The Palestinian issue is about supremacy, not justice

By Yochai Guiski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Military Aid to Israel Must Remain Unconditional

By Danny Ayalon & CHUCK FREILICH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

The Flawed U.S. Middle East Policy Establishment

By Jeremiah Rozman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

By Tomer Barak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordan's elites are concerned about three main issues.

First and foremost, there is the domestic front.

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

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

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

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

Another front is Jordan's status in Jerusalem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

For new Israeli government, urgent security decisions await

By Eitan Dangot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

THE IDDF PODCAST WITH CHUCK FREILICH & DANNY AYALON: The Iran Nuclear Threat & Violence In Judea & Samaria

A Blood Libel on Netflix

By Mark Goldfeder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Antisemitism on the March

By Micah Jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

A new, grim reality sets in

By Sharon Roffe Ofir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Antisemitism Then and Now: Distinction with An Amazing Difference

By Michael B. Snyder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

MirYam's Analyst: Monthly Israel Brief

By Yaakov Lappin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reported agreement on police powers has senior officers up in arms

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

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

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

Israel’s campaign against Iran continues without cessation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

THE IDDF PODCAST WITH CHUCK FREILICH & DANNY AYALON: The JCPOA & Anti-Semitism

Is Left-Wing or Right-Wing Antisemitism Worse?

By Justin Pozmanter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Israel Police key to Jerusalem security, regional security

By Alon Levavi

In the wake of a deadly wave of terrorism that hit Israeli cities beginning in March 2022, the IDF launched Operation Break the Wave to reduce the threat and it has been ongoing since then.

Operations focused at first on the northern West Bank city of Jenin and later Nablus, where the core hubs of Palestinian terror activities are presently located.

Throughout the security escalation, it seemed reasonable to believe that mixed Jewish – Arab cities including Ramle, Lod, Jerusalem and Acre could, from one moment to the next, erupt in violence just as they did so dramatically and disturbingly in May 2021, as Israel fought Hamas in Gaza in Operation Guardian of the Walls.

The spark for that conflict was lit in Jerusalem, where clashes between Palestinians and the Israel Police on the Temple Mount, together with subsequent incidents of violence, provided Hamas with the pretense to fire rockets from Gaza. Islamist agitators used the violence to incite unrest among Arab-Israelis.

In mid-October, violence once again tore through eastern Jerusalem, only this time it was rapidly quelled by police without spreading to new arenas. While it has resurfaced on occasion as the month progressed, police have so far kept the flames low, preventing them from spreading out of control.

That development is a reminder of a core principle that underlines regional stability: the key lies in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem has always been the issue that could blow up the region. It’s the volcano that’s always smoldering and the Israel Police is the lid on that volcano. If the volcano blows, it takes the West Bank with it and as recent events have shown, Gaza and Arab areas inside Israel, as well.

Jerusalem is under the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the Israel Police, meaning that it and no other agency has the main say on how to respond to the daily challenges that arise there.

Policing Jerusalem is a constant balancing act between the need to be forceful in the face of Palestinian aggression and attacks on Israeli police and Jewish residents of eastern Jerusalem, and the need to pull back and push for calm. Much is at stake and depends on the good judgment of police commanders on the ground who are always walking a tightrope.

The Israel Police achieves this balance by deploying top-level commanders to the front lines to take direct charge of policing operations. These commanders do not leave the Border Police and other units on their own to deal with the difficult issues that land at their doorstep.

This means directly overseeing orders on when to open fire in cases where lives are at risk and when to deploy non-lethal crowd control means, including smoke bombs and stun grenades to deal with disturbances in a controlled manner.

During October’s rioting, Palestinian youths hurled firebombs and rocks and launched fireworks directly at security forces, as well as at buildings in which Jews reside. Such attacks are potentially lethal but police nevertheless employ careful consideration when responding.

Equipping riot police with the most advanced protective gear makes personnel feel safer and prevents them from choosing the fiercest responses in such situations, police have learned.

Dealing with such intense rioting and dispersing the rioters is a full profession, and the Border Police and the special patrol units excel in it.

The fact that there are members of Knesset who knowingly come to the area to take part in provocations only makes life more complicated for the police, which must deploy larger numbers of forces to the scene to prevent such situations from spinning out of control or being further inflamed.

