Why Hamas Must Be Destroyed

Letting Hamas survive after the barbarism of October 7 would be tantamount to permitting Nazi Germany to end the war in 1944 with Hitler still in power.

By FRANK SOBCHAK

JUNE 19, 2024 23:39

Updated: JUNE 20, 2024 07:55

Among the many disingenuous and ahistorical narratives that have developed surrounding the Hamas-Israel war is one that Israel has done enough harm to Hamas that it should allow the damaged but not defeated organization to survive and perhaps even remain in power in Gaza.

Such an argument is often made under the premise that Hamas will be difficult to destroy and that Israel should cut a deal to free its hostages.

One commentator even posited that it would be “extraordinary” to suggest Hamas should accept its absolute annihilation during ceasefire negotiations, implying that it was irregular for a victor to insist that its opponent disarm and dissolve.

White flag

But such an allegation is patently false, as many times in history, one side has demanded the unconditional surrender of its adversary or annihilation of its military force.

During World War II, the Allied powers expected an unconditional surrender from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Indeed, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme Allied commander in Europe, told his troops before D-Day, “We will accept nothing less than full victory!”

For the Pacific Theater, the Potsdam Declaration decreed that Japan surrender unconditionally or face “prompt and utter destruction” and threatened “the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and... the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.”

There was no illusion on the part of the Axis powers that their governments would be dismembered and their military forces annihilated when they accepted those terms. And yet in both cases, the defeated powers agreed to unconditional surrender and accepted their fates.

World War I concluded with an armistice followed by a negotiated settlement, but there was little question as to what would become of the military forces and political systems of the Central Powers. The Triple Entente demanded the near annihilation of the German war machine, with bans on conscription, submarines, and an air force. Its army and navy were largely dissolved, and the scuttled remains of its once great fleet can now be visited by vacationing scuba divers. Germany lost more than a tenth of its territory, and its allies, the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were carved up by the victors.

During the American Civil War, Union forces infrequently required the unconditional surrender of Confederate forces, but still left the Confederacy as a gutted military force. At the Battle of Fort Donelson, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant earned the moniker “Unconditional Surrender” Grant for telling his opponent, “No terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted.”

The larger conflict, however, gave slightly more generous terms to Confederate forces when they surrendered at Appomattox Court House, with combatants paroled and allowed to keep their sidearms as they returned home.

Military material such as rifles, cannons, and other public property were stacked and handed over to Union soldiers, preventing Southern forces from resuming large-scale conflict and abolishing them as an organized military. The Confederate States of America, the South’s political governing body, was dissolved and a military occupation began.

Achieving a successful war termination that creates a lasting peace afterward is a strategically difficult challenge but not a rare occurrence. When utter annihilation of the enemy is paired with a generous peace, such as with the Marshall Plan after World War II, there is greater likelihood of a long-lasting peace. On the other hand, creating a Carthaginian peace, with a post-conflict period that punishes rather than rebuilds, can often pave the road for the next conflict, as it did with the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

Even worse, the nuances of those peace accords later allowed Germans such as Adolf Hitler to declare that their country had never been defeated militarily, paving the way for rearmament. In the American Civil War, an inability to rebuild the South during Reconstruction and punish those who continued to fight for their tortured ideologies led to nearly endless low-level conflict that America still endures. The worst possible war termination option is completing a negotiated settlement that leaves the combatants ready to resume fighting: a real recipe for perpetual conflict.

IF ANYTHING is to be learned from the endings of these earlier conflicts, it is that letting Hamas survive after the barbarism of October 7 would be tantamount to permitting Nazi Germany to end the war in 1944 with Hitler still in power.

Imagining a world in which the fascist powers from that conflict had been allowed to endure as wounded versions of themselves is nothing less than a ludicrous nightmare that today we should do everything in our power to prevent with the modern-day fascists of Gaza, who cloak themselves in a false anti-colonial liberation narrative.

The writer, a PhD, is a publishing contributor at The MirYam Institute and a 26-year veteran of service in the US Army and Special Forces.

Jerusalem Post OP-ED: Egypt must reap what it sowed to prevent another October 7th

Egypt must reap what they sowed to prevent another October 7 from happening - opinion

By BENJAMIN ANTHONY

FEBRUARY 18, 2024 01:16

Updated: FEBRUARY 18, 2024 15:09

Following Israel’s rescue mission of two hostages carried out in Rafah, the IDF is poised to launch a ground incursion into the same city. Rafah is Hamas’s last remaining stronghold; it must be purged from that area for Israel to realize its war aims. 

Preventing a repeat of the horrors of October 7 will require Israel to maintain control of the Rafah crossing in perpetuity. 

If ordered, the IDF will operate in an area where approximately 1.2 million Gazans are currently located. They are there as a result of Israel’s largely successful efforts to move Gazans out of harm’s way as the IDF battles a brutal enemy.

Egypt's responsibility 

Gazans are hemmed in between Israel’s military offensive in Khan Yunis and Egypt, whose president refuses to allow the Gazan population into the Sinai Peninsula, the huge land expanse that abuts the Gaza Strip. 

Egypt bears massive responsibility for the unfolding crisis. For years, it turned a blind eye to the smuggling of personnel, material, and terrorist know-how into Gaza through Sinai.

It is from Egyptian territory, via Sinai, that terrorists returned to Gaza after undergoing military training in Syria, Iraq, and Iran. October 7 happened when the seeping complicity of Egypt burst forth in the bloodiest rampage against Jews since the Holocaust. 

