The Tests for Israel and for the U.S.

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

Are we truly independent? Can we free ourselves of the threat of "embargo?" Will the U.S. take the ethical path, as it did not always do during the Holocaust?

We find ourselves at an auspicious time - between the date marking the time of our utter helplessness (Holocaust Day), and that commemorating the so-many sacrifices that we have had to make to secure our national existence in our Promised Land (Memorial Day). And yet davka (specifically) now, we have once again reached a disconcerting, frustrating and stressful crossroads, at which the country that is supposed to be our greatest friend in the world declares quite purposefully that it will not support us against those who rise up to destroy us.

The very trying words of the U.S. president have presented three tests: two of them are for us, and the third is for our friends overseas.

The first is whether we truly are an independent country. It appears that we have, so far, passed this test – at least in words. For immediately upon hearing the presidential ultimatum demanding that we surrender and lead the IDF to defeat instead of victory, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and others of our leaders, essentially said: "It won't happen. We will not give up on our security and safety. We will act in Rafah to achieve our critical objectives in this war that has been forced upon us, even at the price of a head-on clash with the United States."

Declarations are important, but they are certainly not enough. We will have to follow closely to see whether these words are backed up by actions. For our part, we [the Knesset Members of the Religious Zionist party] have made it clear that if the government turns its back on the objectives for which we sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the battlefield, we will not be able – both ethically and security-wise – to continue to be members of this government.

The second test we now face is whether we realize that we must not allow ourselves to be dependent upon anyone other than ourselves, and G-d, for our security needs. We must also act accordingly. There must be a nationwide enlistment to ensure that we need not have to rely upon even our friends to ensure our national safety. We have failed terribly in this area over the past years, and everyone now understands that the situation cannot be allowed to continue.

We must reach the point where the word "embargo" can no longer threaten us, and where no American president can bear-hug us with arms shipments and dictate to us what military operations to carry out and which not. Of course, this cannot happen without precise economic and strategic planning that correctly foresees the future, with an allocation of resources that truly matches our needs.

The third test is the course of action that the United States will take. Many Americans were greatly distressed at the words of their president, and many public figures made it clear that they see Biden's words as an ethical stain upon the entire country. They are determined to stand on the correct side of history. Throughout history, in fact, the nations of the world have faced similar decisions, and they have not always passed these tests. As we commemorate Holocaust Day, we also remember the calamitous decisions made by the Western world during the years of the Nazi regime, beginning with the abandonment of Czechoslovakia, and up to the failure to bomb Auschwitz or even the train tracks leading to it.

We read in this week's Torah portion: "Do not stand by your neighbor's blood; I am the Lord." Rashi explains that this means that if, for instance, you see someone drowning and do not do what you can to save him, "I am the Lord – trusted to give reward [when appropriate], and trusted to punish [when necessary]."

This is a chilling message, because it assigns serious guilt, and serious punishment, to those who simply "stand by" without offering whatever help they can to save those in danger. It is this rationale that echoed in the words of Senator Graham when he vehemently demanded that the U.S. not stand by while Israel fights for its life, and it resonates in the hearts of very many Americans.

These Americans understand that they stand before a historic and multi-faceted test: They are required not to "stand by" not only regarding arms shipments to Israel, but also regarding the rising anti-Semitism in universities, and also regarding the American reaction to those who rise up against us in international institutions such as the Hague Tribunal and the United Nations. [The US did, in fact, oppose a U.N. resolution last week declaring support for Palestinian statehood, which would have rewarded the PA and Hamas for their horrific acts of terrorism in the Simchat Torah massacre.]

This week marks the 65^th anniversary of the death of my grandmother, Malka Nesher (Mária Kecskeméti), who was a very well-known Hungarian poetess. Her songs have not received great attention in Israel, and I try to publicize every year another of her poems. This year it was quite obvious that I would choose one entitled "Exodus 1947," which describes the British Empire's cruelty towards the famous refugee immigrants' ship Exodus. It also calls out the "standing by" of most of the free world to the mistreatment of the Holocaust survivors who wanted to reach the Land of Israel. My grandmother ended her ode as follows:

"There is none like England in matters of nobility:

The last remnant of the escapees she effectively diluted...

The world is silent, there is no protest, there is no one to raise a voice there.

Conscience, like the ostrich, buries its head in the sand!

... Your face, o Britain, bury it in the dirt,

For there is no greater disgrace than your "glorious" victory..."