Intelligence plays a critical role in both containing and thwarting such incidents. In 2021, the police, the Shin Bet domestic intelligence agency and the IDF discovered that intelligence coordination between them was lacking. Since then, they have taken steps to optimize intelligence-sharing and have significantly improved their capabilities not just in Jerusalem but throughout Israel.

Police made dozens of arrests in mid-October and were able to significantly calm the situation down, reflecting a satisfactory performance and one that has improved from past years.

The eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat, where a terrorist gunman exited a vehicle and shot dead an Israeli Border Policewoman on October 8, represents a unique operational challenge.

The terrorist (who was later killed after opening fire outside another Israeli community in the West Bank) fled the scene, compelling police to place the area under a local, temporary closure to facilitate the search for the gunman.

Despite these incidents, prayers at the Western Wall went on as normal and visitors continued to ascend the Temple Mount. Tens of thousands of Jews prayed at the Western Wall and tens of thousands of Muslims worshiped at al-Aqsa Mosque. The police’s ability to enable such mass religious activities, while proactively tackling rioting in neighborhoods a stone’s throw away from the religious sites is an exceptional achievement that cannot be taken for granted.

During this month of unrest, the Border Police flexed a new muscle that it received as part of the lessons learned from the events of 2021. Known as the Israeli National Guard, the Border Police called up reserve companies as means to help deal with personnel requirements. These forces are heavily focused on counter-rioting and counter-terrorism missions, and this is their specialty.

Throughout the month, police followed up on intelligence to thwart attacks, swarmed hot spots in large numbers, made arrests based on accurate information, and were able to home in on inciters and rioters. This included fishing out the main agitators on social media and arresting those using online platforms to instigate violence. All of these actions helped create deterrence.

Frequent situational assessments are carried out by the Jerusalem District of the Israel Police to keep its organizational finger on the pulse of events, together with the Shin Bet and the IDF. These assessments resulted in decisions such as placing police officers along the streets of the Old City just tens of meters apart, creating a high degree of security.

The Israel Police finds itself facing the most sensitive decisions regarding Jerusalem, including those that touch on the Temple Mount. The area’s sensitivity, especially around the Mount, is so great that many of these decisions are brought to the attention of the government and the prime minister.

The past two years have demonstrated beyond any doubt how internal security is critical. While external threats are major, Israel has invested far more in dealing with them than it has in domestic security. Yet the threat within is clear to all.

Adding a few hundred extra police officers to the force won’t solve the problem. Police must receive additional support from the government, such as increasing the size of the force substantially, equipping it with better technology and boosting its presence in the Arab sector, where police can provide a better service, and enforce sovereignty and law enforcement. Failure to implement these steps will have dire future consequences for the entire country.

---

Major General Alon Levavi served as a combat helicopter pilot in the Israel Air Force and later served for 34 years in the Israeli National police (INP). Read full bio here.

How Israel and Lebanon Settled Their Maritime Borders

By Arthur Koll

Last week, Israel and Lebanon, two countries that officially designate each other as enemy states, signed an agreement settling a long-standing maritime border dispute. While definitely not as important as Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt or Jordan or the Abraham Accords, which normalized Israeli’s ties with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, this latest agreement reduces tensions in the region and provides an opportunity for Lebanon to break out of its economic collapse and political mayhem. 

In order to make sense of the agreement, it is important to differentiate between two types of maritime zones as far as international law is concerned.

The first category covers territorial-sovereign waters, which stretch from the coast to the 12-mile mark. States have the same level of sovereignty over these types of waters as they do on land.

The second category is exclusive economic zones (EEZ), which begin 12 nautical miles from a country’s coastline and extend up to 200 miles away from the coast (unless an EEZ encounters that of another country).

The concept of economic waters developed in international maritime law as a group of principles for states to divide exploration rights and benefit from resources found in or under the waters, such as fishing zones, energy resources, and minerals.

Until the first decade of this century, no urgency was felt by the eastern Mediterranean states to mark out their EEZs. However, discoveries of large natural gas fields under the waters of Israel, Egypt, and Cyprus, and most likely in Lebanon, made matters more pressing.

