing systems. But after five days, a second type of attack could hit the bank, this time targeting VIP savings accounts. Now, the CIO is out looking for a second defense product, with no synergy between them. More harm is caused this way than good.

The need for a comprehensive solution is the basis for the setting up of the Israeli National Cyber Directorate in 2012 (originally known as the National Cyber Bureau).

The Directorate is a regulator that ensures that critical private and public sector sites are sufficiently protected, and that they share information on the characteristics of the attack. It has mandated, for example, that banks must report cyber-attacks to a central element – such as the Bank of Israel – without being exposed.

Yet keeping a major attack on a bank under wrap would harm the entire banking system, leading the National Cyber Directorate to pass regulation ordering banks to share details of attacks.

The Directorate sets the standards, defining the minimum bottom line of defense for all critical infrastructure and private sector companies. They must buy or develop systems that meet the defined standard.

 The regulation applies to hospitals, transport, or agriculture – a successful attack on any of them could be catastrophic on a national level. Imagine how a country’s road system might look like if its traffic light computer network is infiltrated.

As time goes by, the effort to raise security standards is becoming more effective, thanks in part to the fact that cyber security has become a recognized profession in academia, just like computer science, math, and electrical engineering.

With this mind, one of the Directorate’s goal is to create an ecosystem that promotes national cyber security, and it has done just that in the Negev city of Beersheba.

A state lacking a cyber defense ecosystem will continue to purchase individual products, much like an enterprise desperate to defend itself but always remaining a step behind.

To overcome this challenge, a national program is essential, complete with state budgets and resources, as well as the need to draw in private industry firms and state-owned companies.

The Directorate’s job is to define what the state wants and needs in the world of cyber defense, and then to set up the ecosystem to realize this vision.

To its credit, the State of Israel has created just such an ecosystem. Beginning in 2012, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that cyber security is not just a challenge but also a major opportunity, the government earmarked Beersheba as the location of the new ecosystem.

The fact that IDF is moving south to the city, creating training, intelligence, and other key campuses, sparked the idea of creating a new cyber security hotspot as well.

To achieve this vision, the Ben Gurion University of the Negev took on the role of academic anchor for the new initiative, training cyber security professionals. Deutsche Telekom, an enormous telecommunications company, set up a research center at the university’s campus dedicated to cyber security. The Soroka Medical Center hospital joined forces as well.

Then, a high-speed rail line linking the city to central Israel was established.

From this stage on, groups of entrepreneurs began setting up shop at Beersheba’s hi-tech park. They were soon joined by large tech companies, and real estate in parts of this desert city rose by 70 percent.

At this same park, the National Cyber Security Directorate set up its Cyber Emergency Response Team (CERT), made up of groups of responders who kick into action in the event of major cyber-attacks. CERT provides key backing for the finance, transport, and critical infrastructure fields.  

The Shin Bet runs a superb cyber defense unit that developed a range of top line defense systems before the Directorate was established and took over many of its national cyber roles.  The Shin Bet remains responsible for preventing terrorist activity in the cyber domain, as well as tackling foreign political subversion, using the most cutting-edge technology.

It is not enough to create an ecosystem – recruiting skilled cyber defenders must start at the high school level. Israel is one of just two states in the world that has cyber defense as a high school matriculation subject.  

Ultimately, only a holistic approach can prevent chaos when it comes to cyber security. For states, this means a national cyber system, which acts as both the regulator, and as the body that writes the field manual on cyber security.

---

Brigadier General Doron Tamir General Doron Tamir had a distinguished military career spanning over 2 decades in the Intelligence Corps and Special forces - as the Chief Intelligence Officer in the Israeli military, where he commanded numerous military units in all aspects of the intelligence field, from signal, visual, and human intelligence, through technology and cyber, to combat and special operations. Read full bio here.

OPERATION GUARDIAN OF THE WALLS: LESSONS FOR A CONFLICT WITH HEZBOLLAH

By Yochai Guiski

Following the clash between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, now is the time to examine the wider implications of the latest chapter in the decades long conflict between Israel and its enemies, especially vis-à-vis Hezbollah in Lebanon.

As Hezbollah looks to the south, what conclusions should it draw? Here are some important ones:

The IDF knows quite a lot about its enemies: If Hezbollah had not yet understood this from the steady stream of attacks by the Israel Air Force (IAF) in Syria, and the occasional spectacle of Israel releasing intelligence to the world about Hezbollah sites in Lebanon, the latest operation should drive the point home.   

The IDF is ready for conflict from day one: If in the past, Hezbollah could rely on the fact that the IDF needed at least a few days to gather and prepare its forces for combat, the conflict in Gaza has illustrated the IDF’s ability to strike extremely hard and extremely fast, right from the start.

The IDF is determined and highly destructive: If the attacks against military targets in high-rises in Gaza, and the ability to hit underground military infrastructure were signs of things to come in Lebanon, then Hezbollah should be worried for its strongholds in Beirut and throughout Lebanon. Israel has warned for years that placing Hezbollah military assets at the heart of civilian areas will not shield them from the IAF’s reach, as they are legitimate military targets.

The IDF was able to counter or defeat all Hamas “surprises”: Hamas tunnels were inconsequential in the fighting or proved to be death-traps to those who used them (albeit not to the extent the IDF would have liked); its drones were shot down or had little impact, and other “surprises” were countered before launch (such as the mini submarines destroyed at the Gaza port).   

Iron Dome works spectacularly well: If there was even a shred of doubt about the capabilities of the Iron Dome system, its ability to deal with barrages of more than a hundred rockets at a time has proven that the enemy’s method of trying to overload the system, has yielded little success thus far.  

The IDF did not perform a ground maneuver, yet again: Israel reluctance to get into a ground maneuver in Gaza, despite the intensity of the conflict, will surely be perceived as weakness or at least as hesitation in dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah’s ground capabilities. The combination of hidden and fortified defenders accompanied by long range and accurate anti-tank systems, would seem like a winning formula. However, the fact that there was little chance to glean information about IDF capabilities (such as Trophy) probably feels like a missed opportunity for Hezbollah.

The liberal and mainstream media veer steadily toward the Palestinian narrative of victimhood and oppression: The focus on the humanitarian impact of the conflict by the press is steadily growing, as is criticism about the power gap between Israel and its enemies (Israel as the proverbial bully). This trend could prove damaging to Israel in the court of public opinion and may serve Hezbollah, as it seeks to present itself as the protector of Lebanon against “Israeli aggression”.

There are cracks in support for Israel in the United States: In the mainstream media, at the grassroots level, in the liberal and progressive sections of the political field, and most worryingly in Congress:

-   This makes Israel far more susceptible to international pressure (and/or retaliation) because of its growing dependance on America for weapons systems and political support.

-   US senators and members of the House of Representatives appear ready to stop Israel from acquiring American weapons, or at least make it much harder. The overall implications could affect the way Israel would be able to fight in Lebanon and defend itself (duration, targets, forced ceasefires).

-  However, the Biden administration has proven itself to be a staunch Israel supporter, both publicly in Congress, and at the political level, by helping Israel end the current fighting, in a manner consistent with its security needs and strategic goals.

-  Hezbollah may not know exactly what kind of American support Israel would get in the event of conflict, but the overall situation is more conducive to its way of fighting, chips away at Israel’s deterrence and probably places more limitations on Israel’s freedom of operations in Lebanon then in the past.  

The IDF has operational gaffs. It seems like in every military operation, the IDF makes a few unforced errors – offensively or defensively. Putting a bus full of soldiers in an area that Hamas can hit ended fortunately without any casualties as a Hamas anti-tank rocket hit it just minutes after the soldiers disembarked. The IDF targeting of a building housing several media outlets without providing timely justification turned into a media and political firestorm that dominated the news cycle. Hezbollah would undoubtedly seek to create and exploit such mishaps by the IDF.

Israel was not willing to defeat Hamas. It is abundantly clear that Israel was unwilling to even consider toppling the Hamas regime, and was content to exchange blows and hit Hamas hard to restore its deterrence. This probably bodes well for Hezbollah, who may understand that Israel will not go for the jugular in a future conflict.

If one were to summarize all these lessons for Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, they would probably not be much of a surprise to him. The conflict in Gaza was quite predictable and did not venture much outside the established “box” of past operations, although it was more intense than previous ones.

The bad news from Nasrallah’s standpoint would be the IDF’s quality of execution, the decisive way its airpower was employed, and the stellar performance of the Iron Dome system, as this trifecta would be the main challenge to Hezbollah if war erupts. While the good news from his point of view would be the apparent friction between Israel and the U.S., and the price Israel pays internationally for using force, which harms its overall stature and deterrence.

---

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.

PODCAST: Israel's Security Situation & The Iran Deal

Yaakov Lappin & Peter Fishkind Discuss Israel's Security

One Man’s Terrorist is No Man’s Freedom Fighter

By Cade Spivey

There is a cliché that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The phrase seeks to engender a notion that there is moral relativism within the context of political struggle and the use of force. As a former naval officer who adheres to western concepts of respect for human rights and the dignity of individual life, this is anathema.

