Israeli-Arabs Upon Us? Waking Up Before It's Too Late

by Hadar Miller, media personality and former Associate Deputy Mayor in Lod (written for the religious zionist periodical - Matzav Haruach), translated by Hillel Fendel.

Just last week, we marked the third anniversary of the Simchat Torah massacre. These were days of poignant soul-searching, of immense pain - and of drawing necessary conclusions for the future. We succeeded, it appeared, in awakening not only as a nation, but also in our government and our security agencies. The misguided conceptions of many years were shattered, and we understood much more clearly the type of cruel enemies we were facing, and on how many different fronts. We realized that we could no longer sweep the threats under the carpet, and that imaginary quiet does not provide genuine security. 

But there is still one front that to which we have not awakened, and it is possibly the most dangerous, explosive, and complex of all. It is the danger of the hundreds of thousands of illegal weapons flowing unhindered within the Israeli-Arab public. We're talking about an insane arsenal of shoulder missiles, M-16 and Kalachnikov rifles, and hosts of other advanced weapons.  

Do we not remember the discovery of a portable unguided missile and launcher in a children's nursery in Lod in two years ago? The nursery, thankfully, was closed at the time for the Passover holiday, but it is located adjacent to major highways and Ben Gurion Airport. The implications are chilling.

I experienced the Arab riots of May '21 on my own flesh. To put it simply, they tried to murder me. When I speak of the weapons on the Israeli-Arab street, I know very well what I'm talking about. It was then that I woke up to the depth of the problem. [Translator's note: That very month, the author resigned from the Lod Municipality governing coalition, saying she could not sit together with an Arab member who took part in a march calling for "blood and fire to redeem the shahid."]

Ever since then, I have been crying out that the riots of those days were just a small promo of what the future holds, even without the much greater means of destruction the Arab public now has. It could be that those who do not live with the threat from up close do not realize its full extent. But the simple fact is that the police, with all due appreciation, do not have the ability and means to deal with an extreme scenario of myriads of armed Arabs. And of course, even worse is the frightening prospect of coordination between the Arabs of Judea and Samaria and those of Israel, in which case the Jewish towns and cities of central Israel would face an immediate and absolute threat. 

Beyond Criminal

There is a dangerous tendency to treat the mountains of weapons in Arab hands as a "criminal" issue. Every time there is a shootout in Arab population centers – not an infrequent occurrence – the police release a statement ending with, "The incident was of a criminal nature," i.e., not terrorist. Nothing could be more ostrich-like. A fundamental principle in political thought is that whoever holds the weapons, holds the power. Just about a month ago, we saw how the Arabs of Majd al-Krum [in the Galilee, west of Carmiel] threw out a law-abiding shepherd from Jewish JNF lands, simply because he was Jewish. They did it because their weapons enabled them to do it.

The fact is that inter-Arab violence in Israel continues to be very costly: Well over 180 Arabs were killed so far this year, following last year's record high of 252 murders. If the police and Shabak would treat every shooting in the Arab public as if a Jew had been killed, we could start talking about a solution to the problem. 

The legal framework required to cleanse Arab localities of weapons is already in place. What's lacking is the armed or even military force to do so, and even more so, the motivation and daring. For no matter what, it takes a great deal of courage to confront the clucking of the global Left, which doesn't like strong enforcement against Arab crime in Israel and considers it "racist." This simply ignores the fact that the real racists are those who treat spilled Arab blood lightly.

One who thinks that we'll be able to take effective action only when Jews are the targets, is liable to find out, too soon, that it's already too late. 

We may no longer hide our eyes and pretend that the problem will be solved on its own. Nor may we rely on the police working alone to prevent a mass uprising in the heart of Israel. We must look the situation in the eye and realize that the broad strategic threat developing under our noses has nothing to do with maintaining routine law-and-order.

Now that we have remembered and commemorated the 7th of October, and been forced to take new stock of our approach to the threats we face on various fronts, the time has come to be truly strong and brave. We must take care of this dangerous problem right now, not later, thoroughly and without compromise. We can absolutely not afford to be caught once again by surprise – and this time, in the middle of Israel.