In 2007, Israel unilaterally marked out, with floats, its territorial maritime border with Lebanon, based on its understanding of international maritime law. Lebanon, for its part, declared its own wish list on maritime borders, which consisted of its maximalist positions.

Later, in 2010, Israel and Cyprus, which also discovered a very large natural gas field in its waters, reached an agreement to demarcate their EEZs. Similarly, Cyprus and Lebanon reached their own agreement earlier in 2007 (though Lebanon has yet to ratify it).

These hasty diplomatic developments were a direct result of the understanding that hiding under the waters of the eastern Mediterranean are significant hydrocarbon resources, and that to fully benefit from them it is necessary to settle border issues.

After Cyprus and Israel, on the one hand, and Cyprus and Lebanon, on the other, settled their maritime borders, the one unresolved dispute left open in this Mediterranean triangle was the border between Israel and Lebanon. Over the last twelve years, the two countries engaged in indirect negotiations led by the United States.

For over a decade, Israel and Lebanon were unable to reach an agreement on this boundary. What made it possible now? The answer to this question seems to involve three critical elements falling in place at the right time.

The first involves the preliminary testing that has occurred in recent years north of the now-established boundary, revealing a significant gas field, mostly on the Lebanese side. While Lebanon made no headway in developing its gas resources, Israel made dramatic progress, building offshore platforms and benefiting from multiple fields within its EEZ.

Secondly, Lebanon’s economy is in complete shambles and the country’s political paralysis prevents the formation of a government capable of providing for the basic needs of its citizens. Blackouts are the norm rather than the exception, there is a chronic shortage of basic products such as food and oil, and the banking system is dysfunctional. These ills are joined by the destructive role played by Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terror organization.

It is no wonder, therefore, that Lebanon is eager to begin exploiting the natural resources it hopes lie waiting for it under the sea. This would be a game changer for both Lebanon’s economy and its volatile internal and regional political situation.

Thirdly, the Biden administration appointed a new energy envoy to the region, Amos Hochstein, who invested significant efforts into kickstarting talks. He earned the trust of both the Lebanese and Israeli sides and was able to break a ten-year freeze, conducting shuttle diplomacy between Beirut, Jerusalem, and Washington.

Hochstein created an American compromise formula, which on the one hand followed the Israeli position regarding sovereign waters and answered its security needs, but on the other hand relies on the Lebanese position regarding EEZs, thus making it possible for Beirut to make progress and hopefully produce and profit from its field, dubbed Qanna.

From a security perspective, Israel gained what it desired: The demarcation of a border with Lebanon that recognizes Israel’s territorial-sovereign waters.

From an economic perspective, the deal is consistent with Lebanon’s desire to gain possession of the waters up to a boundary known as Line 23.

Additionally, Israel will be compensated, if and when natural gas is produced from the mostly Lebanese field, a field where the existence of commercial-scale gas reserves has yet to be verified. The scope and terms of this compensation have yet to be negotiated between Israel and Total, the French company that has the exploration rights for the Lebanese gas field.

Within Israel, challenges to the deal from the political Right were rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court and the signing took place as planned.

The current agreement is not a peace treaty—far from it. Hezbollah will continue to threaten regional stability. However, not wanting to be perceived as being the force that quashed hope for a better economic future for the Lebanese people, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared that he would honor any agreement reached by Lebanon. 

Ultimately, settling the maritime boundaries is a win-win for both Jerusalem and Beirut. Israel reduced the threat to a major economic asset (the Karish natural gas field) and signed a bilateral agreement with an enemy state—a diplomatic achievement in its own right. Lebanon can act on the hope of dramatically improving the fate of its people. A stable Lebanon is in the best interest of Israel too.  

The increased role of the United States and France in the Lebanese arena is also a positive development and is preferable to leaving Lebanon under the sole grip of Hezbollah and Iran, which led that country to misery. And who knows, now that the precedent of a maritime border agreement has been set and the ice has been broken, perhaps there is increased potential for a future agreement on the land border between Israel and Lebanon. That, however, still seems far away.