Egypt now invokes the potential for regional upheaval to demand that the IDF not operate in Rafah. Having failed to uphold its obligations in territory over which it is sovereign, Egypt now seeks to dictate the terms of activities in areas over which it has no sovereignty.

If only Egypt had been as judicious in the past in preventing what crossed from Sinai into Gaza as it now is about what crosses from Gaza into Sinai. Jordan, the UAE, France, and Britain are echoing Egypt’s demands. Where does the hypocrisy end?

The international community typically reacts to displaced populations with the inventiveness of a middling pugilist. Their diplomatic one-two leads with a call for neighboring and non-neighboring countries to accept them as refugees and then follows up by championing the countries that do so. 

Egypt's refusal to accept Gazan refugees

SINCE THE beginning of the Syrian civil war, bordering Turkey is estimated to have absorbed more than 3.5 million Syrians. Non-bordering Germany accepted 1.2 million Syrians. Both countries were implored to do so and applauded thereafter.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, responsibility for absorbing displaced Ukrainians again fell upon bordering states, including Poland, and non-bordering countries, such as Britain, America, and Israel. Again, the international community implored those countries to do so and applauded them thereafter. The old one-two. 

But in a move away from international norms, the countries that typically urge population absorption now assign no absorption responsibility to Egypt and insist that where other displaced populations may seek to emigrate, no such notion has ever crossed the minds of the Gazans.

Not only has Egypt refused to open its border, but it has deployed some 40 tanks to the area, presumably in readiness to gun down any of the Gazans whom it and the world claim to care for so deeply in the event that they cross into its territory.

Shifting to an unorthodox stance, the international community is now violating its own standards because this war features an unfamiliar regional contender – an Israel that is actually seeking a conclusive victory!

Desperate to prevent that outcome, the world now flails to tie Israel up using techniques of astounding illogic. They assert that Syrians may want to flee their brutal reality. So might Ukrainians. But Palestinians? No! Uniquely, Palestinians want to stay where they are, immiserated by the Hamas regime that they voted into power, displaced by Israel’s legitimate response to the attack launched against it. 

Some 250,000 Israelis have been driven from their homes by Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Iranian-backed Hamas in Gaza. In the latter case, Egypt was the bridge that connected murderous intent with murderous deeds.

Israel must advance. Asked to choose between a displacement crisis in Gaza or perpetuating the worsening displacement crisis unfolding within its own borders, it must first safely repatriate Israelis who are living as evacuees within their own country, beginning with those from Israel’s south. For that to be achieved, Hamas can and must be cleared from Rafah.

WHILE EGYPT is centrally responsible for the displacement of the Gazans and eminently equipped to resolve the issue, primary responsibility rests with the Gazan people themselves. 

Many distinctions exist between the crises in Syria and Ukraine and the events taking place in Gaza. The most telling of those is that while Syrians did not elect President Bashar Al-Assad and Ukrainians did not elect President Vladimir Putin, Gazan voters willfully cast their ballot in support of the regime that launched the war in which they are now entangled – Hamas!

Gazans lent an electoral mandate to the known genocidal intentions that are at the heart of the Hamas charter. That genocide was attempted on October 7. When dead IDF soldiers and elderly abductees were dragged into Gaza, mass civilian celebration erupted on the streets. Jew hatred, violence, and murderous intent still coarse through the veins of too many Gazans. Now Israel is responding. 

For too long, the cooperation between Egypt and Hamas has remained hidden; whispered about but rarely spoken aloud.

The future of Egypt and Hamas

But it’s time for their partnership to be outed. Whether Gazans and Egyptians want each other or not, the international community should consummate a union between them. Egypt should be pressed to allow Gazans into the Sinai - against its preference - with at least the same vigor that Israel was compelled to funnel aid into the Strip against the Israeli will. The result should also be the same. 

Israel must press forward, undeterred by bluster, in pursuit of its highest calling - the defense of its own people and the return of its hostages.

Israelis were murdered and abducted during the holiest, most festive period of the Jewish calendar. If it does not protect that which is sacred to it, others will trample upon and desecrate those values. Perhaps an IDF armed with the determination exhibited to this point can return the children of Israel to their homes in time for this year’s Passover. They’ve been in the wilderness of displacement, torment, and kidnap for far too long.

The writer is a co-founder and CEO of The MirYam Institute and an IDF combat veteran.

If Israel doesn't win the war against Hamas, Zionism is dead

Golda Meir said, “If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.”

It’s been over 100 days since Hamas committed the proportional equivalent of 15 9/11 attacks. Over 200 IDF soldiers have already fallen in Gaza, and hundreds fell on October 7, as the government downplayed the very credible threat from Gaza. Thousands more have been injured, many permanently. These soldiers bravely sacrificed their lives so that their fellow Israelis may live in peace. It is not reassuring to contemplate that it is in the hands of Israel’s poorly trusted government whether or not all their sacrifices may have been in vain.

I fought in the Gaza Strip in 2009. My two younger brothers fought there in this war. I have friends who have lost loved ones and who were permanently injured in the same kind of terror nests where Israel is losing its best today. Zionism is the dream of Jewish self-determination as the solution to centuries of antisemitic murder and oppression. I am one of millions over the years who consider it to be a dream worth dying for. But, if Israel does not pursue victory after October 7, Zionism is dead.

