The Miracle of Olmert's Convergence Plan

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

It has not received much press, but the government made history this month when it made a series of decisions with historic significance for Judea and Samaria. Leading the way was Minister of Finance Betzalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism party), who also serves as Minster in the Ministry of Defense. Israel's mini-security Cabinet voted to fundamentally change how lands in Yesha are bought and administered, greatly fortifying the settlement enterprise.

The new changes include:

·         The removal of confidentiality requirements regarding land registry records in Yesha, thus increasing transparency and facilitating Jewish redemption of land

·         The repeal of the Jordanian law prohibiting the sale of real estate to Jews. [Nearly six decades after liberating Yesha, Israel has still never annexed the area, thus leaving some Jordanian laws in effect by default.] This allows Jews to purchase land in Judea and Samaria just as they do in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

·         An upgrade to the holy Tomb of Rachel site in a Bethlehem enclave, which will now have its own municipal administration, providing basic services.

·         Hebron: Building permits in the Jewish community and the Cave of the Patriarchs are now under the auspices of Israel's Civil Administration, instead of the Arab Hebron Municipality. Full municipal powers have now been granted to the Jewish Hebron Administration, which is now able to address residents' needs without having to depend on not-necessarily cooperative PA mechanisms.

At the same time, Israel has up-shifted gears in its war for the overall preservation of the Land of Israel throughout Judea and Samaria. Supervisory and enforcement activity will be applied in Areas A and B (under full and partial PA control, respectively) regarding pollution, water, and archaeological-sites infractions. 

The reason these decisions are so dramatic is because they erase, once and for all, the "vision" that reigned here precisely 20 years ago, when it appeared that the Jewish presence in Yesha was to be curtailed, condensed, and cut down to unsustainable proportions.  

Gloom in 2006

What happened 20 years ago was that Ehud Olmert was elected Prime Minister, shortly after – and on the coattails of – Ariel Sharon's ill-fated Disengagement plan. Just as Sharon withdrew unilaterally from all of Gaza, ultimately leading to several short wars and the Oct. 7^th massacre, Olmert was ready to do nearly the same in Judea and Samaria.

He called his plan the "Convergence," according to which Israel was to dismantle and withdraw from at least 60 Jewish communities, and retain no more than some 7% of Yesha. Like the Disengagement, this plan was also to be implemented unilaterally if agreement with the PA was not reached.

Following the elections of March 2006, the left-wing camp became (seemingly) firmly ensconced in power. The government was led by Olmert's Kadima party (originally founded by Sharon after the Likud largely withdrew its support for the Disengagement), and included Labor, Shas, and the seven seats - a fluke achievement - of the Pensioners' party Gil. The Gaza border was quiet, and the Disengagement was perceived at the time as a wise and safe move.

On May 4^th of that year, Olmert presented to the Knesset his new government, with guidelines stating clearly that "the area of Israel with new borders to be determined by the government, will require the reduction of Israeli settlement areas in Judea and Samaria." That is, the democratically elected prime minister of Israel promised to destroy dozens of Jewish communities, with or without an Arab partner for the move.

On June 14^th, Olmert – a former and long-time Likudnik – announced in Paris after meeting with President Chirac: "The Convergence plan is inevitable. I am determined to continue my path of separating permanently from the Palestinians, to attain safe borders that will be recognized by the international community."

The atmosphere in Yesha at the time was dismal, and many residents feared the worst. Some even began making secret inquiries and preparations regarding the compensation that they assumed would soon be offered them in exchange for their homes.

This was indeed Olmert's plan – but apparently, the Creator of the world had other idea. Just 11 days after his Paris declaration, events took their first sharp turn in a very different direction: Gilad Shalit was abducted from his tank on the Gaza border – and all of a sudden, the Disengagement didn't look like such a bright idea anymore.

Still, Olmert didn't back down, and vowed yet again to continue along his Convergence path. However, just two days later, on July 12, two reserves soldiers – Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev – were kidnapped and ultimately found to have been murdered by Hizbullah terrorists while patrolling Israel's border with Lebanon. At least five other soldiers were killed in that operation. With this, the logic of the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon of six years earlier – the brainchild of then-PM Ehud Barak – was also called into question.

Quite abruptly, Israel now found itself fighting two wars: the Second Lebanon War, and Operation Summer Rains following the kidnapping of Shalit. Withdrawals from Israeli-held territory, especially without an agreement with the enemy, no longer appeared very wise. On September 4, Olmert was forced to concede, telling the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee:

"Convergence No Longer on the Table"

"What I thought a few months ago regarding the Palestinians, is not correct at present. Our order of priorities, including what to do about the Palestinian problem, is different than it was in the past. At this point, the Convergence is not one of our priorities, as it was two months ago."