Over the last two weeks, I have watched in disgust as this continuously retread both-sides-style characterization played out across our national and international discourse concerning the Israel-Hamas/Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) conflict. Media on the left, right, and center, politicians, podcasters, and pundits have haphazardly used words like “war crimes” without any regard to their meaning or effect. Such imprecise language reveals either a misunderstanding of the rules governing the use of force or perhaps, more cynically, an intentional disregard of these rules to suit a particular narrative. At varying levels and contexts, I have seen both.

Much hay has been made regarding the disparity in death toll between Palestinians and Israelis. At the writing of this article, nearly 96 hours after the imposition of a ceasefire, the numbers stand at approximately 230 Palestinian lives lost and 12 Israelis – almost 20:1 ratio. This includes 65 Palestinian children and two Israeli children. Hamas fired more than 4000 rockets toward the civilian population of Israel. Nearly 650 landed in Gaza, killing Gazans, while Israel’s Iron Dome weapon system intercepted 85% of the remainder. Assuming a proportionate increase in death from rocket attack, Iron Dome can account for nearly 40–45 lives saved in the recent weeks. This is a conservative estimate given that Iron Dome prioritizes rockets that will impact densely occupied areas. I expect these numbers to change as the literal and figurative dust settles.

Under the law of armed conflict (LOAC), proportionality does not necessitate using the same level of force as one’s enemy, ensuring equality of death toll, or engaging in the same style of warfare. This would be a cold and meaningless calculus that would devalue human life and unnecessarily prolong armed conflict. It is unnecessary to use the minimum amount of force possible, just as it is unreasonable to flatten an entire city to kill a single terrorist. Large, sophisticated militaries should expect to trounce smaller, unsophisticated ones. They bear no responsibility to use less force than necessary to end the conflict quickly and preserve human life.

The IDF’s use of laser-and GPS-guided munitions, shape-charges, programable missiles, and precision artillery have all gone far in providing advanced targeting capabilities that reduce unnecessary destruction. The IDF gives warnings before strikes, and directs attacks at known rocket sites and Hamas/PIJ strongholds.

Contrast such practices with the over 4,000 rockets fired indiscriminately from Gaza. They are crudely constructed, unguided, and fired for maximum effect in the general direction of Israel’s most populated cities. They do not target military facilities or critical defense infrastructure. They are fired without warning giving some citizens between 15 and 45 seconds to reach  shelter. The rockets do not distinguish between soldier or civilian, adult or child, Palestinian or Jew.

The unfortunate occurrence of civilian death from IDF airstrikes does not imply that the attacks causing those deaths are illegal. One must evaluate the legality of the attack itself. This is not a task for a 24-hour news cycle or a passive social media user from thousands of miles away. As a security matter, when given the option between performing a targeted strike to neutralize a threat or doing nothing whereafter people will continue to be shelled by indiscriminate rocket fire, it is hardly a choice.

Collateral damage and civilian death are always tragic, regrettable, and should be avoided to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, we limit armed conflict where feasible and implement rules to govern the use of force. But these rules are meant to be followed, not abused. Thus, it is a violation to hide weaponry and combatant forces among citizens in their places of worship, schools, residential buildings, and commercial centers. The rules do not say “Don’t fight terrorists near civilians;” but instead “Don’t use civilians as human shields.”

The need to remain objective is especially challenging when faced with the gut-wrenching personal narratives and visual media that this recent round of conflict yielded. The stories and the loss of life are tragic and should not be discounted. Simultaneously, emotion should not form the basis for determining what is and is not an appropriate use of force.

The death of innocent civilians is justifiably disgusting. I do not celebrate such loss of life or suggest that a 12-year-old child delivering a toaster oven was a necessary victim of collateral damage. However, I do suggest that those who share in my disgust direct it at the party that established an indistinguishable military presence amongst the civilians they claim to fight for, knowing that the response to indiscriminate rocket attacks would be military force. When faced with such death and destruction, the same party increased their attacks from populated areas and uses the images of the dead and tragic stories of loss as propaganda tools.

Israel is not above criticism. I have reservations about retaliatory strikes in general, and I think there is ample reason for an inquiry into some of the decisions made regarding specific targets. Israel’s explanation of IDF actions has been somewhat lackluster. Despite any operational successes in weakening Hamas/PIJ militarily, the handling  of the public relations aspect of this conflict has been a failure. We live in a world wherein perception determines reality, and Israel has failed to account for this principle.

I see a large swath of American distaste at Israel’s management of the conflict in Gaza as ignorance at best – perhaps mixed with displeasure in the rules that govern armed conflict or even warfare itself. There are legitimate policy debates surrounding these issues. But for now, the rules are what they are, and warfare is hardly an anachronism. At worst, I see these criticisms as an overused double-standard that conveniently suits an anti-Israel narrative while ignoring Israeli concerns for international security and the safety of its citizens.

Regardless, terms that have far-reaching international consequences should be used with discretion and a complete understanding of both their meaning and the facts rather than promoting a false moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas/PIJ. These actors are not the same – not even close.

---

Cade Spivey is a publishing Adjunct at The MirYam Institute. He is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and served three tours in the Navy as a Gunnery/Antiterrorism Officer, Damage Control Assistant, and Counter-Piracy Evaluator. He is currently a student at the Wake Forest University School of Law.

Pragmatic Alliances Key To Stymieing Hamas & Iran

By Yaakov Lappin

Recent weeks have seen encouraging news for the Middle East’s radical Islamist forces. Despite the widespread destruction Hamas brought on itself and the Gaza Strip, the organization has been able to position itself as a leader of the Palestinians, seriously threatening the position of its domestic rival, the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority (PA).

Hamas paid an extremely heavy price for its actions, and the IDF, utilizing first class intelligence, launched an effective air campaign that severely degraded its capabilities. Still, Hamas is once again setting the agenda in the Palestinian arena, and proved that firing rockets until the last day of a conflict serves its radical narrative – a lesson Hezbollah is sure to take note of.

 Meanwhile, the PA is fractured, unpopular, and weak in its West Bank heartland.

At the same time, Iran is moving toward a new nuclear deal with world powers, which will likely set it on a path to becoming a nuclear breakout state by the end of the decade.

A common thread runs between these developments. Iran’s threatening activities go far beyond its nuclear program, and include subversive regional activities that have had a major influence on Gaza.

Iran’s efforts to create well-armed fundamentalist proxies and partners throughout the Middle East have been constant. The Islamic Republic nourishes them with weapons-building know-how, funds, and encouragement to destabilize the region.

This pattern includes a long-standing partnership between Iran and Hamas, which helped Hamas stockpile an arsenal of some 15,000 rockets prior to the breakout of this month’s hostilities. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Gaza’s second largest terror faction, is a direct Iranian proxy, and was armed with around 10,000 projectiles before the latest conflict began.

According to assessments in the Israel Defense Forces, 90 percent of the weapons production know-how possessed by Hamas and PIJ came from Iran. Weapons engineers from Gaza traveled to Iran for training, and brought their knowledge back to Gaza to create an entire weapons production industry, which comes at the expense of the welfare of Gaza’s two million people, which Hamas views as mere human shields for its offensive capabilities.

Iran has taught its Gazan partners to manufacture weapons independently, bypassing obstacles to arms trafficking.  

The IDF’s destruction of some 100 kilometers of underground tunnels in Gaza that were designed to let Hamas move its fighters, rockets, and missile cells underneath the Strip, out of the sight of the Israel Air Force, meant a huge loss of investment and time by Hamas. It cost Hamas’s military wing 500 thousand dollars per kilometer to dig the ‘Metro’ network.

But as the ceasefire takes hold, Hamas will inevitably seek to begin re-arming ahead of the next round. In order to break this destructive cycle, it is important to connect the dots in the wider region.

Iran is pursuing a long-term strategy to create firepower attack bases and hybrid terrorist armies throughout the Middle East. One day, these can be encouraged to attack Israel from multiple fronts simultaneously, in a bid to destroy it. This effort could happen at a time when they enjoy a ‘nuclear umbrella’ from Iran.

Israel isn’t sitting back and allowing this plan to take shape passively. Still, Iran pursues its conceptual attack framework single mindedly, despite an array of domestic troubles, and a series of setbacks, such as the assassination of Quds Force Commander, Qasem Soleimani last year.  Soleimani was the mastermind of Iran’s proxy network plan, and his vision continues to be fulfilled today.

Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s entrenchment efforts in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and Gazan terror factions are all part of Iran’s ‘deep crescent’ plan.

The Iranian intentions threaten many others in the Middle East beyond Israel.

 Saudi Arabia has become a regular target of Houthi ballistic missile and drone attacks on its most sensitive oil infrastructure targets, airports, and cities. A Saudi-led coalition fighting the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen has been unable to extinguish the threat.