Over the last few days, social media posts and other reports have suggested that Israel had proposed a two-month cessation of fighting in exchange for the phased release of the hostages. Such a deal would include a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza’s population centers, allowing Gazans to return; it would release an unspecified number of terrorists, and if implemented, IDF operations in Gaza would be significantly reduced when fighting resumed. In essence, a major win for Hamas and the ultimate loss for Israel.

Let me explain. If Hamas were wise enough to accept such a deal, (I pray they are not) they will have succeeded in irreparably destroying Israel’s sense of security; in demonstrating the efficacy of extreme violence to free terrorists as was their stated objective; in igniting massive global sympathy for the Palestinians, in boosting their own popularity and discrediting the Palestinian Authority (PA) as polls currently show, and in bringing a global initiative for Palestinian statehood back into urgency.

It’s amazing what a campaign of rape, torture, beheading of infants, and hostages taking can achieve. 

Absent Israeli victory, Hamas will rebuild, recruit, and rearm. They do not care about Gaza’s civilian sector. Its destruction is a propaganda win. Finally, a resumption of low-intensity fighting will not disarm Hamas, nor bring its leadership to justice, where high-intensity fighting failed to do so. 

As of today, the IDF has done Hamas significant damage but has failed to end its ability to fight and it has failed to kill nearly any of its senior leadership in Gaza. Most importantly, Israel has, as yet, failed to cause Hamas’s political collapse. The Gazan population has not risen up and Hamas will swiftly reestablish control wherever the IDF leaves. This outcome would make Operation Iron Swords just a larger version of past IDF operations that failed to blunt Hamas’s capabilities and certainly failed to deter terrorists from attacking Israel since it uprooted its communities and withdrew its military in 2005. The only thing that can do so is full Israeli military control over Gaza for the foreseeable future. Political solutions will eventually be important, but this must be Israel’s paramount and unimpeded goal until it is achieved.

While the plight of the hostages is painful beyond words, if Israel does not defeat its enemies, bring them to justice, and reestablish security after October 7, the Zionist dream is dead. 

How could any enemy fear a country that does not win after taking a hit like that? 

Every enemy would learn that to win strategically against Israel and survive, they must make sure to rape and butcher their way through music festivals and communities and take many hostages. 

Israel must reverse the horrible incentive structure that it created with its disastrous deal for Gilad Schalit. Israel should do its best to return the hostages, but it cannot commit suicide over them – which is what abandoning victory would be.

To quote Churchill – another leader who faced an implacable, genocidal foe – Israel’s only option post-October 7 is “victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.”

Without victory, Israel would have betrayed Zionism. My relatives arrived in Israel after the Holocaust and fought in 1948 against all odds for Israel’s independence. They and their children fought in every war since. My brothers and I fought decades later.

 Zionists worldwide must fight for Israel

Ours is the story of millions who fight for an idea, for a safe haven and sovereignty. We do not ask for an end to the fighting, we are willing to bleed as much as it takes, for as long as it takes. But, we demand that we do not surrender the mission. Zionists worldwide are willing to fight with every tool at their disposal, be it weapons, words, money, or prayers for a country where Jews and all citizens feel secure, not for a country that surrenders to terrorists.

There is no security or pride in a country that makes a deal that allows the enemy to escape justice and remain a threat after the degradations of slaughter, torture, rape, and mutilation, and after the sacrifice of so many soldiers who fought to win. 

Without victory, Israel would always be waiting in fear of another October 7, which Hamas has vowed to revisit upon Israel until its annihilation. I would not risk my children’s lives for such a country. 

I will not live in its ever-shrinking borders as communities near Gaza and Lebanon become nightmare zones haunted by the gruesome specter of rape and murder. Finally, I will not feel pride for a country that has the means but not the will to defend itself.

I want a homeland, not a 22,000 sq. km. Yad Vashem. 

Golda Meir said, “If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.” This is a great quote but a false choice. The world respects those who respect themselves. This is true on the playground and in the Middle East. 

Victory will ensure both Israel’s security and its image.

The writer has a PhD in International Relations from the University of Virginia with a focus on strategic/security studies, counter-terrorism, conflict resolution, and asymmetric warfare. He is a publishing contributor at The MirYam Institute.

Jewish people and their allies need to stand up in the face of renewed hatred

By MICAH QUINNEY JONES

I firmly believe that Israel is the canary in the coal mine, and the forces of ignorance and hate that are attempting to consume Israel, will ultimately turn on the West were they successful.

Over 100 days have passed since the world changed. 

Like my memories of 9/11 when I was 13 years old, I recall exactly where I was and what I was doing when thousands of Hamas terrorists ravaged through Israel committing the most horrific acts of rape and violence.

I remember doom scrolling on my phone, constantly refreshing the news to read what was going on. And at the restaurant that my wife and I went to that evening – as part of a longed -planned date night – I remember not being able to enjoy the meal as all I could think of was the pain and sorrow my fellow Jews were enduring in Israel. 

In the last 100 days, the world has changed for the better and for the worse – although in many ways the worse seems to be much more prominent. The world has changed for the better in that the Jewish community, in both Israel and the Diaspora, has rallied to defend the Land of lsrael.

And freedom-loving people the world over have made small and large contributions in supporting Israel, whether it is American cowboys volunteering to take care of animals and crops on vacated kibbutzim, to a bubbe cooking hundreds of meals a day for IDF troops

The world, too, has changed for the worse as Jew-haters in every part of the globe have been galvanized to attack and demonize Israel and the Jewish people by simultaneously denying the October 7 atrocities ever occurred and wishing they had been even more devastating. Most tragically, it has been over 100 days that the remaining 136 Israeli hostages have endured in hell.