While the third test is that of the nations of the world, it is incumbent upon us to pass the first two tests above: We must be truly independent, and we must find the ways to strengthen ourselves on our own. As we celebrate Independence Day this week, we are confident that, with G-d's help, we will pass these two critical tests.

More on the Hostage Deal Being Negotiated with Hamas

based on an article by political commentator Avi Greentzeig, translated by Hillel Fendel.

• Though everyone is in favor of bringing the hostages home, most people have no idea what its actual conditions are. And although everyone is talking about the current deal, most of the discussions revolve not around the deal itself, but around Binyamin Netanyahu and his role.

• Freeing only some of the hostages is totally immoral. If we believe that a heavy price must be paid for the poor captives' freedom, how can we rationalize giving up on some of them? The only justification for the deal can be if it involves the release of every last one of the captives. If not, Israel will remain with no cards with which to ever attain the release the rest of them. 

• It is self-evident that Israel's release of thousands of terrorists in our jails will necessarily lead to hundreds of future dead Israeli terrorist victims. This has been proven by past deals. Who can take such a responsibility upon himself? 

Are those pushing for a deal willing to be murdered in the future, or have their loved ones murdered, by the terrorists whose release they are demanding?

• If Israel carries out this deal, it is of course obvious to all that all the terrorist organizations, and the Iranian proxies, will devote most of their resources towards kidnapping Jews and Israelis all over the world.

• Any deal that prevents or hinders Israel's offensive in Rafah will mean a de-facto statement that Israel has given up on its central war objective, that which Netanyahu repeated so often: the total destruction of Hamas. Among other things, this means that the residents of the western Negev will have been officially abandoned by their government.

• The deal will certainly not promote "normalization" with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis don't want relations with Israel because of our looks, but because of our toughness and abilities. The Saudis began relating to Israel seriously after Netanyahu's speech in Congress against Obama. "If the Israeli prime minister," they said to themselves, "can take such a tough line against the Iranians, we want him on our side."

• And even if "normalization" with Saudi Arabia happens, it will be of very low quality. But destroying Hamas, on the other hand, even against Biden's will, will increase Israeli prestige and stature in the Middle East.

• Yes, there are threats that Israeli officials and academics will be arrested when they travel abroad. If our enemies succeed in bringing about our capitulation in this manner, they will do it again and again. Surrender to blackmail simply invites more blackmail.

• On the domestic Israeli political scene, the deal will bring no benefit to Netanyahu. It can be assumed that Netanyahu does not seriously believe that if he gives in, he will receive adulation and admiration from the media and left-wing. A minute after the deal is signed, he will be reviled by talking heads on every station and social medium for having abandoned the other hostages, for having ended the war by surrendering, for leading Israel into this debacle, etc. etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't understand how the system works.

Not Politics, But Life and Death

by Haggai Huberman, Arab Affairs Correspondent, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The protests of the hostages' families – "Free Them Now! At Any Cost!" – are not helping the Israeli negotiating teams, to say the least. The IDF's withdrawal from Gaza has been even worse.

Following a recent evaluation at the Lebanese border with senior IDF Northern Command officers, Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Hertzi HaLevi told the combat reservists stationed there: "The objectives of the ongoing offensive in Gaza are both to return the residents of the Gaza Envelope [Be'eri, Sderot, etc.] safely to their homes and to bring the hostages back home."

I'm forcing myself to believe - after our general loss of trust in the IDF leadership - that the Chief of Staff truly believes himself and that he is really striving to achieve these goals. The problem is that the State of Israel has blown its ability to return the captives being held by Hamas. This is because it chose the path of "exchange," instead of the more certain path, that of "war."

Cabinet Minister Orit Strook, of the Religious Zionism party, came under media and political fire last week, accused of having said that the release of 22 or 33 hostages was not a big deal. She of course did not say that; her point was that if we agree to the release of a limited number of hostages in exchange for a ceasefire, we will have basically given up on the remaining hostages. She was 100% correct.

For, in contrast with the impression that the hostages' families and their PR people are trying to present, the real dilemma facing the government is not a political one, but rather one of life and death. That is, saving the lives of some hostages now could easily cost the lives of many other civilians and soldiers in the future.

Hamas has no interest in freeing the hostages. Why should the terrorist organization want to give up its human shields? Hamas wants to survive and remain in power, and for that it needs a complete ceasefire for several good years, so that it can reorganize and prepare effectively for its next attack on Israel.