Europe Burns – But its Problem is Israel…

by Yossi Achimeir, Israeli journalist, former politician, and director-general of the Jabotinsky Institute. Translated by Hillel Fendel

"Slam Israel and Save Europe." That seems to be the hidden motto behind the recent attacks and sanctions waged by European countries on Israel. They actually seem to think that their acute problems can be solved by blaming Israel…

The scenes playing out on their city streets are reminiscent of the Intifada we experienced here in Israel. Paris and environs are ablaze, as massive mobs transform the City of Lights into a city of bonfires. Keffiyehs, PLO flags, clubs, stones, and posters in support of Hamas and the massacre it perpetrated on Oct. 7, 2023 – these are the sights there now. A "Third World" reality seems to have taken hold there and elsewhere. Yet, Prime Minister Macron, as well as his counterparts from Spain, Belgium, England, Ireland, and the Netherlands, are primarily concerned with the so-called "genocide" in Gaza. Yes, their leaders did shed some crocodile tears when the October 7 massacre happened, but have sharply changed direction since then.

Dutch Prime Minister Jetten recently stated that "the region has deteriorated into a cycle of conflict and suffering. Tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army since the Hamas attack. The consequences of all this violence are deeply felt even today." 

Then Oslo strikes us once again by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to an Israel-hater from South Africa. Wasn't Arafat's "peace" enough for them? [Arafat, too, often considered the father of modern-day terrorism, was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.]

What can explain why so much of Europe has turned against us? Latent anti-Semitism that cannot be contained, hatred of Israel, jealousy of its achievements, and an escape route from burning domestic problems – these are certainly most of it. We must also add the well-oiled Arab propaganda that is eagerly consumed in the many, if not most, increasingly-Islamic countries. Their gates have been opened wide, as is well-known, to absorb masses of immigrants from Asia and Africa, most of whom are fanatic Muslims darkening the "enlightened" continent.

France is no longer the same France we knew, nor are England and Spain, and even the Netherlands, to our great disappointment, has changed its stripes.

European hypocrisy is all the rage in these countries. England, for instance, still enforces its claims over the Falkland Islands, south of South America some 8,000 miles away. [Translator's Note: The 1982 British offensive there cost the lives of over 900 people, mostly Argentinians. And when Indonesia sought its independence in 1945, the Dutch responded with a four-year war that involved great violence and killed between 100,000 and 300,000 Indonesians.] 

Holland also still claims some Caribbean islands. Yet these imperialist countries still insist that Israel must retreat from its own historic and defensively-imperative territories within its own borders and permit the establishment of an enemy state. Double standard, anyone?

Of course, the island of Curaçao, near Puerto Rico, is happy with its status as an autonomous country under Dutch defense and diplomatic control, and the populace of the Falklands is similarly pleased with its self-government under the auspices of the British kingdom. But does Europe really believe, or care, whether the Palestinians suffice with the autonomy that the currently have?

It is well-known that behind the PA demands for a full-fledged state, even if currently only in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is their declared intention to destroy and replace the Jewish state altogether. If Europeans dream of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, they are living in a Virtual Reality – perhaps because they think they won't exactly miss Israel if it would actually disappear.

Let us tell Europe most directly: The thousands of dead Gazans is the fault of Hamas and no one else! Hamas is the entity that brought such great catastrophes upon both Israel and the Gazan populace. From the day we disengaged from Gaza in 2005, Hamas has been preparing for Oct. 7th by acquiring weapons, building tens of miles of concrete tunnels, training Nukhba terrorists, and indoctrinating their youth.

Yes, Hamas succeeded in surprising Israel. But they did not take into account our determination to fight back and actually defeat them. That is, they should have known what would be our response, but they did not care. And just as they did then, they continue to oppress their people without mercy. A wild mob streamed behind thousands of Nukhba terrorists to loot and burn out communities in Gaza. And now Hamas is taking advantage of our strong military response to spread poisonous lies against Israel.