Control what you can control

During these tumultuous times, I have returned to the soldier’s mindset that carried me through US Army schools, my deployment to Afghanistan, law school, and studying for the bar exam: Control what you can control. 

Although while living in my little town north of Boston I am physically far away from the war in Gaza, I, as a proud Jew and Zionist, feel deeply close to what Israeli citizens are enduring on a daily basis because we share the same collective history and experience as Jews. As such, I have tried to do what I can, at my small, individual level to help Israel, the Jewish people, and by association, America and the West. 

At the beginning of the war, I corresponded daily with my dear close friend, Ozni (I have changed his name to protect his identity as he is actively fighting in Gaza with his reserve unit). Ozni and I had attended college together in San Diego, California, and had stayed friends ever since.

We had last seen each other in 2019 when I was in Israel as a MirYam Institute International Law and Policy (I-LAP) delegate. Despite the distance, we have remained good friends for well over a decade and send each other periodic updates regarding our lives and careers. 

When Ozni’s reserve unit was activated, he let me know that he did not have the proper equipment for what would be a likely deployment to Gaza. I was shocked. Having served a year in Afghanistan, I could not imagine Ozni entering Gaza without proper equipment. 

By controlling what I could control, I mobilized my US veteran and Jewish networks to begin procuring gear for Ozni and his reserve unit. This involved relying on the generous volunteer efforts and resources of a myriad of people and nonprofit organizations, including the Israeli-American Council in New England and the MirYam Institute. Family and friends from across the country further contributed in helping ship and purchasing necessary items.

Via this cobbled-together network, my contacts and I were able to raise funds to procure non-controlled items, like multi-tools, knee pads, water reservoirs, and headlamps, that we then sent to Israel. Through the coordination of Ozni’s sister and Benjamin Anthony and Rozita Pnini of the MirYam Institute, crucial equipment was delivered directly to Ozni’s unit.

Although such gear paled in comparison to a Merkava tank round or Iron Dome defensive missile, from my experience as a soldier, I knew that anything that would make Ozni’s life easier – or save him a second in combat – could make the world of difference. 

In reflecting on the last 100 days and steeling myself to the reality that this war will last hundreds of days more, I take pride in the fact that the Jewish community has united. I am also glad that the antisemites have removed their masks because they are now easy to identify.

Going forward, I will continue to do whatever I can – whether it is donating to organizations like the MirYam Institute, procuring more helpful supplies, or standing strong for Israel when speaking with people who may not feel as strongly as I do about the aftermath of October 7 – because we are in a collective moment where Israel, and by association, the Jewish people, are under attack.

I firmly believe that Israel is the canary in the coal mine and the forces of ignorance and hate that are attempting to consume Israel, would ultimately turn on America and the West were they successful.

As a proud American Jew, I stand firmly with Israel and the larger Jewish Diaspora. In facing the void that is the next 100 days, and beyond, I hope to provide as much strength and support to those Israelis and Jews who are being physically attacked – whether by Hamas in Gaza, antisemites in major Western cities, or verbally assaulted in university classrooms and public spaces.

October 7 changed everything. As such, it is up to us, the freedom-loving people of Israel, the United States, and the West, to call for the release of the remaining hostages being held by Hamas – and to meet the forces of Jew-hatred and jihadism in the breach, to ensure that they will be given no quarter. 

Am Yisrael Hai! The people of Israel live!

The writer is an attorney, a United States Army veteran, and a pro-Israel advocate. He is a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal for Meritorious Service. Before attending law school, he served for over five years as a Military Intelligence branch detail Infantry officer in the US 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.

Families of Hostages Campaign. Vail, Colorado

Continuing on our campaign with the families of hostages, we were welcomed at the Chabad of Vail in Colorado. We spent two emotional evenings sharing stories of families that have been on an endless campaign to advocate for their missing.

In several heart-wrenching testimonies we heard from Orit and Aviram Meir, seeking the return of their beloved Almog, missing since October 7th when he was violently abducted from Israel into Gaza. The only thing they have to go by is a horrific video shot and shared by Hamas.

We heard from Ily David and his mother Galia, seeking the return of Evyatar David, also missing since October 7th.

We would like to thank all those in attendance for their support and to thank Rabbi Dovid Mintz for the warm welcome into his synagogue and community.

Please join the Instagram pages of the hostages and help us to keep an international focus on their situation and the depravity of Hamas!

Why Hamas must be destroyed: The race to the bottom for terror groups - opinion

By Frank Sobchak

On October 7, the terrorist group Hamas perpetrated the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Many have explained away those crimes by blaming Hamas’s deep antisemitism, but while that explanation rings true, it is insufficient. 

Organizations such as Hamas compete with each other to obtain financial resources, public support, and recruits. Because media attention is crucial in all those factors, terror groups have been in a race to carry out ever more awful acts of inhumanity, vying to outdo each other. As brutal as October 7 was, if Hamas is not destroyed and made an example of, the next attack from a terrorist group will likely exceed its barbaric depravity.  

United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis coined the term “race to the bottom” to describe heightened competition between states or companies engaged in irrational economic decisions to gain competitive economic advantages. He observed that when competition increased in a particular geographic region or economic sector, governments engaged in deregulation to lower the cost of production to attract businesses. Hence, competition drove a race to the lowest standards possible so that those entities could continue to be competitive. The events surrounding October 7 are illustrative of a “race to the bottom” where terrorist groups compete to stay globally relevant and for allocations of limited resources such as manpower and money. For these groups to stay pertinent, they must generate as much fear and media coverage as possible and will race each other to the bottom in ever more brutal acts.  

