Letter to The Committee Edinburgh University Student Association

by Denis M. MacEoin, an academic, scholar and writer with a focus on Persian, Arabic and Islamic studies.

May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain 's great Middle East experts in their day. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University . Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field. I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote.

I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel.

That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves. Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those members of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby.

Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I'm not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel . I'm speaking of a hatred that  permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out.  Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a "Nazi" state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nuremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel , precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for.

It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.

Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled how things were in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is.

That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country's 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha'is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world center; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population).

In Iran , the Bahai's (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren't your members boycotting Iran ? Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa . They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews - something no blacks were able to do in South Africa .

Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.

In Israel , women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid.

Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home.

It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran , where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief.

Intelligent students thinking it's better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?

University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak.

I do not object to well-documented criticism of Israel . I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it's clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens.

Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya , Bahrain , Saudi Arabia , Yemen , and Iran . They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world's freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that

protects the Bahai's.... Need I go on?

The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott. I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. Ask for some speakers. Listen to more than one side.

Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument.

They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930's (which, sadly, there was not), don't you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it?

Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense. I have given you some of the evidence.

It's up to you to find out more.

Yours sincerely,

Denis MacEoin

The Cruel Choice Leads to Just One Conclusion

by Haggai Huberman, long-time Arutz-7 military and Yesha affairs correspondent, translated by Hillel Fendel.

True, the continued combat in Gaza endangers the hostages, but it's also the only chance to save most of them.

Thomas Friedman, in one of his recent New York Times columns, revealed details from an exchange between US President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu this past week. He wrote that Biden, in pushing for a Palestinian state, presented Netanyahu with the following two choices: "Either you'll go down in history as the one who rejected any chance at ending the conflict by cooperating with the Palestinians and the one who led to Oct. 7^th – or you will be the Israeli leader who granted a state to the Palestinians, guaranteed Israel's security, and led to peace with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world."

In other words, according to Friedman, Biden was offering Netanyahu the opportunity to be remembered either as a failed Prime Minister who made a comeback, or as one who, like an idiot, turned his failure into an even greater catastrophe.

Joe Biden is the latest in an illustrious line of American presidents who never really understood the reality of the Middle East – and therefore lived in dreamland amid fantasies and who never advanced any type of positive plan for the region. More than once they actually made the situation worse. The Rogers Plan, the Reagan Plan, the Clinton Outline, the Road Map of Bush, the Obama Program – these great plans of US presidents with their unrealistic dreams all ended up in the trashcans of history.  

An example of the dangerous folly of Biden's present plan is this: As Friedman tells it, the United States is trying to promote a scenario that will include a deal to release the Israeli hostages, transfer administrative control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, and introduce a multi-national force into the Strip to maintain order. Biden has overlooked just one thing: How can both of the first two elements coexist at all, given that the main demand and condition of Hamas for any hostage release is that it retains control over Gaza?

Biden, like his predecessors, doesn't understand that there is a built-in contradiction in an offer to be the Israeli leader who both "granted a state to the Palestinians" and also "guaranteed Israel's security." A Palestinian state and Israeli security are a contradiction in terms. If, Heaven forbid, a Palestinian state should ever be established in which the IDF does not rule and control the entire expanse of Judea and Samaria, the results are unthinkable. The scenes that we saw this past Simchat Torah, of thousands of Hamas terrorists roaring through the streets of Sderot, Ofakim, Nachal Oz and Be'eri on motorcycles and pickup trucks, will be repeated in Kfar Saba, Modiin, and Rosh HaAyin. Kfar Yona (near Netanya) will look like Kfar Aza, Netiv HaLamed-Heh (outside Gush Etzion) will be as Netiv HaAsarah (immediately north of Gaza), and Givat Oz (west of Afula) will be like Nachal Oz.

Please don't give me the knee-jerk response, "It can never happen." This is exactly what will happen, as it did just recently, if a Palestinian state arises – and therefore it will not arise. Not because of Ben-Gvir, but because of the instinctive responsibility that Netanyahu and his government, and even many on the left, have for Israel's future.

