A Pardon for Israel's Sake, not Netanyahu's

based on an article by Emmanuel Shiloh, editor of the Besheva weekly, translated by Hillel Fendel.

For many in Israel - the growing population sector of critics of our national judicial system – the continuation of the Netanyahu trial is precisely what they would like to see. This is because they feel that so many judicial-ethical defects are being exposed in the running of the Netanyahu trial that allowing it to take its course is the best way to prove to the country that the judicial system needs a total overhaul. The list of flaws, to put it nicely, that have surfaced in this trial is too long and uncomplimentary for this column.

Perhaps one point that must be noted is that which seems to have irked US President Trump into actually pushing Israeli President Herzog to pardon our prime minister. That is that the justices insist that Netanyahu - who is running a country with probably the most challenges in the world - appear for testimony no fewer than three days a week! Yes, in the middle of multi-front security threats, Netanyahu must prepare, and show up, for all those hours of testimony – and about what? About cigars that he apparently received several years ago, and about whether the press coverage he received in certain media outlets was totally negative or perhaps tilted in his favor to slightly less than pareve. The longer the trial continues, the more it appears that he was framed so coarsely not so that he will be found guilty, but simply to ensure that he retains the title of "accused" and thus be forced somehow to leave office.

All this does not mean to say that he will not ultimately be found guilty of "breach of trust" of one clause or another.  It is very unlikely, in today's Israeli judicial establishment, that the judges will totally exonerate him, and thus allow years of prosecution efforts and prestige to go down the drain. Rather, the District Court will probably find him guilty of at least something, so that this will not happen. And if the District Court judges surprise us and acquit him of all charges, it can be assumed that the Supreme Court, on appeal, will do the job of saving the Prosecution's face.

But in truth, even though the continued trial serves the purpose of exposing the foibles of our judicial system, there is something else very much on the line (aside from the personal price Netanyahu is paying): It is in our critical national interest to put a quick end to this trial, whether it be by the withdrawal of the charges by the prosecution, or via presidential pardon. Israeli law clearly allows a prime minister to continue in office even if he has been charged with a crime, and even during his actual trial. This is logical; when a trial is run at a reasonable pace, and when the general state of the country is satisfactory and routine, a prime minister can run the nation even while running his own trial at the same time.

But this is not the case at present. Our national security is quite tense, and battles are liable to erupt again at any moment, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran or Yemen – or even in Syria. The problem is that the presiding District Court justice in the trial is nearing mandatory retirement age, and it is her interest to have as many trial days as possible so that her court can return a verdict while she is still serving.

Ideally, one hearing a week would be a fine pace, balancing the trial's needs with the precious time of a prime minister that should be dedicated to fateful and critical decisions. But under the circumstances, his many hours in court, and his frequent need to request the judges' permission to be excused for urgent national needs, create a situation in which Israel's moves are open and revealed to all, at least partially, arguably endangering Israeli's security. This is an absurd state of affairs.

What is needed, therefore, is a "responsible adult," an objective player, who will weigh what is truly best for the country at this time and will realize that an end to the trial is what is needed. President Yitzchak Herzog, who so far has not particularly succeeded in distinguishing himself – certainly not during these difficult two-plus years of war – holds this authority in his hands. He has the chance to do a great favor to his countrymen and to Am Yisrael, and pardon Binyamin Netanyahu. As Mordechai told Esther back in Persia, "Who knows if not for this moment did you rise to power!"

There are those who say that it will be much easier for Herzog to grant a pardon if Netanyahu agrees to retire from politics, or to put an end to the judicial reform program. The latter is particularly illogical, as there is no connection between the questions of Netanyahu's guilt and whether the judicial system's foibles must be corrected. And regarding his departure from politics – why should the will of the majority of Israelis, who voted for him and his allies, be shelved? It is simply a form of corruption to allow fake charges and trumped-up trials to dictate who runs the country.

For Netanyahu personally, it is up in the air whether it is best for him to have the trial continue, or to be pardoned. But of course the main consideration is not his personal benefit, but rather the good of the country. We all deserve a pardon from this tiresome, distorted, and harmful trial.

---Besheva columnist Avishai Greentzeig agrees that the trial should end, but preferably by way of the prosecution agreeing to drop most of the charges so that a summation can be reached quickly and efficiently. Greentzeig particularly decries the nationalist camp's reliance on President Trump's intervention in the affair, given that in every other case the right-wingers are greatly opposed to American meddling in internal Israeli matters.

Time for the Rising Green Crescent to Set

by Amir Lulu, political science doctoral candidate at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Last week, U.S. President Trump, the leader of the free world, signed an order outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. [More precisely, the order "sets in motion a process by which certain chapters or subdivisions of the Muslim Brotherhood shall be considered for designation as Foreign Terrorist Organizations" – ed.] In the ongoing fateful struggle between Islam and the free Western world, this is a significant move not to be underestimated – and Israel must take full advantage of it.

There is a common assumption, not particularly based on empirical knowledge, that the rise of Nazism was a one-time phenomenon whose eruption could not have been foreseen. This is not quite the case.

Although the Nazi movement did have its unique characteristics, the facts belie the naïve belief that the German nation was swept almost helplessly into the event. Anti-semitism in Germany, and in many other areas of Europe, had long been deep and well-rooted. The evil man with the small mustache understood the prevailing sentiment when he was yet young, and upon it he built his diabolical empire. At the height of the Nazi movement, its members were not only the masses who flocked to the charismatic leader who promised them post-World War One vengeance and German rebirth; they also included many lawyers and students.

In fact, the most shocking example of the movement’s multi-dimensional character is the simple fact that a large portion of the Einsatzgruppen commanders - the mobile killing units in the East - held doctoral degrees. Furthermore, many of the participants in the infamous Wannsee Conference in January 1942, where was discussed the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question,” were also doctors and lawyers.

This introduction is important for two reasons:

1. It sharpens in our minds the concept that the evil in man's heart does not suddenly appear out of nowhere. It is rather a long-range process that begins with the laying of foundations – in our case, extremist Islamist foundations.

2. The construction of ideological foundations is nearly always led along by the social elites, and not by the masses – who join up only towards a latter stage.

