Army Radio, Smotrich, and Supplies to Hamas

Based on articles in Besheva weekly by Emanuel Shilo, editor of the Besheva weekly and Zev Kam, public news commentator and reporter, edited and translated by Hillel Fendel.

What can we make of the Supreme Court's restraining order against the government's decision to close Galatz (Galei Tzahal, Israel's Army Radio)? This question must be understood on two planes: How should we understand what lies behind it, and what – literally – should we make of it in order to elicit the best results from a troubling situation?

Note that the judges could not deny that the government is authorized to close Galatz \. They therefore "merely" ordered the government to prove that it used its power to do so in a proper and procedurally-correct manner. 

It is our claim, of course, that it is the Supreme Court itself that is is not using its authority entirely properly. Such complaints, however, will not get us very far. At present, we can choose to react in one, or both, of two ways, in order to make some lemon juice out of these lemons. 

1. Army Radio should be "fixed" to make sure it does not broadcast mainly liberal, left-wing, not particularly nationalist views. It should rather have a more balanced line-up of broadcasters. This can be done in several ways. Firstly, the head of the station has a critical role in determining its tone – yet, most unfortunately, even after the Likud won the last election and took over from the Bennett-Lapid government, its first Defense Minister, Yoav Galant, did not take care to appoint a director who would bring a Jewish-national spirit to his position. The current director, Tal Lev-Ram, has served as Army Radio Commander for nearly two years; he can easily be replaced. However, his future, and that of the station altogether, is currently in a twilight zone situation, given that it is set to be closed in less than a month – if the Supreme Court does not make a final ruling to cancel that.

Another problem affecting the Galei Tzahal left-leaning spirit is the type of soldier who serves there. Even after recent significant efforts to diversify the staff's composition, they all still share a very basic trait: they are all non-combat soldiers. They spend their entire Galatz careers in Tel Aviv, and not on the battlefield. This is an important point, as it is well-known that the combat forces lean heavily to the right of the political spectrum; when tallying election results, it is generally accepted that "when the soldiers' votes arrive [they are counted separately]," the nationalist parties will gain a seat or two. Even those Galatz soldiers who come from the periphery absorb the "city spirit" and culture, and end up being influenced "liberally" (pun intended) by the older broadcasters.

Galei Tzahal sorely needs young broadcasters who come with the spirit of the IDF’s core units - the combat units' spirit of patriotic dedication to the country and its security As of now, of course, a soldier cannot be both an Army Radio broadcaster and an infantry man or tank commander. But it should not be too hard to arrange that after two years of service, combat unit soldiers can apply for a Galei Tzahal position.

This would also be a correct step so as not to exclude young Israelis from the opportunity to attend the country’s best media school, which happens to also serve as a springboard to coveted positions in civilian media. Why should they lose this professional advantage just because they served in combat units?

And finally, a great idea to enhance the patriotic spirit of Galatz would be to transfer its offices and studios to the Negev, were very many IDF units are located. This would help the soldiers serving in Galatz absorb the spirit of the field units. A station that broadcasts from the area of the Ir HaBahadim (a large, new, training camp complex serving thousands of soldiers south of Be'er Sheva) will be less Tel-Avivish, and much more IDF-like.

2. Until these changes are made, Army Radio's influence should be cut down. For all intents and purposes, it currently enjoys, together with only one other station (Reshet Bet), a monopoly on the public national radio airwaves. Just as television in Israel was opened to private commercial stations back in 1993, the same should be allowed for Israeli radio – not only regionally, as is the case now, but nationwide. And just as the commercial TV stations have proven to be a success, in terms of professionalism and political diversity (Channel 14 is known as a nationalist station and enjoys high ratings), so too can be expected if radio is opened up to national commercial concerns.

And so, even if the judges end up blocking Galei Tzahal's closure, the government is hereby advised to open national radio to competition, and thus supply the public with additional listening options. This will also lower Army Radio's ratings and reduce the damage it causes to the national morale. 

3. From here to the economy: The international financial services company Moody's has upgraded the State of Israel’s sovereign credit to Baa1, with a “stable” outlook instead of "negative." This past November, S&P made a similar decision. The positive state of the Israeli economy can no longer be denied, featuring its low inflation, low unemployment, very strong shekel, soaring stock market, and lower-than-expected government deficit. And all this after three difficult years that began with the cold civil war regarding the judicial reform and continued with two years of difficult and expensive combat in Gaza.

Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich came under much criticism for economic problems arising during his tenure, which were the inevitable result of the events of those three years. This criticism was clearly biased, stemming mostly from opposition to his positions on other issues, such as the importance of settling the Land of Israel. Now, when it can no longer be denied that the economy is doing much better than was feared, it would be nice if those who attacked him would give him some credit for its successes. Commentator Dr. Guy Bechor stands out for having spoken just recently of Smotrich as "one of the better finance ministers Israel has ever had."

4. An important note regarding Gaza and continuing American pressure: Political analyst Zev Kam notes that Hamas continues to rehabilitate and strengthen itself – and not without Israel help. The members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee heard an intelligence report informing them that while Israel allows between 600 and 800 truckloads of "humanitarian aid" to enter Gaza each day – the fact is that there is no need for more than 75 to 150 such truckloads.

This means that Israel is strengthening Hamas, which profits directly from the extra supplies, to the tune of between four to ten times the amount of aid that is required. Why does Israel allow this, given Hamas' ongoing threats to work to repeat the Oct. 7th massacre? The answer given to the committee members: "This is a diplomatic [governmental] decision stemming from international pressures."

When and If Iran Changes, Israel Must Move First - Or Turkey Will

based on an analysis by Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA.

Israel must be immediately prepared for the cataclysmic change that a new democratic Iran – something that could happen with little warning – will present for the entire Middle East. So writes analyst Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA.

"A potential regime change in Iran would be one of the most consequential strategic moments Israel has faced since the end of the Cold War," Lerner writes. "For decades, Iran has been the ideological engine and operational backbone of the regional confrontation against Israel. A genuine political rupture in Tehran would dismantle that framework almost overnight."

With many of his readers in the top echelons of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, Lerner emphasizes: "History shows that such openings do not wait to be debated at leisure; they are either seized early or shaped by others."

For one thing, Iran must normalize relations with Israel completely and immediately: 

"If a post-regime-change Iran seeks international legitimacy, there is no clearer signal than full diplomatic normalization with Israel. Such a move would demonstrate to Washington, Europe, and the region that Iran has exited the revolutionary framework that has defined Middle Eastern politics for a generation."

Lerner asserts that Iran must not wait for "perfect stability or full internal consolidation," which would invite third parties to manage Iran’s reintegration themselves. Rather, there must be mutual embassies in Jerusalem and in Tehran, with public declarations and formal recognition.

But that's only the beginning. Israel must then recognize and deal with the next danger: Turkey. Israeli nemesis Erdogan runs a country that is very liable to replace Iran as our central challenge. This is because once Iran exits the confrontation framework, the regional balance reconfigures – with Turkey "uniquely positioned to move first." All Turkey has to do is to become "the easiest and most influential land-based interface for Iran’s access to Europe and NATO-adjacent systems. Economic default status can later be translated - quietly but effectively - into political and strategic leverage."

"If Israel does not act early, Iran’s strategic break risks becoming Ankara’s strategic gain," Lerner warns.

"Preventing Turkish gatekeeping does not require confrontation," he writes. "It requires credible additional options that markets are willing to use. As Iran reintegrates, the goal should be to ensure that its trade and energy links are spread across multiple viable routes… an approach that Saudi Arabia is uniquely positioned to help enable." Israel can and must, quietly and behind the scenes, be involved in shaping these arrangements, especially Persian Gulf-based rail, port, and energy connections.

In sum, according to Lerner: "Speed itself is the strategy… What Israel cannot afford is hesitation that allows others to lock in structural advantages during the transition window. Iran’s potential transformation would open a historic door for Israel. Failure to act swiftly cedes initiative to Turkey."

As an example, Dr. Lerner writes in a separate post that Israel must move to ensure that the 2.5 million barrels of oil that Iran can be expected to export to the West after sanctions are lifted must be shipped via Iran, not Egypt.

Israel's southern port of Eilat "is a considerably cheaper way for Iranian crude to reach Europe than through the Suez Canal, with the added advantage that the supertankers too big for the Suez Canal can easily dock in Eilat."

"And by becoming a route for post-sanction Iranian crude to Europe," Lerner concludes, "Israel won't find itself in the back seat when Turkey offers Iran considerably more expensive access to European markets."

Nearly Framed: Arabs Kidnap Woman – and Accuse Jews

by Hillel Fendel, former editor of Arutz-7's IsraelNationalNews.com.

With one Jew already sitting in prison for a life term for a political crime that all the evidence shows he did not commit, the Palestinian enemy nearly succeeded last week in framing yet several other Jews in a similar way. 