The UAE and Bahrain are directly threatened by Iran and its proxies as well,  a fact that played a key role in their participation in the Abraham Accord normalization treaties with Israel.

These Gulf states view Israel as a frontline pillar in the regional struggle to keep Iran at bay, and seek to be part of a Saudi-Israeli coalition that can push back against Iran. The coalition building efforts took on a greater urgency after it became clear that the U.S. intends to leave the region in favor of the American strategic pivot toward facing-off against China.

 Closer to home, Jordan is deeply disturbed by the prospect of being encircled by Iranian-backed radical militias in Iraq and Syria. The Hashemite Kingdom is aware of Iran’s intentions to undermine its security as part of Tehran’s bid to gain access to the West Bank, and to weaken pragmatic Sunni states.

Egypt wishes to see a calm, stable Gaza, and has been involved in a long-term regional power struggle with Iran over the fate of the Strip. Tehran emboldens and builds up Gaza’s Islamist rulers – the same forces who until recently were accused by Cairo of destabilizing the Sinai Peninsula and cooperating with jihadists and Muslim-Brotherhood forces within Egypt.

Many had written Egypt off as a power that no longer wields influence in the Palestinian arena, but Cairo’s ability to help broker an Israel-Hamas ceasefire shows that such assessments were premature.

The Palestinian Authority, which continues to maintain daily security cooperation with the IDF in the West Bank, is particularly threatened by the Iranian-Hamas partnership. Ever since its violent eviction from Gaza in Hamas’s 2007 coup, the PA has fought daily to keep Hamas cells from threatening its grip on power in the West Bank.

The common PA-Israeli interest in repressing Hamas is what enables the daily security coordination between them — often with little fanfare.

This coordination has gone on, surviving multiple diplomatic crises. The intense diplomatic battles between the PA and the Israeli government do not reflect the security and strategic realities on the ground.

A realist strategy must involve the recognition that Israel has to strengthen moderate elements in order to weaken the Islamists, both at the local and regional levels, and Jerusalem  now has an opportunity to inject the Middle Eastern pragmatic coalition with new vigor.

It can leverage the severe blow it has dealt Hamas to kick-start a new, proactive phase of working with pragmatic partners, with whom it can face down the Iranian-led Islamist threats.

Working with pragmatic Sunni partners will act as a force multiplier for Israel’s security objectives in the region, which include achieving stability, economic development, and diplomatic progress with the Palestinians, while weakening Hamas’s hold on power in Gaza and pushing Iran away from the area.  

Acting alone, and only relying on advanced military capabilities in between rounds of conflicts is an unsatisfactory approach that fails to leverage Israel’s military achievements into broader strategic steps forward.

The recommendation by the IDF to the Israeli government, to ensure that the PA leads the Gazan reconstruction effort funding program, is a step in the right direction. Although the PA faces many problems, including corruption and internal fractures at home, setting the objective of strengthening it at the expense of Hamas must form a key Israeli objective for the Palestinian arena going forward. This means strengthening the PA in the West Bank by restarting talks with it, and looking for long-term ways to begin injecting the PA back into Gaza in order to undermine Hamas.

Recruiting Israel’s Gulf allies and their considerable ability to provide financial assistance to the Palestinians can provide a major boost to such efforts. Egypt and Jordan can play highly important roles too.

If such efforts succeed in stabilizing Gaza, that will be bad news for Iran and its pyromaniac designs. The same coalition can work together to make it clear to Iran that its regional destructive activities will face a united coalition, one that knows how to work together on counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, defense technology sharing, and in other ways.

Proactive partnership with pragmatic players will be key for Israel going forward.

---

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.

Anti-Semitism’s true nature reveals itself

By Mark Goldfeder

To all who pretend that anti-Zionism is unrelated to anti-Semitism, and who fight against the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism because it contains some examples of problematic “anti-Zionism,” the last few weeks should’ve been clarifying — and embarrassing.

In countries around the world, anti-Semitic attacks have shot up over 400% since the most recent outbreak of violence in the Middle East. In cities across the country, including Los Angeles and New York, hundreds of synagogues, Jewish community centers, kosher restaurants, Jewish-owned businesses, and individual Jewish people have been targeted and attacked, beaten and bullied, cursed and demonized, all because they are Jewish.

In every instance, the thin veneer of “anti-Zionism” was shattered by the open expressions of enraged anti-Semitism, including the use of such classics as “kill the Jews,” “rape their daughters” and the ever-ready swastika, not to mention the simple pummeling of innocent (non-Israeli but clearly religious) Jewish people. On social media platforms the hate is even more transparent. In just one week, the phrase “Hitler was right” or some version of it was tweeted over 17,000 times.

On college campuses, in between dodging protests outside of Hillel buildings, ignoring death threats from fellow students and removing Nazi symbols, Jewish students have been subjected to campaigns supported by faculty and student groups alike that call Israel a colonialist settler state, negate the history of their people, deny the deep Jewish connection to the Jewish State, and dismiss the lives of their co-religionists as unimportant, if they are even worth mentioning at all.

Of course, none of this is really surprising- during the last war in Gaza there was also a predictable 400% increase in anti-Semitic incidents. And of course, politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who miss no opportunity to spread misinformation and malign the Jewish state, waited until after the ceasefire to forcefully condemn the attacks against innocent Jewish people taking place in their own backyards. AOC is quick to point out rhetoric on the right that makes her feel unsafe, but study after study has shown that the kind of inflammatory discriminatory anti-Zionist rhetoric that she and her colleagues spread eventually leads to anti-Semitic action.

For the record: This most recent conflict was not a battle between Israel and Palestinians, but between Hamas, a U.S. designated terrorist organization, and Israel, a key U.S. ally.

But regardless of your politics and beliefs: If anti-Zionism is not related to anti-Semitism, why are all of these people suddenly attacking Jews around the world, collectively and at random?

There is no clearer demonstration than recent events as to why we need the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and why the IHRA definition includes examples of problematic anti-Zionism, such as “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” It is high time for Congress to pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which allows the Departments of Justice and Education to use the definition in determining whether an investigation of an incident of anti-Semitism is warranted under their statutory anti-discrimination enforcement authority and for individual states to adopt the definition.

There is a reason why the IHRA definition is already used by our federal government, the 31 member countries of IHRA, all 50 countries (except Russia) that comprise the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Commission, Parliament, and all E.U. member states as well as Serbia, Bahrain and Albania. More importantly, there is a reason why hundreds of major Jewish organizations across the world, and across the political and religious spectrums, representing Jewish people of all ages and backgrounds, have adopted the definition and urge others to as well. It is because they all agree that it best reflects their shared lived experience and the realities of how anti-Semitism actually manifests today.

Our government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from acts of hate and bigotry motivated by discriminatory animus — including anti-Semitism — and they must be given the tools to do so. It is no longer acceptable for officials charged with protecting people from anti-Semitism to not have a valid definition of anti-Semitism. It is equally unacceptable to insist on a definition of anti-Semitism that does not include even the most troubling of anti-Zionist sentiments.

To be clear, anti-Semitic speech should not be criminalized or contained; it should just be labeled correctly. But what we are seeing across the country today is criminal activity, not protected speech. For too long, the conflation of speech with conduct, and anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel, has allowed anti-Semites to do what they want and then claim that they were merely expressing political views. When anti-Zionism crosses over into anti-Semitic acts, it can and should be stopped.

According to the FBI, the majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in the United States are committed against Jewish people, and that number is on the rise, despite the fact that they make up less than 2% of the population. There is much work to be done to reverse these terrifying trends. It starts by defining the problem.

---

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.

The US Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Implications For Israel's Security

BY Daniel Calbi and Abdulsalam Kako

In light of the Biden Administration’s announcement of the complete withdrawal of the United States military from Afghanistan, we have identified several areas that we believe could necessitate concern for Israel at some time in the future. Although we believe that the withdrawal of U.S. forces presents no immediate security concern for Israel, several threats could arise within the next five years, and their emergence depends upon whether or not the current Afghan government will be successful in maintaining stability within the country. However, if the Afghan government fails, the outcomes that may result from that scenario will likely present both direct and indirect threats to Israel. 

The Biden administration’s hope is that talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban will result in a lasting peace. However, if there is a successful deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban, some sort of an integration of the Taliban into parts of the government is likely. If the proposed peace deals between the Taliban and Afghan government are not successful, then the ongoing conflict is likely to worsen and in that event the Taliban may overthrow the Afghan government. Because the Afghan government (GIRoA) has focused most of its efforts on the defense of Kabul and other contested regions, there is a good possibility that GIRoA will not be able to maintain the bandwidth to protect the entire country and will inevitably prove to be incapable of fending off the Taliban in the long term. A full out civil war in Afghanistan where there is no U.S. military presence also provides an ideal scenario for international terrorist organizations like ISIS to gain increased influence and regional control. ISIS and Al Qaeda already utilize destabilized regions such as Afghanistan to recruit, train and fund their missions.

