An almost optimistic take on Israel’s new coalition

By Justin Pozmanter

I have previously written my cynical take on Israel’s elections. The elections were heavy on personality and light on substance, and it is easy to predict the current government will fall quickly under the weight of its own ideological contradictions.

The primary purpose of this coalition was, and remains, removing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from power. Netanyahu served as prime minister for longer than anyone before him. He is a singularly talented politician and, if it turns out that he has served his last day in the Prime Minister’s office, he will have left behind a legacy of significant accomplishments for the state of Israel.

Despite this, or perhaps because of it, a national obsession has developed around his rule. Israel has reached a point where neither Netanyahu’s supporters nor opponents are able to objectively analyze his leadership or actions. No matter how brilliant, how committed, or how capable, it is highly problematic for any democracy to have a leader become the sole focus of public debate.

There are those who honestly believed Israel would have failed as a democracy, potentially as a state itself, had Netanyahu won another term. And there are those who genuinely believe Bibi, and only Bibi, can lead.

Israel will go on without him, even if it is difficult to imagine the country without the man who has dominated its politics for 12 years. Israel survived when David Ben Gurion left, survived when Menachem Begin left, survived when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated and when Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke, and it will survive the generation of leaders who will follow Netanyahu, beginning with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.

The new Bennett/Yair Lapid government makes little sense on paper. There are right wingers, left wingers, religious Jews, secular Jews, and an Islamist Arab party (Ra’am) most closely aligned with the far left on security and with the ultra-Orthodox on social issues. Bennett must find a way to navigate all those differences with the slimmest of majorities – 61-59. Using even the most generous analysis, the coalition may well quickly fall, sending Israel back to the divisive business of electoral politics. But what if it doesn’t?

If this coalition can defy the odds and govern effectively, it might be the harbinger of a new political reality. The entire world, Israel included, has reached a point of ideological absolutism. The ideological poles are further apart than at any time in recent memory and those on opposite sides of the spectrum can barely maintain friendships, or have a civil conversation, let alone run a country together. But here in Israel, the right-wing, religious, former head of the Yesha Council (the umbrella organization of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria) is leading a coalition that cannot stand without the participation of Israel’s most left-wing and devoutly secular party (Meretz).

When the government was announced, and it became clear Israel would have its first religious Zionist, kippah-wearing leader, right-wing religious Jerusalem mourned, while left-wing secular Tel Aviv celebrated. This can largely be attributed to the horror, or euphoria, of Netanyahu leaving office, but it also speaks to the confusion and uncertainty over what this government might be.

It is still entirely unclear. However, if the coalition is successful in managing COVID, bringing down housing prices, improving the economy and healing some of the divisions between Jewish and Arab Israel, among many other issues, known and unknown, it may have an impact on how Israelis of different ideologies and backgrounds view one another.

At present, right-wing and left-wing Israelis tend to see the other’s worldview as an existential threat. The right and left governing together could change that. It is very unlikely there will be breakthroughs on major issues related to the Palestinians or the fundamental divisions between religion and state. However, working constructively together, for the first time in a generation, would hopefully bring the right and left to the point where they can acknowledge that political opponents, extremists aside, are not looking to harm the country.

Israeli Arabs generally view the government with suspicion at best, and with outright hostility at worst.

If Ra’am can achieve results on economic development, education, and bringing down the rate of crime in Arab communities, it would begin to remove the view of many Arab Israelis that they have nothing to gain from working with the Jewish majority and fully participating in the political process. And if Jewish Israelis see an Arab party playing a constructive role in governing the country, it could lessen some of their trepidation related to the goals of Arab political activism and leadership.

I do not believe this coalition will last. However, despite my strong misgivings about at least half of its parties, I hope it does. Israel has had enough elections. Israel has had enough of the perpetual divisions between right and left, religious and secular and Jewish and Arab.

Israel has never had a government quite like this. Previous governments, left-wing, right-wing, and unity alike, have succeeded in building the world’s sole Jewish state into an economic and military power, but they have not managed to heal Israel’s internal divisions. Maybe this one can. The opposition should be vocal and demanding, but this government has the backing of a majority of the Knesset, making it as legitimate as any other. It has earned the opportunity to prove what it can do.

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

PODCAST: Biden & Bennett: Navigating The Relationship

Ambassadors Arthur Koll & Danny Ayalon Assess

BDS has no place in schools

By Mark Goldfeder

Last month, in the aftermath of the most recent conflict in Israel, the general assembly of United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) became the first K-12 teacher's union in the United States to approve a resolution endorsing the antisemitic Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. A similar resolution is now making its way through the United Teachers Los Angeles union.

Aside from the fact that both resolutions are offensively antisemitic, rife with inaccuracies, and morally reprehensible in their defense of terrorism, they are also problematic from a legal perspective.

To be clear, the freedom of speech – even offensive speech – must be protected. But as the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has made clear, there are times when even speech can cross over into harassment and invidious discrimination. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs and activities, on the basis of race, color, or national origin. A violation of Title VI may be found if discrimination is encouraged, tolerated, not adequately addressed, or ignored by administrators, and complaints alleging a violation of Title VI may be filed with the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights or in the federal district courts.

Under Executive Order 13899 (Combating Anti-Semitism), when evaluating potential Title VI claims, the government uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Per the IHRA definition, it is antisemitic to apply a double standard to the Jewish state. As it relates to these resolutions, perhaps the most telling aspect of the underlying hatred behind them is what they glaringly don't say. In the entire retelling of events, in both resolutions, there is not a single mention of Hamas, the terrorist organization that instigated the conflict by attacking Israeli civilian populations.

It is true, and tragic, that many Palestinians have been killed or wounded, and it is horrifying that some, as the resolutions point out, were mere children. But Israel does not target Palestinian civilians or children; in fact, Israel warns people in advance to evacuate the areas it plans to strike as it seeks to protect its citizens, both Jewish and Arab, from Hamas' indiscriminate attacks.

Meanwhile, it is Hamas that actually targets innocent civilians while at the same time using its own population as human shields and its civilian institutions, including schools, mosques, and hospitals, as places to hide weapons and stage military operations. The resolutions demand that Israel ceases striking Gaza, but not that Hamas cease striking Israel; that is definitionally antisemitic.

But if the narrative antisemitism was not clear enough, the resolutions also openly support the demonstrably dangerous and discriminatory BDS movement. There are thousands of readily available, easily accessible, examples of BDS leaders and activists crossing the line into unmitigated antisemitism without even the pretext of anti-Zionism, and there is also clear evidence that the antisemitic discrimination in the BDS movement disparately impacts Jewish people, leading to harassment and physical attacks. That is part of the reason why California, which is home to both of these unions, is among the majority of states that have passed anti-BDS bills- protective anti-discrimination laws which these resolutions call on people to ignore.

It is critical that these divisive resolutions do not find their way into any classroom, and that the school districts in San Francisco and Los Angeles not tolerate any resulting or connected discrimination or harassment on the part of their teachers who are members of these unions. It should be obvious that a school district that chooses to ignore an open call by its teachers to discriminate on the basis of national origin would be exposing itself to potential liability if students were to feel negatively affected, and according to reports, the resolutions are already contributing to Jewish students feeling unsafe and unwelcome at school.

Aside from the Title VI concerns, any negative repercussions against Jewish and/or Israeli students stemming from the resolutions could also well violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the state's Education Code (in particular section 220, which, among other things, forbids discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, ethnicity, and religion), and subject these districts to even further liability.

As the worldwide surge in antisemitic incidents continues, it is morally incumbent upon school officials to quickly and publicly distance themselves from the kind of hateful and inflammatory resolutions that these teachers' unions are promoting, and to make sure that their Jewish students feel supported. It should never have to come to this, but if there is any moral hesitation on the part of school officials to speaking out against antisemitic hate, then the administration should also be on notice that under Title VI they have an affirmative legal obligation to protect their Jewish students- even from their own teachers and their unions if need be.

---

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.

Seeking justice in the wrong places: Why Rep. Omar’s premise is wrong

By Yochai Guiski

Rep. Ilhan Omar embroiled herself in yet another controversy recently when she asked Secretary of State Anthony Blinken about the United States position on the International Criminal Court, and subsequently tweeted: “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked @SecBlinken where people are supposed to go for justice.”

Seeking justice for victims of war crimes is a noble cause. As the grandson of Holocaust survivors, whose family endured some of the worst the Nazis could devise, making sure those who perpetrate crimes against humanity are brought to justice touches upon a powerful personal and national experience.

But this is as far as my agreement with Rep. Omar goes. The rest of her underlying premise about seeking justice in the international arena is highly questionable. As I am not qualified to talk about the U.S. experience, I will instead focus on the Israeli one.

For starters, her claim that she has not seen any evidence that Israeli courts “can and will prosecute alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity” is inaccurate to say the least. Israeli courts, and especially Israel’s Supreme Court, have heard thousands of cases of Palestinians who claimed they were wronged by the Israeli authorities. In many cases the courts intervened, changing a would-be course of action by the state, provided restitution, or even led to a rethinking of policy. Not all cases are heard and not all claims are accepted, but many, if not all significant legal cases are brought to judicial review.

In addition, Israel has another mechanism - the formation of commissions (by the government or the parliament), which have the authority to summon witnesses, examine evidence, report publicly (with confidential annexes) and make recommendations (some of which may be binding). For example, The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (The Turkel Commission) was tasked with addressing “Israel’s Mechanisms for Examining and Investigating Complaints and Claims of Violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict According to International Law”. The committee’s recommendations were mostly adopted and enhanced the way Israel deals with its compliance with International Law.

But that is only part of the issue, as one needs to look at the “justice” mechanisms that the international community applies to Israel:

·     When Israel pioneered the use of drones in counterterrorism operations to apply force accurately and reduce civilian injuries and deaths, it was accused by UN rapporteurs and many international human rights groups of extrajudicial killings.

·     When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was tasked by the UN General Assembly to address the legality of the barrier Israel was building around the West Bank and in Jerusalem, the Court overwhelmingly found it to be illegal, and even went as far as denying Israel’s right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN charter (ostensibly since “Palestine” was not considered a state at the time). The only dissenting voice was the American judge Buergenthal who dissected the decision and showed the glaring flaws in adopting sweeping findings based on little factual basis.