It would be a case of intellectual laziness to say that the Muslim Brotherhood is like Nazis; there is nothing that can equal the Nazis in their ability to turn their wicked dreams into such totally destructive reality. But it would be complete folly not to compare these and other extremist ideologies to see what they share and where they differ.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an extremist organization, whose prominent intellectual champion Yusuf Al-Qaradawi (1926-2022) was an outspoken supporter of suicide attacks against Israeli citizens. The Brotherhood is no longer legal in countries such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates – and Trump's decision is one of the most severe blows it has suffered. As of now, the Muslim Brotherhood has active and strong chapters operating legally throughout the United States.

It's always better to win the war before it begins. The State of Israel will be smart if at least now it begins to restrict the steps of the Islamic Movement – whose ideology draws heavily from the Muslim Brotherhood’s worldview – within its borders. The Movement, especially the Northern Branch thereof, is known for its broad use of the "smiles offensive," while behind its back it is busy sharpening its knives.

What Israel must do is not to withhold voting rights, or to prevent Arab parties from running in national elections. Rather, Israel must begin a long and involved process of investigating individuals and ferreting out Muslim Brotherhood members. The strongest country in the world has already understood that terrorist organizations must be marked - and we need to be wise enough to learn from the step they have just taken and act in a similar spirit.

Both the Arab and Jewish sectors in Israel would benefit from ensuring that these violent and dangerous individuals are not considered legitimate within Israeli democracy. Again, this should not be a blanket disqualification of their parties' running for office. This is because once we begin disqualifying parties, the slippery slope kicks in; leaders could one day come to power who use such disqualifications for their own purposes against non-dangerous ideologies that they simply do not like. All that is needed is to point them out and say, "They are of the Muslim Brotherhood" – akin to saying "He’s from the KKK," meaning that anyone who votes for him is supporting the KKK – and they thus lose much of their public legitimacy.

Not to mention that a sweeping ban on Israel-haters would only drive them underground, where they would continue to operate covertly. In short, it is better that they remain out in the open, so that we know who they are.

We have an important opportunity now, and this is our fateful moment. We have witnessed the rise of the green crescent [a symbol of Islam], and now we have to make sure it settles down.

Threading the Needle: How Will Israel React to Trump's Dangerous – Treacherous? – F-35's/Saudi Plan?

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

The decision by U.S. President Donald Trump – the most unpredictable American president Israel has ever had to deal with, to put it mildly – to sell an unspecified number of F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia has many in Israel's defense network quite nervous about what this will mean for the future balance of power in the Middle East.

The IDF General Command submitted to the government an official Israel Air Force memorandum warning in detail how the sale would impair Israel's air superiority.

President Trump and his family have well over $60 billion in potential business deals with the Saudis, according to a New York Times report today (Nov. 19). Coincidentally, or not, just minutes after Trump announced his plans to sell the planes to the Saudi kingdom, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman arrived in Washington and was hosted in grand fashion in the White House. This, despite significant intelligence – based on a CIA report – that the Crown prince approved, and was probably involved in the planning of, the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

Among the Trump deals being negotiated in the kingdom: a Trump-branded property to Diriyah, one of Saudi Arabia’s largest government-owned real estate developments, to the tune of $63 billion; a $1 billion “Trump Plaza” development in Jeddah; and two projects in Riyadh. The Times also reports that a firm of Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and his part-time Middle East envoy, is involved in talks with a Saudi sovereign fund to "take the video game publisher Electronic Arts private… a deal valued at around $55 billion."

But despite the stench of conflicts-of-interest emitted by the above, what's more critical is whether, and to what extent, this development presents an existential danger for Israel.

The Israel Air Force memo emphasizes that Saudi acquisition of the jets would compromise the operational exclusivity of Israel's F-35's, for which Israel received special US permission to integrate its own avionics, software, and weapons. The F-35 is much more than a fighter jet; it is totally unique in that it is also a stealthy, nearly radar-evasive intelligence platform. Its advantages and deterrence abilities depend on its exclusivity, which would be compromised at best if Saudi Arabia comes into possession of similar aircraft.

Many in the U.S. defense establishment are also worried about the deal. They have warned that close Saudi ties with powers such as China and Russia increase the possibility that sensitive avionics or related data could find their way into enemy hands.

Another concern – although this could work to Israel's advantage – is that Israel's QME (Qualitative Military Edge) must be maintained, according to United States law. Specifically, the Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, and related provisions in the Foreign Assistance Act, originally passed in 1961, mandate that Israel must maintain a QME over potential regional adversaries. American law also states that arms transfers to Middle Eastern countries may not undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself. Whether the sale in question reduces Israel's QME will be determined by the individual members of Congress, whoever, they may be, when the sale is ratified, or rejected, by the required Congressional vote.

Today's situation is somewhat reminiscent of a controversy in the early 1980's, when the Reagan administration pushed to sell five E-3 AWACS early-warning aircraft to Saudi Arabia. Israel and many in Congress feared it would tip the regional balance and endanger Israeli security, and an intense lobbying and public opinion battle ensued – which Israel lost. The Senate narrowly approved the deal in October 1981, and the AWACS aircraft were delivered to Saudi Arabia several years later – after Israel received enhanced U.S. military aid and technology as compensation.

Similarly, in 2020, the first Trump administration moved toward selling F-35s to the United Arab Emirates, leading to another major diplomatic struggle. The deal ultimately did not go through.

The current deal, as well, may have a silver lining, in that it might force the U.S. to make other major concessions to Israel in related or other areas. In addition, the sale might not be approved by Congress. A future President, as well, can also halt the sale.

Political commentator Barak Ravid was quick to write an article today, seeking to allay Israeli fears about the sale of the F-35's to the Saudis. Whether he was successful is given to debate. He wrote that it will take at least six years before the first plane will land in Saudi Arabia, that there will be "not a few" restrictions on the Saudis' use of the planes, and the Americans will retain "not a little" control over them.

Hopefully, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel's diplomatic and PR teams will be sufficiently resolute and creative to find the golden path between ensuring Israel's security in the face of future threats and remaining on good terms with Mr. Trump.

What to Do About a Problem Named Gaza?

by Zev Kam, public news commentator and reporter, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Here's a peek inside the recent Israeli Government cabinet meeting where the ministers discussed their options regarding Gaza. One thing is clear: Much is still unclear, even to the ministers.