There are two specific reasons the U.S. withdrawal may provide an increased incentive for an international terrorist organization to gain influence within Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is arguably the most well-funded conflict in modern history and has an entire ecosystem that exists solely to support the coalition war effort. Due to the fact that the logistical support system that spans central Asia will no longer exist, there will be a negative economic impact on Afghan businesses who rely heavily on the war effort, and to the local economies that support the various bases throughout the country. This will leave many individuals without jobs, or at a minimum with less ability to support themselves and their families. Another issue - one that also arose when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and subsequently when it departed in 2011 - is a massive military force of young men that are essentially jobless, or who work for a meager military force at best. This will be far more prevalent in Afghanistan and as the Taliban gain further control of the country, young Afghan men who work for the government as police, military or special operations will face exceedingly difficult situations at home and in the workplace. GIRoA lacks the leadership and support to fully maintain its police and military forces and due to this impending failure young men serving GIRoA will have two options: Fight for a losing cause, or abandon GIRoA and join groups like the Taliban, AQIS, or ISIS-K in order to survive and protect their families.

If later on the United States decides that there is a reason to take new military actions throughout the region such as in the event that an international terrorist organization gains regional control as ISIS was able to do in Iraq and then Syria, there will be a less of an ability for the U.S. to conduct deep strikes within contested regions, and future missions in the region will be more complicated. Even though the U.S. and its allies have established multiple air bases throughout Afghanistan, coalition forces will now abandon these bases. Thus, a coalition element would first have to secure an airfield, maintain its security, bring forth follow-on forces to conduct an over the horizon assault and establish a logistical support hub. These additional layers to an operation introduce a significant amount of additional planning and contingency preparation that will undoubtedly complicate, convolute and lengthen the United States ability to conduct special operations missions in the region.

It is also likely that Iran’s influence in Afghanistan will increase in any scenario. The U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan will also be itself a win for Iran because Iran will no longer have to look to its eastern border to “defend” itself from the presence of U.S. ground forces in the region. The significant presence of U.S. military personnel, the infrastructure to support them, the aerial resupply capability, and the ability to conduct strikes in the region from land and sea has helped to deter opponents of the West, such as Iran, from acting in overt manners. Iran has made considerable financial investments in Western Afghanistan over the past two decades and there is no reason to doubt that Iran will seek to expand upon these efforts throughout the region in the future. Additionally, there is considerable evidence that throughout the U.S. war in Afghanistan, Iran has helped not only the Afghan government, but also the Taliban. If the planned peace negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government are successful, then Iran has already established influence with both sides of the “government” that will emerge. 

Regardless of the relationship that will result between Iran and an integrated Afghan government, or a Taliban controlled one, it is very likely that Iran will seek to gain even greater influence among the Shiite minority population. This is because Iran made efforts to position itself as the regional provider of security to the Shiite minority in Afghanistan and in particular the Hazara ethnic group. Historically the Hazara have faced persecution from members of the Sunni Pashtun majority, which has  dominated the governments of Afghanistan throughout its history and currently make up a large portion of the Taliban. In more recent times, the Taliban has made some efforts to stop its own members from persecuting the Hazara; it is unclear if this will be a trend that lasts. Prior to the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, Iran trained and funded Shiite Hazara militias that were used both in the Iran-Iraq war, and against the Taliban during their original reign. More recently Iran’s Quds Force trained a Shiite militia force made up of Hazara and known as the “Fatemiyoun,” which it employed as a proxy force in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. The use of these militias in Syria provides the most direct threat to Israel, as it increases the number of militant forces near Israel’s border that are taking direction from Iran. In the event that the Taliban gets close to achieving victory in an Afghan civil war, or if an international terrorist organization is able to take advantage of the situation, then it is certainly a possibility that the Afghan government or the Shiite minority population may turn to Iran for help and request military intervention on their behalf. 

The three discussed outcomes all present challenges to Israel. The Taliban, Iran, and international terrorist organizations such as ISIS have all made it clear that Israel is a threat and thus a viable target. Of the outcomes, the most dangerous and most likely is from the spread of Iran’s influence into Afghanistan. This is a threat to Israel because Iran has fought, and will continue to fight, proxy wars for decades. More specifically Iran has long backed groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah by providing weaponry, training, and monetary support. In the case that the Taliban retake Afghanistan and overthrow the current government, it’s prudent to remember the old saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  

---

Daniel Calbi is currently an MBA Candidate at Columbia Business School majoring in Finance. Prior to school he served six and a half years as a U.S. Army Officer, primarily in Special Operations with the 75th Ranger Regiment. He deployed multiple times to combat where he led special operations teams combating ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Read full bio here.

Abdulsalam Kako is a U.S. military officer and current student at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and is working on an additional Master’s degree from the Naval War College in Newport, RI. Read full bio here.

PODCAST: Gaza Situational Briefing

Prof. Chuck Freilich & Col. Grisha Yakubovich (IDF, Ret.) Weigh In

PODCAST: Should Israel Ceasefire?

Amb. Danny Ayalon Weighs In

Ceasefire Agreements and the Question of Israel's Sovereignty

By Grant Newman

The current conflict between Israel and Hamas raises not just the question of whether Israel has the right to defend itself — and more specifically whether the State of Israel has the duty to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks — but also raises the question of Israel's sovereignty as it pertains to developing state policy.  The only party in the current conflict between Israel and Hamas that genuinely has Israel's interest in mind is the State of Israel and its citizens.  Even the United States is conflicted, as the Biden Administration attempts to juggle America's historic support for Israel with a Democratic Party succumbing more and more to anti-Semitism.  Israel must stand firm in the face of global anti-Israel sentiment and not allow such anti-Israel sentiment to influence its domestic decision-making mechanisms in order to ensure that Israel’s future remains in Israel’s hands.

The past week has seen protests around the world supporting Hamas and condemning Israel.  A pro-Hamas protest in front of the Consulate General of Israel in Midtown Manhattan resulted in the closure of 2nd Avenue.  Hamas supporters in London cried profanities and curses repugnantly aimed at Jews (and, even more repugnantly, their daughters), while their compatriots in Los Angeles attacked diners at a restaurant after asking them whether they were Jewish (they were).  Similar occurrences and mass protests were seen across the United States, Great Britain, and Europe.  For all the talk of anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitism being entirely separate categories, such events indicate that there is an alarming level of cross-pollination occurring between these two supposedly separate categories.  Nevertheless, these non-Israeli protesters undoubtedly have sway over their own non-Israeli political leaders, and these non-Israeli political leaders in turn are trying to influence Israel’s political leaders.

Meanwhile, in the diplomatic realm, these same non-Israeli political leaders, who are beholden to the protesters at home, are increasingly calling for a deescalation of the conflict, and talks of negotiating a ceasefire are reportedly ongoing, with the United Nations holding votes on the matter.  As with everything the United Nations does, these votes serve no legitimate purpose, lack any binding effect whatsoever on Israel, and should be entirely ignored by serious individuals.  Likewise, mutual efforts between the United States and Russia to find solutions to the conflict should be viewed with skepticism, as the two powers look to the Middle East not so much for the sake of the Middle East, but rather as a proxy situation through which they can sort out their own relations which have effectively been put on life-support since Biden entered the White House and called Putin a “killer”.  Indeed, the United States and Russia are self-interested parties on issues pertaining to Israel, and any efforts to assert pressure  on Israel have undoubtedly been calculated according to an algorithm meant to benefit first and foremost the United States and Russia, respectively.

Whatever the global consensus regarding the Israel conflict might be, a substantial portion of Israelis — the backbone of the nation of Israel — appear committed to continuing military operations against Hamas.  Polls by the Times of Israel and Channel 9 suggest that between 70 percent and 80 percent of responding Israelis support a continuation of Operation Guardian of the Walls, with many residents of Israel's southern regions voicing support for a continuation of military operations if doing so will result in an extended period of peace.  Whether the Times of Israel and Channel 9 polls are representative of Israel's population as a whole is perhaps debatable.  But these polls do suggest that significant portions of Israelis — who, unlike the protestors in the United States and Europe and their political leaders in Washington and Paris, are in Hamas' line of fire — are in favor of continuing Operation Guardian of the Walls.

In the face of such worldly influences, Israel must act in such a way that will enable it to maintain its sovereignty and ensure that Israel's domestic mechanisms are making the decisions that affect Israel, and not allow outside forces to influence those decisions.  For example, if Israel were to decide to a ceasefire at this moment in the conflict after the aforementioned wave of anti-Israel protests and anti-Semitic attacks, then Israel risks setting a dangerous precedent whereby it is willing to make such decisions based on outside pressure from foreign streets.  In other words, a ceasefire now could signal to the rest of the world that if enough protesters take to the streets and maintain their presence there long enough, then international media outlets will promote an information campaign against Israel, foreign political leaders will be influenced to pressure Israel's political leaders, and Israel will ultimately acquiesce to the demands of the protesters.  This would be a massive hit to Israel’s sovereignty as it would effectively cause Israel to become a hostage to anonymous protesters marching on foreign soil.