The writer of a very recent Times article claims to have interviewed four Israeli generals who requested anonymity. Like every other Israeli citizen, I have no idea who these four might be, but I can say that some of their claims against the Netanyahu government are totally groundless. For instance, they reportedly said, "The diplomatic path – a deal to release the hostages – will be the fastest way to return the Israelis who remain in Hamas captivity." Pure nonsense.

But one claim of theirs is on target: "The stated goals of the war – release of the hostages and destruction of Hamas – clash with each other." This is true, although not 100%. They are right in their evaluation that dismantling Hamas will require lengthy battles, but to say that "the result will most likely cost us the hostages' lives" is far from a fact. The continued combat for the purpose of destroying Hamas endangers the captives, yes – but it is the only chance to save them, or at least most of them.

There is much to say in criticism of Netanyahu. It is intolerable from every standpoint that he does not talk for extended periods with his Defense Minister. Leaks from the Cabinet meetings indicate that some of them have turned into a circus. The ongoing problems of the citizens evacuated from their homes in the north and south are a genuine crime. And of course, how is it possible that the government allows so much "humanitarian aid" – nothing less than material aid to our enemies during wartime – to enter Gaza? Soon the world will demand that we allow Hamas to receive weapons as well…

But at the same time, to say that Netanyahu "has no strategy" is totally groundless. Netanyahu most definitely has a very clear strategy – one that is correct, in my opinion – but he simply cannot say it out loud, and certainly not to the families of the hostages. It is that "destruction of Hamas takes precedence over the release of the hostages, and even if it comes at their expense." There is no choice. Hamas has not offered a practical proposal for the hostages' freedom, other than a total Israeli surrender in its totally just war. That is, Hamas expects an immediate end to the war, an IDF withdrawal from all of Gaza, a guarantee that Hamas will continue to reign in Gaza, and even the release of all terrorists from Israeli prisons. This is of course not something that any Israeli prime minister with a minimal sense of responsibility would ever agree to. All that remains, then, is to keep on fighting, at all costs, until victory.

I have nothing bad to say about the behavior of the families of the captives. They are doing what they feel and think from their own point of view. But let us remember the words of the late MK and late Lechi fighter Geulah Cohen, who told the government ministers: "If my son were captive, I would demand that you pay any price for his release – but I would also expect you not to listen to me." Netanyahu must embrace the families, but under no circumstances follow their dictates.

---- Editorial note: Yesterday's tragic incident in which 21 IDF soldiers lost their lives in Gaza took place just 600 meters from the Jewish town of Kisufim, and was part of the critical battle for Israelis to be able to return to their homes. For a studied but not cynical explanation of what happened from a military and strategic standpoint, see this IsraelNationalNews article: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/384045

100 Days of Valor and Insights

by Yehuda Veld, Director-General of the Religious-Zionism Party & leading Channel 13 journalist Ro'i Yanovsky, translated by Hillel Fendel.

"A day or two after we finished the battle in Kfar Aza in the wake of the Hamas massacre, amid the terrible chaos that everyone had just gone through, a woman resident threw a pointed accusation at us: 'You failed us, you weren't here when we needed you.'" So writes Yehuda Vald, Director-General of the Religious-Zionism party, in his summation of his 100 days in the reserves training in the north and fighting in Gaza. 

"At first I didn't get it. After all, on the morning of Simchat Torah (Oct. 7), I ran home from the festive synagogue prayers to get into my IDF uniform, give a quick kiss to my children, and within a few hours I was already with my paratrooper battalion in Kfar Aza battling the terrorists. But then I understood that she wasn't criticizing me personally, but rather the IDF and the State of Israel altogether – of which we, with our uniforms, were the representatives. It cannot be denied that the IDF and the State failed, we all failed; we did not guarantee the safety of our brethren in the face of evil. Our uniforms that day reflected despair and not hope – and that is something that for the next 100 days, we all set out to rectify.

"The scenes of Oct. 7th in and around the communities adjacent to Gaza are something I'll never forget – neither the horrors, nor the valor and heroism. Both of these simply sharpened for me the great responsibility lying heavily on the shoulders of our nation, our army, and each individual soldier, to restore our national honor, our spirit, and our bonds of mutual accountability.  