Terrorism is fundamentally about using fear as a psychological weapon to generate effects far beyond the number of casualties in individual attacks. 

Traditional media coverage amplifies those effects because of the journalistic adage, “If it bleeds, it leads,” meaning that exceptionally sensational and violent stories are promoted above others. Social media, whose algorithms are often set to maximize viewing based on relevancy and popularity, has only accelerated this truism as our mobile phones now alert us when horrible things happen and demand that we take notice. Over time, repeatedly witnessing such extreme violence across different contexts leads to rapid desensitization and the public becomes numb to brutality. 

Therefore, to continue instilling deep levels of dread, terror groups must perform ever worse levels of cruelty.  

There is also an economic component to the vicious logic. Terror groups require money to function and carry out their attacks, and these funds come from various sources. The level of donations is often directly tied to the amount of publicity generated, with groups sharing short videos of their exploits along with links to send money. Funds from state actors, such as Qatar, are also intertwined with the amount of media coverage attacks create. 

Hamas fighters took advantage of this by using GoPros and phones to record the carnage they created and posting it on social media and/or sharing it directly with victims’ families. There was no shame in their depravity because they knew it would create a financial windfall that would put them far ahead of rival organizations. Competing in the media space and getting more social media views is economically lucrative and terrorism has become big business, with the head of Hamas’s worth estimated at $4 billion.  

Public support is also directly related to the media attention that terror groups receive.  

More coverage and social media hits result in increased popularity, and groups that are savvy can garner international credibility and backing. Press exposure, even of atrocities, can similarly result in increased recruiting. When faced with which group an individual decides to join, those with the greatest media presence are likely to benefit the most. But to stay relevant and keep getting views, donations, and supporters, groups have to keep outdoing each other in a race to the bottom of more and more awful acts of inhumanity.

Race to the bottom

Indeed, the race to the bottom amongst terrorist groups is nothing new as Islamic terrorist groups have been engaged in escalating violence against civilians for the last 20 years. Al Qaeda in Iraq split with its parent organization because it believed that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were not aggressive enough – and set too many limits on which groups were fit to be slaughtered.  

ISIS grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq and took its depravity to the next level, which was so horrific that even Al Qaeda, an organization content to crash airliners full of innocents into civilian buildings, disavowed ties. 

Hamas has political competitors in Gaza, and across the Palestinian territories in general, and its abominations are driven in part by a desire to overshadow them. 

The best way to counteract this downward spiral is to utterly destroy Hamas – annihilate the organization’s military and political wings – so other terror groups recognize that copying them only will result in following them into oblivion. 

Respecting the laws of armed conflict is essential, but such a requirement is not mutually exclusive with ensuring the destruction of Hamas. At the same time, eradicating Hamas, which will be difficult militarily and politically, is not enough. It is also critical for the world to condemn what happened. Unequivocally. No platitudes that the barbarity must be contextualized, as if slicing off a woman’s breast could ever be put into perspective. In all likelihood, we will see even worse horror next time if we can’t stomach accomplishing both tasks.  

After the October 7 attacks, Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, pontificated: “We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The Al-Aqsa Flood (the name Hamas gave its onslaught) is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth.” 

We should take Hamad and his organization at their word. Not just for the sake of Israel and the broader region, but also because other terrorists are watching the world’s response. They will undoubtedly be spurred to use the same level of brutality – or worse – in the future- if Hamas is not fundamentally dismantled. 

October 7 is a canary in the coal mine for terrorist violence. A new Pandora’s box of monstrosities has been opened and if an example is not made of Hamas, these horrors will happen again and again.

Frank Sobchak is a retired US Army Special Forces colonel and a publishing contributor at the MirYam Institute. Iris Sobchak has taught history at the US Military Academy at West Point and is a publishing contributor at the MirYam Institute.

Addressing Israel's Challenges and the Path Forward

Benjamin Anthony speaks to @i24 news, covering crucial topics affecting Israel. He discusses the War Cabinet's deliberations on a potential hostage deal and the psychological propaganda campaign by Hamas targeting hostage families. Despite the challenges, there's a strong sense of solidarity and support for the IDF among Israelis.

Critically assesses the Palestinian Authority's capability to govern Gaza post-war, citing their silence on Hamas's actions on October 7th as a key concern. He also highlights the internal challenges Israel faces, from the strain on reservists and their families to the impact on those affected by the October 7th attacks.

The ongoing threat from Hamas, with leaders like Ghazi Hamad vowing continuous attacks, underscores the need for vigilance. Benjamin argues that a ceasefire would be premature, emphasizing the importance of a decisive military victory for Israel's long-term security.

He also addresses the crucial issue of aid to Gaza, advocating for stringent checks to ensure it reaches civilians and not Hamas, especially in light of breached hostage release agreements. This comprehensive discussion sheds light on the complex dynamics at play and the critical decisions facing Israel.