A year later, Olmert and the PA's Mahmoud Abbas, hosted by then-President George W. Bush, began trying to negotiate some kind of withdrawal from Yesha in Annapolis, Maryland. Olmert actually offered the PA some 94% of Judea and Samaria – but thankfully, Abbas rejected even this, and the conference ended with no agreement. The diplomats and negotiators packed up and went home, the plans for the abandonment of the Jewish homeland became a form of science fiction, and the Jews of Yesha – and many other Israelis whose lives would have been endangered had the PA been handed control – breathed a loud sigh of relief.

Back in Time

I ask the reader to go back in time to the month of Adar 5766/February 2006, when families in Yesha were quietly consulting with lawyers about receiving compensation. Now, imagine that someone told you then that 20 years hence, the government would not only obviate the need for compensation for the demolition of communities and homes, but would also enable the private purchase of land for the purpose of building communities. How would we have regarded such a “prophet”?

Thankfully, in this month of Adar, once again, things have happily turned upside down. Happy Purim!

Is the Gaza War Being Fought Morally?

Question: “They say that more than 70,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and that 90% of the homes have been destroyed. Is that moral? Are all the residents of Gaza Hamas-supporting murderers?

Answer: This isn’t accurate. We can divide the population into four groups..

A. The fighting circle – Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, tens of thousands of people. They absolutely must be eliminated.

B. The assisting circle – people who hide weapons in their homes, provide intelligence, and also those who handed out sweets and celebrated on the day of the massacre. This is a very large part of the population.

C. The captive / silent circle – people who oppose Hamas or simply want to live, but are living under a murderous terrorist regime. If they speak out against Hamas in Gaza, they are sentenced to death. That is why it is hard to hear their voices.

D. The children’s circle – they are mainly subjected to murderous indoctrination, but at this stage it is impossible to decide that a small child deserves death.

In summary, it is impossible to decide that everyone there is a murderer.

Question: “Why didn’t the opposition leave there, like in Germany?”

Answer: In Germany too there were Germans who could not stand the Nazi regime, but they had no power to resist or to leave — and the same is true in Gaza. The exit through Egypt is also closed. In addition, they are poor and cannot afford the high cost of leaving.

Question: “So, did we do something immoral?”

Answer: No. After all, they attacked us. We had no choice. We are defending ourselves. Our army is the Israel Defense Forces.

Question: "Maybe we should have fought more carefully?"

Answer: My answer has three parts:

A. The enemy is extremely cruel and murderous, and if we show restraint toward them, it will open the door for them to commit terrible acts again.

B. It is impossible to risk soldiers’ lives in order not to risk civilians. Of course, we prefer not to endanger civilians, and we truly did everything possible, but if we have to choose between the lives of enemy civilians and the lives of our soldiers, morality favors the lives of the soldiers.

C. They used the civilian population as a shield. They positioned themselves in hospitals,schools, and children’s bedrooms. They are responsible for those who were killed. They are the immoral ones.

Question: "If that’s the case, should we still be happy about those who were killed there?"

Answer: We should be glad about the killers and their helpers, but regarding innocent people and children, we should not be glad. We would prefer that nothing happened to them. We do not go to war out of a desire to kill, but to eradicate evil, and thank God, we are very successful.

Answers by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, published by Machon Meir.

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.]

Let's Not Stop Now!

by Elisha Yered, Hilltop Resident and Leader, translated by Hillel Fendel.

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.

Hilltop outposts springing up like mushrooms after the rain, broad support from the veteran communities, even the establishment of many farms with full defense-establishment approval – all that sums up the news from Yesha these days. For the first time in years, the IDF appears to be learning important lessons from what happened to us on Oct 7th, and seems to understand the importance of settling the non-populated areas. The coin has dropped, and 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.

The IDF commanders no longer view the settlement outposts as hostile troublemakers, but rather as part and parcel of our common strategy. This has had a sweeping impact on the pace of construction, and enabled breakthroughs toward goals no one had imagined. 

But recently, something seems to have changed. Activists on the ground have begun to sense more friction in the atmosphere, as if there are those who want to turn the clock in Yesha back to before Oct. 7th. 

In a recent briefing on the security developments in Yesha, some of the officers complained that they're losing control over the hilltops and farms. "I support the settlement enterprise," one of them said, "but it doesn't make sense that 70% of the incidents I have to deal with are because of rocks or other attacks on a shepherd in some isolated hilltop."