This is not necessarily to suggest that Operation Guardian of the Walls should continue solely for the purpose of showing the world that Israel will not give in to external street pressure.  It would likely be unjust for a state to bomb an enemy simply to teach the world a lesson in sovereignty — even if the enemy were a terrorist organization and even if the world desperately needed such a lesson.  Rather, Israel should enter into a ceasefire with Hamas only because it has concluded that doing so is in its national interest, and not because supporters of Hamas flooded the streets of foreign cities.

Oftentimes the means by which a decision is made are just as important as the decision itself.  It is essential for Israel to make known to the world that, whatever decision it makes regarding the continuation of military operations against Hamas, such a decision was made without even the slightest bit of influence from Hamas' supporters in the West. By doing so, Israel can ensure that its future remains in its own hands.

---

Grant Newman graduated from Harvard Law School where he was an executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Grant was the recipient of the Federalist Society’s James Madison Award in 2019, and was active in the Alliance for Israel. Prior to law school, Grant graduated from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, with a degree in Business Strategy. Read full bio here.

All is (not) fair in late-night TV and war

By Mark Goldfeder

John Oliver's pompous and uneducated moral relativism is unacceptable and amounts to nothing short of antisemitic support for murderous terrorism. HBO should be utterly ashamed

In his segment Sunday night, Oliver presented a recounting of the events surrounding the current conflict in Israel that was either intentionally misleading or shockingly ill-informed. He repeatedly framed it as a struggle between the Palestinians and Israelis. Perhaps someone should tell him that this is not a battle between Palestinians and Israelis, it is between Hamas, a US designated terror organization, and Israel, a US ally.

Oliver claims that while some things are incredibly complex and require context, others are just wrong. He is right about that at least: Hamas is a terrorist organization that indiscriminately targets civilians, with a charter to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child. Israel is a democratic nation that did not start this fight, and with great restraint tries hard to avoid any civilian casualties.

But Oliver thinks that the story is simple because there is a severe power imbalance between Hamas and Israel, which has led to more casualties for Hamas. Oliver barely pays lip service to the idea that terrorists firing rockets at civilians is unacceptable, before shamefully giving them a pass because Israel, a country that invests in research and development instead of terror tunnels, has managed to intercept many, but not all of the deadly missiles.

In Oliver's antisemitic opinion, it is okay to shoot at innocent Jewish people as long as they are fast enough to run away, at least much of the time.

Of course, it matters little to Simple John that Hamas started this fight, by targeting innocent Israelis. Would Oliver be happier if more innocent Jews were dead? Would that make it more of a fair fight? In his little fantasy world is it ok to kill just a few innocent Jews, and then cry "stop it" when their country hits back?

Proportionality in wartime is not what Oliver thinks it is. Article 8(2)(b(4) of the Rome Statute recognizes that civilian casualties are a terrible but inevitable part of conflict, and forbids attacks in which the anticipated civilian casualties will be excessive in light of the anticipated military advantage gained. It has nothing to do with the relative number of people killed on both sides. The reason for this is simple: When you judge the appropriateness of an attack based on the number of people who died, you incentivize human shields, one of Hamas' favorite tactics.

Idiots like Oliver, who are impressed by dead body counts, are precisely why Hamas operatives continuously surround themselves with their own civilians, just to let them die. People like him are why terrorists now store weapons in schools and hospitals, and why they shoot their missiles from civilian structures in populated areas. Because the media, and shows like Last Week Tonight, reward them for it and make it doubly hard for Israel to dismantle terrorist infrastructure.

In an incredible display of hubristic contempt, Oliver notes that unlike Hamas, which openly targets civilians, Israel has only aimed at military targets, but vaguely implies, with not a shred of evidence, that Israel might be lying- despite the fact that Israel has shared much of the relevant intelligence with the US Oliver mentions the fact that, unlike any other army in history, Israel repeatedly warns people in the area in advance of their attacks and actively works to evacuate civilians. But he immediately dismisses that massive display of morality and restraint by saying that no matter the facts, it "sure seems like a war crime." Thank God he does not actually hold any position of real power.

In this one short segment, Oliver managed to become a full-fledged mouthpiece for Hamas. Aside from excusing murder and trying to muddy the waters on who does and does not target civilians, Oliver also weighed in on the Sheikh Jarrah situation, a private civil court case between two parties that did involve unpaid rent, but did not actually involve the state of Israel at all. Of course, he makes no mention of the details, including the fact that the owners of the four houses in question have acknowledged that they do in fact belong to the Jewish owners. Apparently, because the owners are Jewish, Oliver believes that they are not entitled to their rent. Set aside the facts though; regardless of what happened, in his infantilization of Hamas, Oliver believes that confusion on this topic is enough of an excuse to make murder understandable, if not acceptable.

He also called Israel an apartheid state. Forget that Israeli Arabs enjoy positions in the highest levels of every branch of government, including the legislative branch (the Knesset), the executive branch (the Israeli cabinet) and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court), a fact that of course Oliver did not mention and likely does not know, and ignoring the fact that Israeli Arabs have full and equal rights, apartheid involves an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. For the record, Israel has repeatedly, over 30 times, offered plans for peace and division of the land. Some of them, including the Clinton Peace Parameters, were even supported by much of the Arab world.

Again, for Oliver's edification, Israel (legitimately) gained a total of 26,178 square miles of territory in 1967. To date, it has ceded sovereignty over 23,871 square miles or 87% of that territory. At various times in recent history (including deals proposed in 2000, 2008, and 2014), Israel has offered up to 99.3% of the remaining disputed territory in exchange for peace. Each time, the Palestinians refused. There cannot be apartheid when one side keeps trying to offer plans for peace.

In a mere five minutes, Oliver spread slander about Israeli policy and history, justified Hamas' use of violence, dismissed the deaths of innocent Israeli civilians as unimportant to the conversation, and discounted the fact that Israel works hard to prevent civilian casualties, while the other side works hard to inflict them.

If Oliver really cared about innocent Gazans he would work to hold Hamas accountable for their failed leadership and murderous schemes. In this case Simple John is simply wrong.

---

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.

The status quo is the key to Jerusalem’s stability

By Shaul gordon

When it comes to policing a city as complex as Jerusalem, the mission of guarding the status quo is of supreme importance. The importance of the status quo in Jerusalem cannot be overstated, and any deviation can ignite not only the city, but the entire Middle East.

Jerusalem is a holy city to three religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Religious sites with huge historical significance are packed next to one another, and highly varied populations live side by side.

This naturally leads to sensitivities and tensions. Jerusalem, central as it is to the three religions, has always been at the center of wars and conflicts, and in this respect, the latest clashes in the city and in its name are nothing new.

Politically, the fact that it is the capital of Israel gives it even more symbolism. The Israeli parliament and state institutions are located in the city. After Israel liberated Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed the Old City as well as the east of the city, the territory of greater Jerusalem grew dramatically.  

It is no coincidence that terror attacks in the Second Intifada focused on Jerusalem. Cafes and buses were frequently targeted by suicide bombers because the terror organizations too view Jerusalem as special.

The latest incidents are merely a continuation of this special sensitivity.

Demographically, out of every nine Jerusalemites, three are Arab, and the remainder are divided  equally between ultra-orthodox, conservative-religious, and secular Jews.

There have been fierce cultural-religious struggles between ultra-Orthodox and secular Jews, as well as between the ultra-Orthodox and the state. If this wasn’t enough, the ultra-Orthodox themselves are conflicted and divided into various sects.

Demonstrators who want to make their cause known go to Jerusalem, where the government is located.

How should the Israel Police deal with such a city?

 The Israel Police is responsible not only for fighting crime, law enforcement, traffic, and public order, but also for security. This is a fairly unique addition to its mission list, compared to other police forces around the world. 

As recent events have demonstrated, any deviation from the status quo can set the city on fire. Does Damascus Gate have a new barricade or not? The answer to this question can spark international incidents. It is doubtful whether placing an obstacle anywhere else in the world can lead to mass rioting and be cited as a cause for an armed conflict.

One cannot be a police officer or commander in Jerusalem without knowing its history. In Jerusalem, one does not just decide to change or move things. Instead, the first question is: What did my predecessors do?  This is how to avoid stepping into a minefield.

In the latest unrest, the Jerusalem district chief took an operational decision that was correct. Seeking to prevent crowding at Damascus Gate, he placed barricades around the plaza outside the gate. But the consequences were major clashes, because the issue is not the barricades, but rather, the status quo.   

On the flip side of the coin, Jews ascending the Temple Mount are seen in a poor light by Muslims at the site.  The Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement tried to stop such visits,  setting up Murabitoun, male activists, and Murabitat, female activists, to ‘guard’ the Al Aqsa Mosque and prevent Jews from accessing the Temple Mount, which is part of the same compound. The Islamist activists arrived by the busload, and clashes erupted. Israel decided to defend the status quo of Jewish visitations, and banned the Northern Branch using emergency legislation. Soon, quiet returned to the Temple Mount.