·     On that matter, detractors of Israel have claimed that Israel could have built the security barrier on its own territory and thus avoided the problem. Furthermore, they used that logic to “prove” Israel was just executing a land grab. However, if one looks to Israel’s northern border, that was exactly the course of action that Israel took when it built the security technical fence south of the “Blue line”, the internationally recognized border between Israel and Lebanon, within its own territory. The outcome of the decision was claims from the Lebanese side that Israel was violating its sovereignty every time Israeli forces crossed the technical fence, including an incident in 2010 in which an Israeli officer who was on a mission to cut a tree near the fence was shot dead. So, Israel cannot win no matter where it builds a security fence.

·     The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has singled out Israel for scrutiny (including its infamous Item 7, a permanent agenda on Israel, and the only one devoted to a specific country), while taking little notice of flagrant human rights violators across the world. To that extent the HRC has commissioned “Fact Finding Commissions” after every escalation in Gaza, which were almost exclusively tasked with evaluating Israel’s actions, while the actions of terror groups operating out of Gaza were pursued far less rigorously. And even putting at the head of its investigation into the 2014 Gaza war, a Canadian academic who had previously done work for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and later resigned after the conflict of interest was revealed.   

But the International Criminal Court seems to take things even further:

·     When the Comoros Islands asked the court to examine the incident aboard the “Mavi Marmara”, the Prosecutor’s Office declined to open an investigation on the grounds of “gravity” (the alleged crime was not of the severity that requires the intervention of the court, as it was a single incident in which 9 people died). In an unprecedented move, the judges of the court challenged the prosecutor’s independence and ordered its office to reevaluate its position on not going forward with a prosecution. The prosecutor eventually reaffirmed its decision on the matter, but the proceedings dragged on for several more years.

·     On the Palestinian issue, the prosecutor (and eventually the court) decided to recognize Palestine as a state and accept its accession into the “Rome Statute” based upon the non-binding decision of the UN General assembly on the matter. The prosecutor than decided to open an investigation into the situation in the West Bank and Gaza (including Jerusalem) on its own.

So which kind of justice is preferred? The kind that makes sweeping findings with little factual evidence to support them, the kind where you single out a country for scrutiny while taking little stock of the actions of its enemies, the kind where the judges urge the prosecutor to press charges, the kind where application of the law is based on flimsy grounds but is politically popular?  

From the above precedents alone, there is compelling evidence which shows that looking for justice in these places is neither just, nor fair, and that in most cases robust, independent, and professional judiciaries who are scrutinized by democratically elected officials is the best remedy. It may not be perfect, but it is far better than the alternative.  

---

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.

Improved Iron Dome stands up to tougher, newer challenges

By Shachar Shohat & YAIR RAMATI

The recent round of escalation between Israel and the Gazan terror factions, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), saw Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system intercept a variety of rockets and drones, in an extremely high stress environment.

Based on the available information and reports by the IDF Spokespersons Unit, it is possible to observe the improved performance of this unique air defense system,  which only recently celebrated a decade since its first real-world interception.

Hamas and PIJ launched some 4,360 rockets, at least six attack drones and many mortar shells at the State of Israel within a relatively short time frame –  just 11 intensive days.

Their fire rate averaged at around 400 rockets per day, most through intensive salvos, designed to overwhelm and defeat the Israeli Iron Dome batteries. This seems to represent a new threat era, with the recent conflict being a microcosm of the coming decade’s global threat and response trends.

Unlike previous conflicts in which standard rockets with low-lethality warheads were launched at Israel, this time the threat we saw was upgraded with domestically developed and produced rockets, carrying medium-weight warheads.

One of the important lessons that emerged from Operation Guardian of the Walls is that Hamas and PIJ have been able to establish a local rocket production capability,  clearly based on Iranian know-how. The enemy arsenals also included a few high precision drones whose design originates in Iran. None however were able to successfully hit Israeli territory.

Hamas and PIJ sought to saturate Israeli air defenses with large salvos fired rapidly, in some cases with around 100 projectiles in the air simultaneously. They fired from different azimuths at the same time, and used depressed trajectories with lower flight altitudes and shorter routes to targets in Israel.

Defending most of the Israeli civilian population and critical defense sites against such salvos, at various ranges, day and night, was no simple task for Israel’s air defense systems.  

The question of whether other air defense systems can cope with a quantitively similar threat, and also reach a reasonable performance within budget limits is very much an open one for all Western observers.

An additional and key aspect of defending air space in this conflict was the challenge of managing the air-situation picture.

Managing this complex, crowded event was made possible by an array of advanced sensors, radars, electro-optical devices, and sophisticated battle management algorithms, which meant that the IDF could deal with time-critical scenarios.

 As the rocket salvoes flew to their intended civilian targets in Israel, and many thousands of debris pieces created by previous interceptions fell from the sky, over 160 airborne platforms were flying nearby.

Fortunately, there was only a single report of an incident of Israeli friendly fire at an air platform (a drone), while the air defense batteries successfully conducted dozens of simultaneous rocket interceptions.

 Some observers attribute this success to the coherent, advanced, and centralized engagement structure of the Israeli air defense system, and the utilization of robust multiple sensors.

Quantitative figures published by the IDF spokesman, can be summarized by the following analysis: Despite the tragic cases of Israeli casualties in this conflict – 11 dead from rockets, many wounded, and some physical damage, this translates into roughly one casualty for every 400 launched rockets/mortar shells.

In light of the extent of the threat, the role of Iron Dome in preventing hundreds of casualties is obvious.

Nevertheless, the casualty count does not reflect the terror experienced by the civilian population in Israel. Millions of Israelis were forced to seek shelter from incoming rockets during day and night hours, while also dealing with physical damage and economic losses.

The combination of active air defense and passive defense (the latter made up of accurate warnings for the general population and compliance with those warnings by heading to safe zones) was a key factor for minimizing loss of life in Israel.

Some 15% of the rockets fell within Gaza, reflecting poor local design and production. These failed launches killed around 25 Gazans. 

Iron Dome, which is programmed to only intercept projectiles heading to populated areas, ended up engaging almost half of the rockets fired into Israel. This reflects an improvement in the accuracy of enemy rockets. During the 2006 Second Lebanon War, a quarter of Hezbollah’s rockets reached built up areas.

All of the drones launched at Israel were intercepted by Iron Dome or air-to-air missiles fired by the Israeli Air Force, or other ‘soft defense’ means.

At the end of the conflict, Iron Dome was able to keep up its unmatched 90% kill rate. Iron Dome has now intercepted over 4,000 projectiles since first becoming operational in 2011.

Maintaining a robust inventory of interceptors has been proven to be a key capability in dealing with the new projectile threat.

It is fair to assume that the latest conflict with Hamas and PIJ will not be the last. As a result, Israeli air defense systems must remain on the path of ongoing upgrades, and to systematically remain a step ahead of the enemy.

The combination of professional air defense teams, support from the United States Missile Defense Agency, and local creative industry solutions mean that this is a mission that can be met.

---

Brigadier General Shohat concluded his service in the IDF as the Commander of the Israel Air Defense Forces. During that command position he oversaw the air defense component of Operation Protective Edge, 2014. Prior to that, he served as the Head of the IDF Reorganizational Efficiency Project from 2011-2012. Read full bio here.

Yair Ramati concluded his four-year service as Director of IMDO, the government agency charged with the development, production, and the delivery of missile defense systems including: Iron Dome, David's Sling and the Arrow weapons system, to the State of Israel. Mr. Ramati received his Bachelor's degree in Aeronautical Engineering. He earned a Master's Degree in Science and Engineering from the Technion, Israel. Read full bio here.

Hamas is turning military damage into political advantage

By David Hacham

A month after the conflict between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that rules Gaza has experienced a dramatic rise in popular support, both in the coastal Strip and in the West Bank.

On the other side of the fence, Hamas’s rival, the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, is seeing a visible drop in support.

Hamas absorbed a serious military blow during Israel’s Operation Guardian of the Walls last month, a conflict that was labelled Sword of Jerusalem by Hamas. Yet in the weeks that have passed, Hamas is working to consolidate a picture of political ‘victory’, irrespective of events on the ground, and it has done so with a significant degree of success.

During the hostilities in May, Israeli air and artillery strikes degraded many key Hamas capabilities, although this blow was not decisive enough to prevent Hamas from recovering in a relatively short amount of time.

Following the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel mediated by Egypt’s General Intelligence Directorate, Hamas’s political bureau chief in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, has been working hard to shape Palestinian-Arab and international perception, and to transmit the message that Hamas is continuing to function as a strong, stable, undisputed regime. Hamas has been able to transform its image, and is now perceived as an element in the Palestinian arena that cannot be ignored. At the same time, it has revived the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Hamas is now pursuing a strategic objective designed to gain maximum political benefits from the post-conflict era.

It is seeking to cash in on its image as a Palestinian movement that did not surrender to Israel, and it even claims to have ‘come out on top’ during the clash with the IDF, able to withstand the Israeli war machine.

To drive home this message, Hamas held victory marches, military parades, and memorial ceremonies for those killed in Gaza, while its commanders made many media appearances.

It is Sinwar who is personally orchestrating this political and PR campaign, which is helping him to consolidate his position at the apex of Hamas’s leadership.

Sinwar is well known to the Israeli defense establishment for his cruelty, even before Hamas was founded. During his time in the Al-Mujama Al-Islami organization, a precursor to Hamas, he was arrested by Israel before the start of the First Intifada and sentenced to five life sentences for murdering Palestinian collaborators with Israel. Behind bars, Sinwar was well known for his willingness to employ violence in his relations with other prisoners when he thought this was necessary.

In recent weeks, Sinwar has delivered impassioned, fiery speeches, claiming that Hamas came out as the winning side, and employing psychological warfare by claiming that Israel will crumble against Palestinian ‘resistance.’ He ensured that a photograph showing him sitting confidently outside of his destroyed office made the rounds.

Sinwar’s propaganda efforts stand in stark contrast to reality. Hamas absorbed far more damage than it inflicted on Israel, and dragged Gaza’s long-suffering residents into another destructive, bloody war. The military balance sheet is obviously in Israel’s favor.