This type of complaint, heard increasingly more as the front lines of the Jewish settlement enterprise move further out, may be factually true – but it's wrong in its basic approach. 

It is precisely how we as a society tackle this issue that will determine whether the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria will thrive, numerically and security-wise – or whether it will actually regress back to the pre-Oct. 7th days. And that is why we must explain the issues with the clarity and seriousness they deserve.

 The most effective defense against the hostile Arab population in Yesha is built upon three elements: Distancing the line of contact from the civilian populace; placing the enemy in a perpetual state of defensiveness via rear-guard military action; and extremely sharp deterrence. Let us take them one by one.

Distancing the line of contact: Before the recent war, the IDF's objectives in Yesha were primarily to protect the fences of the communities and the roads connecting them. The line of contact was frighteningly close. If the enemy managed to break through, it meant possibly deadly attacks within the towns and against the passing vehicles. Since army units cannot be everywhere at once, car stonings were a near-daily occurrence.  

But all this changed wherever Jewish farms and hilltops were allowed to flower. Long dangerous roads became safe for travel. The Binyamin Regional Council, north of Jerusalem, released statistics showing 459 terrorist attacks on the Alon Highway in 2022, when there were about five hilltops and outposts in the area – and only 52 attacks in the first half of 2025, with the number of points now over 20. 

The operational concept was simple. Instead of Arab terrorists disguised as shepherds moving freely among the roadside olive trees to scout out the Jews passing by, control of the area came under the control of the Jewish residents of the hilltops or farms, thus pushing the Arab villagers back a kilometer or more. The line of contact was moved significantly, and the chance of a terrorist infiltration was tremendously reduced. The enemy's attempted attacks are now directed at the grazing areas and the shepherds, instead of at the Jewish communities. 

Consider for example the case of the terrorists from Dir Debwan, between Psagot and the route leading to Kokhav HaShachar. Despite the hard work of IDF Unit 636, including night ambushes and investigations leading to arrests, Arab firebombs and rock attacks were a matter of routine. But then 636 left, the terrorists became bolder and came closer, and the attacks resumed – until the establishment of the Sde Yonatan hilltop and Hanina Farm, which together turned the area into Jewish grazing land. Since then, not one attack has been carried out!

The terrorists' motivation has not decreased, however – and this leads to the second stage: Military action. The enemy must be put on the constant defensive – and not, as was the case before the war, allowed to maintain his precious daily "fabric of life." One of the ideas behind the new hilltops is that the Arab enemy can never know what's coming next, what changes will be made in the fields around him, and even whether his own little hilltop will still be his a month from now. Instead of us having to hold emergency security meetings regarding Arab infiltrations, it is now the Arab shepherds and farmers who are worried about how to respond to the changing circumstances. Clashes between the sides now take place in areas that were totally out of our bounds before – far from most Jewish families. 

Why So Far Out? 

Many in the army encourage and support the existence of Jewish grazing areas as buffer zones, but they still ask, "Why do you have to keep going with your sheep further deep into the area? It's dangerous and creates friction for no reason." Similarly, they view with favor farms right outside the communities' fences, but a hilltop further out is a "threat" that must be evacuated. 

This is a mistake. The way to manage the constant terrorist threats is by moving them further away from the population centers, thus minimizing them in both quantity and quality. By forbidding the young shepherds of Shalisha Farm to come near the terrorists of Al-Mughair, the latter will come close themselves and attack the communities of the Shilo bloc. It's very simple – as the army understands when dealing with the urban-area terrorists in Sh'chem and Tulkarm. 

This brings us to the third element of the correct strategy: Deterrence. There's something paradoxical about this element: The more effective it is, the more we forget the existence of the threat. When the enemy is deterred, and shrewdly pretends that he is seeking peace, many in Israel and around the world begin to say once again, "They're so calm and peaceful, why fight with them?" We then let up, they attack forcefully, such as on Oct. 7th, and the dangerous cycle begins again.

Similarly regarding the outposts. When the foreboding Salam Fayad plan came to light – the PA strategy of expansion and creating facts on the ground – support increased for Jewish growth and construction in Yesha. But now that we are thriving so wonderfully, warnings are once again being sounded against bursting forth "too much." 

This problem has only one solution: We must not heed the voices that seek to weaken and hold us back. Our fantastic achievements on the ground can be retained only if we continue to advance. 