 The moral of the story is that it is vital to guard the status quo of Arabs and Jews alike in the city.

A second vital ingredient for successful policing in the capital is the integration of the ‘green’ paramilitary Border Police with the ‘blue’ civilian Israel Police. In Jerusalem, the forces are combined. This gives police an edge when, for example, it must respond to major security or criminal challenges in the Shuafat Refugee Camp.

The issue of cultural competence is no less important. This means knowing the population that police are facing and understanding its cultural codes. It means not placing a checkpoint to examine driving licenses at the entrance to an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood two hours before the Sabbath, or just before the end of a Ramadan fast outside of an Arab village.

Police that know the culture of the people it polices and respects it will prevent unnecessary friction, and only deal with those incidents that it must.

Part of cultural competence means developing daily dialogue with the heads of various communities.

This also facilitates the reporting of crimes in communities that often refrain from turning to the police and prefer to deal with incidents internally.

Jewish, Muslim, and Christian religious leaders attended a ceremony marking the changing of the Jerusalem district police commander, because he is everyone’s district chief.

The chief must not be perceived as being on the side of one community at the expense of another, but as upholding the rule of law, without question. Such ties can also enable police to send messages to community leaders to help calm the atmosphere during tensions and prevent incidents.

In such a heterogeneous and explosive city, these are the tools that police have at their disposal to keep Jerusalem stable. In such a complex city, the Israel Police cannot let up for even one moment, because one small match can set Jerusalem and even the entire Middle East ablaze.

---

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.

What Trevor Noah gets wrong about Israel

By Mark Goldfeder

Last week Comedy Central’s The Daily Show host Trevor Noah did an ill-advised segment on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After explaining that he was not trying to place blame, he went on to blame Israel simply because there are more dead Palestinians than dead Israelis.

He also echoed the insane argument of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, that somehow the fight is not fair because Israel has a better missile defense system.

Noah’s approach was not surprising given his history of borderline antisemitic tweets, but it is still worth responding to his argument because there is undoubtedly a strong impulse to want to count bodies and assign fault. That kind of thinking, however, is logically flawed and incredibly dangerous. Especially when someone as popular as Noah gives it voice.

US-designated terrorist organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are sending thousands of rockets screaming into densely populated Israeli cities. The express, unwavering goal of these terrorists is to kill every Jewish man, woman and child. Israel’s defense system knocks down most of the missiles, but some get through and kill or injure innocents. If Israel had not invested in research and development to protect its people and instead focused on digging terror tunnels like Hamas, there would be hundreds more dead Israelis. Would that make Noah feel better?

Israel is not at fault for being able to defend herself and has every right to respond to aggression. Hamas should not be rewarded or excused by the media for its poor aim and misplaced priorities.

Proportionality in wartime is a prospective legal analysis that falls under Article 8(2)(b(4) of the Rome Statute, not the opinion of an armchair quarterback a day later, even if that quarterback has a talk show. International law recognizes that civilian casualties are a horrible but inevitable part of conflict, and forbids attacks in which the anticipated civilian casualties will be excessive in light of the anticipated military advantage gained.

Note that it does not say in comparison to how many of your people the other side managed to kill. The reason for this is clear: When you judge the appropriateness of an attack based solely on the number of people who died you do not end up protecting civilians, instead you incentivize.

Human shields

That is precisely why Hamas operatives continuously surround themselves with civilians, just to let them die. That is why they store weapons in schools, and in hospitals, and why they shoot them from civilian structures in populated areas.

Under the kind of effects-based, non-legal analysis by influential media folk like Trevor Noah, Hamas’s use of human shields to build up the number of casualties is actually rewarded. To paraphrase a quote often attributed to prime minister Golda Meir, if they only loved their children as much as they hated ours this war would be over.

Unlike Hamas and PIJ, Israel has only aimed at military targets, and even Hamas seems to begrudgingly admit that. While innocent people have tragically been killed, Israel has done everything it can to limit casualties, including warning civilians in advance to leave the targeted areas. In fact, as Noah ironically notes, Israel has the ability to completely destroy the other side, but they have shown great restraint in not doing so.

It is also unfair to fault Israel for its technological advantage. Noah punctuated his remarks by asking, “If you are in a fight where the other person cannot beat you, how hard should you retaliate when they try to hurt you?”

That ridiculous question assumes that the deaths and maiming of innocent Israelis killed by terrorists can be dismissed because Hamas was just “trying to hurt” Israel. Death and injuries do hurt, and constant rocket barrages make it impossible for Israelis to live a normal life. Should the US not have responded to 9/11 because the Taliban could not really beat us?

His question also ignores the fact that the other side is intent on winning. Hamas is openly hell-bent on destroying Israel, is using relatively sophisticated weaponry, and believes that it can do it. Israel has every right to take Hamas at its word and does not have to let it keep trying.

Here is the simple unavoidable truth as summarized by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.”

The answer to Noah’s question is quite clear then: Israel should hit back just hard enough so that the other side stops targeting its civilians and is deterred from targeting them again. If Noah disapproves of Israel’s methods because too many innocent Palestinians are being incidentally killed as Israel works to take out the strategic military outposts used by terrorists to kill their people, perhaps he should call out Hamas for its destructive behavior, instead of giving it a pass for its ineptitude and rewarding its self-inflated blood counts.

---

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.

Israel's Strike on the Gaza Media Building Complies With The Law Of Armed Conflict

By Eli Bar-On

DEPUTY MILITARY ADVOCATE GENERAL, IDF (2012-2015)

May 2021 will be remembered as a particularly hot month in Israel, but not because of the boiling weather. On May 10th, after several days of clashes between Palestinians and Israelis in East Jerusalem, Hamas, the terror organization that has been ruling the Gaza Strip for almost 15 years, returned to the number one war crime in its playbook: launching rockets towards cities and villages across Israel.

By now, well above 3,500 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel. Most were intercepted by the Israeli Iron Dome air defense system. Yet, some managed to penetrate those defenses and kill several Israeli civilians. In response to these attacks, Israel launched its own military campaign - Operation Guardian of the Walls - and has so far targeted over 800 military targets belonging to Hamas and other terror groups operating inside Gaza.

One of the Israeli strikes that gained the  greatest global attention - and criticism - was the attack on the Al-Jalaa building in Gaza. Apparently, what made this strike exceptional was not the fact that this was a fairly tall building, with twelve floors, nor the number of casualties in the strike (there were none). What was special about this building was the fact that it housed the offices of foreign news agencies, including the Associated Press and Al Jazeera. As detailed by the testimonies of several employees in these agencies (here and here, for example), the IDF notified the residents of the building that they should evacuate it within one hour because the IDF intended to target it. Once the building was evacuated, the IDF struck and destroyed it.

Assuming the IDF knew that the building was home to news agencies among other civilian offices and apartments, was it lawful to carry out this strike? Let us examine the legal basis that needs to be substantiated in order to claim that the attack was lawful.

The first thing we need to look at is whether the building was a military objective. The principle of distinction, which is the touchstone of the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), requires all fighting parties to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, and to direct their strikes only against military objectives. A military objective is an object which, by its nature, location, purpose or use, makes an effective contribution to military action, and whose partial or total destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances at play at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

How then, does the IDF explain the attack against the building, which appears to be civilian in nature? In a statement made by the IDF, it was claimed that the building contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of Hamas. The IDF also claimed that the building housed a Hamas research and development unit operating technological equipment against Israel, which constituted "a unique asset to the Hamas terrorist organization." If that is the case, those assets can indeed qualify as military objectives. But does this mean that the whole building qualifies as a military objective? The LOAC stipulate that clearly separated and distinct military objectives should not be attacked as a single military objective.

Were the specific offices, from which Hamas was operating in the building, "clearly separated and distinct military objectives" that should have been attacked surgically, without attacking the building as a whole? Did the IDF, which has precision-guided munitions and often uses them for pinpoint strikes of specific elements of a structure, have a legal obligation to direct the attack only against the Hamas offices in the building? It seems like this is a very good question to which there is no clear answer.

But in the concrete circumstances of the case, the Israeli military spokesman said: "There was no way of taking down only the Hamas facilities that were in the building. They occupied several floors in the building and it was impossible only to take down those floors. It was deemed necessary to take down the whole building." If that was indeed the case, it seems reasonable enough to claim that the structure was a single unit that qualified as a military objective in its entirety, since through its use it made an effective contribution to Hamas's military action, and its destruction offered a definite military advantage to the IDF. In this respect, the classification of the whole building as a military objective remains correct regardless of its civilian nature and uses.

Now, we should take one step forward with our legal analysis. The qualification of an object as a military target is not enough. The LOAC require the targeting party to take all sorts of precautions to spare civilians and civilian objects. One of the most important precautions is that effective advance warning shall be given of attacks that may affect the civilian population - unless circumstances do not permit.

