The True Danger: Crossing Red Lines

by Yehuda Vald, Director-General of the Religious Zionism Party, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The right-wing never threatened to burn down the country. The left-wing must follow suit.

During the course of the tenure of the Bennett-Lapid government, which was supported by a terrorist supporting Knesset party associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, I was called to serve as a reservist in the IDF. Once in uniform, I found myself among many friends from the nationalist camp, and we discussed our discomfort and difficult feelings given the government under which we had been called to serve.

Many of us were incensed at the ideological about-face that then-Prime Minister Bennett had made, and the way he turned his back on the values he had pledged to represent and thus earned many of our votes. But despite the turmoil we all felt, not one of us considered not showing up for military service.

Way before that, after the Rabin government signed the Oslo Accords, and after Shimon Peres brought Yasser Arafat to our midst and supplied rifles to the Palestinian Authority that led to the murders of many Jews throughout the country, the story was the same. I never heard my father or his friends threaten to organize a taxpayers' rebellion.

Yes, we protested and cried out in the streets. We blocked roads when the government set out to expel nearly 10,000 of us from our homes in Gush Katif. We watched as it destroyed a beautiful expanse of our homeland, despite our warnings that Israel's security would be in mortal danger. Those in power ignored us.

Knowledgeable and grave-looking former security officials said that everything would be OK, and they prevailed over the teary-eyed orange-bracelet wearers [orange was the color of the campaign to stop the Gush Katif destruction]. Yet even then, we did not refuse to serve in the army of our country that had expelled us, and we did not stop saying the Prayer for the Welfare of the Country and Government.

The right-wing camp protested, cried out, demonstrated – but never threatened civil disobedience. We did not call on the populace not to pay taxes, we did not encourage refusal to serve in the IDF, and we certainly did not threaten a civil war. Even when the government itself acted against us, we continued to remain loyal.

But the Left Acts Differently

Two years ago, high-scale social turbulence enveloped the country following the elected government's attempt to institute a reform of the judicial system. The anti-reform protest gained momentum with slogans such as, "This is the End of Democracy," "Israel is Becoming a Dictatorship," and "A Country of Halakhic Law." Various protest initiatives warned that Israel was on its way to becoming an oppressive regime that would discriminate against women, and posters warned that not allowing a court to abolish a Knesset law simply because it considered it "unreasonable" would lead to students being forced to don tefillin in schools…

At the same time, unprecedented anti-IDF intiatives began to take shape. Pilots and reservists announced that they would refuse to serve, youths began publicly burning their draft notices, and former bigwigs, such as Ehud Barak, started calling openly for civil disobedience. It was even discovered not long ago that 120 million shekels were funneled into those massive protests from foreign sources.

Two years later, all the scare-tactics have proven to have been groundless.  There is no religious compulsion, women have not turned into low-level housemaids, and the democracy has not collapsed. But a deeper problem remains: the fact that one side, the left, took steps to "overturn the table" and collapse Israeli society.    

Political disputes are far from new. There was always right and left, and always different approaches as to how to run the country. But it never happened that senior members of one camp called openly for refusal, civil disobedience, and not to pay taxes.

And we're not talking about marginal left-wingers, but rather leaders of the pack: Opposition leader Yair Lapid, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and former Deputy IDF Chief of Staff and current leader of what used to be the Labor Party, Yair Golan. They have actually called for refusal, disobedience, and even the first steps of civil war. This creates a situation in which every political camp may do the same whenever they lose an election. Can any of us imagine the terrifying scenario of hareidim declaring a civil war if they are drafted, or of the religious-Zionists closing down the country if a Hesder yeshiva is closed? Is this the future of Israeli democracy?

The answer is no. Contrary to the panic in the media, most people in our country, on both the right and the left, want to live together, want the country to be Jewish, want to preserve democracy, and refuse to fight and hate. Most people vow that we will never have a civil war. Those who fought – together! – in the alleys of Khan Yunis and the hills of Lebanon, and who spent days preparing for battle or taking part in distributing supplies to the soldiers, and the youths who helped rebuild the Gaza- border areas and the north, and who helped out the reservists' families in Tel Aviv, Gush Etzion, and everywhere else – know that that's where the truth of Israeli society lies, and that our nation is, essentially, one.