With the outrageous story of Amiram Ben-Uliel in the background – details to be provided below – News 14 Correspondent Eliyah Aviv reports that Arabs from the Jericho area sought to have residents of a nearby Jewish farm accused of kidnapping an Arab woman. 

Specifically, one morning two weeks ago, at 6 AM, a call was received at the police hotline that went like this:  

Man with heavy Arabic accent: "They came into the house, burnt the house, and took the woman… They're religious… They live up above, near the Bedouin… I want you to send the army there very quickly, before they kill the girl... They saw them dragging her and running away. They [the Jews] yelled at them, threw them out, and burned the house."

Dispatcher: "Jews took her?"

Arab:  "Yes, yes, that's what I'm telling you. Who else, Arabs?"

As it turned out, yes, it was Arabs who took her. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The speaker is a resident of Aqabat Jaber, southeast of Jericho, reporting that residents of the Hanan Farm kidnapped his sister and burned down his house. It happens to be that only one family, an idealistic young couple and their children, plus a few volunteer youths, live in the Hanan Farm. 

Of course this call to the police brought the entire region's security apparatus to its feet, fearing a kidnapping as well as vengeance attacks against the Jewish farm. After questioning the suspects and the accuser, the police determined that the kidnapping was carried out by none other than a relative of the accuser, as part of an extended family feud. The woman in question was found in a house in Jericho. 

Reporter Aviv concluded, "This grave incident shows that the enemy in Judea and Samaria will do everything and anything to harm the new enterprise of Jewish farms in the area."

As cited here a number of months ago, "One of the most welcome items on the list of Israel's gains from the war in Gaza is most definitely the unprecedented upswing in settlement construction in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) over the past two years… The army truly understands the role of the new farms and hilltops as a forward defensive shield for the rest of the Jews in Yesha." 

In addition, the farms preserve many thousands of acres of the Land of Israel for the Jewish People; where Jews farm and graze sheep, Arabs do not come to graze – or to throw rocks at passing Jewish motorists. 

But let us return to the name Amiram Ben-Uliel mentioned above. He is a young Israeli husband and father serving three life sentences in jail – including years of solitary confinement – for a murder he confessed to only after being severely tortured. He has maintained his innocence for years, and is joined by many others who say he was framed to cover up a feud between two families in the Arab village. No fewer than ten homes in the village were reportedly set ablaze in a similar manner over the course of several months as part of the internal strife.

The case in which Ben-Uliel was accused happened over a decade ago, on July 31, 2015, in the Arab village of Duma, some five miles east of Shilo in Samaria/Shomron. Two homes were firebombed in the middle of the night; one was empty at the time, but the Dewabshe family was present in the second home. A baby died in the fire, the father and mother died later of their injuries, and a four-year-old boy was severely hurt.

Shortly afterwards, Ben-Uliel was arrested and charged with the three deaths. After a long and controversial trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to three life sentences. The verdict was handed down based on the man's confession and his reenactment, which followed severe torturous interrogations and which he later recanted. 

Critical to note: No other supporting evidence was found against Ben-Uliel, and in fact, much eyewitness testimony of what happened that night actually negates the reenactment. 

Many in Israel therefore see this case as a travesty of injustice, and a public campaign for a new trial has been initiated.

A review of the details of the case can be read here.

A detailed call for Ben-Uliel's pardon or commutation of his sentence by Prof. Yoel Elitzur can be read here.

In light of what has happened with Amiram Ben-Uliel, the news that opened this article cannot be ignored.

UN's Founding Charter: "Gaza is Jewish!"

by Orit Strook, Israeli Cabinet Minister, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Want proof, or at least strong evidence, that President Trump's announcement a few days ago of the onset of the next stage of his Gaza plan is bad news for Israel? The Palestinian Authority officially and most warmly welcomed the development, including the participation of Qatar and Turkey, and intimated that it is a step on the road to the two-state solution – which Israelis nearly unanimously agree is a mortal danger to Israel.

Does President Trump truly intend to give over Gaza to this terrorist regime, which pays full monthly salaries to Hamas terrorists by virtue of a duly-passed PA law? Certainly not. The plan allows the PA to enter Gaza only after the implementation of a series of conditions that in actuality have zero chances of happening.

The Palestinian Authority will never recognize Israel's rights to Jerusalem, just like it will never stop paying salaries to terrorists. Whatever it might appear to be doing to fulfill these conditions is nothing more than "sleight of hand," in the words of some of our security establishment's leaders.