---

Ambassador Arthur Koll is the former Deputy Director-General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he concluded his service as the head of the Media and Public Affairs Division. He is a former Ambassador of Israel to the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro and served as instructor of the National Defense College. Mr. Koll also served as Consul of the Israeli Consulate in Atlanta, USA and as Director of Projects for the Central Europe & Eurasia Division.

Iran in Ukraine: Lessons for Israel

By Jeremiah Rozman

Israel’s security establishment sees a nuclear-armed Iran as its greatest “intolerable” threat. Iran crossing the nuclear threshold changes Israel’s security position from one where it faces the threat of violence from many enemies but total destruction from none, to one where Iran holds the capability to destroy Israel in a nuclear holocaust, with Israel left guessing under what circumstances it would resolve to do so. This dynamic leaves Israel not only vulnerable to a perhaps unlikely nuclear attack but also to very likely nuclear blackmail, severely constraining Israel’s ability to act against its enemies including Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel considers a nuclear Iran an unacceptable strategic outcome. What this means is that if negotiations on a return to the nuclear deal between Iran and the powers fail, as they very likely might, Israel may be faced with two options, launch a risky and potentially unsuccessful kinetic strike against Iran’s nuclear program or accept a nuclear Iran. Since Israel has maintained that the latter is not an option, the former–a kinetic strike–is a very real possibility. In that event, Israel will almost certainly find itself in a kinetic war with Iran and its proxies, including the formidably armed and strategically positioned Hezbollah. To face this possibility Israel needs to understand how Iran will fight. Iran’s involvement in Russia’s war on Ukraine provides a glimpse into what very well might be Iran’s strategic calculus if it faces Israel.

Since Ukraine launched a rather successful counteroffensive, Russia has shifted strategies in Ukraine. Russia’s shift to targeting Ukraine’s critical civilian infrastructure through mass precision strikes marks its third strategy in this conflict. Each phase of the conflict can be understood as Russia targeting a different Center of Gravity (CoG). This term originating with Carl von Clausewitz has been slippery to define. In essence, it denotes a defeat mechanism. Knock out a CoG and you defeat the opponent’s “freedom of action, physical strength, or will to fight.” 

First Russia went for a swift knockout blow against what it thought was a reachable CoG with the best cost-benefit payoff -- Ukraine’s government. President Vladimir Putin sought to achieve this by killing or capturing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and installing a pro-Russian puppet. When this failed, Putin attacked another CoG, Ukraine’s military. It reckoned that with Zelensky out of reach, Russia needed to defeat Ukraine's military to achieve his desired policy outcome without appearing to blatantly target Ukraine’s civilians. Prior to air power, if an attacker could not pull off a governmental coup, defeating a nation's armed forces was a necessary step to forcing capitulation. In the age of air power, especially precision air power, this is no longer the case. Herein we find Putin's latest strategic shift.

The Ukrainian military proved a tougher CoG than anticipated, too tough for Putin to defeat. At best Putin has secured a military stalemate, capturing some territory at enormous cost. While Ukraine may or may not be able to completely drive Putin out of Ukrainian territory, it is clear now that Putin cannot rapidly defeat Ukraine’s military.

Over the past few weeks Putin has shifted towards attacking what he must consider to be Ukraine’s last tenable CoG. While some have dubbed Putin’s new actions ‘vengeful’ there is a strategic calculus to them. Putin believes that Ukraine's critical civilian infrastructure is also a CoG, meaning that by knocking it out, it can force Ukraine to capitulate even if it cannot defeat its armed forces. Using precision air power with Iranian drones playing a central role, Russia has been able to deal enormous damage to Ukraine's water and power grid in advance of the upcoming harsh Ukrainian winter, this despite Ukraine being able to intercept a majority of these munitions. Iran must be drawing important lessons from this battlefield testing. Its advisors are on the ground helping Russia integrate these drones into its arsenal. It is likely that Iran is taking notes for a future conflict with Israel.

Combined with Hezbollah, Iran has enough precision munitions to truly threaten Israel by a similar targeting of critical infrastructure tested by Russia in Ukraine. Iron Dome and Israel’s other air defenses have never been tested against precision munitions or against the type of precision combined drone and cruise missile attack that Iran conducted against Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refineries. While Israel is certainly better able to strike targets in enemy territory than Ukraine has been thus far, it also has far less strategic depth than Ukraine, meaning it has fewer targets that Iran and its proxies must hit and they are less dispersed.

