Learning from Zelensky to Stand Up for Ourselves and Restore Trump's Respect

by Leonid Baratz, Investigative journalist and Middle Eastern correspondent for the Ukrainian media, translated by Hillel Fendel.

It's always easier to pressure allies than enemies, as the United States continually proves. This is especially true with a president who tends to operate based on instincts that appear to change quickly. In Israel's current situation, it would do well to remember the lesson taught by Ukrainian President Zelensky when he faced American anger. 

Many remember the awkward, difficult scene that played out in the Oval Office in February 2025, when U.S. President Trump and Vice President Vance castigated Zelensky before the cameras of the entire world. They essentially "advised" him to show gratitude to the U.S. and allow it to determine the terms of a ceasefire with Russia. "You don't have the cards," Trump told him sharply. "We have all the cards, and without us, you have nothing." Zelensky did not cave in, and paid a heavy diplomatic price for a few weeks.

And here we are now, less than 18 months later, and the ones without the cards are none other than the Russians. The world sees Russian fuel tanks explode into the sky and dozens of Russian refineries knocked out of action, leading to long lines of people waiting for fuel throughout Russia and even the Crimean peninsula. It's Moscow, not Kiev, that is now asking for various kinds of truces, with Ukraine largely on the offensive. A year ago, Ukraine carried out the unprecedented Operation Pautina, which had been painstakingly planned for a year and a half, in which drones hidden inside portable wooden houses were smuggled on civilian trucks deep into Russian territory. At the designated moment, the roofs were opened remotely and the drones soared towards Russian nuclear sites located thousands of kilometers from the front line.

Interestingly, less than two weeks later, Israel attacked Iran in the 12-Day War known as Operation Rising Lion, which was also based on deep and patient intelligence penetration into enemy territory. It is difficult not to recognize in the Ukrainian offensive a familiar fingerprint of Israeli combat doctrine, which immediately raises the question of whether Kiev may have served as an initial testing ground for the implementation of these unique tactics. We may not know for many years whether Israel and Ukraine were working with some sort of cooperation, or whether this was just a coincidental case of "great minds thinking alike…"

In any event, Zelensky rebounded well following the White House dressing down, to the point where this month, at the G-7 summit in France, Trump himself admitted that the Ukranians are currently winning the war with Russia. Trump then surprised his allies when he announced the restoration of sharp sanctions against the Russian oil sector. Kiev's impressive military accomplishments would have been of no significance without an aggressive, ongoing diplomatic push, that was able to translate the situation at the front into the language of international interests.

This is precisely the lesson that Israel must learn and internalize at this point. It is well-known that the Americans are wielding a heavy pressure crush on PM Netanyahu and the government in Jerusalem to withdraw from the buffer zone in southern Lebanon, or at least to cease responding to murderous Hizbullah attacks such as those that have killed five Israeli soldiers in recent days. We must not blame our own government; on the contrary, it is our duty as a public to provide our leaders with our resolute support so that they can repel these foreign dictates, and certainly not succumb to the winds of concession blowing from many of our own television studios.

Caving to U.S. Would be an Iranian Victory

We in Israel, and the Americans as well, should have no trouble seeing who would profit from and rejoice at an Israeli withdrawal. Israel's historic task in the Middle East never relied only on its military strength, but chiefly on its image as the only regional player who can contain the Iranian axis – an image upon which the Abraham Accords is largely predicated. But the moment that the President of the United States declares that Israel is unable to complete its mission in Lebanon, and suggests that the job be passed to Turkish-influenced Syria, this image suffers a death blow.

Every time that Damascus or Ankara are perceived as being able to do what Jerusalem can't do, or is being stopped from doing, this rocks the very foundations on which Israel's position stands. It is therefore no coincidence that precisely the Qatar-Turkey axis are the main beneficiaries of a scenario in which we cede security responsibility in southern Lebanon.

Israel simply cannot afford to allow itself to retreat and thus gladden Iran, Qatar, and Turkey. We must therefore learn from the Ukrainian paradigm. From a historical perspective, it appears that Zelensky has emerged as a "Jewish" or "Israeli"-type leader much more than expected – and we have no reason to be embarrassed to take an example from him.

We must complete the operational cleanup of Hizbullah's stronghold in southern Lebanon, without leaving this task to outsiders. Iran must be shown with unmistakable force who controls the scene. Only then, just as happened with Ukraine, will President Trump's temporary anger be turned into renewed affection and respect - for ultimately he respects only results, not begging.

It was just a year ago that we started a war against those whom we called the modern-day Amalek – with very impressive results, including the elimination of the Ayatollah Khamenei and the weakening of Iran's military infrastructures. However, once we started the job, we must complete it, in the spirit of the Biblical injunction to totally wipe out Amalek. Amalek cannot be left half-wounded, we cannot stop the war in the middle, and we must certainly not endanger our very existence with transient surrender agreements. Even top officials in the US defense establishment and the Republican Party acknowledge that the current agreement is shameful and defeatist.