There are those who believe in the model called “New Gaza.” That is to say, the broken area known as the Gaza Strip should be cleared of its ruins and rebuilt anew as a modern, flourishing, blooming district. The U.S. Administration is fully in, raising massive funding from the Gulf states and forming a coalition to supervise the reconstruction and help police the area. Everything is carefully outlined, down to the smallest details – but the Americans seem to have forgotten one very small point: the people involved. This particular component of the plan is filled with hatred of Jews and of the West in general. It's nice to plan buildings and sidewalks and the like, but if the people who are to populate these are Gazans, it's a lost cause.

Still and all, there was one Cabinet minister at the recent Israeli Government meeting on this topic who seems to have been infected with the Americans' enthusiasm for the project: American-born and raised Ron Dermer, Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs. This is a position from which he has just resigned as these lines are being written, for family reasons. He is a close confidante of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and plays a major role in Israel–U.S. relations and diplomatic policy. While the other ministers at the meeting raised important question marks and deep fears regarding what the Americans are planning for us in Gaza, Minister Dermer seems to think it's the greatest thing since apple pie.

Hamas Stalling All the Way

Let's begin with one party that certainly has no intention of cooperating with the plan to rebuild Gaza Hamas-free, and that is of course, Hamas. Hostages Administration chief Gal Hirsch said that every one of the remaining hostage corpses – currently four, down from 13 when Hirsch was speaking – is accessible to Hamas, "and they can return them, if they want." He showed how Hamas is able to reach, within a very short time, each and every single remaining corpse.

For instance, four of the corpses that were recently released were all held in the same place, and yet still, Hamas returned them in drips and drabs: first two, then one, then another one. This means, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Tamir Yed'i explained, "Hamas intentionally wasted time in returning the corpses." This was motivated of course, by the desire to torment Israeli families and the entire public, but not exclusively. Hamas also has an interest in dragging out this interim period so that it can liquidate more of its enemies and fortify its grasp on the 48% of Gaza it still controls.  

Essentially, Hamas' objective is to take the exact opposite approach from the Trump Plan. Clear and detailed proofs of this have been shared with the Americans. Israel, for its part, is "punishing" Hamas by holding up three things that Hamas wants: the opening of the Rafah Crossing, the entry of dual-use items into Gaza [items that can be used both for civilian and military purposes] and the entry of fuel for a power station. In truth, of course, these are rather minimalist sanctions.

And this returns us to Minister Dermer, who said, "If in fact New Gaza is built, that means the end of the Hamas regime, to be replaced by something entirely different, without the Palestinian Authority. Different people will run it."

Who are these "different people"? Dermer did not answer. He did say, however, that "if Hamas does not disarm, or if the foreign forces do not disarm Hamas, we'll do it ourselves – and the Americans know this. We are taking Gaza from the PA and from Hamas, and building up something else, for the residents of Gaza." The other ministers were not encouraged by these remarks, and in fact had strong questions/objections.

For instance, one question was, "Where exactly will the multi-national force operate? In the Israeli-controlled area of Gaza, to the east of the new Yellow Line, or on the Hamas side?" Most astonishingly, no clear answer to this basic question was provided, even though several attempts were made. Dermer himself said something that caused a storm: 

"It could be that the rehabilitation part will occur on our side. That is, if something nice is built on the Hamas side, little by little we'll move the Gazans who are not involved in terrorism to live in New Gaza, on the Israeli side."

What?! The ministers could not digest the possibility that not only would the Gazans remain in Gaza, but that those who are "sweet and cultured" would actually live practically adjacent to Kerem Shalom, Nir Oz, and Sderot! At least now there is a buffer zone separating them, thanks to the IDF’s presence in half of Gaza. "It absolutely can't be," complained Minister Ze'ev Elkin, "that we will finish this entire event with Hamas in the west and these new [Arab] forces in the east, practically atop our communities."

Netanyahu Insists: Hamas Will Disarm

At this point, Netanyahu intervened and said that from his standpoint, the international forces must replace Hamas in all areas, and that it all must happen on the Hamas side of the Yellow Line. "And in any event," he continued, "Turks, Egyptians, and Qataris will not be there." He continued to try to allay fears by saying that the rehabilitation of Gaza is dependent upon Hamas disarming, which will happen only on their side. Ministers Gamliel and Elkin were not comforted, and Minister Smotrich said, "We have missed a great opportunity. We could have ruled in Gaza the way we rule in Judea and Samaria – after all, in the end, it's our land."

Ambassador Votes Confidence in Bibi

One of the participants was someone who does not usually attend Cabinet meetings: Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Yechiel Leiter, a Torah scholar who lost a son during this war in Gaza. He said: "We don't realize what an amazing miracle happened here! When I asked the Prime Minister to ensure that Hamas not remain in Gaza, I never imagined that this would be part of a genuine American plan that the whole world supports! But now we have to know how to actualize this. We have to let the Prime Minister run this vis-à-vis the Americans, the way I saw him up close running the story with Iran. I trust that he will do it successfully."

Another question is who will make up the "technocratic" government that will run Gaza. Some ministers said that they well know that many of the candidates are recommended by Hamas or, equally bad, are PA representatives. Elkin lamented to Dermer, "This will be a Hamas-PA unity government, which is against the Trump Plan." Dermer said, "The Americans agree with you, and they won't let it happen." Smotrich chimed in, "If it's neither Hamas nor the PA, then it's an 'empty set,' which doesn't exist in this context." 

Minister Orit Strook, a resident of Hebron, told Netanyahu that the problem began when he agreed to internationalize Gaza. She reminded him that after the Wye Agreement by which Israel withdrew from most of that city, he promised to send in tanks if the home of Strook or her neighbors would be fired upon. "Our house was in fact targeted," Strook said, "and my son was wounded, as you know. But you couldn't send in tanks – because you were no longer in office."

The moral of the story, Strook continued, is that whatever the Prime Minister does, he must take into account that the moment of truth might happen under someone else's watch. "The minimum you have to do is to guarantee that we have total security control in Gaza, just like in Judea and Samaria, so that the IDF can enter wherever and whenever it has to."

Reliving the Disengagement? 