"Throughout these long weeks of combat in the streets of Gaza, it is the scenes of that Oct. 7th Shabbat that were the burning fire pushing us forward. The tradition of courage and valor that the IDF fighters continue to write every day is what illuminates for us the military operations that we have to execute. The spirit of dedication and self-sacrifice, and the strengths of the beloved families that remained back on the home front – all these obligate us to ensure the victory of light over darkness, to destroy Hamas, and to return home the captives that the forces of evil continue to cruelly hold in unbearable conditions. 

"It is no exaggeration to say that in nearly every single house in Gaza appear pictures of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount – together, in most cases, with weapons, ammunition, and tunnel openings. We have to remember that Hamas wants to conquer not only Be'eri and Nir Oz; they would happily continue their murderous rampage all the way up to the gates of Jerusalem. They call this war the "Al-Aqsa Campaign," because the Dome of the Rock is their ultimate objective; let us make no mistake. What they teach their children, toddlers, and babies is the unparalleled value of hating Jews and of capturing Jerusalem. 

"Remembering that this war is for Jerusalem, our national heart, puts things into a different perspective. Our Sages taught us that Yerushalayim is the city that "chubra la yachdav," renders all of us chaverim, friends. How much friendship and comradery is coming to the fore in this war! Who has not seen the tremendous wellsprings of unity and caring and generosity that continue to gush forth. Jerusalem reveals the depth our nation, and teaches us who we really are. 

"Despite the differences among us, which most definitely exist and which we must learn to live with and manage, we know that there is a true inner point stronger than all the differences and that genuinely keeps us together. The same guy who right before Simchat Torah we argued with on the streets of Tel Aviv over some 'critical' issue – now you've been living with him for months in the same house in Gaza, and you both find that you need each other and count on each other for the common higher goal. "Yerushalayim renders us all friends."

 "The fighters of Division 55 liberated Jerusalem in the Six Day War; they were those who stood before the Western Wall with tears in their eyes. And now we, the fighters of today's Division 55, stand in the streets of Gaza with the same spirit, the same heroic resolve, and the same steadfast faith in our path. During one of our missions to clear out terrorists from a compound of houses in Gaza, suddenly on our transistor radio we hear a song playing from decades ago: "Who could have dreamt, when we recited the verse 'On thy ramparts, O Jerusalem, I have placed watchmen' – that one day, we would be those watchmen." At that minute, in that house in Khan Yunis, we sensed that we were all united, standing together with the warriors of the Six Day War, as one man with one heart. 

"One hundred days of valor have passed thus far. May we, with G-d's help, be worthy and grow from them, nationally and individually – as a nation that will rise up as a great lion, and raise himself as a young lion" (Bamidbar 23,24). 

Veteran journalist Ro'i Yanovsky sums up his 100 days from a more political standpoint: 

"Gaza is thought of as a failed, crowded, besieged area – but there is no greater lie than this. Gaza City is a modern, beautiful and developed city, with large and well-stocked houses, broad streets, public areas, and a beautiful seafront. It looks much nicer than any other Arab city from the Jordan [River] to the sea.  

"If what they were living under was a siege, then let me live in a siege. The houses are bursting with goods and food from all over the Middle East, the furniture is the most modern, and their electric appliances are top-notch. There are fancy estates that would not shame Savyon. Wealth is not lacking in Gaza. 

"The sentence 'They were never given a chance for a good life, that's why they have to fight Israel' has nothing at all to do with Gaza."

Yanovsky adds that every house seems to have a map of the Land of Israel, "but it is called Palestine, without a mention of the State of Israel or its towns and cities. It is found in every home, every school, and every public building. The goal of erasing Israel is seen and taught everywhere, and this is the warped perception that the Gazans grow up with."

"The ideology of Hamas is found everywhere. Hamas is as beloved in Gaza as Messi is in Argentina." 

"The strongest ammunition Hamas has is deception and propaganda; this is their fuel. This is how they maintained for years the lie of the 'siege,' and this what they're doing now with the pictures of the 'innocent' victims, and the killing of 'journalists' who turn out to be terrorists. Gaza is the only place in the world where they report 500 deaths a half-hour after an explosion. Everywhere else it takes days to count the dead, but in Gaza, the 'health ministry' already knows after one minute the exact extent of the damage. The fact that the international media quotes these ridiculous numbers is pathetic."