As was learned from the testimonies of the residents of the building, the IDF did indeed give them time to evacuate and only struck the building after its owner assured the IDF it had been fully evacuated. The fact that there were no civilian casualties or injuries as a consequence of the attack of such a large structure is also proof of the highly effective advance warning that was given. Further proof of that fact could be found in the many photographers who were anticipating the strike and took videos documenting it from different angles.

Finally, the fact that the building was a military objective and that precautions have been taken during the attack is not enough. The LOAC also require that an attack that could be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, will not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

This means that the collateral damage to civilians and civilian property from the attack has to be proportionate to the military gain. In this case, there were no civilian casualties or injuries. If we consider the whole structure to be one military objective, we can also exclude the civilian offices in the building from the proportionality analysis. The civilian property that remains to be considered in this analysis is thus the objects inside the civilian offices and apartments in the building and any expected collateral damage to objects in the vicinity of the building. Presumably, some part of the residents managed to extract from the building at least some of the most precious and valuable equipment that they could within the short time they had to evacuate.

Obviously, the damage to the property that remained in the building is much less significant than any damage to human lives that could have been occurred.

This analysis must be carried out by the IDF commander who decided to approve the strike. Assuming such an assessment has been made, in accordance with the IDF procedures, and assuming that the civilian objects' damage assessment was not excessive in proportion to the direct military gain from the attack, this strike should be considered proportional and lawful.

For understandable reasons, the public outcry after the attack was immense. The strike was criticized by a host of groups around the world. There is no reason to doubt the AP’s statement that it had no indication of Hamas being in, or active in, the building.

At the same time, years of experience with Hamas's modus operandi have taught the IDF that Hamas will never shy away from using civilians as human shields, with the knowledge and consent of these civilians, or with the lack thereof.

Journalists are not immune from this tactic. If the IDF's claim regarding Hamas's use of the building for military purposes is correct, this should come as no surprise.

Hamas did not coincidentally locate its offices in this building, having known full well that it houses the offices of big foreign media outlets. It used their presence cynically, hoping to deter the IDF from striking the building in order to avoid the PR damage that inevitably follows such a strike.

AP and Al Jazeera have called for the IDF to publish the evidence that Hamas was using the building. Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed that such evidence will be passed to the US through intelligence channels. Obviously, making a public case to present the evidence of the attack is almost an insurmountable challenge, because these operations are almost always based on classified information. The publication of such information can endanger the lives of human sources or risk the exposure of invaluable methods of collecting intelligence.

Freedom of the press should always be respected and in times of war even more so. This is why military strikes that bear collateral damage to journalists and press assets should be carried out only after very careful consideration. At the same time, the reality dictated by terror organizations such as Hamas in which journalists sometimes serve as human shields without their knowledge should not deter law-abiding militaries such as the IDF to strike these terror groups even at the cost of harming assets of press agencies, as was done in this case.

Claiming otherwise will only incentivize the terror organizations to keep using these war crimes tactics. This is yet another example of why the civilized world must fight and condemn groups such as Hamas in every possible way.

---

Eli Bar-On concluded his career in the Israel Defense Forces holding the position of instructor at the IDF National Defense College (the INDC). Prior to that position, Bar-on served as the Deputy Military Advocate General of the IDF (2012 to 2015), where he was in command of approximately 1,000 lawyers and legal experts, including prior to, during and following Operation Pillar of Defense & Operation Protective Edge. He also served as the Chief Legal Advisor for the IDF in the West Bank from 2009 to 2012.

It’s time to change the rules of the game with Hamas

By David Hacham

Operation Guardian of the Walls reached its ninth day on Tuesday, and pressure on Israel to enter into a truce in the near future is growing.

 Past operations have shown that it takes days for ceasefire agreements to be implemented.

The IDF is firm in its position that the operation will continue for a few more days at least, in order to complete its objectives, unlike Hamas which appears keen to reach a truce. Hamas has sustained major strikes on its infrastructure and combat capabilities, as has Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The broad range of precise IAF strikes and eliminations of senior terrorists is pushing Hamas to become highly interested in a truce at this stage. Hamas is suffering from low morale, symbolic blows, and the elimination of expert knowledge on military terrorist experience.

Meanwhile, commentary in Israel from senior representatives of the government and a number of former military officers have promoted the idea that the IDF’s objective is to create ‘a few years of quiet.’

This fits into the longer-term trend that has seen Israel end operations and enable Hamas to threaten it again in a short amount of time, which usually amounts to months or a few years.

Yet the time has come for Israel to consider new options that will prevent another military campaign, and which can break the cycle of escalations that follow one another every number of years.

The formula in place between Israel and Hamas in the past 15 years has followed the same pattern. During each IDF operation to subdue Gazan rocket fire on Israel – Operation Cast Lead in 2008, Pillar of Defense 2012, Protective Edge in 2014, and other smaller flare ups in recent years, military strikes rain down on Hamas and other terror organizations.

After the rounds are over, Hamas and other terror organizations rehabilitate themselves, and prepare for the next round.

Then, after a while, it all begins anew.

Israel also frequently avoided escalations in Gaza due its desire to retain optimal levels of readiness for its more threatening fronts with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and focus on its disruption of Iranian military entrenchment in Syria.

Israel must disrupt this repetitive Gaza cycle, which is going nowhere, by first ensuring that preventing a re-arming of Hamas and the rebuilding of its military capabilities be denied as part of any post-conflict arrangement. This can be done by recruiting the international community, with an emphasis on the U.S., in the event that Hamas continues to act as the regime in Gaza.

Neutralizing Hamas’s military capabilities should be followed up by an internationally-backed arrangement to promote a civilian effort to rehabilitate Gaza and economically develop it.  

Israel must not be intoxicated by its military achievements, but rather focus on the mission of preventing Hamas from rebuilding, and its repositioning as a terror organization that threatens Israeli security.

This requires new Israeli policy for the Palestinian arena.

Since Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in 2007, Israel has worked to keep the Gaza calm as much as possible, and learned to accept the Hamas regime. It avoided any act to return Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to Gaza.

It allowed the continuous flow of goods and trade to Gaza, and ongoing Qatari financial aid that now amounts to billions of dollars for the Hamas regime.

Some of those funds clearly leaked to the military wing of Hamas.

The arrangement described above never held up for very long, collapsing each time after a round of fighting, and then resuming. To aim to return to this failed model would be a major miss by Israel and highly dangerous.  

After the guns go quiet, and mediators obtain a new ceasefire, Israel should invest maximum effort to reach a situation in which the rules of the game will change.

In addition to setting up mechanisms to prevent Hamas from re-arming, it is time for Jerusalem to stop its acceptance of Hamas’s existence as a ruling regime in Gaza at the cost of a major weakening of the Palestinian Authority.

This pattern has led the PA to be pushed into the corner, and it has led to the blocking of every initiative designed to restart diplomatic talks between Israel and the PA.

It is clear that PA President Mahmoud Abbas represents only one part of the Palestinian system, and he cannot negotiate with Israel as a lame duck, partial representative.

His current weakness makes Abbas look like a puppet, and Fatah, which runs the PA, is seeing serious internal cracks in the stability of its rule in the West Bank.

Reversing this trend will certainly serve Israel’s security interest.

In addition, Israel must make it clear that it will not tolerate any attempt by Hamas to connect Gaza to future events in Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound.

Vitally, Israel cannot forget its obligation to secure the release of two of its civilians and the bodies of two of its soldiers being held by Hamas as bargaining chips. Basic Israeli and IDF moral codes mean that no one must be left behind.

When the dust settles, Israel will need to hold itself to account over the question of how such a terrorist monster was allowed to rear its head in Gaza. 

Part of the answer lies in the blind eye Israeli authorities turned, for decades, to Palestinian Islamist forces, including the 1979 Israeli recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Al Mujama al-Islami group. This group fought Fatah and other secular PLO organizations in the 1980s, setting the foundation for the establishment of Hamas in 1987 a few days after the eruption of the First Intifada.

Subsequent mistakes led to Hamas getting stronger in the Palestinian territories, particularly in Gaza, such the decision in 1992 to expel 415 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic operatives to Lebanon following the kidnap and murder of a Border Policeman – only for Israel to allow them to return to the territories a year later, equipped with training, radical ideology and new political clout.

In 2005, the disengagement from Gaza was conducted in a unilateral manner, without an agreement with the PA, which then ruled the Strip, exhibiting Israel’s short sightedness. This set the stage for Hamas’s takeover in 2007. The decision to allow Hamas to compete in the 2006 elections to the Palestinian parliament in east Jerusalem, under U.S. and international pressure, was another strategic error that benefited Hamas. Hamas went on to win a majority in those elections, paving the way for the 2007 coup.

Looking ahead, it is vital for Israel to now learn the appropriate lessons from the past, and act differently in the present and future.

---

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.