After Israel willingly left Gaza with hope in our hearts – as misplaced as it was – and was then forced to absorb and repel the murderous massacre, it is now stands accused by the Dutch Prime Minister of genocide?? He and everyone else should understand that there are no innocent bystanders in Gaza, and for their own sake, they should begin planning their emigration, as President Trump originally foresaw.

A deep friendship existed between Israel and Holland during certain time periods over the last several decades. But the sad truth is that this relationship was apparently built upon the weakest of foundations - beginning with Dutch citizens who turned their Jewish neighbors over to the Nazis, and continuing now with the sanctions that Holland is placing against Israeli goods made in Judea and Samaria. Their willful blindness to the truth, and the Dutch government's joining the hate-Israel camp, will not be forgiven them. Our Foreign Minister Gideon Saar is to be commended for responding appropriately and firmly to the anti-Israel stance of Amsterdam and other European governments.

Will Spain's hostility towards Israel change when its government is replaced? And after Macron is replaced in France, will France return to a more balanced position? Perhaps. Meanwhile, let us not be deterred or alarmed by the anti-Israeli campaign accompanying the deterioration of so many European countries. Israel is strong enough to stand up not only to the terrorist organizations in these nations, but also against the propaganda lies disseminated about us from near and far.

Israeli Concessions and International Legitimacy

by Dr. Erez Shoshani, International Relations Lecturer at Ruppin Academic Center, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The public discourse around the recently-released anti-Israel movie NAZA (Collateral Damage) is a distraction from the very root of the problem that the movie expresses.

That is, the discussion should not be whether the citizenship of the Israeli directors should be revoked, or whether they should rather be praised for interviewing 24 anonymous Israeli military and intelligence personnel who say they were involved in operations in Gaza and accuse the IDF of apathy to "collateral" civilian deaths there.

Rather, this very debate shows the consequences of the ongoing Israeli misconception that our concessions, withdrawals and gestures lead to international legitimacy for our attempts to defend ourselves.

This mistake has accompanied us for decades. For instance, when the Knesset was presented with the proposed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (the Disengagement) in October 2004, the proponents maintained strongly that it would lead to international support for any Israeli self-defense actions that we might need to take as a result.

This of course did not happen. What should have been obvious at the time, but is certainly obvious now, is that there is no way that a democracy such as Israel can deal with cruel terrorists who use their own populace as human shields, without facing acute international criticism. Already in 2009, the UN's Goldstone Report [later largely retracted by its lead author, to no avail] accused Israel of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead a year earlier. It stated that actions such as dropping warning pamphlets in advance of an attack, and other similar warnings, are not sufficient prior to anti-terrorist attacks if civilians will be hurt, and that such offensives must therefore not be carried out.

Furthermore, given that the world is given to the shackles of systemic anti-Semitism, as reflected time and again in Anti-Defamation League surveys, it should have been clear to all that no withdrawal or other Israeli peace gesture would legitimize in international eyes any Israeli military action resulting in significant numbers of civilian casualties.

Accusations of Israeli genocide in Gaza became rampant throughout the world following the Oct. 7th Hamas massacre of over 1,200 Israeli civilians – despite documented findings by many leading research institutes in Israel and around the world that totally negate these conclusions.

In short, the approach by which we seek to arouse support for our actions to wipe out our terrorist enemies by highlighting our attempts to make peace, has been shown to be a failure. The Oslo Agreements signed nearly 35 years ago, the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and the Disengagement, all show that these withdrawals do not build our esteem in international eyes.

Quite on the contrary. They provide a backwind on steroids for Palestinian terrorism against Israel, culminating with the massacre of Oct. 7, 2003. And then, when Israel takes counter-action to protect its citizens, the result is not international acceptance, but rather accusations of genocide and the employment of sanctions.

Israelis who continue to insist even now that Israel must withdraw from Gaza, and other areas, are simply ignoring the historic reality of recent decades. 