Because it is highly unlikely that Iran and its proxies can defeat Israel’s armed forces or capture its seat of government, Iran might determine that Israel’s only vulnerable CoG is its civilian critical infrastructure as well as its population. If Iran believes that it can defeat Israel by inflicting enough damage on these targets, any future kinetic conflict with Iran would likely see the targeting of Israel’s power and water facilities. Iran has already targeted these with cyber attacks. Iran has successfully tested complex precision targeting against Saudi Arabia, defeating U.S. provided Patriot air and missile defenses. It is currently honing this form of warfare in Ukraine.

Israel must learn from Ukraine as Iran surely is. In order to deter Iran by threatening a military response to it crossing the nuclear threshold, Israel must demonstrate that it can defend itself to the point where Iran no longer sees Israel’s critical infrastructure as a defeatable CoG. This would make the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program far more credible, potentially preventing war. Israel’s next best option if deterrence fails is to win in conflict. Israel must harden its critical infrastructure and improve its ability to rapidly target Iran and its proxies’ precision fires if it is either to deter Iran or defeat it if deterrence fails. Therefore, Israel should rapidly integrate lessons learned from Russia’s new Iran-backed strategy in Ukraine and pay close attention to how Ukraine contends with this new strategy.

---

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

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

THE IDDF PODCAST WITH CHUCK FREILICH & DANNY AYALON: BIBI'S COMEBACK!

No More Excuses—Time for Berkeley to Act

By Mark Goldfeder

Ever since some student groups at Berkeley Law School signed a pledge to exclude anyone that supports the existence of a Jewish state, there has been a very public debate about the legality of these so-called “Jew-Free” zones. In response to widespread criticism, the groups, led by Students for Justice in Palestine, issued a statement claiming that the bylaw was not antisemitic because it “does not attack Jewish people or faith.” 

The dean of the law school chose to ignore what the statement actually said, accepting this fairly thin excuse and writing that: “[A]t this stage, all some student groups have done is express their strong disagreement with Israel’s policies.” 

From a legal perspective, the dean (and the school) gave undo credence to the mischaracterization of the decision to exclude all Zionists as based on political viewpoint discrimination as opposed to anti-Jewish sentiment. Too bad the antisemites’ own attorney couldn’t help herself from saying more, thereby blowing that flimsy excuse completely out of the water.

Liz Jackson, a senior staff attorney at Palestine Legal, which represents SJP, recently clarified the position of the groups she represents, explaining that she knows “Some students say that their Jewish identity is so deeply identified with Zionism that this effectively discriminates against them, but that’s their subjective view and choice about how they understand their own Jewish identity.”

Here is the problem with that statement: Jewish people, and only Jewish people, get to define what is and is not part of their Jewish identity—not antisemitic groups like Palestine Legal or SJP. And for the vast majority of Jewish people across time and space, Zionism is and always has been an integral part of their Jewish, often their religious, identities. That does, in fact, transform that particular kind of Zionism into a category protected by state and federal civil rights law, whether SJP likes it or not. 

Discriminating against a Jewish person or group just because they are Zionist is illegal because Zionism is demonstrably not just a political movement. For thousands of years, Jews across the world have prayed to God at least three times a day (and often more) for a safe return to Zion. The Pentateuch itself references this ancient Jewish hope while the Prophets and Writings repeatedly record this ambition. More than half of the biblical commandments are specifically tied to the land of Israel, and doctrinally, belief in and hope for the return to Zion is part of the 13 Principles of Jewish Faith. 

Jews were Zionists before there were Muslims, and even before there were Christians. In multiple places throughout the New Testament, the yearning for redemption is expressed in terms of the by-then-already-classic formulation of Jewish Zionism (see e.g., Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15), while the Quran itself is quite clear about the long history of Jews in the Holy Land—and especially in Jerusalem. (See, for example, Surah Bani Isra’il, verses 1-7). While it is true that the Jews were twice expelled from their ancient kingdom of Israel, it is also true that they never fully left: Despite the fairly recent antisemitic lie casting Jews as colonialist outsiders, since biblical times there has always been an indigenous Jewish community living in the eternal Jewish homeland. In the late-19th and early-20th centuries, Jews from around the world came to buy and cultivate land to further expand those existing Jewish communities that had remained in Israel as a continuous presence throughout all of the exiles.