Similarly, the Trump Plan calls for an end to anti-Israel incitement in PA schools. A very detailed report by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education has found that the PA's curriculum for 2025-26 incites to anti-Semitism, encourages violence and jihad, and glorifies terrorism and terrorists. It further found that the PA curriculum normalizes violence, encourages hatred and cruelty, wipes the State of Israel from its maps and public discourse, and denies any connection between the Jewish People and its land. The report also notes that PA leaders who were shown the report rejected its conclusions and expressed support for the curriculum.

Can it be any clearer that the chances that the PA will be offered the opportunity to govern Gaza do not exist?

Still and all, this does not reassure us – because the heart of the problem is that Trump believes, oh so mistakenly, that Gaza belongs to the Arabs. He is convinced that any Arab regime that is not defined as terrorism-supporting, and that even announces its recognition of Israel's right to exist, has a perfect right to control and govern Gaza. This misperception is very dangerous.

The Palestinian Authority is the first to recognize the strategic importance of this mistake – and that's why it applied this month to UNESCO for recognition of no fewer than 14 historic sites as "Palestinian world heritage sites" in Gaza as well as throughout Judea and Samaria. These include Jericho, Gaza City, Nablus, and various sites made famous by Judaism and Christianity well before Islam was even dreamt of.

This is the PA's way of acquiring for itself, in international consciousness, lands and even history that never belonged to it. For years, Israel approached these provocations in a defensive manner, attempting to minimize the damage. But we must now be quite aware that this is far from enough; the PA's denials of history have garnered too many successes, and we must be much more proactive in our responses.

When we speak of fixing the damages caused by the Oslo process of the early 1990's – and lately, most fortunately, very many of our government's members have been speaking of this – we must remember that the primary damaged caused by Oslo is the very establishment of the Palestinian Authority. This is not only because of the territory and standing it received, but mainly because its existence makes it appear as if this land is not only ours!

President Trump's plan for Gaza sustains and perpetuates this dangerous mistake – and this is why, even though the plan will not materialize, it is a treacherous approach in its very being.

The Land of Israel was Divinely promised to us in the Torah many times, and specifically to each of our Patriarchs (see Genesis chapters 17, 26, 35, et al). So many generations, throughout our many centuries of Exile, knew and remembered this promise, and remained loyal to it despite it not having come true in their times – and we, who have merited to return to our Land, may certainly not allow ourselves to turn our backs on it.

We must embark on a public campaign, arousing awareness of our intrinsic and exclusive rights to this land. We must make clear to the entire world that no other people has ever had national rights to it, and that the Gaza Strip is an inseparable part of the Land of Israel. This truth is not only of the Torah and all the history books; it is also unequivocal in international law. It is our duty to stand by this truth and embed it in global consciousness by every possible means.

At a Cabinet meeting last month, I presented to the Prime Minister a copy of Article 80 of the UN's founding Charter. This is the clause that essentially anchors the national rights of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel. How does it do this? Simply by stating that whatever the League of Nations (the UN's predecessor) decided, will continue to stand. And what did the League of Nations say about our land? This: "… recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." Arab civil rights were to be preserved in that Jewish national home – but specifically not political rights!

In addition, in granting Great Britain the mandate over Palestine, including Gaza, the text states: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power." That is to say, it shall remain only Jewish!

[For the full text, it is well recommended to see https://www.gov.il/en/pages/the-mandate-for-palestine.]

It was a group of Zionist activists, including Prof. Ben-Tzion Netanyahu, that was responsible for having the UN insert this clause into its charter, and for this, the entire Nation of Israel owes them a great debt of gratitude. There is no doubt that Prof. Netanyahu could never have dreamt that one day, his as yet unborn son would be the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, and that he would have the authority and responsibility of giving concrete validation to this historic truth. 

For ourselves, we must acknowledge in every way that this is Our Land. We must tell the world that just as Jerusalem and Hebron and Tel Aviv are ours, Gaza too is ours. We must make it clear to the PA that even if it behaves "nicely" and puts on the right show, it has absolutely no national rights here, and neither does any other country, Arab or otherwise.

Three years after the UN Charter was written and the UN was founded, we merited that that body officially recognized our right to establish a country in our land, with G-d's help. Certainly this was because of the above clause, but it was also because of the persistence of Jews throughout our history who clung steadfastly to our right and never ceded it. They are looking at us now from above, expecting us to similarly hold fast.

The Same Headlines, 47 Years Later

by Haggai Huberman, Israeli journalist and author (written for the religious zionist periodical - Matzav Haruach), translated by Hillel Fendel.