If the left is truly committed to democracy, it must also commit to abide by the rules of the game – even when they don't precisely match its agenda. They must not burn down the clubhouse, and not rock the foundations of the existence of our democracy, and not take extreme measure simply because they find themselves in the minority. "Together We Will Win!" is not just a slogan; it is the essence of our existence here as a nation.

Israel's Enemies Leverage Our Internal Turmoil

by Boaz Lieberman, Strategic Consultant, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Among the many tasks we face, we must remember the ultimate, nefarious goals of our enemies, and not let our internal discord serve their interests.

Israel is presently at one of its most stormy and complex junctions in its history. The international geopolitical reality is marked by instability, rapid regional changes, and both new and old-style threats upon us. It is therefore most vital that we strengthen our sovereignty and national clout, both militarily and economically, to ensure the country's security and its future.

Ever since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, it has encountered many challenges – but the current internal strife of today is that which is liable to become our most dangerous threat. When Israel was first formed, its leaders did not fail to understand that the national interest must always take precedence over internal disputes. They had plenty of deep ideological differences among themselves, but they were able to unite around a clear national vision of the importance of a strong, independent, Jewish state in the Land of Israel.

What is needed today is precisely the same thing: a leadership that can place the national interest at the absolute top of the agenda, and concentrate on reinforcing our sovereignty and the uncompromising defense of our security and territorial integrity.

Ever since Oct. 7^th – Simchat Torah of 2023 – Israelis, and parts of the world, have become more acutely aware of the true dreams and goals of the Palestinians. The popular, laundered phrase "Two States for Two Peoples" has all but camouflaged what they really want and are working towards: not two states, but one state – and that it must not be Jewish. This understanding must stand at the basis of any and every future strategic decision of Israel, and it must strengthen our resolve to protect our existence at all costs.

The controversy surrounding legislation passed by a democratically elected government is an example of how the internal debate has reached a new, dangerous peak. It also underlines the danger that enemy states and others will exploit the protests against the government to deepen the social divide in Israel.

It is incumbent upon the protestors – popularly called the Kaplanistim because most of their demonstrations take place at the Kaplan Junction in Tel Aviv – to prepare for this eventuality. They must realize that their actions, albeit legitimate in a democracy, can serve as a tool in our enemies' hands to harm us in a far more sinister and dangerous manner than the actions that they are protesting against. Yes, their aspiration to strengthen governance and stabilize our democracy is necessary, but the intense public disputes surrounding this issue create national vulnerability. Israel's enemies utilize this strident discord to seek to weaken us, whether through psychological tactics, cyber-attacks and the like.

As Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman wrote in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow," emotionally-influenced decisions are liable to endanger strategic considerations in the long run. Israeli politics require, today more than ever, calm, cool, and collected decision-making, based on a clear strategic view and an accurate perception of reality that is ready to deal directly with the threats the country faces.

The concept of singularity promoted by Ray Kurzweil emphasizes the great potential of technological advancement alongside the danger that its rapid acceleration will lead to unforeseen and irreversible changes in human life. Israel must become a national leader in advanced technology, not only in order to protect itself from future threats, but also to leverage its economic advantages and guarantee long-term financial growth. It must adopt an economic model based on entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic freedom – again, not only to strengthen Israel's economy, but also to enable Israel to better cope with global and regional pressures.

In his book "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind," Yuval Noah Harari notes that societies that succeeded in maintaining a common, robust narrative were able to survive and thrive throughout history. A clear national narrative, based on our Jewish and Zionist identity, can be the central factor that will enable Israel to get through this internal divide. Our State requires a renewed vision of its national identity, and a stronger unity around certain basic values: Judaism, love of the homeland, respect for our national legacy and culture, and an understanding of the importance of our independence and sovereignty.

Historically, it is clear that peoples succeed in meeting external challenges when they are united around clear national values. A valiant and focused leadership that understands the necessity of national resilience and ability to withstand threats is what is necessary at this time. It is incumbent upon this leadership to realize its responsibility to find the way to bridge over the gaps and create a mutual basis of agreement regarding the State's long-term objectives.