The Threat from Lebanon that We May Not Ignore

by Yoni Rotenberg, northern front reservist and Besheva columnist, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Generally, the return home of IDF soldiers from an emergency call-up, such as that which is happening these days with many soldiers – though far from all of them – is a time of joy and family festivities. The fact that my modest weekly column is appearing here in Besheva once again after a long hiatus shows that I am among these soldiers – but our joy is far from complete. 

Even though this has been the longest broad-scale emergency call-up in at least 40 years, many of the young soldiers already have their next call-up dates in hand. Our feeling now is more one of a "temporary break" than of a true return to civilian life. This is true regarding the Gaza front, but even more in terms of the northern front, from where my friends and I came home. 

Our exit from the outpost facing the Hizbullah rockets was accompanied by strongly mixed feelings. We were of course happy to be going home, and we were pretty worn down – but it was also hard to ignore the fact that the situation in our strategical outpost was exactly the same as it was when we first reached it many weeks earlier. True, some 200 Hizbullah terrorists have been killed so far during the war, and there is even an apparently accurate intelligence evaluation that a large part of the Redwan forces have retreated northward deep into Lebanese territory. But on the ground, the threats from the north remain as before. 

And regarding the threats emanating from Lebanon for the past three months, there is a sense that the average citizen at home does not understand the revolutionary change in the way Israel has to defend itself in the north, relative to the 2006 Lebanese War and before then. To the classic threats of inexact, steep-track (as opposed to direct aim) rockets have now been added precise and deadly dangers: camera-guided shoulder missiles, scout drones, and explosives-bearing unmanned aircraft.

The mode of defense in the north has changed entirely since the 7th of October. The operative assumption now – which has been proven hundreds of times in the past three months – is that any IDF soldier or military target that is exposed to the Lebanese villages will be fired upon within a matter of seconds. The Hizbullah weapon of choice is a Cornet shoulder-fired missile, which is fired by direct aim, is very precise, and is very fast. Sadly, not a few soldiers have been killed or wounded by Cornet missiles since the war started. The IDF has managed to locate and liquidate a fair number of Cornet terrorist squads, but the number of rockets fired daily has remained about the same. The terrorists move quickly behind and between trees and brush and tunnel shafts, and it is therefore not easy to sight and stop them.

Unmanned aircraft are not as common, though the threat they present is greater. They can locate soldiers who are otherwise hidden to Hizbullah eyes, and they can maneuver in the sky and drop down, kamikaze-like, with their explosives into various targets. On the other hand, they are relatively slow and can be intercepted by Israeli batteries. Our own battalion lost Sgt.-Maj. Yechezkel Azariah, 53, to one of these explosive drones just about three weeks ago. 

These direct threats on our northern settlements and forces are currently a great challenge for the IDF. In the community that my comrades and I protected, most of the streets are exposed to Lebanon and are under constant rocket threat. The local town council of Metulah, Israel's most northern town which abuts the Lebanese border from the east, north and west, faces even more serious conditions. The residents have been evacuated, and want to return home after living in hotels for three months – but only if their security can be guaranteed, which it cannot. A simple analysis of the situation shows that there is no magic solution to this dilemma, other than something that includes much more intensive fighting and initiative on our part.

We must state clearly and emphatically: The State of Israel may not, under any circumstances, return to the "conception" that led us to the catastrophe of Oct. 7th. We may not try to analyze Hizbullah's motivations, nor can we allow ourselves to say things such as, "Hizbullah is not Hamas" or "Hizbullah feels responsible for the residents of southern Lebanon [and will therefore not want to start a war]." Statements such as these are no longer relevant. We must not think for a moment that our northern residents can return home because Hizbullah will not fire at them for whatever reason; these fanatic jihadsists make no logical calculations when they see warm Jewish blood before their eyes. 

I do not envy anyone in our government who has to captain our ship in these very stormy and threatening waters. However, our 1,200 victims of the Simchat Torah massacre demand of us that we guarantee that Jewish blood never again be spilt in the name of calculations of "arrangements" and postponing what absolutely needs to be done.