Israel's Security Crisis: The Need for Clear Policy and Leadership! @i24NEWS_EN

Gain valuable insights from Benjamin Anthony, CEO of the Miram Institute, as he delves into the pressing security crisis in Israel. Discover the urgent need for a clear policy and decisive leadership in response to the escalating threats from the North and South. From analyzing the impact of recent Israeli strikes in Syria to dissecting the political rhetoric amidst the conflict in Gaza and Southern Lebanon, this discussion uncovers the critical issues at hand. Don't miss out on this thought-provoking analysis of the Israeli government's handling of the military campaign and the timing of elections. Join the conversation on losing confidence in the current leadership and the movement toward the extreme right wing. Gain valuable insights into the implications of the security crisis on Palestinian statehood and the overall stability of the region.

A Conversation with Iris Haim, Mother of Yotam Haim, Taken Hostage by Hamas on October 7th, 2023

In an emotional and powerful episode of our podcast, we sit down with Iris Haim, the mother of Yotam Haim Z"L, who was taken hostage by Hamas on October 7th and tragically killed in a heartbreaking IDF operational miscalculation.

Iris shares her heart-wrenching story, from the day Yotam was taken hostage by Hamas to the devastating moment of learning about his death due to an operational miscalculation by the IDF.

Despite her unimaginable loss, Iris's message is one of unity, love, and unwavering support for the Israeli government and the IDF soldiers. Her journey of campaigning for the release of hostages and her efforts to foster solidarity within the Jewish state is both inspiring and moving. Join us as Iris talks about her son's memory, her dedication to Israel's soldiers and society, and her vision for the future. This episode is not just a tribute to Yotam's memory but also a testament to Iris's incredible strength and her vital message of unity and hope.

Destroying hostage posters: the embodiment of mob antisemitism

Destroying hostage posters: the embodiment of mob antisemitism

On October 7th Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, targeting, and inflicting such savagery on Israeli civilians that, for a moment, it felt like the world gasped in horror and expressed sympathy for its victims.

That collective, sympathetic gasp was so fleeting it barely lasted a day until the Jewish victims were blamed for the massacre they endured. We Jews barely had time to mourn our people before we had to begin rhetorically defending ourselves.

While anti-Israel and antisemitic incidents have steadily increased over the past few years, anti-Jewish rhetoric has now exploded into an unapologetic blast of illogical, threating, and violent antisemitism that no longer tries to hide behind the veil of anti-Zionism. Now, American soil-that earlier felt solidly secure- is quaking under my feet, reverberating from the hate I feel closing in on me and my fellow Jews.

Not surprisingly, social media has glaringly revealed increasing and pervasive Jew hate since the October 7thmassacre, capturing narratives, images, and scenes of deeply illogical and virulent antisemitism: the DSA celebrating the massacre in NY’s Time Square on October 8th, professors at ivy league universities admiring the savagery of the attacks, the accounts of Jews who felt unsafe at a Dave Chappelle show as he spent his comedy hour vilifying Israel,

 and American University students marching in support of Hamas, an Islamist terrorist group that contradicts everything they purportedly value.

 One of the more striking manifestations of Jew hatred to appear now on social media is footage of people  tearing down posters of the Israeli hostages- a cultural phenomenon that encapsulates the deeply rotted, unapologetic and illogical nature of contemporary antisemitism.

The footage looks like this:

An individual or a couple of people quietly rip the poster off the wall. Whether the photographed face of the hostage is of a smiling teenager, giggling infant, contented grandparent, or a group ensemble of an entire family, the perpetrators callously crumple and squash the poster in their hands, throw it into the trash or drop it to the ground- as if the photo of that innocent face deeply offended the people forced to look at it.

Often the perpetrators will smirk and smile as if they have done something devilishly but innocuously wrong. Sometimes they will tear the poster down with determined anger. Others will look around, ensuring no one is observing them, then quickly grab the ripped poster and shove into their pockets, like thieves in the night.

When questioned why they are ripping down posters of innocent hostages, the offenders’ responses always lack remorse, and never suggest a hint of shame.

In the context of the actual violence of October 7th, of the consistent stream of rockets launched at Israel from Gaza, of the fact that 200+ people are still in the captive hands of Hamas terrorists, of the fact that many of the terror victims in Israel can still not be identified due to the barbarism in which Hamas levied their massacre, of the fact that medical teams are still learning of the sheer savagery of Hamas’ onslaught -from the pervasive rape of girls and women of all ages to the torture inflicted on the mutilated bodies- the tearing down of posters seems so comparatively benign, like a mischievous but naughty prank.

And even in the context of global antisemitism that is vociferously being expressed now- of the thousands of people marching through the streets of North America, Europe, and the Middle East, shouting for the eradication of Israel and death to Jews, and the equally loud silence of those watching this all unfold- the tearing down of posters seems like the least of Jews’ problems.

And yet, the tearing down of hostage posters is searing in its lack of decency, and it sadly encapsulates what Jews may have always known or have just come to realize: there are many who want to eradicate our faces-willfully supporting terrorist actions that otherwise would be abhorrent to them-like rape, kidnap, murder. The only conclusion I can reach then is that they support those actions not because they are criminally minded people but rather because those actions are targeted at Jews.

The phenomenon of tearing down posters also reveals, in both a symbolic and literal sense, the demise of rational society:

People destroy the hostage posters in what they claim is solidarity with Palestinians. But the utter absurdity of the action, highlights something equally malignant in our current cultural climate- the unwillingness to honestly look at issues and the willing deference to mob mentality.

They rip the hostage posters because they will not look at the faces of the victims; they refuse to. They must tear them down because they cannot acknowledge the counterargument of their antisemitic indoctrination-which is that the Israeli hostages are innocent victims-not violent oppressors-the antithesis of the idea the perpetrators have been served and have willfully swallowed.