Today, more than ever, Israel must reconnect with its roots, strengthen its Zionist and national values, and guarantee a stable and thriving economy that will enable us not only to survive but also to thrive and grow in a turbulent and intricate Middle East.

The Refusers Must be Totally Renounced – Especially by the Left!

by Emmanuel Shiloh, editor of B'sheva magazine, translated by Hillel Fendel.

1.

This column will focus mainly on piercing criticism of those who refuse, for political reasons, to serve in the IDF during wartime and thus sabotage the war effort.
On the extreme fringes of our left-wing camp, refusal to serve in the IDF has once again raised its ugly head. Last time it was because of the attempts to institute some judicial reforms – and this time, too, the refusers are complaining that the "end of Israeli democracy" is near. Why? Because the government wishes to fire Shabak chief Ronen Bar as well as the Legal Counsel to the Government, Gali Bahrav-Miara. Bar functioned miserably on October 7^th, having failed to inform his superiors of indications of the Hamas plans as late as 4 AM that terrible morning.

But we begin it with praise and prayer for our combat soldiers and their success, and for the new IDF leadership that has brought a fresh spirit to the ranks. We also pray for our government, whose task this time is to be even stronger and firmer than it has been until now, and to fight until victory. There must be no agreement with Hamas, other than one for its total surrender. We must conquer all of Gaza, impose a military government there, dismantle Hamas, and locate and free our captive brothers.

Our beloved soldiers: Rise up and succeed; smite and defeat the enemy; and may the G-d of Israel come to your aid.

2.

Bahrav-Miara, too, seeks to thwart the government's plans at every opportunity. Even Minister Gideon Saar, who appointed her to the post under the Bennett-Lapid government, now regrets his choice. "You promised to be a counsel who enables [things to get done]," he told her. "What happened to that?" The answer is that she was indeed an enabler – but only for the Bennett-Lapid government. She found no legal grounds to prevent it from giving away sovereign off-shore territory without a popular referendum, as required by law; she found no problem when the transitional government appointed a Chief of Staff just days before national elections, nor when it sought to appoint the chairman of the committee that vets senior appointments at the same time (the Supreme Court later disqualified this move). She was also very enabling of the anti-reform protestors, claiming that "a protest cannot be effective if it does not disturb the public order." As if there is some legal principle that obligates the state, and the poor drivers stuck for hours in protest-blocked traffic, to make sure that a protest is "effective." 

On the other hand, regarding the Netanyahu government, she manages to find "legal impediments" to its policies wherever she looks. She did not allow Netanyahu to appoint Deri as a minister, nor to appoint Ben-Gvir for a second time (though he has been appointed despite her objections), nor to appoint a temporary (!) chairperson of the Second Channel Authority. And of course, she is blocking the government from firing the head of the Shabak – despite the law that permits exactly that. In no fewer than 25 cases, she has refused to represent the government position. Nevertheless, in spite of all this, the wild protests continue in Tel Aviv, and some of the more zealous leaders even announced their refusal to serve in the IDF. 

Another excuse that apparently justifies their "conscientious objections" is the government's stance on the painful, complex issue of the hostages. Netanyahu wants very much to see them home, and in fact succeeded in getting Hamas to agree to release 30 of them, plus another eight corpses. For this we paid a terrible price of the freeing of hundreds of dangerous terrorist murderers, "humanitarian" aid to Hamas that fills its coffers and strengthens its regime, and even three months of ceasefire, enabling it to rearm, regroup, and replant explosives and booby traps. We can only hope and pray that by some miracle, our soldiers won't pay for all this with their lives.

Netanyahu is also willing to continue along these lines – but one thing he is not willing to do, and that is to agree to end the war while Hamas is still armed and in power. The government of Israel is willing to go a long way to receive the hostages – but will not agree to commit suicide.

Parts of the left-wing camp not only do not accept this position, but accuse Netanyahu of actively preferring his own interests over those of the hostages and the country. Some of them then go even further and refuse to serve in the army – in wartime, yet!

This time, though, as opposed to the refusals during the anti-reform protests, when reactions were fairly apathetic, the public is not having it. Even the IDF has learned its lesson, and new Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir has already permanently removed from service two soldiers, including a combat navigator, who said they would not serve.