Coming to Bibi's defense at this juncture was Minister Dudi Amsalem, who said, "Israel does not want to rule over two million Gazans, and that's why we prefer to internationalize the area." Let's leave aside the fact that this number is a total exaggeration, and that Amsalem is falling into the false narrative trap that the Arab world likes to tell about Gaza. More important is that Amsalem's excuse is of the type that Ariel Sharon and his supporters used over 20 years ago when they executed the Disengagement and threw out the nearly 9,000 Jews then living in Gaza – and we know where that got us.

Moses Shop Chain Becomes Kosher: “The Demand Came from the Ground Up”

The chain, part of the BBB Group, is shifting direction and gradually making its branches across the country kosher, following growing demand from customers and franchisees.

The group’s CEO: “Since the war, there has been greater sensitivity toward kashrut — even among secular audiences.”

The Moses Shop chain, part of the BBB Group, which currently has 16 branches nationwide, is changing course and gradually becoming kosher — except for one branch in Zichron Yaakov. In the past week, the branch in Savion also received kosher certification, marking another step in a broader trend within the chain.

According to Ahuva Turjeman, CEO of the BBB Group, the move was born out of customer and franchisee demand:

“We’ve encountered a very diverse audience that constantly asks about the kashrut of the meat. Even branches that opened as non-kosher quickly became kosher — in places like Rishon Lezion, Modi’in, and Herzliya. It turns out that the demand isn’t just for kosher dishes, but for businesses that operate under kosher certification and don’t open on Shabbat.”

Turjeman explains that the demand also comes from the franchisees themselves, especially in areas with large religious or traditional populations:

“We’re a national chain, not just a Tel Aviv one. In many parts of the country — even in areas that once weren’t considered kosher markets — the public is asking for it. Since the war, there’s been a rise in sensitivity toward kashrut, even among more secular crowds.”

According to her, one of the factors affecting the pace of the conversion is the shortage of manpower — a challenge facing the entire restaurant industry:

“Since COVID, it’s been very difficult to find permanent staff. There’s high turnover, and the fact that many young people don’t want to work on Shabbat only strengthens the decision to make some of the branches kosher.”

Meting Out National Justice to the Hamas Terrorists

by Yoni Rotenberg, Besheva weekly contributor, translated by Hillel Fendel.

What is needed now is another Eichmann trial – one that will cement in our national consciousness, and that of the world, the ruthlessness of the Hamas massacre of 2023 and the gravity of its memory.

Following the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, my grandfather, Shlomo Yehuda Kirschenbaum, a survivor of the Holocaust, wrote the following to then-Attorney General Gideon Hausner: "I would like to express to you, in the name of my wife and myself, our sincere appreciation of the tremendous work you and your aides invested in this trial. It was conducted on a high international judicial level, based on true justice in the spirit of Judaism. As former concentration camp residents, our wounds have not yet healed, and perhaps never will. But the trial, in all its proceedings, gave us much more than we expected."

Here, he detailed the historic ramifications of that complex and famous trial: "For one thing, we no longer need to justify ourselves before our own people as to why we survived. We had always been constantly asked, 'Why did you not resist? Why did you go like sheep to the slaughter?' This trial has now shed light on these strange questions. If the trial had achieved only that, it would be enough.

"But it also planted within us the faith that behold, as the Psalmist writes, 'the G-d of vengeance has appeared and the Judge of the earth has arisen' to exact justice on all those murderers of our people who still walk free. And further, all our enemies now know that Jewish blood is not cheap and that vengeance will come. Your name will be borne aloft in our national history as one who raised our honor among the nations, and for that may you be blessed."

These words echoed in my mind as I watched the Knesset Law Committee last week discuss putting on trial the Nukhba terrorists imprisoned in Israel – those who took part in the Oct. 7th massacre. Opposition MK Yulia Malinovsky, who is co-sponsoring, together with coalition MK Simcha Rotman, the proposed bill to put them on trial, seemed to be similarly inspired in her words to the Committee members: "Before our eyes stands the goal of setting an international narrative. This is a legal matter, and the professionals will do the hard and important work of managing the investigations. But as legislators, our eyes must be peeled to what this will mean for future generations. Fifty years from now, they will look back at us and our actions just as we look back at the Eichmann trial."

Of course, the State of Israel is now in a very different place, in terms of our international image, than it was in 1961. Less than two decades after the Holocaust and our six million losses, the world received with admiration every act of justice and vengeance that we decided upon. Now, the situation is basically the opposite, and arrows of criticism and hatred are shot at us from every corner. As British anti-Islam campaigner Tommy Robinson has put it: "Denial of the Shoah began [long] afterwards, while denial of the Gaza slaughter began the day afterwards." This reality has great ramifications on the legal-judicial construction of the prosecution's case, and on its diplomatic aspects.

The Law Committee's session dealt primarily with two matters: the specific charges on which to charge the cruel Hamas brutes, and the tribunal that would try them. These discussions are now being held openly for the first time in more than two years (preparing the evidence and writing up the material has been ongoing behind the scenes) because Hamas can no longer threaten to harm our hostages.

The manner in which the discussion or debate was held, it must be noted, was impressive. For one thing, it was clear that Melinovsky and Rotman, who spent many hours preparing the bill, and will yet spend many more, are leaving politics aside as they seek the best possible outcome for the State of Israel. Melinovsky, who ran the session, emphasized that this is how the entire issue must be approached, and in fact, representatives of groups on both the left and right sat together and argued and discussed respectfully the various issues. They asked and answered, listened and clarified, wrote comments and submitted materials, all for the common goal.

What is the ultimate objective? All the participants were in agreement: the death penalty for the Nukhba terrorists. How to do this, however, is not a simple matter. There are various issues that must be dealt with. Let us try to review them in brief.

The first is that of the specific court that will try the terrorists. This is clearly a decision that must be taken with an eye to history. A special court, with all the proper trappings, and a prosecutor and a bench of judges worthy of the occasion, can well serve the purpose of setting the historic narrative. It will be considered a totally unique event in the national and universal memory, and will place Israel in a positive light. In addition, Israel can certainly not afford, in light of the terrible backlog and delays that plague our judicial system, to treat the hundreds of incarcerated Nukhbot the same way as it does other accused criminals.