Still, Hamas’s large rocket arsenal and variety of projectiles, and its ability to set up a joint command center with Gaza’s other armed terror factions, served its political consolidation campaign. The dominance of Muhammed Deif, commander of Hamas’s military wing, and Sinwar’s brother, Muhammad Sinwar, another senior military wing commander, both of whom are close to Hamas’s political leadership, served it well too.

Sinwar’s image was boosted significantly following the conflict, and Hamas’s overall political bureau chief, Ismael Haniyah, and its overseas political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal, do not currently enjoy the same level of support.

This is all due to the confidence that Sinwar was able to exhibit following the conflict, when he was seen wondering Gaza’s streets without fear, looking unconcerned and carefree, and speaking cordially to passers-by.

Thus, while Israel was able to degrade Hamas’s military-terrorist capabilities, and employ targeted killings effectively, targeting mid-level and field operatives, the conflict regained the international community’s attention, and placed the Palestinian issue squarely back on the American agenda. This has contributed to Hamas’s growing self-confidence, which has been visible since the end of the conflict. Even before the conflict, Hamas’s confidence had been growing, as seen in its decision to fire rockets on Jerusalem and issue ultimatums against Israeli actions in Jerusalem.

Hamas has excelled in promoting itself as the ‘Guardian of Jerusalem,’ and is continuing to act in this capacity these days, issuing new threats against Israel.

PA, Hamas in power struggle over funds

It is now clear that the conflict has caused significant harm to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, whose image following the Gaza conflict is one of a marginal element in the Palestinian arena, lacking influence and real power, and of being someone who failed to play any significant role during the conflict.

Abbas is also facing accusations in the Palestinian arena of refusing to take part in the nationalist wave following Israeli actions in Jerusalem. In reality, Abbas has no significant influence in Jerusalem, in Gaza, or among Israeli Arabs.

The PA President’s main role is limited to defending his rule in the West Bank, and continuing security coordination with Israel. He has also been engaging in legal and diplomatic warfare on Israel through the ICC and the court of international public opinion. His ability to prevent a security deterioration in the West Bank last month is noteworthy and important.

Currently, Hamas is focusing its efforts on attempting to take control of Gaza reconstruction money. Many have pledged to flood Gaza with cash, including Egyptian President Abd Fattah Al-Sisi, who promised half a billion dollars toward this goal, and Qatar, which immediately matched the Egyptian pledge.

A long list of additional countries soon appeared, promising funds as well. Egypt sent trucks into Gaza via its Rafah border crossing filled with humanitarian goods, and construction vehicles to reconstruct destroyed buildings. Gazans warmly received the Egyptian convoys.

The money being pledged to Gaza is supposed to go to rebuilding buildings that were destroyed in air strikes, particularly to high rise buildings, roads, water pipes, and electricity infrastructure damaged during Israeli strikes on Hamas’s ‘metro’ network of underground combat tunnels.

Intense competition between the PA and Hamas is now developing over who will control those funds. The PA is demanding exclusive control of the reconstruction process, as a reflection of its self-view as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Hamas, for its part, is demanding the same, based on its position as the exclusive ruling regime in Gaza.

The PA has correctly warned that should Hamas receive the money, some of it will be diverted to supporting Hamas’s armament program and military-terrorist activities, and that not all of the funds would further the objective of reconstruction.

As part of this competition, PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayah visited Gulf states to try and ensure that the PA and UNRWA receive the aid money rather than Hamas.

The PA’s Deputy Prime Minister, Ziad Abu Amr, a former resident of Gaza who has good ties with Hamas, met with the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate head, Maj. Gen. Abbas Kamel. The meeting is a strong indication regarding who Egypt thinks should be responsible for handling and allocating the reconstruction cash.

Kamel also held a series of official meetings with senior Hamas representatives, and stated that Cairo’s goal is to reach a long-term ceasefire that will include a prisoner and MIA swap between Israel and Hamas, but he also signaled that the two negotiation channels – one for a long truce and one for the swap – should not be dependent on one another.

Sinwar has called for no fewer than 1,111 Palestinian security prisoners to be released – a deliberate figure designed to remind Palestinians of the 2011 Schalit prisoner exchange, in which Israel released 1,027 prisoners (including Sinwar himself) for the captive Israeli soldier. The figure includes Schalit prisoners who have since been re-arrested by Israel.

Egypt’s rising influence on events in Gaza, meanwhile, became further apparent when the first construction work on a new Gazan neighborhood – built on the ruins of the former Israeli settlement of Netzarim in the southern outskirts of Gaza City, and named after Egypt – began in recent days. The ceremony was attended by PA and Fatah officials, including the Fatah Chairman in Gaza, Ahmed Hillis.

Meanwhile, Hamas is also aware that a new government in Israel, lacking in experience, will seek to avoid controversial dramatic steps that could lead to its own downfall.

The resistance by the international system to Israel’s positions regarding the Palestinian issue has also served to increase Hamas’s brinkmanship.

Meanwhile, Iranian assistance to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in funding, weapons know-how, and training looks set to continue. In the event of a new conflict with Israel, the scenario of Iran attempting to inject military advisors into Gaza, under false aliases, to assist Hamas attacks looks plausible.

As Hamas’s confidence continues to grow, the ability to deter it over a long-term period is in serious question.

---

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.

Democrats must require Palestinian leaders to do better

By Mark Goldfeder

In early June, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin wrote a letter to Sen. Jim Risch, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, asking him to remove a temporary hold on restoring Palestinian aid. That hold was put in place only until the United States can verify, with any sense of certainty, that the recipients will not directly or indirectly funnel the money to terrorists. Releasing it before that happens would be a terrible mistake.

The letter, which was signed by a group of Raskin’s Democratic colleagues, was misleading and generally reflective of a failed Middle East approach that they desperately need to abandon.

The letter was misleading because it is full of partial omissions and false promises. For example, it notes that this “humanitarian and development aid was passed in FY20 with bipartisan support and signed by the former President,” but completely fails to mention that there was also overwhelming bipartisan and executive support for the very limitations that Risch is trying to uphold.

Raskin claims that the money “is to be provided in full accordance with U.S. law. It is administered and overseen by our government and by trusted and vetted partners …. Hamas and other terrorist groups will not benefit from our humanitarian assistance.” The truth, however, is that during a May 24 special briefing, a senior State Department official publicly admitted that while the U.S. would be “working in partnership with the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to try and channel aid there,” at the end of the day “there are no guarantees” it would not end up with Hamas.

It is also problematic and unlawful even to pretend (while noticeably declining to mention them by name) that the PA has suddenly become a “trusted and vetted partner” that the U.S. can work with on distributing aid in the region.

Setting aside the fact that as recently as May 19, during the conflict in Israel, the PA released a public statement calling for a unity government with none other than Hamas, the PA itself consistently calls for violent uprisings and intifada. The PA also doesn’t stop at merely glorifying violence; it literally pays for it by guaranteeing convicted murderers a monthly salary for life, with amounts increased according to the number of victims and the severity of the harm. It spends hundreds of millions annually incentivizing terror, much of it from international aid.

That is why the U.S. decided to stop sending the PA money in the first place — and in that regard, absolutely nothing has changed. In March, the State Department confirmed that “the PA has not revoked any law, decree, regulation, or document authorizing or implementing” the system of payments to terrorists. Raskin’s “trusted and vetted partner” remains forbidden by law even to benefit from American assistance, let alone help make decisions about where the money should be spent.

Raskin’s letter is so harmful because it removes the incentive to improve. Up until now, the hold on aid appears to have actually been working; only a few months back, the Palestinians were reportedly considering finally abolishing their pay-for-slay policy in order to get back in U.S. favor. But a principle-less shift that demonstrates a willingness to accept recalcitrant noncompliance instead of insisting on real progress sets that entire process back.

Yes, it is true that Hamas is even worse than the PA, but that is a very low bar to cross. And the United States should not use differences in degree of support for terror as a barometer to determine foreign policy shifts or to gloss over the PA’s own despicable and unlawful actions against both Israeli and American citizens. And yes, the PA could theoretically still develop into a government willing to distance itself from terror. But in the meantime, it has not changed and does not deserve this positive recognition and designation as a “trusted” partner, let alone any monetary aid.

On a broader level, Raskin’s letter reflects a desire to return to the paradigm of rewarding Palestinian intransigence, a strategy that has never actually brought anyone closer to peace. It is the PA, not Hamas, that has turned down multiple generous peace offers from Israel over the decades, and it is the PA, not Hamas, that has continued to pay terrorists, all for the same reason: because it knows that if it just waits long enough, and remains nominally better than the next guy, then the U.S. will eventually lower the bar for what constitutes a legitimate partner and redefine as “trustworthy” the guy who only pays assassins instead of actually pulling the trigger.

It is letters like this that have kept the peace process from ever moving forward. Instead of lowering our standards, the U.S. should keep its long-standing congressional commitments, which require Palestinian leaders to do better and hold them accountable when they don’t.

---

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.

PODCAST: Jonny Gould's Jewish State - Upheaval: The Journey of Menachem Begin with the movie’s director, Jonathan Gruber

Jonny Gould's Jewish State podcast · 59: Upheaval: The Journey of Menachem Begin. Director Jonathan Gruber

Have the Democrats Finally Had It With Ilhan Omar?

By Mark Goldfeder

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has gotten quite good at shifting the Overton window for what is acceptable to say as a member of Congress. At this point, she has a well-established pattern: First, throw out something remarkably offensive. Then, let other liberals rush to her defense, thereby confirming that they, too, are actually okay with what she said, before avoiding censure by finally offering a feeble/partial "clarification" or apology, for having been "misunderstood" or having misspoken.

This cycle played out again this week. On Monday, Omar proudly shared a tweet in which she implicitly equated the United States and Israel to the Taliban and Hamas, claiming that they had all committed "unthinkable atrocities."

On Wednesday, a dozen of her Democratic colleagues in the House issued a statement condemning her comments as offensive and misguided, and urged her to clarify her words. Almost immediately, Omar, along with fellow Squad members Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), rushed to smear anyone who dared take offense at being compared to terrorists as racist and Islamophobic. Congresswoman Omar herself remained defiant, calling the signatories of the letter—fellow Democrats—"shameful," and accusing them of constantly harassing and silencing her.