As such, the destruction of hostage posters is a manifestation not only of racism and hate but also of intellectual cowardice and cognitive impotence; it is akin to a petulant child putting his hands over his ears when he is told no.

The perpetrators do not have the courage to see or recognize that supporting Hamas is not only morally wrong but also senseless: it is senseless because supporting Hamas does not help the Palestinian people, who suffer under Hamas’ regime-just like tearing down a photo of a kidnapped Jewish baby will not help a Palestinian child have a better life.

In the same sense, when masses of people chant “free free Palestine” have they really considered who they should be freeing Palestinians from? Do they really care?

Those who scream on the streets “One solution…Intifada…From the river to the sea”  are calling for the violent eradication of the Jewish people in Israel; they are calling for genocide while they  protest a supposed genocide. Refusing to accept a Jewish presence in Israel rather than insisting on the dismantlement of Hamas, they are perpetuating violence against Palestinian people because they support a terrorist group who inflicts violence on its own people. Hamas is a terrorist group who siphons all its people’s resources to grow murderous conflict, fill their own pockets, and indoctrinate their youth with hate, while intentionally using its civilians as human shields and pawns in an endless crusade against Jews.

 Those who destroy hostage posters or march in protest against Israel refuse to recognize the graveness and immorality of their ideological error. Instead, they willingly have joined a mob with blood lust. They are no different than the brown shirts in Germany in 1939 or white supremacists in the  American south herding around a lynching tree in 1959. Arming themselves with empty academic words, and intellectual theories that are intellectually non-sensical, they lack and pervert historical context. When they tear down the posters of Israeli hostages, they are expressing their unwillingness to see their own shame, their indoctrination, their mistake head on. They are merely a mob and they are loud.

While the perpetrators try to erase the victims of Hamas terrorism from American consciousness, Jewish Americans will not forget the faces of our abducted people. We will not forget our dead or our survivors, the thousands of casualties of Hamas brutality. We will always remember those who spoke out against the antisemitic mob and we will forever be grateful. And if this conflict winds downs and the dust settles, we will remember those who screamed for our blood in our streets and neighborhoods, on our soil, who tried to eradicate our right to exist -whether in social discourse or in actuality. And those who stayed silent to watch this bloody mob overtake the American airwaves of cultural consciousness, we won’t forget their silence either.

We need counter voices. If you have been silent, speak up. Do not be intimidated by loud cowardice. Now is the time.

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

Elana also writes fiction, most notably children’s fiction, and lives in New Jersey with her husband and three children, as a member of a vibrant Jewish community that is dedicated to Israel and other Jewish causes.

Mark Goldfeder, Opinion: What donors abandoning Penn and Harvard should do next

By Mark Goldfeder

I would have hoped that, following the mass atrocities Hamas visited on more than 1,400 Israelis, US students who support Palestinian aspirations would want to separate themselves as quickly as possible from the scenes of depravity committed in the name of an explicitly antisemitic genocidal agenda.

Shockingly, however, several “pro-Palestinian” organizations on America’s most elite campuses showed no empathy for what happened to Israelis and instead blamed the victims for the unspeakable horror they suffered. (“Pro-Palestinian” is in quotations because you can, of course, be pro-Palestinian without supporting genocidal terrorism.) A coalition of student groups at Harvard University, for instance, put out a statement that they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” Some of those groups and students did eventually walk their statements back, but while Harvard’s was particularly egregious, it was not the only such incident.

Thankfully, some heroic citizens in the corporate world have issued a response. Students may have the right to openly support murder, but hedge fund CEO Bill Ackman explained that he and his fellow business leaders have a legitimate interest in knowing their names so they never inadvertently hire any of them. When a New York University Law student released a statement similarly hideous to Harvard’s, the law firm of Winston and Strawn exercised its own right to rescind the student’s employment offer.

Now these figures are going directly to the top. After mealy-mouthed administrators at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania seemed hesitant to respond to the massacre or to use the word “terrorist,” major donors announced they were closing their checkbooks and resigning from university boards in protest.

These actions are welcome, but more must be done. Donors and anyone else concerned about the climate on campus should urge administrators to hold accountable student groups whose speech crosses the line into territory not protected by the Constitution.

In particular, one of the major pro-Palestinian student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), demands reining in. The national organization issued a “call to action” for students to participate in a “National Day of Resistance” last Thursday, and affiliates across the country have planned more events in the near future.

The words and imagery used in SJP’s call to action are nothing short of frightening. Its Instagram account featured a graphic of a paraglider in a clear reference to the means some Hamas terrorists used to infiltrate Israel. “Today, we witness a historic win for the Palestinian resistance … reminding each of us that total return and liberation to Palestine is near,” the accompanying text stated. “The Palestinian resistance has captured over a dozen settlements surrounding Gaza along with many occupation soldiers and military vehicles. This is what it means to Free Palestine: not just slogans and rallies, but armed confrontation with the oppressors.” The organization repeated that text in a tool kit it supplied for the action, accompanied by an extra line: “National liberation is near — glory to our resistance, to our martyrs and to our steadfast people.”

The presence of at least one anti-Zionist student group such as SJP has long been correlated with antisemitic incidents on campuses. But SJP crossed a new line when it openly encouraged its members to rally in support of a terror group whose charter calls for the annihilation of Jews, everywhere, separate from the clauses vowing the obliteration of the State of Israel. Many Jewish students have already been fearful of ostracization when attending classes or expressing their identity. But fear for their physical safety is becoming ever more acute.