Today, support for Zionism can take multiple forms, and mere political Zionism may not be protected, like any other political belief. Not all Zionists are Jews, and not all Jews are Zionists. But for those Jews for whom Zionism is a part of their Jewish ethnic heritage and identity, it absolutely is protected and they cannot be excluded on the basis of holding that belief. Anti-Zionism that allows for discrimination against Jewish people because of their affiliation with, affinity for, or support of the biblical/prophetic/historical/ethnic/cultural/Jewish ideal of Zionism is antisemitism. So is telling Jews what they can and can’t believe.

To be clear, it is the openly stated, on the record view of Palestine Legal and of SJP that they get to define what “Jewish identity” can include for Jewish people. And, if they feel that one or another Jewish belief should not be part of a Jewish person’s identity, they may freely discriminate against people for holding that belief, and that cannot be considered antisemitism. Should Palestine Legal, for example, decide tomorrow that keeping Shabbat or kosher observance is not really part of Jewish belief, just some Jews’ “subjective view and choice about how they understand their own Jewish identity,” then they can and should be free to discriminate against Jewish people who do observe Shabbat or keep kosher. Likewise, should they decide that taking mass is just something that some Catholics subjectively like to do but is not really part of their religion, they can freely discriminate against those Catholics who do practice the ritual.   

Nor was this a one-time accidental admission. When Jewish student leaders, the people who are ostensibly being excluded for their views, clarified that “When we say ‘Zionism,’ we mean the Jewish right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, which is Israel … This does not say anything about the self-determination of Palestinians,” Jackson doubled-down and “expressed disagreement with that definition of Zionism.” 

Here is the bottom line: Anti-Zionists do not get to define a Jewish person’s Zionism for them, cast it as merely political, and then discriminate against them for it. 

Berkeley made clear that if this was about Jewish identity, then they would step in. Palestine Legal just said the quiet part out loud: It was always about Jewish identity, and they were always aware of it. They just don’t like that part of Judaism. Consequently, they feel they should have the right to tell the vast majority of Jews that they are wrong about their own Jewish identity, and that they better purge themselves of those beliefs or they will be discriminated against.  

There goes that “political viewpoint” excuse. Your move Berkeley.

---

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.

Not The Start-Up Nation

By Benjamin Anthony

In 2009, Saul Singer and Dan Senor co-authored a fabulous best-seller brilliantly entitled Start-Up Nation. Lamentably, from then on many of Israel’s lovers and leaders adopted and adapted that title to promote Israel to the world to the exclusion of the foundational reason for Israel’s establishment and existence. That order of prioritization must be righted.

Israel is variously marketed as the innovation nation, the guarantor of never again, the sole democracy in the Middle East and a bastion of Western values.

While Israel can wear such labels with pride, those descriptions do not encapsulate what the state is at its core, explain the essence of why Israel exists or assure its future standing internationally.

Israel’s technological status is laudable. Apple, Microsoft and more have robust Israeli presence. But if an existential threat were to befall Israel tomorrow, those same companies would withdraw quicker than one can say “silicon wadi.”

Israel did not fight its many wars out of allegiance to the microchip.

Pre-state, the forebears of Israel’s citizenry yearned to return to the land that is now the modern state. They did so not when that land was at the forefront of technological advancement but when it was a series of swamps and deserts riddled with disease.

Thus, Israel’s reconstitution must have been powered by something beyond its technological prowess.

What is the basis of Israel?

Contrary to the beliefs of many, Israel was not founded in response to the Holocaust. Its existence surely serves as a bulwark against another Holocaust but the Holocaust is not the reason for Israel’s existence. Opening the door to such a narrative is an error.

The forebears of today’s Israeli soldiers yearned for Zion centuries before the names Auschwitz, Goebbels, Goring or Adolf Hitler were etched into infamy.

Tragically, with the passage of time and the passing of survivors, there will soon rise a generation of society with a vastly reduced memory of the Holocaust. Predicating Israel’s existence upon a phenomenon so fleeting within the memory of mankind would be misguided, therefore. Neither Israel’s past nor future can be reduced down to the horrific actions of another people.