All of that was to be expected, as was Rep. Omar's subsequent clarification on Thursday morning, in which she suddenly changed her tune and tried to distance herself from the original tweet.

In the process, Rep. Omar also awkwardly distanced herself from the defenses of her fellow Squad members, who continued to defend her on substantive grounds by pretending that Omar was being vilified just because she was standing up for "human rights" or because she was Muslim.

Once again, as is her wont, having started a conversation that should have been dismissed as ridiculous out of hand—a conversation in which American politicians are debating whether it is racist to be offended by someone comparing the U.S. and its allies to terrorists—Rep. Omar took a quiet step back and feigned innocence. "To be clear: the conversation was about accountability for specific incidents regarding those ICC cases, not a moral comparison between Hamas and the Taliban and the U.S. and Israel," she conceded. "I was in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems."

This non-apology is unconvincing; her tweet speaks for itself: "We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban," Omar said very clearly.

Rep. Omar is sophisticated enough to make radical statements while also obfuscating their true nature by tying them to a conversation in which she says the same thing in a slightly less offensive context. In fact, she is genuinely good at this game of plausible deniability. She did something similar when she was called out for antisemitic comments in 2019.

But what was different this time was how the Democratic leadership reacted. It appears that Omar's provocations may have finally gone too far for the establishment to ignore.

And this is new. Over the years, Omar has had several close encounters with accountability. On multiple occasions, she has even been called out by members of her own party for her anti-American and antisemitic statements. But so far, she has escaped any real consequences for her actions, because each and every time the leadership of her party has backed down from offering a full-throated critique of her views, apparently deciding that the need for a united political front outweighed the necessity of calling out a problematic member.

This time, the entire leadership team of the Democratic Party issued a rare joint statement confirming that they do not stand with Omar on this issue, and that her statements are unequivocally unacceptable. In no uncertain terms, they wrote that "drawing false equivalencies between democracies like the U.S. and Israel and groups that engage in terrorism like Hamas and the Taliban foments prejudice and undermines progress toward a future of peace and security for all."

While the Squad will undoubtedly continue to cry foul with allegations of how Rep. Omar is being silenced, nothing could be further from the truth. The response by Pelosi and her team was entirely appropriate from a free speech perspective: No one silenced Omar, and no one made the claim that she should not be allowed to say whatever she feels, however repugnant. The Democratic leadership was correct to use its own counter-speech to educate their constituents about why what Omar said was so offensive, and therefore contradictory to Democratic values.

Offensive speech should never be silenced; it should just be labeled correctly, so that we preserve a sense of shared values.

Thank goodness the Democrats have finally taken a stand and done that. Let's hope they mean to keep doing so.

---

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.

A New Chapter In Israeli Politics

By Danielle Roth-Avneri

Naftali Bennett, head of the Yamina Party, and Yesh Atid party chief Yair Lapid have – bar a last-minute failure – managed to do the unbelievable and put together a new governing coalition that ousts Benjamin Netanyahu from power after 12 years.

How were they able to do this? In the past few months, Bennett appeared to zig-zag no less than three times. He said he would set up a coalition government with the ‘bloc for change’ made up of parties determined to see Benjamin Netanyahu banished to the opposition. Then, during May’s Gaza conflict, he abandoned those efforts telling confidantes that a government leaning on Ra’am was off the table due to clashes in Israel between Jews and Arabs,  – only to resume negotiations as the ceasefire took hold, leading to the emergence of the eight-party coalition.

But there is likely more to this story than meets the eye. When Bennett announced that he was giving up on the change coalition during the Gaza hostilities, he put on a show deserving of an Oscar for Best Actor. He and Lapid continued negotiations throughout the entire time, enjoying the quiet that was generated by the impression that their efforts to set up a coalition had ended.

By putting on this show, Bennett and Lapid were able to mislead the entire country.  

Bennett has much invested in this coalition. If the coalition fails and Israel goes to a fifth elections in two years Yamina will most likely be erased from the political map.  His choices were simple: Safeguard his right-wing ideology and remain outside of the political system, or become prime minister.

Bennet’s gamble is also simple: If he is perceived as a good prime minister, his supporters will forget his own violations of his election pledges.

During the campaign, Bennett sat in a television studio and announced categorically that he will not enter into a coalition with Lapid. And yet, here we are, with a power-sharing Lapid – Bennett coalition. 

Whatever one may think of the way the coalition came into being ,the fact that Lapid was able to call the outgoing president, Reuven Rivlin, last Thursday (while the president was attending a soccer game) and announce that he was able to form a government is a powerful sign that change is on the way.

To witness someone able to unseat Netanyahu after 12 years in power is a ‘big bang’ moment in Israeli politics, which has shaken up the entire system and created a new dynamic.

The fact of the matter is that the alternative of a fifth elections is untenable for the State of Israel. The parties entering the new coalition understood that they have to find a way to get along. Their ability to reach dramatic compromises is an achievement on their part, in light of their vastly contrasting ideologies.

The common denominator underlying the entire coalition is the drive to eject Netanyahu from power. The coalition has no other clear objectives, but that goal alone was enough to bring an Arab Islamist party together with a right-wing national religious party, as well as parties located throughout the political spectrum.

And so, Israel reaches the unprecedented situation in which the head of a party with just six Knesset seats becomes prime minister.

On the other side of the political divide, rumors and reports have been swirling about last-ditch efforts to torpedo the new coalition. One unconfirmed report is that the Likud will hold snap primaries – but it is not at all clear how that would interfere with the emergence of the new coalition.

The change coalition, meanwhile, has reached agreements on many core issues. Tens of billions of shekels in public funds will go to the Arab sector in line with the demands of Ra’am party leader Mansour Abbas.

Legislation that holds that a prime minister who has been in power for eight years will need a four-year cooling off period is being prepared, in what appears to be personal legislation designed to deny Netanyahu access to a new run for office any time soon.

These are key clauses in the coalition agreement.

There are additional, controversial, clauses, such as expanding the Norwegian law, which states that ministers can quit the Knesset (as MKs while retaining their positions as ministers), enabling the nest person on their party list to enter parliament as an MK. Lapid publicly came out against  this set up last year, only for him to approve it in this coalition.

The current expanded Norwegian Law is set to cost the taxpayer 110 million shekels.

This coalition will be an inflated government made up of no fewer than 28 ministers and six deputy ministers. The Norwegian law will allow all coalition parties to  Bring a significant number of party members into parliament as MKs.

At the time of writing, even though the outcome of a new government looks highly likely,  last-minute changes can still occur, and the coalition has yet to be sworn in.  Despite the intense pressure currently on the Yamina party, failure to swear in the government would be highly surprising, and a new chapter in Israeli politics looks like it is about to begin.

---

Danielle Roth-Avneri is a journalist and reporter on political matters, as well as an editor for the Israel Hayom/Israel Todaynewspaper, the most widely circulated publication in Israel. Read full bio here.

The Six Day War’s message for Israel in 2021

By Eitan Dangot

The 54 years that have passed since the 1967 Six Day War have demonstrated beyond all doubt that this conflict was a turning point in the history of Israel, and that the war’s achievements and results continue to influence Israel’s existence, character, and security to this very day.

There are several key comparisons between 1967 and 2021 that help drive home how this 54-year-old process is continuing to shape national and regional realities.

Israel is currently transitioning from the second to the third generation since the Six Day War, and the new generation is dealing with many matters from that time that  half a century later are still burning issues.

Jerusalem

The Six Day War saw the reunification of Jerusalem, and the unity of Israel’s capital must be preserved.

The city’s explosive potential and its use as a trigger for incitement and violence is a constant factor. The issue of Jerusalem remains highly sensitive, and alongside its role as the eternal capital of Israel, the city also requires a sensitive strategy, something that in many cases requires prioritizing being smart over being right, and thinking before acting.

 In the years following 1967, and principally during the period of the Trump administration, Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital received a tailwind from the United States.

At the same time, careful thought and strategic daring on the part of future Israeli leaderships will be necessary to deal with Palestinian demands to express an affiliation with the city. Israel should generate a formula that separates the religious context of the city, by leaving Islamic religious responsibility for the Temple Mount in the hands of Jordan (and no one else). Jerusalem’s enlarged municipal size today includes Arab villages that are not a part of the city, and it is those outlying village areas that can be used as the basis for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority in the future over the establishment of a Palestinian capital.

Within Jerusalem itself, internal Israeli security forces must be responsible for security across the entire city, with as little involvement of the military as possible. During sensitive incidents, security forces should be injected and deployed to Jerusalem in large numbers in order to back-up police there. The city should be managed without tactical mistakes that create an inflammatory atmosphere of the kind that extremist elements constantly seek out to leverage for their strategic and religious agendas.  

Ultimately, the Six Day War’s achievement of uniting Jerusalem must be preserved.

The Six Day War’s strategic legacy

Since the Six Day War, the Jewish state’s existence has been consolidated beyond all question in the perception of many Arab-Muslim countries. They perceive Israel as a permanent fixture in the region, and besides terrorist organizations and a single Shi’ite Iranian state no one any longer questions Israel’s right to exist.

The dramatic 1979 Israeli – Egyptian peace treaty created a gate for Israel to the region, one that opened very slowly, but in recent years, especially during the Trump administration, much of the Arab world has opened up to Israel to one degree or another. This trend matured into the Abraham accords and much of the Sunni Middle East is perfectly able to discern its central enemy – the Shi’ite Iranian threat –  from a potential ally – Israel. This is a completely different reality from the one faced by Israel in 1967.

Today, Israel is also an independent energy supplier, a situation that stands in stark contrast to the embargos and boycotts that Israel faced from 1967 until recent years. The discovery of large natural gas reserves off Israel’s Mediterranean coastline has placed it in the club of Middle Eastern energy producers. The fact that Israel supplies its Arab neighbors, Egypt and Jordan, with natural gas, is creating joint interests that could shape regional events for many years to come.