Most dangerously, the Iranian regime justifiably interprets the international pressure upon Israel as a green light to continue its multi-front war against us.  This not only endangers world stability and direct American interests, it also encourages the fanatical Iranian leadership to continue to pursue its nuclear program. Iran seems to have learned in the recent past that its strategies have been successful in forcing the West's hand and even bringing it close to its knees.

We know that our interests and those of the United States do not always overlap. That's OK. We must remind the Americans, however, that unfair accusations and threats against us are very harmful to Israel's attempts to ensure our international legitimacy, and even fuel anti-Semitism across the world.

We must learn from Zelensky, and from many of our own leaders in the recent and far-off past, that true security does not come from blind adherence to our allies, as strong as they may be. A nation that knows how to stand up for its own interests on the battlefield, and in the international arena, needs no outside confirmation to know that it is truly independent and strong.

Can Small Numbers of Women Replace Hundreds of Male Tank Core Members?

Courageous IDF commanders must take a public stand. Op-ed.

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

The announcement by first a dozen Hesder yeshiva heads, then another dozen, and now a full half of the Yeshivot Hesder in Israel – followed even by several army preparatory academies – that they will not send their students to serve in the IDF's Armored Corps is a resounding wake-up call and a bright red warning light to the IDF top brass.

Declarations of that nature are not issued easily from yeshivot whose students are a primary and high-quality component of the army's field forces. A glorious combat heritage of Hesder tank soldiers, beginning over 50 years ago, is now threatened with extinction, due to a feminist cause that childishly cares for nothing other than to smash glass ceilings. The problem continues to fester because of the irresponsible cowardice of senior IDF officials who fear confronting it and setting boundaries.

In the Artillery Corps, it's already a lost cause. The hesder yeshivot stopped sending their students to serve there a while ago, given that it became a totally mixed service corps in which the gender boundaries set by Jewish Law can simply not be observed. This has led to a major lack in Artillery reserves personnel, as male students who would have served in the reserves for years afterwards have been replaced by females who, for various predictable reasons, invariably do not show up to serve in the reserves. This is the problem that the Armored Corps, too, will soon face, if nothing is done to stop the introduction of girls into tanks.

It must be emphasized that the deployment of females into the Armored Corps has nothing to do with a lack of manpower. There is no such shortage, because the number of tank soldiers is limited in any event by the amount of tanks in the IDF. At present this number has been reduced, for various reasons; but even if it again rises, there will be no shortage of male soldiers to man them – on condition that the relatively few women are removed and the large number of yeshiva students can return.

From an operational standpoint, the integration of female combat soldiers into the Armored Corps primarily creates unnecessary difficulties. The pilot programs conducted so far have not been a success story. It is no coincidence that the females who were qualified to serve as tank crew members were specifically deployed in non-maneuvering battalions. And although the actions of the female 'Pere' company on October 7 were effective and even saved lives, their battle was not exactly Avigdor Kahalani's battle in the Yom Kippur War. In fact, they were later not permitted to fight inside Gaza.

The current decision to begin training female tank crew members for maneuvering battalions does not address any operational need, but rather only ideological feminist desires. The General Staff orders state unequivocally the right of every religious soldier to demand gender-combat combat service. During this past and ongoing war, it happened many times that troops had to remain locked inside their armored vehicles for days at a time. It goes without saying that it is impossible to maintain basic standards of modesty between men and women under such conditions. Single-gender tank crews do not offer a sufficient solution, because of overnight stays in a building or in defense encampments. Even separate battalions for female soldiers would not be effective, because tank battalions are split into smaller units and attached to infantry and combat engineering battalions and brigades.

And we have not even touched on the expected drop in operational abilities. The idea of ignoring or overlooking physical differences and abilities between the genders is simply dangerous. As several of the Yeshiva heads have said, "The army's main goal is to win, and that critical value is being shunted aside in the drive to satisfy feminist whims."

Where Do the Hareidim Fit In?

Good question. The "lack of consideration," to say the least, for the religious soldiers doesn't exactly encourage hareidi boys to enlist in the army. The hareidi public looks on and says to itself, "If the IDF refuses to take the religious-Zionist public's needs into account, after all the human losses it suffered, just because of a few girls, then why should we believe that they will fulfill their promises to us in the long term?"

This problem must be solved, and quickly. If the IDF commanders don't wake up and explain to the Supreme Court that their latest decision demanding an introductory trial of recruiting women into the Armored Corps this coming November – and we all know that such "trials" quickly become the norm – is simply unworkable, the Prime Minister and Defense Minister will have no choice but to intervene. If not, the military ramifications, as well as those caused by breaking apart the delicate fabric of our society, will become much too dangerous for the State of Israel to safely absorb.

Note 1: In Israel's over 70 Hesder yeshivot, students undergo a five-year program combining Yeshiva study and army service. Yeshiva preparatory academies (mechinot) provide a one-year yeshiva program for students who then go on to serve in the army for three years.

Note 2: After the publication of this article IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir decided that the "pilot" program to integrate female soldiers in the Armed Corps will not be held as planned in November.

