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.