 However, there is also a grave problem inherent in setting up a special court just for the Nukhbot. Such a court will create, in international opinion, the sense of a rigged trial, and will not concretize the truth and gravity of the Hamas massacre of 1,200 Jews in October 2023. Both Dr. Haggai Vinitzky and Prof. Amichai Cohen – respected judicial figures on Israel's right and left, respectively – agreed that changing the rules retroactively is a bad way to foster trust and confidence in the process.

The Lod Military Court

Vinitzky had an original idea that could solve the problem. He said that in the central-Israel city of Lod exists a military court that was responsible in the past for trying terrorists not from the areas run by the military administration in Judea and Samaria. An example is Kozo Akamoto, the Japanese terrorist who led the Israeli airport murder of 26 Jews and Christians in 1972. Though the court is not active now, its formal validation is still in effect – and employing it for this occasion will ensure that the trial is not considered an on-the-fly operation.

The other question is: What offenses will the Nukhbot and their accomplices in charging murderously into Israel be charged with? This, too, is not a simple matter at all. All agree that to charge each individual with specific crimes of murder, rape, and the like is a mission impossible. Southern Israel on that black day was not a crime scene, but a war scene. Forensic evidence of the type generally collected after a murder was not exactly available at the time, or since then, nor were autopsies carried out, for obvious reasons. And of course, many witnesses to the crimes were murdered themselves and cannot share what they saw.

Rather, a more comprehensive approach is needed, one that will correctly depict the mass-scale invasion and attack on defenseless Israeli citizens in their homes or at the Nova festival.

The question, then, is to determine the precise crimes that they will be charged with. One option is to use Israel's 1950 "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Justice Law." However, this would require the building of a detailed legal case proving that the crimes are included in that law. On the other hand, "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" are not found in the Israeli legal code. To adopt these laws at this point would not be a smart move, as Israel itself is facing similar charges in The Hague, whose right to do so Israel does not recognize. For us to then use these clauses would fuel our enemies' drive to prosecute us, nationally and individually, on the very charges that Israel did not recognize previously.

Genocide, Perhaps?
Not everyone agreed that this is a game-stopper. Maurice Hirsch, former Director of the Military Prosecution in Judea and Samaria, for example, said that a strong case that the Hamas terrorists were engaged in genocide can be made based on Hamas documents captured in Gaza and the clear wording of the Hamas charter.

However, Prof. Amichai Cohen made the point that international laws against genocide were formulated after the Shoah, and that Israel has long sought to limit the definition of genocide in order not to trivialize the Holocaust. Were Israel to now change course and term even the attempt to murder "just" a few thousand people as genocide, it would pull the carpet out from under its long-held position. This is certainly a point worthy of consideration.

Another legal obstacle is that the leaders and masterminds of the Simchat Torah massacre are, of course, no longer alive. This means that only the middle-level terrorist operatives will have to pay the price. This is not an insurmountable problem, but one that must be placed on the table.

Significant work remains to be done on this bill, though MK Malinovsky declared that she will not allow the matter to be delayed, as time is of the essence. In general, the points having to do with how the world will view our proceedings are important, but must be placed in their proper proportions. Over the past two year’s we have learned on our own flesh that the arena of international law is mainly a political one, and that claims and counter-claims are raised according to political – or, often when it comes to Israel, anti-Semitic – interests.

The emphasis, then, on the debate over this bill must be two-fold: 1) ensuring that the victims' families, and Israel in general, witness true justice being done, and 2) setting the internal Israeli narrative (as my grandfather wrote regarding the post-Shoah atmosphere in Israel). We must take the international view into consideration, but only to a certain extent.

Making this trial into an important national event that will engrave in our consciousness for generations the story of the terrible massacre, the heroism of the survivors and warriors, and the importance of ensuring that we do all we can to prevent its recurrence – is the charge of the hour.

Summing Up the Ceasefire Deal: Joy, Sorrow, and What to Do Now

by Emmanuel Shiloh, editor of the Besheva weekly, translated by Hillel Fendel.

1.    Two years ago on the Simchat Torah holiday, our traditional festive commemorations of the latest annual round of Torah reading and study were cut brutally short by the Hamas massacre of some 1,200 Israelis and the abduction of 250 others. It was as if a Divine signal had been handed down from heaven, saying, "I don't want your dancing! 'Who asked this of you, to trample My courts?'" (Isaiah 1,12)

One year ago on Simchat Torah, many of us were engaged in trying to find the proper way to celebrate the holiday on the first anniversary of the largest calamity in Israel's history. Some thought we should dance even harder, some asked how we could dance at all, and others replaced (some of) the dancing with songs of sorrow and prayer. 

Finally, this past Simchat Torah, last week, the joy returned. The previous year had seen great military and other successes, with G-d's help, including in Syria, Lebanon, and especially Iran. We were able to sense that the Master of the Universe had once again opened for us the gates of happiness. We entered the holiday fresh off the release of all 20 living hostages from their torturous two years of captivity – and we sang and danced with abandon. 

Would it be that we remain in G-d's good graces and be worthy of His shining countenance. For this deal has clearly led us into a complicated situation, and much Divine assistance and human effort will be needed to conclude it positively. Among the major challenges that await us are: the return of all the deceased captives for burial in Israel, as Hamas committed to do but has not yet fully done; the dismantling of the Hamas regime; and the disarmament of Gaza. 

Of course, the chances that this will happen are not high. Israel and the U.S. have bound themselves with political commitments, and Trump has firmly and repeatedly declared that the war is over. But after all the wonderful events we were blessed with between Simchat Torah 5774 and Simchat Torah 5776, we need not despair of prayers and hope for miracles and good surprises.

2.    Jewish Law relates to complex situations that have aspects of both joy and sadness. For instance, one who is to inherit a large sum from a relative who has just died must recite two blessings: "The True Judge" on the sad news, and "He Who has brought us to this time" (Shehecheyanu) for the good news. Life is complicated, and sometimes our feelings are strongly mixed.

The current ceasefire deal is one of those situations. It is possible and correct to oppose the deal, even as we rejoice at the freedom gained by our 20 brothers who were held in the tunnels of Hamas. There were even some rabbis who ruled that both of the above blessings should be recited, given the release of 250 terrorist murderers from our prisons. For even those who support the agreement certainly know and agree that freeing murderers in this fashion is clearly immoral, infuriating, and very dangerous to Israelis around the country.