Had Hezbollah not hijacked Lebanon, Israel today could be helping solve Lebanon’s severe and deteriorating energy crisis, acting as a rapid, cheap source of energy supplies for years.

Relations between Israel and pragmatic Arab states can reach ever-growing heights in the coming years, in the areas of economy, technology, and the creation of a counter-bloc against the radical Iranian-Shi’ite bloc.

A major obstacle to this development is the Palestinian issue. While the leaders of Arab states  have matured in their view of the Palestinian cause, the Arab street has not. The costs that Israel and Arab states will have to pay will be very significant if a solution to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict is not found, and if there is no way to calm Arab public opinion in every regional state.

In the fallout of the Six Day War, a Palestinian leadership headed by PLO chief Yasser Arafat took over the reins of the conflict with Israel from the Arab states. Since then, the conflict has morphed into a standoff between Israel and radical extremist organizations, who are building up their force, do not recognize Israel’s existence, and are using state arenas (Lebanon Iraq, and Syria) and Gazan territory to build terrorist armies.

These forces are funded by an extremist Shi’ite Iranian state and by a number of terror supporting, radical Sunni (Muslim Brotherhood) actors, primarily Qatar.

This has seen cooperation in terrorism between Shi’ite and Sunni extremists, united in their fight against Israel despite their sectorial animosities.

Hezbollah and Hamas have transformed the face of combat, pioneering asymmetric threats against Israel and joining up with the symmetric strategic threats posed to Israel from Iran and Syria.

This picture means Israel must continue being the strongest state in the 1,500-kilometer radius from Jerusalem, and needs to be able to cope with varying levels of threat, requiring huge investment and sophisticated technological military developments. These investments have enabled Israel to shield itself from harm and continue to operate as a sovereign independent state.

The transition between the reality of 1967 – from Israel facing Arab state armies to facing modern radical non-state terror organizations –  included key turning points, such as the rise of Hezbollah in place of Fatah beginning in 1984 in Lebanon, until its present status as the largest terrorist non-state entity in the world. It has teamed up with Hamas, a smaller terror organization, influenced by the Sunni Islamist part of the regional map, and funded by Qatar, which, as stated previously, supports Muslim Brotherhood extremist causes.

 In recent years, the Shi’ite axis has created an international threat that stretches from Tehran through to Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut. This axis is pointing growing numbers of offensive strike capabilities at Israel’s civilian population. Such a threat to Israel’s soft underbelly did not exist in 1967.

Ballistic missiles and rockets stationed at many points around the region have become an intolerable challenge to Israel’s security, and these arsenals are improving their accuracy and payloads. They serve as a key stage in Iran’s overall goal of entering the nuclear stage. 

Israel has in response developed world leading air defense and attack capabilities, spending huge sums to cope with arsenals that are relatively cheap to produce.

 Unlike 1967, in 2021, the Israeli home front and its battle front are one and the same.

Military legacy – the preemptive attack

In 1967, Israel’s success in thwarting a threat to its existence from Arab states came from an opening maneuver that was surprising, deep and unexpected. This has seared the value of preemptive attacks into the national consciousness. Yet since 1967, Israel has not used this tool significantly in any of the three central wars that followed 1967: The 1973 Yom Kippur War, the 1982 First Lebanon War, and the 2006 Second Lebanon War.

The change in essence of the enemy and in the fact that the new enemy’s force build-up is becoming intolerable means that Israel must go back and review the value of 1967-style opening maneuvers as a new strategic decision-making junction that the next government will need to examine.

The tools of preemption must make a comeback, not necessarily to declare open war, but also in the campaign between wars in order to remove advanced enemy capabilities.

The question of whether it is right to launch a preemptive attack, with good timing and deep risk assessment against Hezbollah or Hamas, and especially against Iran’s nuclear program, is a highly relevant one.

Israel employed this doctrine against the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981, and the Syrian nuclear program in 2007.

Safeguarding Israeli air power as the regional air superiority asset is a key aspect of this doctrine.

In 1967, the IAF took advantage of its qualitative edge to conduct depth missions. Its human and technological advantage has only consolidated further since 1967, resulting in the evolution of a supreme military branch that safeguards Israeli skies, and the skies of the entire region.

 It is this air force that has helped convince many Arab states of Israel’s power and permanence.

The Israeli ground maneuvers that accompanied the Six Day War’s opening waves of air strikes created facts on the ground. In recent years, in light of the many changes to enemy structure and doctrine, including the use of terrorism from civilian populations (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and others, such as ISIS in Syria), Israel has found itself needing to create new ways of thinking about future ground maneuvers.

The tool of a ground maneuver is what establishes facts on the ground. It must be maintained as a sharp tool that integrates efficiently with air power to enable Israel to achieve rapid objectives during future conflicts. In addition, withdrawing ground forces from captured territories within relatively little time is also key to enabling the Israeli government to translate future military accomplishments into political gains. The Six Day War's legacy drives home these lessons.

The fact that for the past 54 years Israel has been present in Judea and Samaria and that it continues to exercise a military government for the Arab civilian population, sharpens the need to disconnect  military contexts from future areas that the IDF might be forced to fight in and capture.

Lebanon has taught Israel that staying on the ground too long creates an erosion of operational and strategic advantages. The disengagement from Gaza was a reflection of that realization by late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The only area in which such a clear solution cannot be implemented is Judea and Samaria.

On the other hand, this area, conquered from Jordan in 1967 in the defensive Six Day War, has, since 2006, and following much blood shed in the Second Intifada, seen the stabilization of a Palestinian autonomy with economic independence and internal security forces.

The big question is whether a brave Palestinian leader, currently not visible on the horizon, will agree to realistic end-of-conflict conditions that would require the Palestinians to give up the claim to a ‘right of return.’

The connection between extremist religious movements and lack of requisite maturity on the Palestinian side that would enable it to give up on a right of return has been evident repeatedly, even in the face of far-reaching Israeli compromise offers, such as Camp David in 2000. This underlines the fact that the issue will accompany us for many years.

Ultimately, the new Israeli government faces a heavy responsibility to plot new strategic paths on wide ranging issues, many of which can trace their development to the 1967 Six Day War.

Applying the preemptive model to threats such as the Iranian nuclear program must be included as a realistic possibility, but Israel also needs new thinking to create a model of co-existence between Jews and Palestinians.

---

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

The Six Day War: A turning point that shaped our reality

By Gershon Hacohen

The 1967 Six Day War acted as a critical turning point for Israel, its adversaries, the Middle East, and the global perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its after-effects continue to be acutely felt to this very day.

 The war consolidated Israel’s security, and the idea that Israel can be destroyed by an Arab land invasion through organized armored formations was permanently discredited following her decisive victory over Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

Israel no longer faced a classical existential threat.

In terms of the doctrine of the militaries involved, the Six Day War was a close echo of the ground warfare and air tactics used in the Second World War.

While the weapons were somewhat more advanced, and the jet revolution had upgraded fighter aircraft, the basic concepts of warfare as seen in World War Two remained very much in effect. The Israeli Air Force was modelled on the Royal Air Force, where Ezer Weizman, who built up the IAF ahead of the Six Day War, had flown during the Second World War. It took its inspiration from the air-to-air combat doctrines employed by the RAF in the Battle of Britain: Preventing enemy aircraft from achieving air superiority to devastate cities on the ground.

On land, both sides employed World War Two doctrines with their armored forces. The IDF relied on upgraded American-made Sherman and British Centurion tanks, U.S.-made Patton tanks, and M3 armored personnel carriers bought cheaply from the U.S.

The Syrians relied on Soviet T-34 tanks, and also had some German Panzer tanks, as well as Soviet T-55 and T-44 tanks in their inventory. The Egyptians relied on T-55s. These ground platforms are similar to those used in the Second World War.

Ground combat was fought in open areas, with defensive and offensive tactics. The resemblance to Second World War-era doctrine is no coincidence. In 1965, when Maj. Gen. Israel Tal, who was commander of the armored wartime formations, and  Maj. Gen. Zvi Zamir, head of the Doctrine Department, saw that the Syrians and Egyptians were employing Soviet tank doctrines, they travelled to Germany to learn from former German military commanders who battled the Soviet army. 

Had World War Two-era generals, such as George S. Patton or Erich Von Meinstein, arrived at the Six Day War battle arenas, they would have fully understood what was going on.  

The failure of the Arab armies to engage with Israel in classic ground and air combat in 1967 led to a rapid learning of lessons on the Arab side, and a change of tactics by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. He understood that the Israeli victory in 1967 came from a highly temporary constellation of conditions that provided Israel with superiority. Israel had an advantage in the number of high school graduates it could call upon to operate machines – tanks and planes – giving it both a technical and conceptual edge. The Israeli field officers enjoyed a high degree of freedom, known as mission-oriented command and control, during battle, meaning that Egyptian and Syrian military high commands, with their centralized, slow-moving command chains, could not keep up with Israel.

This advantage was largely created by Moshe Dayan, who was defense minister during the war, and who was IDF Chief of Staff ten years previously, during the Sinai Campaign (Operation Kadesh), when he devised an operational concept based on creating momentum for Israel. This rested on granting field commanders broad decision-making freedom and freeing them from cumbersome chains of command.

Sadat understood that he had no chance of dealing head-on with Israel’s qualitative edge, and devised a plan for the 1973 Yom Kippur War that took away Israel’s advantages by denying the IDF the ability to move freely, in the air and on the ground, through the use of anti-tank and surface-to-air missiles.

This asymmetric approach created stagnation on the battlefield that worked against Israel, and went on to influence future adversaries of Israel to come up with ways to rob Israel’s of its built-in military advantages.

Putting the Palestinian cause in the spotlight

The Six Day War led to the Palestinian cause gaining a prominent place both on the regional and world stages.

In the eyes of the PLO, which was founded in 1964, the war validated the objective of terrorism. The late PLO chief Yasser Arafat viewed terrorism as a means to spark a regional war with Israel, and recruit Arab armies to ‘finish’ the job they started in 1948.

Even though Palestinian terrorism caused small-scale damage to Israel in the 1960s, it played a definitive role in escalating the Syrian front, creating a significant catalyst for the outbreak of the Six Day War.