The headlines of the past few days about Iran reminded me that we read the same ones exactly 47 years ago, in Tevet 5739, January 1979. The newspapers then blared repeatedly "Riots Throughout Iran Threaten the Regime." At the end of December 1978, the front page of Maariv blared out, "Total Paralysis in Iran's Economy, Observers: 'Regime Change is Just a Matter of Days.'" Ten days later, Davar announced, "Chaos in Teheran, Violent Protests in Tabriz, Shortages of Gas and Oil Paralyze the Country."

It's as if the headline writers took a page from the future headlines from 2026 – with one small difference: In 1979, the riots toppled the Shah of Iran, and brought to power Ayatollah Khomeini. This time, it could very well be the exact opposite, albeit with a change of names.

It was reported a few days ago that the current leader, dictator Ali Khamenei, had prepared an escape plan to Moscow in the event that his regime falls. The plan reportedly includes a quick exit for him and his family in case the riots continue and the army withdraws its support for him. With thousands of protestors dead so far at the hands of the government, according to various sources, the situation in Iran is clearly very explosive – with positive ramifications for the Middle East and the entire world. 

U.S. President Donald Trump, fresh off his (so far) successful game-changing coup in Venezuela, now has the chance to influence, yet again, the entire balance of power in the Middle East. This will be an opportunity to rectify the blunder made, for "politically correct" reasons, by Jimmy Carter. 

Nuclear Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, the Houthis, the Shiites in Iraq – all of these plagues are the result of Carter's total lack of understanding that led him not to intervene in Iran in late 1978. By so doing, he enabled the ascent of Khomeini and all the evil he brought with him. 

What happened, simply, was that this Democratic, near-sighted, liberal president felt that "human rights" in Iran were more important than his own country's strength. Carter could have prevented the Shah's fall and exile, if he would have given him full backing when the anti-government riots started. But he refused to do this because he suspected the Shah of being soft on "civil rights." He explained that he had no intention of intervening in "Iran's internal political affairs," but rather that he was primarily interested in stability and preventing violence. He added for the record that the U.S. would prefer that the Shah continue to "play a central role in the government," but that that was for the Iranian nation to decide… 

In short, the President of the United States abandoned his long-time ally, the Shah of Iran, and tacitly allowed the rise of Khomeinism. 

Allow me to quote from "Debacle: The American Failure in Iran" (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1981), in which authors William Lewis and Michael Ledeen write [translated from the Hebrew translation]: "The fundamental problem throughout the crisis was the absence of the President. Carter never took an active role in the discussions, never gave any clue as to what solution he preferred, and never placed the Iran question in its overall context..." 

They also wrote: "The lack of American support for [the Shah's] regime caused trembling among the pro-West rulers in the Middle East." The U.S. even refused to offer its long-time ally safe refuge if and when he would need it. "The abandonment of the Shah after he left Iran proved to the world that no friend of the U.S. could rely on American help if his situation would be shaken." [Upon fleeing Iran in January 1979, the Shah traveled to Egypt, Morocco, The Bahamas, and Mexico before entering the U.S. in October for medical treatment of lymphatic cancer. He was later granted asylum in Egypt, where he died in 1980.]

Back to January 2026: Pres. Trump has issued all the right warnings, showing support for the protestors and providing a backwind for their efforts to topple the Ayatollahs' regime. It remains for us just to wait and see if the blustery announcements will be followed by actions.  

Revolution Against Hamas?

Hope for change might not depend entirely on the U.S., however. MEMRI reports that Egyptian journalist Ahmad Abd Al-Wahhab - deputy editor of the Egyptian government daily Akhbar Al-Yawm and columnist for a Saudi news site - has written that Hamas has brought devastation upon Gaza and caused a deep crisis of trust between Hamas and the local population. He argues that the Gazans now realize that Hamas is responsible for their disaster, and therefore no longer believe its “resistance” slogans that blame Israel for their misery. He warns, according to MEMRI's summation, that a deepening of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza could lead to a public explosion against Hamas.

If so, we may assume that given the downfall of the Assad regime in Syria a year ago, which came about in the wake of Hizbullah's collapse in Lebanon and the blows delivered to Iran, it is not unlikely that a collapse of the current Iranian regime – a very long-time prime supporter of Hamas – will encourage the Gazan public to rise up and topple Hamas. Perhaps this is not very realistic at present, but history is replete with surprises, as we all know. The most illogical things are often those that most influenced world history. 

[Translator's note: However, Ynet reported this week, in more than one article, that Israel (!) is continuing to provide economic support to Hamas. No explanation was provided.]