3.    It is sad to see how our national heart has become numb and insensitive to the release of terrorist murderers in the framework of such deals. The cruel killers of our fellow citizens should ideally have been executed – but given that they were only to sentenced to life imprisonment, at least they should have truly remained in prison until their death. The Torah sharply negates waiving a murderer's punishment for any type of ransom: "Do not accept ransom for the life of a murderer guilty of death; he shall be put to death" (Bamidbar 35,31). The moral injustice of releasing murderers is depicted as one that "defiles the Land" (ibid. 33,34). Even those who believe that saving lives overrides this prohibition – despite the danger that the lives being saved might later cost other lives – should at least feel the pain of defilement of the Land of Israel.

Another facet of the injustice: There are amongst us hundreds and thousands of relatives of terrorist victims for whom the State of Israel has given up on bringing their murderers to justice. Their blood has been rendered not only cheap, but totally forsaken. Some of these relatives have expressed willingness to pay this price for the sake of the hostages, but other have not. The media is busy celebrating the return of the hostages, and does not focus enough on the families' pain. We certainly do not hear any apologies for the sorrow this deal causes them. People of Torah and ethics, people of justice – it would be appropriate for you to sound you voices on this matter.

 

4.    And this brings us to the multi-faceted security dangers inherent in the release of terrorist murderers. Firstly, these men are frightfully dangerous, able and willing to kill Jews yet again. Yihye Sinwar himself – mastermind of the Hamas massacre, for those who don't remember – was freed in a similar hostage deal several years ago. At least ten other Jews were murdered after that deal by terrorists who were freed then. What did we gain by liquidating the entire Hamas leadership over the past two years, if we are now freeing many more experienced and cruel potential Hamas masterminds?

Secondly, their release eliminates the deterrent effect of prison sentences on potential terrorists. Any young Arab who considers carrying out an attack will not fear being arrested, confident that sooner or later he will be released in a hostage deal.

And finally: The more we give in to the kidnappers' blackmail, the more they are encouraged to carry out additional abductions. We have now broken new records of caving to blackmail, agreeing not only to release murderers but also to give up on top-notch strategic achievements and goals, including retreating from Gaza cities. This increases the danger of further kidnappings. We all sighed in relief that, with the hostages home, we are now free to fight Hamas without fearing the fate of our brothers. But is it not clear that taking more hostages will be one of the first goals that Hamas will set for itself?

Can we at least hope that finally, now, the Shamgar Commission's recommendations from 2012 – restraining the government's freedom to decide to release crazy numbers of terrorists in exchange for hostages – will finally be adopted?

The entire Nation of Israel – especially those who demanded this deal with shouts and insults, as well as the politicians who caved to their pressure – must ask themselves what they are doing to thwart the next kidnapping. Otherwise, the next kidnapping is much too close for comfort.

 

5.    Though this war brought us some achievements, this was not the conclusion for which we prayed and hoped. The return of all the deceased hostages is far from guaranteed, Hamas is still in power, and it appears to have no plans to disarm. The intended arrival of an Islamic international force in our backyard in Gaza is liable to cause us more harm than benefit. We fumbled the opportunity to encourage the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Gazans. We stopped short of conquering the Gaza Strip and establishing a military administration there, as we did in Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War. And of course barely anyone took seriously the option of resettling Gaza with Jews, ignoring its Torah and nationalist values.

The situation can still be saved if Israel takes advantage of Hamas' violations of the agreement, and the fact that our hostages are no longer in danger, to embark on a final military round to crush Hamas and completely occupy the Strip. This is the way to achieve our unfulfilled war goals.

 

Speak Little and Do

by Rabbi Lior Engelman, translated by Hillel Fendel.

How would we feel if the government would send us to fight in Gaza with an end-goal of a Palestinian state there? That's how others feel when we talk about returning to Gush Katif. Consensus is not hard to reach.

At one of the gatherings between religious and secular Jews that I was privileged to take part in during the stormy days of the Judicial Reform controversy, one of the participants asked me: "Do you really believe that we should expel all the Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza?"

I told him, "It doesn't really matter what I believe, or what you believe, because at some point – next week, next year, ten years from now, or even longer – they won't leave us a choice. It won't happen because I support it, or because a right-wing government decides to do it. I will happen because people like you will feel their evil up close. It will be the Arabs themselves who will convince you, through their actions, that we can't let them establish a state five minutes from Kfar Saba and Raanana."

I had no idea, of course, that the massacre of Oct. 7^th was just around the corner, and I never imagined that within such a short time the Arabs would give us a reason to demolish Gaza. I had no idea that so many "peace-loving" Israelis would speak out in favor of that option. I'll just mention one of the statements that I recall: "In this campaign, there can be no humanitarian aid. We have to tell them: 'Free all the hostages, or starve to death.' It's totally legitimate."

And the speaker was none other than Labor Party chief Yair Golan, one of the most extreme personalities in our country's left-wing. We can just imagine what others were saying.

Today, however, Yair Golan doesn't speak that way anymore, and the same for many others. Today their tune is one of ending the war in exchange for all the hostages, placing no other conditions on Hamas. This, even though they know this means the end of any chance to destroy Hamas, or at least removing them from power. And of course they no longer think about starving those who are holding our loved ones; such calls they now consider fascist.

What has brought about this change? It could be because they have become tired of the war, which all agree has taken too long, whatever the reasons for that might be. It could also be that they simply want to topple the Netanyahu government, or that they're more "now"-conscious than "future"-geared. It might be that nationalism is not as popular in certain circles as is individualism, or that being hooked to the media 24/7 is very weakening. It could be that all answers are correct.

In any event, there's not much we can do about any of these – but there is one possible answer that we can do something about. It has to do with the calls to resettle Gush Katif, i.e., the former Jewish communities in Gaza that were dismantled during Ariel Sharon's Disengagement of 2006.

Not all readers of Besheva are certain to agree with me when I criticize Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich for saying the following at a recent convention: "I don't want to simply return to Gush Katif; that's too small. It has to be something much greater than that. With Gaza we can think big!"