Arafat was able to put his doctrine into practice soon enough, when the Fatah-faction of the PLO, based in Syria, began attacking Israel’s National Water Carrier, which drew water from the Sea of Galilee. 

This occurred after Syria began diverting water away from the carrier from its side of the border.

The Syrians built their own water carrier in their territory and in Lebanon, diverting water from the natural springs that nourish the Jordan River, which feeds the Sea of Galilee. 

Syria also began shelling Israeli construction work on the Israeli carrier in the Galilee from the Golan Heights. Israel retaliated against these actions with air strikes on Syrian targets.

In 1965, with Israel facing restrictions on the use of its French-made fighter jets for offensive missions, Maj. Gen. Tal took the decision to take advantage of Syria border incidents by responding in a different manner than air strikes.

He used Israeli tank fire to systematically destroy Syrian tractors that were diverting water away from Israel instead. This caused the Syrians to abandon their efforts to divert water from Israel and call a truce.

After Syria stopped its 'water campaign' and announced a ceasefire, it activated the PLO from Jordan and Lebanon (not directly from Syria), employing proxy warfare against Israel.

The situation continued to escalate in the run-up to the Six Day War.  In April 1967, two months before the war, the Syrian military began shelling northern Israeli communities.  IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin received approval from Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to use aircraft if Israeli communities came under fire, and the IAF launched eighty sorties against Syria that day. Six Syrian MiG jets were shot down in air battles that raged between the Galilee and Damascus. Rabin was prepared to engage Syria in a broader conflict if necessary to eliminate PLO bases from its territory. But he did not believe that Egypt would get involved.

At this stage, the Soviet Union falsely told Syria that Israel was planning a large-scale military assault on it, and the Syrians activated a defense pact with Egypt, causing Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser to withdraw Egyptian forces from Yemen, and deploy them in the Sinai Peninsula, violating a demilitarization truce agreement.

The deterioration to war after these developments was rapid. And in line with Arafat’s vision, Palestinian terrorism was one of the sparks.

Following the Six Day War, the PLO became a far more significant element in the region, pioneering terrorism to get worldwide attention. Its raids from Jordan on Israel, its plane hijackings, and the Munich attacks all helped promote the Palestinian narrative as an underdog fighting the Israeli occupation.

And this narrative fit hand to glove with the new Western worldview that was taking hold in North America and Europe.

The creation of the Islamic religious fighter

A central after-shock of the Six Day War was the development of the Islamic religious fighter that replaced the collapsed Arab nationalist movements that were dominant until that time.

As Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism fell by the historical roadside, Arab nationalist adversaries were, over the years, replaced with belief-based enemy entities such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, Sheikh Yussuf Qaradawi, saw the Zionist zeal of Israel’s soldiers, identified it as a religious ethos (despite the self-view of Israel’s leading secular Zionists), and concluded that secular Arab movements cannot defeat Israel.

At this time, pan-Arabism also began its dramatic collapse, which was made final by the Lebanese civil war and the sectarian Arab on Arab fighting that accompanied it. Islamism began to emerge as a successor movement.

The jihadist Palestinian ideologue Abdullah Azzam, born near Jenin, travelled to Afghanistan in the 1980s and called for jihadist fighters from across the Islamic world to join him, laying the foundation for Al Qaeda.

 Al Qaeda grew out of Muslim Brotherhood ideology – the same ideology that led to the creation of Hamas, which benefits from being both a local movement and is connected to a global Islamist network.

Today, it is the Islamists who form the central adversary against Israel, and working with the Shi’ite Islamists of Iran, are planning to destroy Israel by collapsing its morale from within.

 A turning point in Israeli society

The Six Day War had a profound effect on Israeli society. Between 1948 and 1967, Israelis under the leadership of the ruling Mapai party were led by a powerful Zionist redemptive vision. Following the war, young Israelis found themselves in a stagnant society that lacked new compelling narratives.

Volunteers from around the world came to Kibbutzim, which went from being symbols of Zionist pioneers redeeming land to symbols of hippies, free love, and the flower power generation.

There was no new leadership in Israel to tell a new story.

In this crisis of identity, young Israelis embraced the international peace movement that had taken hold of the West in the late 1960s as part of the cultural counter-revolution and the reaction to the Vietnam war.

Israelis adopted global universalist narratives, which themselves were developed by a new Western generation that grew up in the booming post-war years.

Following World War Two the older Western generation that fought in and managed to survive the global conflict came home exhausted and depleted of energy, spending what little resources in had left to rebuild a world ravaged by tens of millions of casualties, wrecked cities, destroyed economies, and untold mental damage. This generation clung to the ideal of normality in the post-war years. 

The next generation that grew up in the stable West saw that conservative values and the idealization of the status quo had little to offer them. Young people began to look for their own life-affirming role in a world that had been frozen, and the counter-culture movement began as a result.

Israeli youths underwent a similar process. Those born in Israel after the 1948 War of Independence, children of Holocaust survivors or new immigrants who arrived in Israel with nothing, found themselves searching for new meaning in the late 1960s. They needed a new order, and this need opened them up to the Western peace movement, which deeply influenced Israeli society following the Six Day War.

Ultimately, all of these factors came together to turn the Six Day War into a moment that is more than just a transition phase in history. The war is a historical framework that provided new context to a range of national, regional, and global perceptions that continue to reverberate to this day.

---

Major General Gershon Hacohen served as Commander of the Northern Corps of the IDF. He previously held various positions, including Commander of the IDF Colleges, Head of Training & Doctrine Division in the General Staff, Reserve Division Commander of the Northern Command and Commander of the 7th Brigade of the IDF Armor Division. Read full bio here.

PODCAST: MirYam Institute Six Day War Special Featuring: Maj. Gen. Gershon Hacohen (IDF, Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Gershon Hacohen (IDF, Ret.) in conversation with Benjamin Anthony

How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Afghanistan Withdrawal Plan

By Frank Sobchak

In recent weeks there have been a number of articles written prognosticating that America’s planned withdrawal from Afghanistan spells wholesale doom for U.S. and Israeli counterterrorism efforts, and the broader security and wellbeing of both states. While we are right to worry over the coming humanitarian disaster, anxiety over the security impact of the withdrawal is grossly misplaced. Instead, both nations should be thankful that the long drain on resources is finally coming to an end, and that their leaders will be able to refocus their grand strategies in areas that matter, rather than waste valuable resources in areas of strategic distraction.

There is an old adage that if you try to defend everything, you defend nothing. Proper grand strategy, something neither state has been effective at imagining and then implementing recently, requires carefully balancing risks, costs, and benefits. It requires thinking clearly and rationally rather than acting with emotion – — as hard as that may be. It also demands recognizing that no state has unlimited resources. To determine how to allocate those scarce resources, states should meticulously assess what are their most vital interests and then commit resources towards protecting those interests. Difficult decisions will have to be made, often with the best choice being the least bad of a series of unsavory options. 

Pretending that Afghanistan qualifies as a vital interest for the U.S. or Israel is simply ludicrous. The Afghan war started with little thought of costs, consequences, or second or third order effects. As a result, the strategy (using that term loosely) of the U.S. and its allies has drifted for many years, with national leaders more afraid of domestic political costs than reassessing the core assumptions of the conflict or evaluating our chances of success or goals.

This has caused a monumental expenditure of our limited resources. Many estimates put the U.S. cost of the Afghan war in the range of $1 trillion. When all expenditures are totaled, it will almost certainly cost trillions more due to the long-term impact of veterans’ care as well as the interest on loans taken out to finance the war. There is considerable evidence that Al Qaida’s strategy was to draw the U.S. into Afghanistan and keep us there until bankruptcy. This was no farcical fantasy:  Afghanistan economically bled dry the empires of Alexander the Great, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. The conflict in Afghanistan was such a gross waste of resources that it would probably have been more useful if the U.S. had set the trillions of dollars spent on the war on fire and used it for heat.  

In addition to its financial cost, the war also spent the nation’s reserves of public willingness to face its enemies. War weariness is at an all-time high, and if we had continued to stay and fight in Afghanistan, it would have further degraded America’s willingness to confront our true enemies and the world’s real dangers.  

When thinking of our vital interests, the U.S. should focus on areas that matter to us strategically and the enemies that can threaten those interests. While we squandered our finances in Afghanistan, the forces of authoritarianism have been on the march. Russia and China present complicated global threats to the existing liberal order that the U.S spent decades building. Iran, a nation that has pledged the destruction of both Israel and the United States, presents a regional threat to that order and is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power – a grave danger that could ignite an arms race that would further destabilize a crucial region. Afghanistan is a distraction from those threats. 

Even if a vestige of the terrorist threat rises again in Afghanistan, it is unlikely to be significant enough to require another large-scale intervention as no American administration of either party would blithely sit by while such a threat re-established itself there. The vast majority of the current fighters are domestic combatants engaged in the struggle for Afghanistan’s future. While there are some Al Qaida and Islamic State militants in Afghanistan, long ago those organizations spread across the world to survive. The global jihadist movement metastasized and learned. It would require a willful suspension of reality to pretend the senior leaders of those organizations would return to set up terrorist training camps or operate overtly in Afghanistan as this would put them in the crosshairs of American and coalition aircraft. If anything, the continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan provides fodder for recruitment of the global jihadist network. Ending our involvement in the conflict will hurt their recruitment efforts – a positive consequence for both the U.S. and Israel.

As John Quincy Adams noted, we should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. The world is full of monsters who wish us ill. If we continuously go hunting for them, as we have for the last two decades, we will find ourselves insolvent, exhausted, and our skills dulled. It is time for us to rest and prepare so that when they do come for us, we will be ready.

---

Frank Sobchak is a PhD candidate in international relations at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and has taught at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Tufts University, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He holds a BS in Military History from West Point and a MA in Arab Studies from Georgetown University. Read full bio here.

PODCAST: The Gaza Operation - Lessons For a Future Conflict With Hezbollah

LT. Col. Yochai Guiski (IDF, Ret.) Weighs In

Yes, Georgia's Anti-BDS Law Is Constitutional

By Mark Goldfeder

A majority of states have adopted bills that say people who do business with them must abide by their policies related to fair business practices, including anti-discrimination rules. One motivation was the rise of the antisemitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement — a coordinated effort to disrupt the economic stability of the state of Israel, persons conducting business with Israel, and individuals the movement deems too closely affiliated with Israel.