Promoting Israel’s status as the sole democracy in the Middle East overlooks the deeply socialist roots that Israel had at the time of its founding.

Our Jewish antecedents yearned for Israel when it was most likely to be born a socialist state. Still, they yearned for this land and discounted all others. It was not democracy that they sought. Their yearning for statehood was in no way misguided.

Joseph Stalin voted to recognize the state, confident that a socialist Israel would broaden the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence. That man was not powered by a deep love for the Jewish people.

THAT ISRAEL is a democracy is wonderful. May it forever remain so. But curiously, a commitment to democracy doesn’t typically move the Jewish people to fight and die in the defense of the countries in which they reside. If it did, diaspora Jewry would surely be storming the military recruiting offices of Britain, France and America. Some do so but most do not.

Safeguarding the democratic character of a country rarely animates Jewish communities to the point where they stand ready to sacrifice their lives for the cause. Not in Britain, France, America or Israel. It is not for the sake of democracy that the Jewish people repeatedly stare down death to protect the state.

And with regard to Israel being a bastion of Western values, in this era of increasing societal wimpishness, outrage culture, cancel culture and ever-growing self-loathing in the West, Western values are about as dependably formed and fashioned as a piece of masticated chewing gum. They should be relied upon about as much as one would a chocolate fire-guard. With antisemitism back in vogue in much of the West and Western values weakening daily, Israel cannot afford to follow suit.

Into and beyond all of these narratives, Israel must reinject the only quintessential reason for its founding and existence.

In the final analysis, the reason for the state’s founding and daily renewal is that with all of the challenges and opportunities that stand before it, this tiny strip of land just happens to be the Homeland of the Jewish people.

Jewish peoplehood and Jewish liturgy believe this land to have been sworn unto our forefathers by God, stated to have been so at the genesis of the Jewish origin story. That connection is undeniable and must not be downplayed. Israel’s story was forged in the twin furnaces of history and faith. From there, this singular, fundamental narrative was drawn out. It must be told above all others. Absent that truth, all narratives are fleeting.

Those who claim that the world won’t accept such a narrative must be challenged to furnish the narrative in a way in which the world will accept Israel’s presence. But take heed, no matter the branding Israel chooses, to its foes and friends alike, this land is the Jewish state, a reality that begets sinister and celebratory reactions, respectively. How Israel responds to that reality is its own choice. It should do so with a stiffened spine and iron-clad conviction.

It is from this land that the Jewish people stem and around this land that the Jewish people are inextricably tied. If Israel the country thrives, Israel the people will thrive, wherever they may reside.

The United States Marines chant a credo when presented with their weapons during basic training: “This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine.”

Israel’s lovers and leaders should adopt and adapt that narrative: “This is my land. There are many like it but this land is mine.”

Judaism is the basis for the past, present and future Jewish state. All else is a mere outgrowth of what occurs when a land is reconciled with its people and a people is finally reconciled with its land. Centrally stating that truth will ensure that it remains a force for good and strength universally.

---

Benjamin Anthony is Co-Founder & CEO of the MirYam Institute, Benjamin brings considerable experience and expertise to his position in the areas of substantive, policy driven dialogue and debate about the State of Israel throughout the international community. Read full bio here.

Hezbollah’s role in the Israeli-Lebanese maritime agreement

By Yochai Guiski

Israel and Lebanon have reached an agreement that will alter how the world views their maritime borders. The agreement is designed to demarcate each country’s exclusive economic zones (EEZ), as well as the majority of their territorial waters.

The U.S.-mediated agreement has sparked a firestorm of controversy in the final weeks before Israel’s November 1 elections.

While viewed favorably by the coalition parties and the majority of Israel’s security establishment, opposition parties see it as a shameful capitulation to pressure from Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the United States and have even said they may not honor it if they come to power.

Defining maritime boundaries is more of an art than a science. There are some common methods, but they vary depending on the contours of the shoreline, near-shore islands and rocks, continental shelves, and other factors. As a result, many countries that are geographically close have unresolved maritime disputes (39 percent of all sea borders are contested).