This response is the correct one: "You don't want to fight alongside your comrades for the protection of your country and for the release of the hostages? Everyone else should fight except for you? Fine, don't do us any favors. The courageous, patriotic soldiers who understand the importance of this holy mission will do the job without you, and you, when you wake up to what you have done, will have to live forever with the disgrace of having run away from the battlefield."

Another grave aspect of these refusals is that they seem to be decided upon with barely any deliberation. After all, it is now clear that regarding the judicial reform, the Supreme Court did the job in at least once instance by nullifying one of the relevant laws [the one that would have greatly restricted the use of "not reasonable" as a reason to nullify a Knesset law]. So what was the purpose in refusing to fight for your country?

Even more grating are the current protests against the government's firing of Shabak chief Ronen Bar – at the same time that the matter has been taken to the Supreme Court! Make up your minds: If the Court accepts your position, your refusals will have been totally unnecessary. And if the Court allows the firing, then you will of course have to accept it. So where do you get off trying once again to shake up and divide the IDF, this time in the middle of a war, after seeing the terrible price we paid last time? Does the goal of toppling Netanyahu dwarf every other consideration??

And so, this is the moment of truth for the sensible and responsible left: You must totally renounce and condemn the refusers, and give full backing to the IDF in its iron fist against them. This is the minimum that anyone who considers himself a true Israeli patriot must do.

The Trump Spirit Upon Netanyahu

by Dr. Tzvi Moses, clinical psychologist, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Let Netanyahu work – and at the same time, let's tone down the internal dispute, rise up together, and let the special history of the Jewish Nation a chance to speak its part.

On the backdrop of Israel's renewed offensive in Gaza, the questions have again arisen as to what Netanyahu's ultimate strategy really is. The commentators offer up all sorts of ideas and scenarios, while his many detractors always like to link anything he does or doesn't do to a need of his to strengthen his coalition and survive politically as Prime Minister.

It could be, however, that this time, they are simply wrong. Netanyahu is taking inspiration and strength from Donald Trump, and he is actually very involved in what is best for the State of Israel. In fact, his achievements thus far seemed just a year ago to be nothing more than dream-like.

It is a given that with Trump in office, we stand before a seemingly one-time historic opportunity to fortify the State of Israel as a country that can stand alone on its own two feet in defending itself and its citizens.

Despite Israel's current strong dependency upon the United States, our goal is to accumulate sufficient strength so that we will be able to withstand a change of administrations in the U.S. and a new international balance of power among the superpowers.

Our recent hostage exchange deal with Hamas - in which we released some 1,700 prisoners, including 620 bona-fide terrorists and murderers - has left Israel in a very vulnerable position. The dangerous weakness that we have revealed leaves us open to unacceptable and impossible Hamas demands in exchange for all the remaining hostages, in a manner that endangers the existence of the State of Israel. Hamas is basically demanding a total end to the war, with American and United Nations guarantees that will stop Israel from completing the job of liquidating Hamas.

This is the real meaning of the proclamations made by the "Free the hostages at any price!" campaign and the protestors in Tel Aviv. A surrender of this sort would form, almost immediately, a regional chain reaction among all of our enemies. They would learn clearly that they no longer need nuclear weapons to destroy us. All they have to do is assemble a bunch of kidnapping cells in order to dismantle Israeli society from within and thus destroy our country.

The populistic chants of "First the hostages, then smash Hamas" have no validity or truth. If we try this approach, we will stand weakened and helpless against our enemies. We are all well aware that the plight of the hostages' families, and of course the hostages themselves, is indescribably horrific, and it is incumbent upon us all to add prayers that the relevant authorities break their heads to think out of the box and figure out how to free them. But the deal currently on the table is a terrible one, and we may not allow ourselves to agree to it as now formulated.

On the other hand, Israel is currently operating relatively intensively against Hamas, and is practicing a much more active and aggressive security policy in Lebanon, Syria, to be followed by the same against the Houthis and Iran. Trump's backing in the meantime is amazing, surpassing anything our great strategic commentators ever envisioned.