Georgia passed such a law, which last week became the subject of a federal court ruling in Martin v. Wrigley. But the details of this case have been widely misreported. No, the decision did not strike the law down as unconstitutional. Rather, the court declined to dismiss the case outright, reasoning that, if all disputed facts are construed most favorably toward the plaintiff, then there were “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

None of the various states' “anti-BDS” laws ban or punish speech that is critical of Israel, target advocacy for Palestinian rights, or stop anyone from boycotting Israel. They simply say that if you boycott Israel in a discriminatory manner, the state can choose not to do business with you.

The law in question only affects discriminatory commercial conduct, which can only be proven when it is stated explicitly by the discriminator. So, for example, when someone advertises to the public that their commercial conduct is intentionally discriminatory, it can and should be regulated by anti-discrimination laws.

In theory, this should not be controversial. The Supreme Court has consistently held that state and federal anti-discrimination laws do not violate the First Amendment. States have a compelling interest in preventing invidious discrimination, which they can implement by imposing conduct-based regulations on government contractors. Commercial decisions are also not protected by the First Amendment.

To be fair, a casual observer might be confused by the term "boycott," which in other contexts could refer to activities protected by the First Amendment. But the law in question does not regulate such activities. As the Supreme Court ruled in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., a case about a primary boycott of white-owned businesses to protest racial discrimination in Mississippi, the “right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott designed to force governmental and economic change and to effectuate rights guaranteed by the Constitution itself.”

No one disagrees with that principle, but the court here misread Claiborne as saying that all boycott activities are protected. It did not say so, and, in fact, they are not.

Claiborne affirmed that those elements of a boycott that do involve protected First Amendment activity do not lose that protection just because they are accompanied by nonexpressive elements. But it never addressed whether the First Amendment protects refusals to deal that are forbidden under state anti-discrimination law. At the time, there were no laws in Mississippi prohibiting racial discrimination.

So that question was conclusively resolved much later by the Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, which involved law schools engaged in a boycott of military recruiters to protest the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. To the extent that such a boycott involves nonexpressive activity, the court made clear that it is not protected.

The Martin opinion claims that FAIR is inapplicable because the court there did not use the word “boycott.” This is unconvincing given that the plaintiffs in FAIR referred to their own conduct as a “boycott.” The opinion in Martin also argues that because the Georgia statute makes an exception for refusals to deal that are based on business considerations, its prohibition against discrimination is an invalid, content-based restriction upon the freedom of speech. But this reasoning is nonsense. Broadly applied, it would essentially strike down all anti-discrimination laws — including, for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Regardless, the court chose to focus on one phrase in the bill’s definition of boycott, which, it reasoned, might apply to expressive conduct: its inclusion of “other actions” that are “intended to limit commercial relations with Israel.”

Georgia has consistently insisted that, like the first two types of activities described, the phrase “other actions” is also limited to nonexpressive commercial conduct. Martin, the plaintiff, is free to express her feelings however she wants, criticizing Israel or even advocating boycotts. But the court decided that the Legislature had not been clear enough in limiting the statute to only nonexpressive activity.

This procedural decision in Martin, although it allows this case to move forward, at least upholds the underlying principle that commercial buying decisions are not inherently expressive and therefore not always protected by the First Amendment. That alone should confirm the constitutionality of anti-BDS laws across the country. And although the court kept this case alive by forcing an ambiguous reading on to a subsection of the law, the statute's provisions are severable. At worst, legislators may have to amend the definition section to make clear what they intended to forbid in the first place.

But Georgia may yet prevail on the merits anyway because the court made crucial errors in failing to dismiss this case. Even taking the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, it should not have ignored the bedrock doctrine of constitutional avoidance, which holds that if there is more than one possible reading, the court should adopt the one that makes the statute constitutional. Moreover, based on other long-standing principles of statutory interpretation, the term “other actions” in the law should have been read to include only conduct similar in kind to the terms that precede it in the law — that is, nonexpressive commercial activities.

In short, reports of the Georgia bill’s death have been greatly exaggerated. Legislatures around the country can rest assured that their anti-BDS bills are constitutional.

---

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.

MOBS, WOKENESS & RHETORICAL IRRESPONSIBILITY

By Elana Dushey

Last week, my cousin’s 14-year-old son was enjoying a school trip with his Jewish day school in New York City. The weather was beautiful, the students were having fun, and then someone called my cousin a “fucking Jew”. That same day, a Jewish man was beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters in Times Square in broad daylight, and Jewish diners in LA were attacked by a group of identifiably pro-Palestinian men.

Earlier that week, John Oliver unpacked the Israeli/Gazan conflict and accused Israel of war crimes.  It was an egregiously irresponsible accusation that neither provided sound logic nor context, and it neglected to mention the many crimes Hamas committed against Israelis and Palestinians. I bring up Oliver because he is one of many celebrities whose commentary on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is especially dangerous as it brazenly distorts facts, utilizes faulty logic, effectively demonizes Israel and is read/seen by millions of people  A couple of weeks since the conflict erupted, anti-Semitic violent attacks in the US have risen exponentially. Did Oliver and anti-Israel voices like him entirely cause that to happen? Obviously not. Are they blameless? No. They are culpable.

I am a Zionist, and I am pro-Palestinian, and as such I believe both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to peace, prosperity and freedom. I am also a mother and a humanist.  I am deeply grieved by the fact that Palestinians and Israelis are dying. We who are watching the conflict from aboard are heartbroken and angry, which means that those who publicly comment on it have an obligation to present the situation with an unyielding use of facts and sound logic. Yet, Oliver, and pundits like him, do the contrary. Behind a posture of humanitarian concern (solely designated for Palestinians it seems), they incite not only hate toward Israel but also violence toward Jews, and they are doing so with egregious equivocations and skewed logic. In short, they are spewing propaganda and endangering Jews.  

 If you haven’t seen Oliver’s bit from May 16, I will provide his key points because they echo much of the anti-Israel propaganda currently being disseminated:

 1: Israel has a stronger military than Hamas and can inflict more damage on the Palestinians than the Palestinians can inflict on Israelis- as if strength is an indicator of immorality .

 2: Israel has had to bomb civilian buildings, which has caused the death of Palestinians. Oliver minimized the fact that the IDF forewarns Palestinian civilians to evacuate the building prior to Israel destroying it in an effort to avoid casualties, as if that is standard procedure in military campaigns in other nations; it is not.

But Oliver did not mention that Hamas has aimed thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians, that Hamas launches those rockets from within civilian occupied buildings to maximize its own civilian casualties, that 17 Palestinians were killed by Hamas’s own rockets, and that Hamas is an Islamist terrorist group, who took leadership of Gaza by throwing their political opponents off of roofs.

In rhetorical negligence, Oliver did not ask what Israel should do instead? Should Israel allow itself to be bombarded by thousands of rockets because many of those rockets don’t hit their targets – though some do, despite Israel’s defense mechanism the Iron Dome? 

             Oliver’s monologue is one example of many where egregiously irresponsible rhetoric about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict vilifies Israel and excuses/ ignores Hamas’s culpability.  More disturbingly, anti-Israel rhetoric like Oliver’s is not only blindly accepted but applauded. What is most astounding is that within the schema of woke politics that pervades American discourse now, and which is supposed to locate and identify discrimination, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism continue to go unchecked.  And whoever says now that anti-Israel sentiment is not anti-Semitism, please take a look at AMERICAN JEWS who are being attacked by mobs of pro-Palestinians just because they are Jewish.  

Anyone is welcome to criticize Israel, as Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians is certainly not beyond reproach, and vice versa. There is much that needs to be worked on by both sides to create peace. But promulgating propaganda with unsound information will not help Palestinians or Israelis and has dangerous consequences for Jews.  Part of the reason that propaganda repeatedly goes unchecked in our cultural climate is because intersectionality has created a framework that oversimplifies issues and polarizes people into groups of good or bad, based on race, privilege, and socioeconomic status. It has created groups of oppressors and the oppressed, and assumes power and strength are always immoral.

Furthermore, social media (which does not require claims to be supported) has devalued the necessity of civil and informed debate and replaced it with memes and tribal alliances.

Put another way, millions believe the vilifying lies about Israel because 1) Israel is strong, 2) because people are willingly not educated enough about the complexity of the conflict, and 3) most disturbingly, people also believe those lies because they are lies about Jews. It is certainly not the first time in history incendiary lies about Jews were propagated and believed-which highlights the irony and hypocrisy of intersectional discourse, especially the way it allies the oppressed against the oppressor. Please look at the plethora of violent and oppressive campaigns launched at Jews historically. Recognize the fact that Israel is the only Jewish country in the world and is surrounded by multiple Muslim countries that want to destroy it, and tell me that the willingness to believe anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda is not partially or fully engendered from anti-Semitism. Yet, Jews are still demonized and often it is through “woke” and intersectional narratives.

Furthermore, social media has morphed into a digital mob that assigns inaccurate labels to Israel. For the sake of accuracy, let’s unpack some of those labels. 1) The digital mob accuses Israel of being an apartheid state; it is not - Israeli Arabs are afforded the same legal rights and liberties as Jewish Israelis. 2) It accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing – the only area that has been ethnically cleansed is Gaza, but it was cleansed of Jews. 3) It accuses Israel of genocide - the Palestinian population in Gaza grows 3% every year,  the 13th highest growth rate in the world. 4) It accuses Israel of European white colonialism -  how can Jewish Israelis, who are indigenous to Israel, who have maintained a continuous presence in the land for thousands of years, and who are neither ethnically nor racially European or white, be European white colonizers? (Furthermore, about 50 percent of Jewish Israelis are descendants of Middle Eastern and North African Jews, who were refugees from Muslim countries. Many of those countries too have been ethnically cleansed of Jews.)  

Of course, the digital mob is not an abstract ether; it is comprised of millions of people who perpetually share anti-Israel ideas. The result is an unyielding wave of anti-Semitic propaganda that grows and grows and grows. Given the fact that Oliver’s show is watched, tweeted and retweeted by millions of people, we can assume that his 10-minute monologue created millions of anti-Semites and incited those who already were. I’m calling him out on it; I’m praying he won’t have Jewish blood on his hands, and I’m praying for peace.