Junking the "Quiet" Approach

Every IDF officer in the field must remind himself that it might cost him extra efforts in dealing with a few more incidents at first - but within a short time, the security benefits will outweigh those several-fold. And this without even having mentioned the benefits in thwarting the establishment of a Palestinian state. In short, the idea that "quiet" is the ultimate goal must be totally junked in favor of the push to advance and constantly improve our position on the ground. 

The officers must appreciate and encourage those who are willing to place themselves on the front lines, for the sake of security for the entire country. 

Over the past two years, there has been a strong turn away from the dangers of the "conception" – the idea that the Arab enemy can be contained if we just give a little here and concede there. This change can be noted almost throughout the government, army, media and elsewhere. This process must not stop! Any delay in utilizing this historic opportunity would be a "weeping for generations." As the Torah states, "Let us ascend to the Land – for we can do it!"

Qatargate and the Trump Bear Hug

by Tzvi Moses, founder of the Shilo Institute, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The Trump-Netanyahu summit in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, this week was relatively successful, but not a few problems still remain unresolved. Trump's remarks about Erdogan and the Turks are worrisome, and though he spoke strongly of the need for Hamas to disarm "or else!" many things about it – such as who will do it, when, and how – still evade clear answers.

Trump's attitude towards Judea and Samaria, about which he acknowledged that he and Netanyahu do not agree 100% – "but I know he'll do the right thing" – is also of some concern. The same is true for Trump's approach to the Palestinian Authority in general. Netanyahu, for his part, did not look good [unsurprisingly, given the pressures he faces in the judicial, political, military and other spheres - ed.]. He looked pale and not confident, and the personal praises Trump heaped upon him - "There might not be an Israel right now if [it] had a different prime minister [other than Netanyahu]" - were a bit strange, and even pathetic. The same was true for the promise of a pardon for Netanyahu that Trump claimed to have received, which was immediately denied by the only man who can issue the problem, Israel's President Herzog. 

The bear hug given to Trump by the Israeli decision to grant Trump the Israeli Prize for Peace, and the profuse mutual compliments, actually made Netanyahu appear weak and dependent – as if he were a has-been hero who needs to be propped up by the great and mighty Trump.

On the other hand, it was comforting to see that politically and militarily, Israel's situation appears to be good, even if not 100% stable. The backing that Trump gave Netanyahu regarding Iran appears to be sufficient for now. 

But looming in the background is Qatargate – an absurd story that does not bode well for Israel's government. The story seems to be that three of Netanyahu's top media aides – Feldstein, Orich, and Einhorn – saw fit to give marketing and PR services to the State of Qatar. Their goal was apparently to help Qatar become the leading mediator in the talks with Hamas for the release of the hostages. It seems, however, that more than they helped Israel receive the hostages, they helped Hamas receive freedom for their own murderous terrorists from Israeli prisons. 

This is in addition to the fact that Qatar itself funded Hamas and enabled them to arm massively and build monstrous tunnels. Regarding such mediation as Qatar performed, it can be said, "Have you then murdered and also inherited?"

Netanyahu's main electoral rival Naftali Bennett is calling for the prime minister's aides to be sentenced to life imprisonment, for having apparently betrayed Israeli interests by sabotaging Israeli-Egyptian relations to the benefit of Qatar. The PM's office, and Netanyahu himself, truly appear to be on the ropes, beaten and battered. Diplomatically speaking, former Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer – who was very instrumental in attaining the release of the hostages and in receiving American support for the attack on Iran – is sorely missed. In general, the government does not appear to be functioning perfectly. With the Likud primaries coming up in the coming months, there do not seem to be many significant and serious party personalities ready for leadership positions. 

Netanyahu needs someone like Moses' father-in-law Jethro to advise him on delegating and sharing some of his authorities. It's time for Netanyahu to groom one or more successors; there are too many people in Israel who once served under Netanyahu and are now in the forefront of his opposition. 

The nationalist camp ought to shake off its long-held belief that without Netanyahu, the dictatorial left-wing will come to power. An unhealthy symbiosis has been created, wherein because of the right-wing's total dependence upon Netanyahu, he can use its fears to his advantage and receive its coddling almost unconditionally. The time has come for right-wingers to realize that this need not go on, especially in light of the rot that has taken root in his office and reached its climax in the very strange story of Qatargate. 

With the elections coming up some time in the next ten months, the right-wing would be well advised to rebuild itself, and encourage the many personalities that emerged, during and after the war, to lead. Instead of Qatargate, let this be a gate of opportunity to a new nationalist camp and a new future.