These anti-Netanyahu journalists are occasionally bewildered by his success, though they steadfastly refuse to eat their hats and admit their mistakes. They certainly would never actually praise him for what has been his cautious and correct managing of everything that is going on. They rather keep finding additional claims to file against Netanyahu and his nationalist government. Yes, they do have one justified point, which is that while most of those responsible for the colossal catastrophe of Oct. 7^th have either quit or been fired, only Netanyahu himself – where the buck of responsibility is supposed to stop – remains deeply entrenched in his political seat. But in the end – so what?

Though they and many others on the left claim that justice is the epitome of what is fair and good, they refuse to acknowledge that most of the charges against Netanyahu are fabricated for political reasons. The trial against him will go down in infamy for the State Prosecution and the left-wing camp. Apparently, for them, justice is relative. In any event, Mr. Netanyahu is currently the Prime Minister, and he happens to be running several particularly successful moves and processes. Israel's political and military situation is in a very different place than it was, and even our still-limping economy is showing positive signs of recovery.

At this point in time, Netanyahu is the most suitable man in the country to lead us for at least the first two years of Trump's term in office. After that there will be elections for the U.S. Congress, and then here as well, and the voters will choose whom they wish.

The Trump spirit that has inspired and enveloped Netanyahu has granted him a great measure of self-confidence – sometimes a bit too much – in his drive to actualize the right-wing dream of cleaning out the leftist stables. Not only in the U.S., but here in Israel too, over-leftistism has taken up occupancy, sometimes openly and sometimes undercover, in all areas: security, academia, and especially in the judiciary. To balance this out is in no way a revolution or insurgency, as the protestors like to scream. It is rather a necessary approach to balance out the leftism that has accompanied the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel since even before the establishment of the State.

In any event, what is required of both sides now is to enlist our strengths to tone down the internal dispute, rise above the situation together, and allow the special history of the Jewish Nation a chance to speak its part. Let us remind ourselves that the great Jewish spirit pulsates within Israel from Dan to Eilat.

How Far Back Must the War Investigation Go?

by Haggai Huberman, journalist and author, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Ariel Sharon announced his intention to "disengage" from Gush Katif and all of Gaza 20 years before the Simchat Torah massacre. The commission of inquiry must investigate how this led to the current war.

Most of the citizenry of Israel, it appears from a cursory glance at the daily headlines, favor a public commission of inquiry to determine what led up to the horrific massacre of Simchat Torah `23. The Israeli public does not like the clumsy attempts of the government and the Prime Minister, via various tricks and excuses, to avoid having to answer to such a commission.

However, it is not clear from what date this commission should start its research.

I would recommend that the government agree to a public commission of inquiry. After all, the government will be the body that sets the subjects of inquiry and their limits. Netanyahu's government therefore has the opportunity and the right to tell the commission to focus on government policy not only of the few years, but of the last two decades. Why that long?

It will be recalled that almost exactly 20 years before the massacre, in Dec. 2023, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced his intention – contrary to everything he had promised in the election campaign less than a year earlier – to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza. That is, all of our armed forces, and the 22 Jewish communities in Gaza (mostly in Gush Katif, were to be physically removed. This was known as the Disengagement Plan.

What is the connection between this Disengagement and the horrors of Oct. 7^th? Finding the answer to that question is exactly what I am proposing as a central topic for the inquiry. To pinpoint the connection, the following questions may not be avoided, and they must be directly answered:

·        To what extent did Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip enable Hamas to build up its humongous military force, in terms of both personnel (the Nukhba units) and its rocket arsenals?

·        How is that Hamas succeeded [in 2007] in defeating Fatah and taking over Gaza militarily from the PA, but did not succeed in doing so in Judea and Samaria?

·        How is it that the Arabs of Judea and Samaria did not perpetrate an invasion and massacre similar to the what the Arabs of Gaza executed?

·        To what extent did the withdrawal detract from the intelligence capabilities of the IDF and the Shabak? No one disputes that critical information regarding Hamas intentions that morning of Oct. 7^th did not reach Israeli intelligence bodies in time.

Regarding that last point, we know that the Shabak conducted an internal inquiry, of which only small portions have been publicized. The report states that "there was relatively little intelligence, as a result (inter alia) of restrictions on our freedom of action [in Gaza] and increasing difficulties in the Shabak's independent ability to complete intelligence/operational processes there."