It is likely not well-known outside Israel, but the conditions that Hamas demands for the release of the hostages – "whether dead or alive," in its own words – are a recipe for hundreds of dead Israelis in the not far-off future. It's not only the military and political humiliation that we would suffer upon seeing Sinwar emerging from his hole flashing his fingers in a V sign, confident in his total, American-guaranteed immunity from elimination by Israel. That photo alone will turn Sinwar into the King of the Arab world, and Israel into a washrag country. Such a deal would enable Hamas to rebuild its military power within a few years, in all aspects: More missiles and rockets, stronger and larger Nukhba forces [those that carried out the Oct. 7th massacre], a naval force, and more.

It means, with near certainty, that within a few years, we will see an exact reproduction of last Simchat Torah: thousands of Hamas terrorists slaughtering Israeli citizens, accompanied by the spectacular pyrotechnics of thousands of Hamas rockets exploding throughout the country.

And in response to your shocked disbelief, dear reader, that this could happen, let it be clear that the conditions Hamas has set for an exchange guarantee this scenario. Every deal that Israel has made to release terrorists in exchange for one or more hostages has ended with an increasing number of murdered Israelis. The terrorists freed in the Jibril deal in 1985 were those who brought about the first intifada three years later. And many of those who were freed in 2011 so that Gilad Shalit could return home - among them Yichye Sinwar - carried out the Oct. 7th travesty. Not to mention that at least 11 Israelis have been murdered by Shalit-released Palestinian terrorists…

But the deal being negotiated today involves not only the release of terrorists, but means granting Hamas and the Arab world its greatest victory over Israel ever in history.

There is only one way to prevent it: Security control over all of Gaza must remain exclusively Israeli. The only armed body in Gaza can be the IDF. But if Israel agrees, as the Biden Administration has long been pressuring it do, to withdraw its forces from Gaza for good, this option will be lost.

Even the long-awaited Israeli offensive in Rafah [which has now begun – HF] cannot be expected to free the captives. It appears that at best, the IDF will enter, pound the enemy, and then leave – returning us once again to the same dead-end from which we started out.

It was once possible, with determined and unrestrained military activity, to get the leaders of Hamas to cry out, "Take the hostages! Just let us live!" But to do that, the IDF had to have remained in Gaza. Today there are no IDF soldiers in the Gaza Strip, with the exception of the Netzarim Corridor – too little, too late, and too weak. Remember the days a few months ago when Gaza City was flooded with Israeli flags? Not a single flag remains there.

And what about the exciting return of our soldiers to the areas of Gush Katif? Today that's just a dream. Even the tunnels have not been totally decimated; a majority of them remain whole and operative. Sinwar, hiding out in Khan Yunish, doesn't hear the tanks above him, as Defense Minister Gallant boasted, but rather the hundreds of trucks arriving daily with humanitarian aid grabbed by his men.

All those screaming at the government, "We want them home now!" should rather yell out, "We want a re-conquest of Gaza now!"

The IDF's withdrawal from Gaza – in 2024, not in 2005 – was undertaken without U.S. pressure; the Americans pressured us to allow humanitarian aid, not to hurt civilians, and not to attack Rafah, but not to withdraw totally. This was a foolishness that could take years to rectify. It has led us to a humiliating defeat, and whoever is responsible for it must pay the price and quit public life forever.

Iran's Revenge: Another Angle

by Haggai Huberman, Arab Affairs Correspondent, translated by Hillel Fendel.

It took 14 years for Israel to respond to Iran last time. How long will it take this time? 

The general security situation in Israel - the Gaza front, Lebanon/Hizbullah, and the rockets from Iran - overshadowed a very important piece of news published this weekend: The Federal Criminal Court in Argentina ruled on Friday that Iran and Hizbullah were behind the murderous attacks on the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish community building in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, respectively.

The court further ruled that the two attacks are to be considered crimes against humanity, meaning, inter alia, that they are not bound by statutes of limitations.  

The 12th day of Adar Bet, three weeks ago, marked 32 years since the attack on the embassy. On that day in 1992, a car bomb driven by a suicide terrorist exploded at the gate to the four-story building, causing its collapse and the death of 29 people, including four Israelis and four Argentinian Jewish women. Over 220 people were hurt.

The bombing was a revenge attack by Iran, via Hizbullah, for the liquidation of Hizbullah's then-leader Abbas Musawi a month earlier. Musawi was killed in an air strike in Lebanon, and Israel claimed immediate responsibility. His death led to the ascendance of an unknown terrorist named Hassan Nasrallah to the helm of Hizbullah.