PODCAST: Warfare in Urban Environments

Maj. Gen. Noam Tibon (IDF, Ret.) Briefs WestPoint About Gaza

PODCAST: Situational Briefing, Gazan Terror & Jerusalem Riots

Col. David Hacham & David Benger Weigh In

Hamas Seeks To Be Crowned Guardian Of Jerusalem

BY Grisha Yakubovich

The current major escalation between Israel and Hamas is a result of the terror organization’s long-term strategic vision aimed at ultimately crowning itself as ‘Jerusalem’s defender,’ both in the internal Palestinian arena and throughout the Middle East.

The origins of the present round can be traced back to recent months, when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas floated a trial balloon in the form of elections to the Palestinian parliament.

Abbas’s goal was to test out Fatah’s position, Israel’s response, and the responses of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He also wanted to see how the Palestinian street would respond. It was always clear both to Abbas and Hamas that elections would not actually go ahead.

Hamas analyzed Abbas’s motives two steps ahead. Its leaders knew that Abbas would cancel elections and blame Israel for refusing to allow a  vote in east Jerusalem.

Hamas decided to leverage the situation to consolidate its position as the defender of Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest site.

The move serves Hamas’s interests on multiple levels. On the Palestinian street, it positions Hamas as the dominant party in the struggle for leadership with Fatah. In the Arab world, it pushes back against Arab states engaged in normalization in Israel, by sending out the message to their publics that these countries are counterfeit defenders of Jerusalem, while Hamas is the genuine deal.

This creates long-term legitimacy for Hamas in the Arab world, reversing its isolation. It could see Hamas receive significant support and funding in the future, even if it currently risks the immediate goals of rebuilding Gaza now.

The role of Iran and its regional axis cannot be ignored either. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad serve as the representatives of Iran’s power display in the post-Trump era. The Islamic Republic recently marked  Quds Day, the last Friday of every Ramadan, which is dedicated to protests in Iranian cities and Shi’ite population centers in the region, calling for Israel’s destruction.

An escalation now drives home the impression of a broad, region-wide radical axis that stands firm against Israel, under Iranian guidance. This complements the recent sense of euphoria felt by the Iranian leadership, relieved by the departure of Trump, and welcoming what it perceives as the weak Biden.

Thus, by escalating over Jerusalem now, Hamas’s strategy works for it on three different dimensions at the same time.

Most crucial, however, is Hamas’s positioning inside the Palestinian arena.  

Israel made unnecessary mistakes by initially proceeding with the court ruling on the Sheikh Jarrah evictions during the sensitive  Ramadan period , lighting another match in a room full combustible material. Israel realized this late in the proceedings, but its efforts to de-escalate only made things worse, as they were perceived by east Jerusalem Palestinians as signs of weakness.

When the Israel Police surrendered to demands to remove barricades from the Old City’s Damascus Gate, this created motivation among the rioters in the capital to continue the struggle. Removing the barriers escalated events further and gave the Palestinians hope that they could also lead to the cancelation of Jerusalem Day festivities when the national religious camp celebrates the unification of the city.

Against the backdrop of this expectation, Hamas stepped in. It issued an unprecedented ultimatum on Monday, demanding that Israel withdraw forces from east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount – not because it had any expectations that Israel would meet the demands, but because it was out to present itself as the dominant element in the Palestinian arena, the true protector of Jerusalem.

The next step for Hamas was to make good on its promise to ‘defend’ Al-Aqsa and fire rockets at Israel.      

Israel has made the right move by broadcasting to Hamas and to the intermediaries it has sent to seek a truce the following message: Hamas is going to pay a heavy price for what it has done, and it does not matter what Hamas says at this stage.

This course of action is the only way to force Hamas to realize that Israel will no longer dance to its tune. Israel will not start and stop escalations at Hamas’s command and let the terror organization score points over Jerusalem at its expense.

Looking ahead, Hamas did not expect a lengthy conflict. It sought to exploit the momentum surrounding Jerusalem, fire a limited number of rockets, absorb a proportionate Israeli response, and exit the escalation within days.

It is important that Israel continues to deny Hamas that gain.  

When Israel transferred responsibility over 80 kilometers of its territory from the Gaza border north to the IDF, it sent an important message to Hamas that it will now have to march according to Israel’s pace.

Israel’s drafting of reservists sends the same message.

At this stage, no one knows whether Israel and Hamas will end up in a full war. While Hamas did not plan for this, to push it  its cause of being crowned as protector of Jerusalem, it is willing to pay that price too,

Israel must now take advantage of the current momentum and not let up until a hefty price has been paid by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The killings of senior commanders from the organization is a step in this direction.

The killing of two Israeli civilians in Ashkelon is, tragically, the kind of ‘achievement’ that Hamas and allied groups desire before being prepared to de-escalate themselves.

Hamas has, in fact, begun sending out feelers for a truce, as seen in statements calling on international intervention over Israel’s decision to stop fuel movement into Gaza.

It is too soon to anticipate a truce, as both sides enter into more escalatory stages in their planned campaigns.

When the fighting does end, Israel must reach the stage where it has not only extracted a high price from Hamas, but also seized the opportunity to significantly roll back its terrorist-army force build-up in Gaza.

---

Colonel Grisha Yakubovich serves as a policy and strategy consultant to various international NGO's. He concluded his military service in 2016 as the head of the civil department for the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (C.O.G.A.T.).

The Biden Administration’s Foreign Policy Will Have Dangerous Consequences for America, Israel, and the West

By Micah Jones

In less than six months, the Biden Administration’s foreign policy has harmed America’s strategic reach, trust with Israel, and the values of Western nations. Each of these realities is demonstrated by a recent event: (1) the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, (2) the leaking of conversations between former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif regarding covert Israeli military actions in Syria, and (3) current US Secretary of State Antony Blinken being insulted on U.S. soil during U.S.-China diplomatic talks in Anchorage, Alaska.

Beginning with the withdrawal of American military forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. will force an abrupt end to the longest war in the nation’s history. Nearly 20 years to the day that American forces entered Afghanistan to topple the Taliban, the U.S. will aim to withdraw all troops by September 11, 2021. This is a disastrous, short-sighted, decision. Not only will the sudden withdrawal provide little consolation for America’s extreme sacrifice of blood and treasure, it will leave the tenuous, NATO-backed, government in Kabul in the crosshairs of a resurgent Talban. Once American forces withdraw, there will be no bulwark to withstand the onslaught of violence that will likely spiral the country into a sectarian civil war. The tenuous, hard-fought, gains for women and minorities will be immediately erased as Islamist forces quickly regain control.

 Not only will this American troop withdrawal hurt the Afghan people, it will also threaten America’s strategic and military reach within a critical area of the globe. U.S. bases in Afghanistan provide the American military with significant force projection throughout all of the Middle East and Central Asia. This is a region that is growing more chaotic as Russia, Iran, and Turkey rattle their sabers. The removal of U.S. troops will create a void that will be filled with the very forces that America and its allies spent 20 years fighting.

 The Biden Administration’s foreign policy has also harmed the U.S.-Israeli relationship. In April, The New York Times reported on a leaked audio recording from an interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Apparently intended for Iranian-only channels, the recording included an astonishing portion in which Mr. Zarif discussed how former Secretary of State John Kerry had told him about nearly 200 covert Israeli operations in Syria. Later news confirmed, contrary to assertions by Mr. Kerry, now the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, that the information was not public when he told it to Mr. Zarif.

This revelation is devastating for the U.S.-Israel relationship. Israel will now be less likely to share sensitive material with the Biden Administration. In deflecting blame from Mr. Kerry, the Biden Administration also seems to indicate that it will not publicly-support Israel’s legitimate concerns about the dangers of the Iranian regime. Such stances will hurt both countries as important information may be kept secret when it could be beneficial for their mutual security interests. 

            Finally, the hegemony of Western nations will be tested as the Biden Administration concedes American global leadership to China. This retreat was demonstrated in March when U.S. and Chinese diplomatic envoys met in Anchorage, Alaska. After Secretary of State Blinken presented his opening remarks, he was excoriated by Yang Jiechi, a high-ranking Chinese government official. Mr. Yang criticized America’s democratic institutions and alleged that America was no longer fit to lead the world as it engaged in imperialism abroad and had racial unrest at home. Rather than forcefully rebuke Mr. Yang and the Chinese delegation, perhaps citing China’s failure to contain COVID-19 or condemning it for its internment of Uighur Muslims, Mr. Blinken took a conciliatory tone. 

Such an episode cannot be understated. The Chinese delegation did more than insult America on American soil. By criticizing America’s democratic institutions and foreign policy, it attacked the liberal values of the free world. When America did not confront this slander, China pushed itself closer to its desired position as the next superpower to dictate global affairs. But unlike America and the West, China’s worldview is one that would crush dissent, imprison minorities, and force an authoritarian regime upon formerly free peoples.

In these three episodes, the Biden Administration has demonstrated that it will not stand up for its allies or the values it holds dear. If it continues down this path, the consequences will be devastating for America, Israel, and the West. As liberalism the world over recedes, authoritarianism will take its place.

---

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.