These words are precisely what the commission must investigate: Why were there such "restrictions" that led to "relatively little intelligence" specifically in Gaza, and not in Judea and Samaria? [It is axiomatic that intelligence is very hard to obtain without physical presence in the area being scouted. - HF]

Without detracting from the responsibility of the current political and military leaderships for the events of Oct. 7^th, the very demand to investigate also the government of 20 years ago can serve as a litmus test for the commission of inquiry that is to arise:

If it is willing to begin its investigation 20 years back, regarding events that (many feel) marked the beginning of the process that ended with the Hamas invasion/slaughter of nearly 18 months ago, then it can be said to be objective and public-minded. But if it seeks all sorts of tricks to avoid having to investigate the Sharon era and place some of the responsibility on him, this automatically places a large question mark on the reliability and trustworthiness of the commission and its conclusions.

In addition, if a measure of blame is accorded to Sharon and the Disengagement, it will have ramifications for any future consideration of similar unilateral or other withdrawals.

Netanyahu's Share of Responsibility

A public commission of inquiry must also investigate the failure of the Netanyahu governments' policies over the years that led to this war. However, while the left-wing seeks to indicate that Netanyahu's failure lies in his "managing the conflict" instead of trying to reach a diplomatic solution, I believe the opposite: "Managing the conflict" was a correct approach, but it was applied only in Judea and Samaria – from where no Oct. 7^th emanated!

Let's assume for a moment that there had been a "diplomatic process" with the PA which had actually led to some sort of a peace agreement; highly improbable, I know. The only result would have been terrorists roaring through Jewish towns along the Green Line such as Modiin, Kfar Saba and Raanana on motorcycles and Toyotas, as happened in Jewish towns near Gaza on Oct. 7^th.

Other say that we shouldn't have separated between Yesha and Gaza. But again, I believe that that actually worked in our favor, serving as an additional factor why the Arabs in Judea and Samaria did not follow their cousins in Gaza and attempt their own slaughter of Israelis.

For example, consider that in 1987, when Yesha and Gaza were not officially separate, the first intifada broke out in northern Gaza and then quickly spread to Judea and Samaria. The second intifada started simultaneously in Gaza and Yesha (and even among Arab-Israelis), in September 2000. But in clear contrast, the Simchat Torah war never expanded to Yesha, despite the hopes of then-Hamas leader Yihye Sinwar for a "joining of the fronts."

Where, then, is the real failure of Netanyahu? It lies in his formulation and implementation of the motto, "Quiet will be met with quiet." That is, if Hamas remains quiet, Israel will view this as if Hamas is "deterred" – even if, as it turned out, it was simply biding its time while preparing for war – and we won't initiate an offensive.

How could the Likud have forgotten the famous line of its ideological founder, Zev Jabotinsky, who wrote in one of his poems, "Quiet is filth." He meant of course that to remain passive in the face of major challenges can lead to tragedy. The suitcases of dollars that our government transferred to Hamas was not meant to strengthen Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority, as opponents of the government claim. It rather stemmed from a fear of war, and from the foolish belief that an improvement in Gaza's economic situation will weaken Sinwar's passion to murder Jews.

It wasn't only Netanyahu, of course, who believed this. This belief started back in the days of Shimon Peres, and encompassed also Galant, Gantz, outgoing Shabak head Ronen Bar, former IDF Chief of Staff Hertzy HaLevy, Yair Lapid, Naftali Bennett, and others whom I have forgotten; my apologies to them and to the readers. Each of them is equally responsible, but the Prime Minister – who has been in office for many years – has a bit more responsibility than all the rest. The sad result was that Hamas was permitted to build its monstrous strength over the course of years.

Our conclusions concern not only whom to blame in the past, but mainly how we are to act in the future. The State of Israel must achieve the release of all the living hostages (yes, living; contrary to popular opinion, it's OK if we wait until the next war to receive the corpses), and this is possible only if we negotiate and pay heavy prices. After they have all been released, then we can go on to implement another line in Jabotinsky's poem: "Carry the fire to ignite."

Note: This was written just before the IDF resumed the war in Gaza this week.