Israeli Elections: The Losing Strategy of the Anti-Netanyahu "Change" Alliance

by Michael Sparber, member of the Judea & Samaria forum, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Israel will be holding national elections three weeks from now. If the "Change" coalition – the alliance of parties ranging from the extreme left (Yair Golan) to the extreme right (Avigdor Lieberman) whose exclusive shared goal is to oust Binyamin Netanyahu – loses these elections, let them not complain that the nation was fooled, or is immature, or does not understand. If they lose, it's because they simply don't understand what the nation wants. 

It is the "Change" bloc itself that seems to be out of touch. It does not grasp that much of the nation feels that though the current government failed us (even if only partially, together with significant achievements), it still sees the alternative being offered to it as even worse. 

It's possible to be angry at Netanyahu, to demand that he take responsibility and even resign – without wanting to return to the very policies that brought us to where we are now.

The people who feel this way are precisely the public that the Change bloc is missing. They are those who want more determination and initiative on the part of the government, and less dependency on others; they are angry at the government for not finishing the job in Gaza as it promised to do. But the opposition hears only the anger, and is convinced that whoever is upset at Netanyahu will vote for them. 

I have news for them: That is not the case. 

Consider what the opposition is offering us. Gadi Eisencott, the former IDF Chief of Staff whose party now presents the biggest electoral threat to the Likud, supported in the midst of the war the renewal of permits for Palestinian workers to enter Israel – as if he had learned nothing from past experience! And when asked if he would partner with the Arab party headed by Mansour Abbas, he could not provide a clear answer. Is that what he thinks the public wants now?

And what about Lieberman? He now proposes a Jordanian police force to run Palestinian civilian affairs in Areas A and B, alongside Israeli security control. Is this his great solution – Jordanians in Tul Karem and Kalkilye adjacent to Route 6, Netanya and Kfar Saba?! He promises to cancel Oslo, yet still wants to rely on others to take responsibility for our security. 

And then there is Naftali Bennett. This former Yesha Council leader has already assured us that "in the end, Areas A and B will be part of the Palestinian autonomy." Does he not understand that this is the opposite of what the many voters who wish to break out of Oslo want to see? Does he not see that his partnership with Lapid, Golan, and the others appears to many to be a repeat of what he did five years ago when his right-wing voters found themselves having chosen the head of a left-wing government predicated on the support of an Arab party?! 

Right-wing voters who want to replace Netanyahu are therefore rightly suspicious of those who call themselves right-wing yet propose policies that are far from it.

Yair Lapid, Bennett's senior partner, has proposed that Egypt run Gaza for 15 years and then pass it on to the Palestinian Authority after it has made "reforms." Golan says that Mansour Abbas is a legitimate government coalition partner. These are the leaders with whom Eisencott would like to form a government.

On the other hand, with all the anger at Netanyahu, we can see that in Judea and Samaria, his government has carried out major changes and improvements. In Jenin, Tul Karem and elsewhere, IDF forces are working against the terrorist infrastructures, remaining in place to prevent their rehabilitation. The policy changeover from "attacking, withdrawing, then waiting for the next round" to one of more initiative is clearly felt on the ground. And of course the establishment of over 100 new communities in Yesha (!) is a very welcome development; will a new Eisencott-Lapid government continue this approach?

All this does not mean that the public forgives Netanyahu for his failures. But it does mean that it wants his current policies and moves to be perpetuated, without reverting to the tried-and-failed policies of the left. Netanyahu has disappointed many, but his electoral opponents appear headed to disappoint them even more. If the "Change" bloc does not realize this, its defeat is all but guaranteed.

Containment is Not a Recipe for Victory

by Michael Sparber, member of the Judea & Samaria forum, translated by Hillel Fendel.

===Translator's note:
While the world, and particularly American public opinion, focuses on – and exaggerates unrestrainedly – supposed "settler violence," Israel continues to suffer from equally unrestrained murderous terrorism. Our newsletters have featured articles on the truth of the myth of "settler violence" – which we hope our readers disseminate widely – and we plan to continue to do so. In the meantime, please note that on Yom Kippur eve, a Jewish father of six and resident of the Shomrom community of N'vei Aliza was brutally gunned down by a Palestinian terrorist. The victim, in his last moments of life, was able to warn his 16-year-old son and thus save his life. This article deals with the manner in which Israel must wage the ongoing war against terrorism.