I personally am in favor of returning to Gush Katif, and even on a large scale. Do I think it will happen soon? I don't know, but I do know that every speech like that one probably lessens the chances for the fulfillment of that dream. That type of speech is good for internal political gatherings, to enthuse supporters and even guarantee their votes. But in the real world, where many people are actually not particularly interested in Gush Katif, it does not serve the desired purpose.

Why is that? Because when leaders send their nations to war, the objectives have to be in the broadest consensus possible. In this case, we know that our nation is more than willing to fight so that those who carried out the atrocities of Oct. 7^th will not rule in Gaza, and so that the residents of the south can return home safely without fear of rockets, and certainly so that all the hostages will return home.

But when a flag is raised that is not in the consensus, then that flag becomes, for many, a black flag that prevents them from joining the war efforts. Many people on the left still believe that the "settlements" are not the solution, but rather the problem; they believe that it was not the Disengagement that led to Oct. 7^th, but rather that if not for the Disengagement, Oct. 7^th would have happened in Gush Katif! I don't agree, of course, but that's not the point. The idea is rather that it is hard for some Jews in this country to fight a war for the sake of resettling Gush Katif – and therefore boasting that this is the goal necessarily lowers their motivation to fight.

To make it clearer, let us hypothetically turn the situation around: How willing would we be to go to war in Gaza if the declared goal was to rid the area of Hamas and then build there a Palestinian state with its recognized capital in Jerusalem? Just as we would not be willing, so too they are not – and they therefore end up wanting to give up with barely a fight.

So what do I propose? I favor saying only what is relevant. Messiah, settlements, Gush Katif – all that is not among the war objectives that we must declare at present. I am in favor of straight talk, emphasizing repeatedly that Hamas demands to remain in power in Gaza, no disarmament, the total rebuilding of Gaza, the release of hundreds or thousands of Palestinian terrorists and prisoners – and then they will agree to return all our hostages, alive or dead. Israel is squarely united against these terms, and therefore our "motivating" speeches must constantly harp only on that: We must defeat Hamas, period. And if one day Hamas is actually vanquished and we find ourselves ruling Gaza, then we can talk about Gush Katif. Not until then.

"Speak little and do much" is an important rule in warfare. With little talk, Syria disappeared, and the same with Hizbullah, and nearly the same with Iran and the Houthis. But Gaza is still standing, even with our tough talk about Gush Katif and "voluntary exile." War demands cleverness – including silence when necessary.

Game-Changer on the Temple Mount

by Ze'ev Kam, Besheva newspaper, translated by Hillel Fendel.

With the advent of Public Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on the scene, the status of Jews coming to pray on the site of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem has improved unrecognizably.

In 1992, 16-year-old Itamar Ben-Gvir joined up with the original Temple Mount activist Gershon Solomon and his Temple Mount Loyalists movement. In those days, violent riots were a common sight on the Mount, in response to the Jewish visits arranged by Solomon's Loyalists. At one point, Solomon declared his intention to ceremoniously place a foundation stone on the Mount for the construction of the Third Temple. This prompted the police to forbid him to visit the Mount, and in fact greatly restrict Jewish presence there. The police forbade Jews even from "murmuring" there, for fear that they were actually, Heaven forbid, praying.

The situation became so absurd that even drinking water was banned, because the police suspected that the purpose would not simply be to quench thirst, but to recite a blessing over the water at Judaism's holiest spot on earth. The Spanish Inquisition couldn't have done it more efficiently.

During one of the visits, young Itamar asked the police why they were treating the Jewish pilgrims to the Mount so badly. The policeman said, "That's the decision of the Police Minister" – and then added, "When you become the Minister of Police, you can decide whatever you want."

This disparaging sentence was seared into the boy's head – and this week, 30-plus years later, he ascended to the Temple Mount, this time as Public Security Minister [the equivalent of the Police Minister then], and conducted a full-fledged prayer service, including singing of Kinot, on the fast of Tisha B'Av.

Let's go back two and a half years. In the midst of coalition-formation negotiations between the Likud and Ben-Gvir's Jewish Strength party, with the main points of the agreement essentially agreed upon, Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir sat down for a cup of coffee. The talks were taking place in the Leonardo Hotel, with a fantastic view of the Temple Mount plaza. Ben-Gvir pointed to it and stated, "Without understandings regarding the Mount, we can't come to an agreement." Netanyahu said, "What do you want? To build the Third Temple?"

Ignoring the cynicism, Ben-Gvir responded, "That's not a bad idea at all, but for now we can start with some smaller things."

Following this exchange, talks began between the parties regarding exactly that issue. Ben-Gvir made it clear that he would not accept a continuation of the manner in which Netanyahu had agreed to run the Temple Mount up to that point. Precisely then, Ayalah – Mrs. Ben-Gvir – walked in. After the sudden death of her younger sister some years before, Ayalah had begun to visit the Mount frequently to find solace – and took part in meetings with the police to find ways to make it easier for Jews to visit.

Her presence at this coalition meeting apparently did something to Netanyahu, who heard from her about the discriminatory and unfair treatment the Jewish visitors faced. Netanyahu also heard from the Ben-Gvir couple the words of Uri Tzvi Greenberg, a nationalist poet of pre-State days who was a close friend of Netanyahu's father, regarding the centrality of the Temple Mount. It became clear to all that something had touched the Prime Minister regarding the difficulties facing Jews who seek to visit their holiest site.

It's not that all of a sudden Netanyahu ordered an about-face in Jewish visits. Rather, he stopped fighting the changes that were sought, and he seemed to accept that things would no longer be the same on the Mount. Ben-Gvir, too, who generally fights for what he wants in a "here and now!" manner, understood that the changes would have to come slowly. And in fact, the first changes came exactly that way: Instead of 4.5 hours of Jewish visiting hours each day, including one hour in the afternoon, small additions were made here and there – and the situation today is that the Temple Mount is open for Jews for 4.5 hours in the morning, and 1.5 hours in the afternoon.

Taking Charge

But of course, much more important than visiting hours is the question, "Who's in charge?" If in the past it was well-known that the police more or less disappeared during the Muslim prayers, and especially during the Friday mass prayers, today the story is quite different. Israeli policemen now actively arrest Temple Mount rioters and instigators – most notably, preachers who incite against Israel – even during the prayers. Add to this the fact that public Jewish prayer is now allowed on the Mount, complete with prostrations and singing, and it appears that a veritable revolution has taken place.