Two years later, in the summer of 1994, Iran carried out yet a second revenge attack, bombing the AMIA Jewish Community Center building in Buenos Aires. A Lebanese terrorist detonated another car bomb, this time murdering 85 people and wounding 330 – apparently the worst terrorist attack in Argentina ever.

Following Israel's killing last month of major Iranian military leaders in Syria, the Israeli public was in nervous suspense as to how Iran would avenge itself this time. It was feared that either an Israeli embassy abroad would be hit, or Israel itself would be the target. As is now known, Iran chose to hit Israel directly, for the first time in history. It did not even use one of its proxies such as Hizbullah or the Houthis of Yemen. The Iranians assumed that their more than 300 drones and missiles would deal Israel a strong and significant blow. Among these were 110 ballistic missiles directed towards an important IDF base in the Negev, Nevatim. However, the results for Iran were quite paltry: A Bedouin girl was hurt by shrapnel, and only light damage was caused to the army base. 

Tactically and operatively, Israel registered a tremendous achievement: Our coordinated defense system stopped nearly 100% of the rockets and drones used in what was probably the largest offensive of its type in history. Israel also scored a great diplomatic success in that the U.S., other Western nations, and even Middle East neighbors such as Jordan all took part in bolstering Israel's defenses, rendering it multi-layered and all the more effective.

On the one hand, then, it was a dizzying success – but at the same time it represented a total loss of both Israeli and American deterrence. The Ayatollahs proved during this attack how much they were not scared off by Biden's one-word warning to Iran six months ago: "Don't." It appears that the only ones scared off by the American Don't were Israeli leaders, especially by the Don't directed at them in recent weeks.

Now the question is if, and how, Israel will respond to Iran's failed, but very provocative, attack. Thirty years ago, Israel did not respond to the two attacks in Argentina. In fact, it waited 14 years to do so, eliminating (according to foreign sources, of course) Hizbullah's second-in-command Imad Mureina in Damascus. Mureina was responsible for planning the Argentinian attacks. This was such a strong blow to Hizbullah that it was unable, or unwilling, to avenge his death, for no one there was equal to the task of planning attacks on the scale of Mureina. 

As of this writing, the State of Israel stands before one of the biggest dilemmas it has ever faced: whether and how to respond to the Iranian onslaught. If we show restraint, ostensibly because the attack did not cause substantial damage, our deterrence power will be eroded even further. 

In this vein, let us recall that the erosion of our deterrence increased precisely in light of the successes of the Iron Dome anti-rocket defense system. Iron Dome certainly prevented many casualties from Hamas rockets, and allowed Israel to "contain" this incessant fire. But it was also our biggest curse. For years it enabled our great suppression, and even ignoring, of the Gaza threat – until it smashed into our kibbutzim and bases on the morning of Simchat Torah (Oct. 7th).

On the other hand, let no one have any illusions: An Israeli military response involving a direct attack on Iran means nothing less than war with Iran. That is, no more exchanges of fire with Iran's proxies – Hizbullah, Syria, or the Yemenite Houthis – but with Iran itself. The first problem with this is whether the U.S. will give us a green light, or even any form of coordination – either of which is necessary for our success. This appears doubtful, given the election-season difficulties Biden faces. On the other hand, there are indications that America has already given tacit approval to a form of Israeli retribution. All in all, an unclear situation. 

But one thing that is known is that a war with Iran will have to involve the destruction, or at least something close to it, of Iran's nuclear facilities. If not, the war will be pointless. The US, of course, could carry out this destruction more effectively than Israel can – but this does not appear very likely under a Biden presidency. 

Does Israel have the power to do it alone? Every Israeli government forum or cabinet that has to make this terrifically difficult decision will have to, first of all, take that question into account. Only afterwards will it be able to consider other variables, such as the international community's positions, and make a final decision on this critical issue. 

It should be just a matter of days before we know the answer.

Time to Strike Iran!

by Kobi Eliraz and Dr. Chanan Shai Arutz-7 commentators, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Kobi Eliraz, former Settlement Affairs Advisor to several Defense Ministers: "Israel's attack must include an Iranian nuclear installation, or at least one of its oil refineries."