The question as to whether Kadri Samara, may his name be blotted out – the Palestinian terrorist who murdered Netanel Shukrun – should be executed (according to a new law passed in the Knesset mandating a death sentence in such cases) is an important one. But it once again puts the spotlight on our reaction to terrorism, instead of on the security and governmental faults that enabled the murder in the first place.

We would be advised not to ask only what to do with the murderer, but what do to prevent another one.

Here is the recent news item that so sadly and perfectly illustrates this failure: an announcement and warning by our Defense Minister, Yisrael Katz. He revealed that Israel has "information" on the possibility that Hamas will try to kidnap an Israeli soldier or citizen. Minister Katz then issued a threat: "If this happens, all of Gaza City will be evacuated and will be dealt with just as we dealt with [the terrorist-headquarter cities of] Rafah and Biet Hanoun."

Note the order: The intelligence exists, but our actions will happen only after the intelligence proves to be true: "If they abduct an Israeli, then we will take the strongest action. If they murder someone, we will execute. If they attack us, we will exact a heavy price."

There is nothing wrong with deterrence, or with threatening. The problem is how and when. Deterrence must happen before, not only after. We find ourselves having turned our threats into policy: The enemy takes the initiative, and we respond; he determines the attack, and we then set the punishment.

This is not the way to win. It's a way of managing the conflict, but it leaves no room for ending it.

Almost sixty years after the Six-Day War, the State of Israel has still not defined the situation it seeks to create in the face of Palestinian terrorism. Israel possesses a strong army, intelligence, the Shin Bet, and elite units. It knows how to arrest wanted persons, thwart terror cells, demolish houses, and find and kill or arrest terrorists almost anywhere and at any hour.

But these are tools. They are not policy.

Over the course of years, we have become accustomed to measuring success by the number of attacks thwarted, instead of by whether we are changing the reality that necessitates our preemptive actions. Another wanted terrorist is arrested, one more cell is thwarted, additional weapons are seized. A terrorist attack is committed, followed by a military operation, followed by some relative quiet – followed at some point or another by another attack. The cycle continues. And the responsibility to break it is not of the IDF or the Shin Bet. It is the responsibility of the political leadership.

And here we must point our finger directly at our current government, headed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. After Oct. 7 (Simchat Torah 2023), it no longer has the privilege of simply "managing" this conflict and its threats. The massacre of three years ago was the worst exemplification of the price to be paid for a policy that seeks to deter the enemy, to thwart him, and to exact prices from him – but to leave the threat that he represents still intact.

We can argue about the methods: about the PA, about sovereignty, security control, or whatever. What can't be done is to not decide. Because inaction and indecision is in itself a decision – to continue the same policies that have failed us in the past. 

And this is precisely what is happening when the government continues to threaten what it will do "if" and "after" – after the enemy murders and kidnaps and attacks. Our reactions are taking the place of ensuring that the enemy cannot continue its attacks.

If there is intelligence about a planned or intended kidnapping, then the first issue that must be dealt with is how to counter the enemy's ability to do so [which is, hopefully and presumably, precisely what our security organs were doing even as Minister Katz issued his threat - HF]. The infrastructures that produce terrorism must be dismantled before, not after, the next attack.
And if it is not only an infrastructure that must be taken down, but the entire reality that is enabling the terrorists to attack again and again, then the government and all its branches must deal strategically with how this reality is totally changed.

Containment is not a policy, but merely a way of gaining time between calamities. Similarly, capital punishment for a given terrorist is not the heart of the matter; it simply distracts us from actually changing the situation - and winning.

After October 7, we can no longer say that we don't know the potential cost of containment. A government that knows, understands, warns, and threatens – yet still continues to manage the same enemy threats, instead of deciding what to do with them, cannot be surprised when it repeatedly receives the same bitter, painful results.

Defeating terrorism begins where containment ends.