Israel’s original claim regarding its EEZ, made in 2011, was an overreach that could not be justified under international law. The Lebanese position, claiming ownership of the gas field known as Karish, which is located in Israel’s EEZ, went even further and was far more irrational. Both positions could be described as starting points for future discussions. Since 2011, Israel and Lebanon have been negotiating a solution with the assistance of a U.S. mediator.

Lebanon’s original offer stemming from those discussions has now been accepted by Israel, with a few changes concerning security in territorial waters. As a result, Israel has relinquished its original claim to maritime boundaries.

It is important to clarify that EEZs are not sovereign areas. Instead, they are managed by states for economic and environmental reasons. They are part of the global commons, and any vessel can move through them.

Hezbollah has occasionally threatened to attack Israel’s rigs in recent years, but it has increased its threats significantly in past months, prior to and following the arrival of the Karish floating gas rig off the northern Israeli coastline. Hezbollah even sent unmanned aerial vehicles in the direction of the rig before they were shot down by the IDF.

After the agreement was made public, Hezbollah stated that Israel had agreed to Lebanon’s position and chalked this up to its tough stance. The group vowed to “keep an eye” on Israel to see if it followed through with the agreement.   

As the debate over the agreement played out in Israel, two leading schools of thought emerged.

One camp sees it as a reasonable compromise that reduces the likelihood of a security escalation in the short and long term. The threat of losing the benefit of gas exploration and production would, according to this line of reasoning, constrain Hezbollah while allowing the Lebanese state to stabilize its economy, and potentially, its political situation, without the need for assistance from Iran and Russia. This, in turn, would strengthen its internal position vis-à-vis Hezbollah. It would also strengthen the American and Western positions in Lebanon and the Middle East, as well as boost Israel’s image, while sacrificing nothing of real value.

The other side sees the agreement as a dishonorable capitulation that would set a dangerous precedent—a full Israeli territorial concession under threat of violence in exchange for almost nothing concrete.

This view holds that the current agreement boosts Hezbollah and humiliates Israel, with the gas rigs becoming the focal point of future extortion attempts by Hezbollah or other radical actors. Critics of the deal regard the idea of the agreement restraining Hezbollah as unrealistic, and they see Israel’s weakness as a potential trigger for escalation. They also see a potential economic windfall for Iran and Hezbollah because they can influence Lebanon’s decision-making.

According to the Israeli business daily Globes, the dispute between the parties took place within the Israeli security establishment and resulted in the resignation of the head of the Israeli negotiation team.

It is too soon to tell which side is correct. Yet it is clear that Israel can make some early gains from the agreement, while Lebanon’s gains will take several years to materialize.

In the short term, a real threat of escalation has been removed, and Israel can begin producing gas from the Karish gas field—while exporting some of it to an energy-starved Europe.

In addition, while Hezbollah will likely receive credit for the agreement in the short term, Lebanon will need to avoid escalation with Israel in order to reap economic benefits in the long run.

Lebanon could build its Kana-Sidon undersea gas field in a few years, improving its ability to generate electricity and its finances, which could also benefit Hezbollah.

The agreement’s success may put pressure on Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to reach a similar agreement to develop the gas reservoir off the Gaza coast.

These developments can be considered stabilizing factors in a vacuum, but things change if one brings Iran into the picture.

If a nuclear deal is reached between Tehran and the world powers, Iran will seize the opportunity to explore and develop gas and oil fields in the Lebanese EEZ in the Mediterranean Sea. This would strengthen Iran’s and Hezbollah’s overall influence over the country, while weakening the Lebanese state.

If the current standoff with Iran persists or worsens, the prospects for stability in Lebanon are also likely to be dashed. The risk of Hezbollah targeting Israeli rigs would, in this scenario, increase, making a symmetrical response by Israel impossible because it would need to attack the Lebanese rig—an asset of a European company.

Meanwhile, Israel’s concessions to Lebanon would remain binding.

It is therefore critical that Israel, the United States, and their European partners devise a strategy to prevent Iran from abusing the agreement, and that they maintain regional stability. If the escalation scenario ends up playing out, Israel would likely be much less willing to make peace and opt for diplomatic means in the future.

---

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.