Most unfortunately, even after the great achievement and miracles of this past Saturday night, and despite the fact that the Iranian missile barrage is a casus belli of the first degree, calls are being sounded even from the right-wing to "show restraint" in our military response on Iranian territory. This is wrong! Restraint is not strength, and deterrence is not a good enough defense. To think otherwise is a total mistake, in my opinion. Iran must be made to pay for the attack it carried out against the State of Israel, in cash, for all to see – right now. 

Yes, there are many geopolitical considerations to be taken into account: the US elections, our relations with China and Russia, oil from Saudi Arabia and Iran, and more – but still and all, Israel must exact a painful price from Iran. Israel has dealt successfully in the past with American objections and vetoes, starting with the establishment of the State and in many wars since then – and many times, American ended up justifying our decisions. Strong Israeli responses of this type have cemented Israel's status as a regional power that knows how to look out for itself. "We are not a banana republic," Menachem Begin told the US Ambassador to Israel in 1982. 

The appropriate Israeli response must mean the destruction of at least one Iranian nuclear installation. This will not spell the end of the Islamic revolution, nor will it be a mortal blow to the Ayatollahs' regime – but it will strike hard at Iran's nuclear ambitions and will postpone an Iranian nuclear bomb for an unknown amount of time.

Alternatively – and this could possibly be the best we can hope for under the circumstances – Israel must attack one of Iran's oil refineries. This will significantly damage the Iranian economy and will impede Iran's ability to fund Hizbullah, the Houthis, and the militias in Syria and Iraq. It will also be in the oil-selling interests of both Russia and China.

Dr. Chanan Shai, IDF lieutenant-colonel in the reserves and an expert in military and political strategic thinking and planning: "The Israel Air Force's brilliant operation against the Iranian offensive must be turned into a catalyst to overthrow Khomeinism." 

War is not won via defense alone. The right time must be found to carry out an offensive – and that "right time" is now: Israel is receiving broad praise and support from world leaders and even the media. To take strong advantage of these accomplishments, it would be best now to hold off on the planned Gaza offensive in Rafah, and to aim even higher. 

Now that Israel has brought a great achievement to the U.S., its status vis-à-vis the superpower has changed radically – and the dialogue between the two countries must change accordingly. 

In accordance with the overall objective of Israel and the democratic West – which is the overthrow of Khomeinism and radical Islam (which took the place of Communism as the active enemy of the West), and in keeping with the formative principle of von Clausewitz regarding the essence of defense and the importance of momentum, Israel must strike while the iron is hot, as quickly as possible, in one or more of the following ways: 

1. Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities

2. A decisive, paralyzing blow at Iran's war-making capacity

3. Uprooting Iran's stronghold in Israel's vicinity

One thing Israel must not do is to strike out at the symbols of the regime simply to humiliate the leadership. This would be a childish vengeance with no real advantage in weakening Iran's physical strength. 

If for some reason, the first two goals are unattainable, Israel must act immediately to uproot Iran's influence in the countries around us. This means to liquidate the Hizbullah "kingdom," which is the top Iranian proxy strategically close to Israel. 

The challenge in fighting Hizbullah is to make sure that a long war of attrition does not develop, which would be against Israel's interests and therefore a victory for Hizbullah. 

Hizbullah's strategy will be to take advantage of the mountainous and hilly terrain in southern Lebanon to make it hard for the Israeli forces to advance in their campaign to silence the constant shooting attacks on Israel's civilian northern front. If the residents' return to their homes in northern Israel is delayed, this will cause terrible hardship and damage to Israel, and may even lead to international intervention that will force a ceasefire upon Israel in very adverse conditions.

The IDF's challenge in the war against Hizbullah is, therefore, to neutralize the source of its strength – namely, its control over the influential factor known as 'time'. To this end, a clever and tricky operative plan is required that will take the campaign's 'time' and duration out of Hizbullah's hands and transfer it to the IDF. Unfortunately, the IDF replaced its doctrine of "winning" with one of "deterrence." This is precisely why Israel has not won several recent wars and campaigns.

And it is precisely this IDF weakness that Hizbullah is depending on for the victory it hopes to attain. The IDF must therefore rectify this weakness – it's definitely possible – and come up with a new brilliant plan that will enable us to defeat Hizbullah in the time-frame that we determine.

For Israel to be stuck in two simultaneous wars of attrition would be disastrous. If the IDF plans to defeat Hizbullah as it did/is doing with Hamas, via "painful strikes," deterrent damage, and "chewing up" tunnels and their openings one at a time, instead of directly and quickly seeking actual victory, it would be better to give up this "right moment" that has been created by our success this past weekend.