Universities, take note: Your lack of action is complicity.


While several university presidents have spoken out, to their credit, many more need to join them. And they all must do more when students glorify the actions of Hamas — a US-designated foreign terrorist organization — and support “armed confrontation.”

First, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, institutions that take federal funds have an obligation to protect their Jewish students — including from other student groups. Per the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, speech becomes harassing conduct when it is “sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit” the ability of students to join in or benefit from a university’s services or activities. Many Jewish students (even some professors) are literally afraid to go to class. Stanford Law School moved classes to Zoom last Friday out of concerns over violence. If the words of Title VI mean anything, they must protect against environments like this.

Second, all private universities have the right to shut down hateful protests without triggering any constitutional issues. Public universities are more constrained, but under Tinker v. Des Moines and its progeny — which courts have applied to universities — schools can shut down speech that will “materially and substantially interfere” with the “requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” or “invad[e] the rights of others.” Schools don’t have to wait for trouble; they can ban expression in advance if they can “reasonably forecast” that it will violate those standards.

In Melton v. Young, for instance, school officials were allowed to prohibit the wearing of a Confederate flag because it was reasonable to assume it would be disruptive in an environment of racial tension. Shouting “all of us are Hamas” while declaring that support for Palestinians “includes violence” and condoning “armed confrontation” is certainly no less likely to cause a disruption. Moreover, SJP rallies have sometimes turned violent in the past. Predictably, some did last week as well.

Finally, it is a federal crime if someone “knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.” Under Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, that can include even some speech if done “under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations.”

For instance, United States v. Osadzinski held that merely translating ISIS videos into English for pro-ISIS media organizations “clearly constituted ‘concerted activity’” in violation of the statute, even if there was no interaction with an actual member of the terrorist group.

In sponsoring and prepping the Day of Resistance events, SJP provided its chapters with public relations materials, instructing, “We must act as part of this movement. All of our efforts continue the work and resistance of the Palestinians on the ground.” As such, the government should carefully monitor SJP’s behavior. Indeed, some lawmakers have already recognized the problem and started calling for action along these lines.

SJP and other student groups can take the side of barbaric baby killers, but as donors and employers taught them this week, free speech has consequences. And accountability does not end there; university and government officials have responsibilities as well.

If and when speech crosses the line into discriminatory harassment, schools must remove their imprimatur from that evil while making sure to protect targeted communities, and they should proactively shut down events that are likely to cause material disruption or infringe the rights of others. At the very least, schools with applicable conduct codes should defund and/or revoke the charters of any organization that openly supports a group whose stated desire is to kill other members of the campus community.

Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq. is director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

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.

Mark Goldfeder: It's Only a War Crime if Israel Is Doing It | Opinion

By Mark Goldfeder

Once again self-proclaimed international law experts are throwing around terms that they do not understand to accuse Israel of atrocities as it responds to a vicious attack from the terrorist group Hamas.

Today, these "experts" are concerned about the war crimes of "forcible transfer" and "deportation" as Israel tries to save innocent Palestinian civilians by warning them to leave Hamas strongholds.

Here is another short primer on international law: Saving civilian lives is not a war crime. Terms matter, and there is a difference between an evacuation and a forcible transfer. Saving innocent people is what any army is supposed to do and literally the opposite of what Hamas has done and continues to do.

But don't take my word for it, let's ask the United Nations what the war crimes "forcible transfer" and "deportation" mean when the entity involved is not Israel (emphasis added):

What are the crimes of deportation and forcible transfer? Forcing persons to leave the area where they reside can be a crime against humanity, a war crime or both. If they occur in the context of a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population, deportation and forcible transfer are crimes against humanity. Deportation and forcible transfer occur when individuals are forced by expulsion or coercion from the place they were lawfully present, and there was no basis under international law for their displacement. When persons are displaced across an international border, it is called deportation. When such displacement occurs within a national boundary, it is called forcible transfer. Forced displacement does not require physical force and can be caused by the threat of force or coercion, duress or psychological oppression. A person is lawfully present in an area if they have a right under domestic or international law to be there, including refugees and stateless persons. International law allows the involuntary removal of persons only where it is strictly for the security of the persons or for imperative military reasons, but only for as long as the removal is necessary.

This is not, in fact, a close call.

Israel is attacking Hamas, not targeting the civilian population.

Israel has an overwhelming imperative military reason to ask civilians to leave (stopping a genocidal terrorist organization) and is doing so for the security of those persons. Not a war crime—quite the opposite. This is what just war looks like.

Actually, Israel is quite literally following the letter of international human rights law.

Per the Geneva Conventions, Article 58(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I: the parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible, "without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavor to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives."

Per Article 57, 1(c) "effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit."

To review—Israel is engaging in a lawful, proportionate attack against a genocidal enemy force. The war crimes of forcible transfer require evidence of illicit intent; the opposite is true here. Israel has already evacuated hundreds of thousands of its own citizens to keep them out of harms' way; now Israel is desperately trying to save the lives of Palestinian civilians as well ,even at the expense of telegraphing its own attacks. Meanwhile, Hamas is ordering people to stay in harms' way, as human shields, so they can then complain to an undiscerning media about how many civilians Israel killed.

By any definition, Israel's warnings are an act of morality, if not grace. But once again, when it comes to Israel, somehow the rules are different.

Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq. is director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

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.