---

Elana Hornblass Dushey earned her PhD in English Literature from Fordham University in 2015 with a dissertation that focused on Jewish American literature and its approach to Zionism and Israel. For 12 years, she taught literature, composition, and film at St. Johns University and Fordham University, where she was awarded numerous fellowships. Following her degree, she was a Connected Academic Fellow in the Modern Language Association. Read full bio here.

Morality flipped on its head

By Natan Trief

In a year focused on viruses and pathology, we must recognize antisemitism as one of the most versatile and dynamic of viruses. It mutates depending on the societal ill and circumstance, and history has taught us that it always simmers below the surface. Whether hated for their religion, their race, or ethnicity, two thousand years of persecution and pogroms have often escorted the Jewish historical experience. Exiled from their ancestral homeland, no matter where they found themselves, they stood at the mercy of gentile rulers and neighbors. This, of course, changed with Israel’s founding in 1948. Jewish blood would never again be so cheap nor expendable. 

Israel’s founding, however, also gave antisemites respectable cover for their odious beliefs. They could now unleash their hatred toward Jews through the veil of harsh and unfounded criticism of Israel. This tactic has increased exponentially with the advent of social media as well as the implacability of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Israel’s recent May 2021 “Guardian of the Walls” military campaign demonstrated beyond doubt the intimate linkage between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. 

After this recent conflict between the terrorist organization Hamas and Israel, Jew hatred has reached a fever pitch. Its manifestations in America combined with the ease of social media dissemination has opened up a new front against Israel as well as the Jewish People. It turns out that when one uses venomous words such as apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide to describe the one Jewish State in the world, it has ill-fated consequences for the Jewish People. We have seen those consequences play out in the streets of New York, Los Angeles and countless other American cities. It seems the century-long vacation that American Jews have enjoyed from the historical Jewish experience has dissipated. For decades, Americans looked across the ocean and lamented the plight of European Jews still suffering from antisemitism in those blood-soaked lands. 

The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) has painstakingly documented the explosive surge of antisemitic hate speech during and after Israel’s latest campaign against Hamas terrorists. In the week following the beginning of hostilities (May 7-14th) it documented 17,000 tweets on Twitter alone using some variation of the phrase “Hitler was right.” The New York Times published a guest editorial with the image of a disappearing map of Palestine. In this vile lie of an illustration, it purports to show the integral country of ‘Palestine'’ slowly eliminated by the land-grabbing Jewish State and its “racist system.” Of course, in taking away all agency and accountability from the Palestinians, the true racist system becomes apparent. Moreover, the overwhelming media predilection of referring to Hamas operatives as “militants,” rather than “terrorists,” encourages moral relativism between a theocratic, dictatorial regime and a democratic country. As morality and truth are flipped on their heads, the path is paved for hatred of the alleged perpetrators– Jews. 

The working definition of antisemitism as defined by the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) asserts the following as antisemitic: “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

Indeed, the famous Soviet refusenik Natan Sharansky devised his test of “3 Ds” to determine if anti-Israel sentiment veers into the realm of antisemitism: delegitimization, demonization, and double standard. 

The instances of these 3 Ds have proliferated in recent days. Interestingly, they have not only originated from non-Jewish detractors of Israel. After the onset of fighting in this latest round, nearly 100 American rabbinical and cantorial students penned an open letter “appealing to the heart of the Jewish community.” Under the guise of Jewish teachings and direct quotes from biblical books, these future spiritual leaders of the American Jewish community claimed that the “racist violence” of Israel “supports violent suppression of human rights and enables apartheid…” They condemn their coreligionists for using their “tzedakah money” to support “those who sow hate and violence disguised in the name of justice and Jewish continuity.”     

It is not just that these Jewish student-leaders may have missed the class on milchemet mitzvah (sacred war) or the Jewish moral mandate for self defense, they also display a wanton disregard for facts or context. The nearly 1,000-word document does not once mention Hamas, nor its openly declared goal of destroying the Jewish State, nor the thousands of rockets fired indiscriminately at Israeli civilians. It would be too easy to accuse these rabbinical and cantorial students of ignorance; it reeks of something more sinister. Whether this is an example of auto antisemitism or the oft-described phenomenon of “self-hating Jews” is not for this piece to analyze. In her book on “Jews and Power,” noted scholar Ruth Wisse analyzes the well-attested, traditional Jewish aversion to power, and the preference to pursue the prophetic call of moral righteousness, unburdened by the exigencies of statehood or military.  

Whether coming from Gentile or Jewish sources, whether antisemitic or anti-Israel, the impact of this slander is clear. Israel continues to be the one country in the world whose very right to exist is constantly questioned. If that is the case for the one Jewish State, what does that mean for the one Jewish People?

---

Natan Trief grew up in suburban New Jersey not far from New York City. He graduated from Dartmouth College with a double major in Spanish and History. Before the rabbinate was even a glint in his eye, Natan spent the 10 years between Dartmouth and rabbinical school exploring the world and his place in it. Whether the corporate boardrooms of PepsiCo, the hills, valleys and seas of Israel, or the Mongolian desert, the years were never dull. Read full bio here.

Israel or Palestine: You Don’t Always Have to Pick A Side

By Jennifer Shulkin

These past few weeks have highlighted yet another glaring example of how polarized we have become. Spurred by cancel culture, an extremely polarized American political system, and social media platforms that give everyone a microphone and a stage to voice their opinions, many people feel like they need to pick a side on every important issue and advertise it.

Contentious issues like the May 2021 outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian violence have been reduced to a black and white choice between two opposing sides. One side is right and the other is wrong. One side is good and the other is evil. Despite the high value Americans claim to place on free speech and debate, people who publicly support the wrong side in today’s world are threatened with public shaming and ostracism – i.e., being canceled. For example, the response to Andrew Yang’s May 10 tweet that expressed solidarity with Israel defending itself from terror was so negative that he felt compelled to apologize and revise his earlier statement. 

Over the past several weeks we’ve seen a near constant stream of anti-Israel sentiments on social media. Celebrities like DJ Khaled, Viola Davis, Bella and Gigi Hadid, and Mark Ruffalo (who later apologized for his post’s “not accurate” and “inflammatory” content, which had accused Israel of committing “genocide”), among others, were praised for their unequivocally pro-Palestinian posts. Many of these remarks included extreme and pointed language like “ethnic cleansing,” “apartheid,” and “genocide.”

Friends, acquaintances, and colleagues of mine jumped on the same bandwagon and engaged in similar online rhetoric. This confused me. I knew many of these individuals’ backgrounds, what they studied in school, what careers they have pursued. And like the opinionated celebrities mentioned, almost none of these friends, acquaintances, and colleagues received formal education on or worked in careers even tangentially related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So how did they know so much to form such strong opinions? How did they know enough to decide who was right and who was wrong, who was evil and who was good? How were they sufficiently certain about their convictions to broadcast them to the world with the goal of convincing others of their own viewpoints?

They couldn’t have. This is what upset me most.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is extremely complex and nuanced. It is as far from black-and-white as anything can be. Most people commenting on social media likely have little understanding of the many twists and turns contributing to this most recent outbreak of violence, and that would only be scratching the surface of the underlying conflict. There is a deep and troubling history between the Israelis and Palestinians that dates back to even before Israel declared statehood in 1948 and then fought in its first formal war with its Arab neighbors just hours later. To become an expert on this subject, or even sufficiently educated on it, is no small undertaking.

Yet hundreds of thousands of anti-Israel posts from nonexpert individuals flooded our social media pages. Without being challenged or reproached.

Instead, reproaches were reserved for either neutral remarks or pro-Israel sentiments. Gal Gadot, for instance, was careful to express sorrow for both her fellow Israelis and her Palestinian neighbors in a tweet calling for peace but was widely criticized for not sympathizing more with Palestinian suffering. Similarly, Rihanna’s expression of neutrality received numerous criticisms and was even compared to asserting #AllLivesMatter – the troubling hashtag that now connotes racism and total opposition to #BlackLivesMatter. Why has disapproval of warfare and expressing sympathy for both Israeli and Palestinian victims of violence, especially innocent victims of terrorism, become such an evil and unacceptable opinion?

We see what happens when we either don’t pick a side or we pick the wrong side. This explains the outpouring of support for Palestinians and condemnation of Israel from so many voices on social media. It’s popular, and any position counter to it is unpopular.

What I long for far more than people being able to publicly voice a defense for Israel defending itself without being canceled or reproached is something much simpler: I long for people to be curious again – to admit what they don’t know, to ask questions, to engage in dialogue with people possessing opposing views, and to accept the intricacy of very complex situations.

This is why I was overjoyed to receive a text message a couple weeks ago from my friend, Tyler. Tyler began, “I know like .00099% of the Israel Gaza conflict and want to know more.” Without a predetermined position or judgment, he proceeded to ask thoughtful questions about Palestinian civil rights, Hamas’s rule in the territories, Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, and the Israeli police response at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Not an expert myself, I told him what I knew and readily admitted what I did not know. I sent him some materials I had recently read or listened to, and I myself read more on issues that I realized I had not understood well. Our goal in having this conversation was simply to understand more, not to be the final arbiters of right and wrong. We did not come to any definite conclusions. Unfortunately, this was the only conversation I had like this during this most recent outbreak of violence.

So my plea is simple: Be more like my friend, Tyler. Be curious. Ask questions, consume materials representing a variety of positions, and attempt to understand the nuances of a very complex conflict. Fight the urge to pass judgment too soon. Don’t form an opinion immediately just so you can join the crescendo of condemnation all around you. Admit what you do not know and ask others to help fill in the gaps. Use your social media platform to promote dialogue and discussion rather than to proliferate pointed and uninformed criticism.

Resist the temptation of black and white. Embrace the shades of gray.

You do not always have to pick a side.

Jennifer Shulkin is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the University of Pennsylvania. She has served as a former judicial law clerk in the Eastern District of New York and an assistant district attorney in Manhattan. She currently works as a white-collar criminal defense attorney in Washington, DC. Read full bio here.