The Threat Within: When Will the PA Turn its Guns on Judea and Samaria?

by David Alsbang, Spokesman for the Regavim Movement, translated by Hillel Fendel.

An ordinary morning on the roads of Judea and Samaria (Yesha): A white Palestinian Authority police jeep passes by an IDF checkpoint, the officers exchange a nod with the soldier at the post, and go along their way. To the naked eye, this is a picture of the effective and serene “security coordination” between the IDF and the PA. But behind the pressed uniforms and the old promises of the Oslo Accords lies a completely different reality: the reality of a Palestinian Authority army in the making, armed from head to toe, well-trained, and waiting for the signal to “turn its guns around.”

Thirty years have passed since the famous White House lawn handshakes and the launching of the Oslo Accords. The agreements were clear: The PA would have a limited civilian police force, armed with light weapons with which to preserve public safety in the PA cities. Perhaps slightly less formally, it was also designed to solve internal issues "without the Supreme Court and without [the left-wing civil rights organization] B'Tzelem," as then-Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin said.

However, that's not quite the situation today. A new, disconcerting study by the Regavim Movement – which focuses on land use, construction, and Israeli state policy, particularly in Judea, Samaria, the Negev and the Galilee – reveals that the small police force has grown tremendously both in numbers and in military capabilities. Instead of the agreed-upon 12,000 policemen, we now see at least five times (!) that number, including in the paramilitary National Security, Preventive Security, General Intelligence, and Presidential Guard forces.

This is far from a civilian guard corps; it is on the scale of military divisions in every sense.   

The threat this presents is not just in numbers, but of course also in the quality and mindset of the PA forces. In the past we thought of the PA policemen as directing traffic in Ramallah and Shechem, but today we know their elite units are training for the bona-fide capture of military targets. Neither the commando units like “101” (yes, the name is not coincidental; this was Arik Sharon's special commando unit), which specializes in night warfare and raids, nor its fast motorcycle unit, are intended for fighting local crime. The same applies to the Jericho police training for parachuting, guerilla warfare, and the like, in places such as Russia and Pakistan.

And what of their hateful ideology of those holding and aiming the guns? It is no less dangerous than their military capabilities. In the PA's Al-Istiqlal University in Jericho – which offers academic degrees as it trains students in practical warfare – the students aren't exactly dreaming of "compromise" with Israel. On the official social media accounts of the military training wing, videos are posted under the heading “Blessed Friday” pining not for Bethlehem or Ramallah in Yesha, but for Haifa and Jaffa. Their uniforms signify for them only a temporary status until they can realize the ultimate goal of the “right of return” by force. The PA forces have formulated a clear military doctrine that sanctifies battle as a legitimate tool for eliminating the "occupation" from the river to the sea.

The ongoing security coordination with Israel is basically for the purpose of guaranteeing the flow of money to the PA. Last year's declaration by PA chief Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) of the end of the "pay for slay" program – by which terrorists, or their surviving families, receive life-long salaries for their murderous actions – is basically a sham. A U.S. State Department report presented to Congress states categorically that these PA payments have not at all stopped. Hundreds of millions of dollars are paid out via a "Welfare Authority" that was established specifically to provide funding to terrorists and their families.

A PA policeman knows with confidence that the day he decides to "reverse his gun" and shoot Israeli civilians or soldiers, he and his family will have no more financial worries throughout their lives. Together with the murderous ideology he has been taught since childhood, this is the type of motivation in the back of the mind of every future enemy PA policeman/terrorist.

The writing has long been not just on the wall, but is already engraved in blood. Over the past five years, more than 110 cases have been documented of PA policemen setting out to perpetrate terrorism against Jews. They are invariably killed in the process, leading to ceremonious, PA-sponsored military funerals and the naming of schools and streets for them so that their "heroism" can be remembered by future generations.

The State of Israel has absolutely no choice but to finally awaken from its self-imposed captivity to the false conceptions of "security coordination" and imaginary quiet on the PA front. The assumption that someone else will do the security work for us has proven historically dangerous time after time. The reversal of the guns is no theoretical danger; it has happened in the past, and is simmering in the present. We do not enjoy the privilege of treating a potential ideological enemy of myriads of well-trained and well-equipped soldiers as a far-off scenario.

The question is not whether the threat exists, but when we will wake up to it.

Translator's note: The IDF's large-scale operations against terrorist infrastructures in Jenin and elsewhere, beginning in January 2025 with Operation Iron Wall, saw great success in degrading terrorist capabilities in Yesha – but these had nothing to do with the potential threat from the PA police. In fact, PA security forces actually took part in a small number of battles, and the IDF even briefly considered handing over some of these terrorist areas to PA police control. This precisely supports the premise of this article, which is that the IDF is not taking the threat from the PA police forces themselves sufficiently seriously.

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for the Rising Green Crescent to Set

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

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

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

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

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

This introduction is important for two reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Speak Little and Do

by Rabbi Lior Engelman, translated by Hillel Fendel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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