One thing remained unclear, however. Why did PM Netanyahu insist, after every well-reported visit by Minister Ben-Gvir to the Mount, on releasing a statement claiming that the status quo there remains stable and will continue as such in the future?

No Phones During the Prayers

The answer lies in a meeting of several people in the Knesset last year shortly before Tisha B'Av, on the topic of the Temple Mount. Ben-Gvir stated there that from his standpoint, as a member of the government, Jewish prayer is officially permitted. And in fact, that very year on Tisha B'Av, Jewish prayer was no longer held in a clandestine fashion, but quite openly. And thus, when Netanyahu says that the status quo is being maintained and will be maintained, he is quite correct, in that the nature of the status quo is determined by the government echelons – in this case, the Public Security Minister.

Sometimes, the status quo is determined by mistake or non-action. One day a few years ago, the Waqf decided unilaterally to open another mosque on the Mount, within the Mercy Gate compound on the eastern side. Israel found itself unable or unwilling to fight it. Interesting, none of those who today decry and protest the "changes" in the status quo, protested the Waqf's trampling then of the status quo…

Shabak Meddling

Let us return to Tisha B'Av of last year. The Shabak (General Security Service) was not happy with the Jewish prayers, and demanded that the Police Commissioner remove the public Jewish worshipers and stop them from "violating the rules." The commisioner responded, "Sorry, I have a Prime Minister and Public Security Minister who tell me what to do, and you can turn to them if you'd like." The Shabak contacted Netanyahu, who called Ben-Gvir, who at first did not answer. When he finally did answer, the Prime Minister asked him why he hadn't answered at first. "I was precisely in the middle of praying on the Temple Mount," he said.

After a few seconds of pregnant silence, Netanyahu said, "It's precisely about that that I wished to speak to you." After he explained, Ben-Gvir answered, "I told you at the very beginning that I will not allow apartheid against Jews at the holiest Jewish site in the world."

This past Tisha B'Av, a year later, Jewish singing could be heard vibrantly on the Mount. Just as Netanyahu's statement announced, the status quo there is being precisely maintained, exactly according to the outline set by the relevant Cabinet minister. And if there are some bleeding-hearts who want to turn up their noses at it, then, as the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin once said about those who reacted similarly to certain proactive Israeli moves, "let them have crooked noses."

The Exorbitant Price of Terrorist Releases

by Meir Indor, Chairman of the Almagor Association of Terrorist Victims, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Freeing terrorists in exchange for Israeli hostages, which Israel has done repeatedly over the years, encourages further kidnappings, weakens our deterrence, and leaves the families of terrorist victims out of the picture. The time has come to change direction and set clear red lines. 

The State of Israel has found itself, in recent decades and years, on a very worrisome track of normalizing the release of hundreds of terrorists, if not more, in the framework of a "deal" for hostages. 

Something that in the past was very infrequent and exceptional has become almost routine. This trend, supported at times by elements in the political, judicial, and media establishments, causes tremendous harm to Israel's deterrence, erodes the public trust, and encourages increased terrorism. 

INVITING KIDNAPPINGS

When the release of terrorists becomes known as an accepted means by which to deal with the problem of Israelis in captivity, the result is a direct incentivization for the terrorist organizations to step up their murderous activity. When Hamas and its ilk succeed in obtaining mass releases of terrorists from Israeli prisons, this proves to them how effective is their usage of kidnappings as a strategic tool. This model, which reached its climax in the Shalit deal of 2011 (1,027 Palestinian terrorists in exchange for soldier Gilad Shalit) – anchors in a dangerous construct: One Israeli hostage = hundreds of terrorists freed from prison.

Added to this problematic situation is the fact that various countries around the world support terrorism via funding, arms, or diplomatic backing. Not only that, but the imprisoned terrorists are treated to very favorable conditions, and even judicial support. All of these contribute to form an atmosphere that encourages more kidnappings, and further distances Israel from its goal of achieving stable deterrence. 

THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES ARE LEFT ON THE SIDELINES

This approach is very painful, in particular to the families of past terrorist victims. Not only did they lose their loved ones, but they also feel that they have been shunted away from the judicial and diplomatic channels. In the past, the families were able to file court appeals against the releases, but now this option has all been eliminated, in that the courts always reject it with the claim that these deals are "diplomatic" decisions. 

The fact that the Supreme Court makes its decisions about these types of deal at night, and sometimes even without inviting representatives of the families of victims, gives over a very grave message: "The memory of the victims, and the right of their families to present their position, are irrelevant."

For the terrorist organizations, this is another proof that Israel has accepted – even if not willingly – the system of kidnappings as a reality it must live with.

THE MEDIA'S CROOKED NARRATIVE

The way the media covers the issue also has a significant impact. In many cases, the families of the hostages receive extensive exposure, while other voices – such as "Tikvah (Hope) Forum," which opposes prisoner release deals – are almost completely silenced. The distorted narrative that is widely presented now, which suggests that every hostage, dead or alive, must be rescued "at any cost," is liable to disrupt the ethical and security balance of the State of Israel. 

There are even army officers who admit that the IDF is limited in how it conducts its battles in Gaza – and that these limitations stem from the presence of the hostages in (or under, to be more precise) the area of the warfare. Thus, soldiers are liable to be endangered, and their units do not have the necessary freedom of mobility to maneuver as they need.

WRONG MESSAGE TO THE ENEMY

An abrupt and massive release of terrorists sends a clear and sharp message to the enemy: Terrorism pays off. The murderers of our parents, siblings, and children become heroes in their society, and our army's deterrence capabilities are significantly compromised. There is a genuine fear that each deal comes with much worse terms than the one before it, and the vicious cycle will upend our essential national security. 

CHANGING THE PARADIGM

Israel need not give in to this phenomenon. A strong stand against terrorism is a success in and of itself. It buttresses our deterrence, our national confidence in the army and government, and our national image in the international arena. We must put a halt to these terrorist releases, and strive instead for clear victory that will prevent not the next exchange deal, but the next kidnapping. 

Only a clear and uncompromising policy that emphasizes that terrorism will not pay off will restore Israel's deterrence force and provide security for its citizens.