We Can't Change the Media, But We Can Change How We Relate to it

by Yisrael Pasternak Director-General, Israel Construction Center, translated by Hillel Fendel.

How much are people in Israel really interested in all the hatred and in-fighting? The average guy on the street is interested only in victory in the war, the welfare of the soldiers, and the hostages. Everything else is marginal. 

1. A visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu at the north-Gaza front made headlines last week. For me, the most exciting and moving aspect of it was the fact that that's where our soldiers are. Throughout the video of the visit, soldiers can be seen asking Netanyahu just one thing: "Please don't stop the war in the middle! Let's do it until we finish!" They're not worried about themselves at all. They realize that they are a part of something much bigger than each of them as individuals: a fight for the future of the Nation of Israel. The talk on the front is not about their individual needs. They give everything, but everything!, for victory. Incredible. 
2. Haggai Lober of Beit El, still now sitting shiva for his son Yehonatan who was killed in battle in Gaza, made an impassioned but chilling plea at the funeral: "We embrace the entire Nation of Israel, and we ask the media, and everyone in our nation, please! Let us have one day – one day! – of unity on behalf of the soul of my son. Please, do not write and do not broadcast anything that smacks of dissention. Please, speak only good; highlight the good among our national decision-makers and among our wonderful nation that Yehonatan was so proud to fight for. One day of togetherness and of good things to say. Yehonatan would be so happy up there." What strengths! 
3. Precisely because of the great spirit we see and experience both at the battlefront and the homefront, especially among bereaved parents of fallen soldiers, it was so hard for me to read a post by a young officer who came home from the battles for the first time in two months. He wrote sadly: "I was sure that Israel would look different than before and would be united. But when I opened the internet and news and social media for the first time in all those weeks, all I saw was black. The same old brotherly hatred… Very depressing." 
4. This presents a very strong question that bothers almost every single one of us: How can there be such a great fracture between the war front and back home, to the extent that when a soldier returns home, he nearly breaks down? Where does his great spirit and strength that he had in battle disappear to when he returns home? 
5. The answer is simple: What a soldier sees when he opens the news is not the homefront – but rather the media! The press floods us with content that simply fans the flames of hatred and social friction. Don't expect to see anything other than that, because that type of content is precisely what fuels each typical newspaper and website. For a journalistic project to succeed, it must evoke strong emotions – the stronger, the better. If not, it will simply be glossed over and ignored by the masses of media consumers. The topics of hatred and disputes are the very stuff of controversy, which itself is the essential necessary ingredient for a "successful" piece.  
6. If you would stop an average Yehuda or Yehudit on a street in Israel, you would find that the topics that most interest them are winning the war, how the soldiers are doing, and the hostages. Everything else is marginal, by a wide margin. Still and all, these topics don’t guarantee wide readership; how many times can they talk about unity, love of Israel, and concern for our soldiers? And so, the writers are stuck talking about the types of things that stir up not only controversy, but even hatred. Such hatred weakens society – even though it, still, exists much more in print and on the screens than it does in real life. 
7. With this in mind, I ask two things: When you open a news site, don't expect to see only Israeli flags and stories of how Jews are coming together during this period. In addition, don't assume that what you do see on the screen actually portrays Israeli reality. Even in wartime, the media continues to do what it knows best: stir up controversy, even where it doesn't really exist.  
8. On the other hand, those who are over-exposed to or over-influenced by the media should take heart from a fine initiative of the Jerusalem Municipality, the eternal city in which I have the privilege of residing. Ever since the war started, the city streets have been filled with Israeli flags, including on announcement boards and traffic roundabouts. The emotions they stir up are positive, as if the city is reminding us: "Nation of Israel, I'm with you – even in the simple things!"  
9. We have no expectations of being able to change the media sometime soon. We simply have to recognize their modus operandi, take what they say in the proper proportions, and "consume" them only as necessary – until the desired changes come. 

But for now, let's try to be constructive members of Am Yisrael in the simple things. As Haggai Lober said, "Let's not write or broadcast – or forward to others – anything that smacks of dissention. Highlight the good among our national decision-makers and among our wonderful nation that Yehonatan was so proud to fight for. Let's have one day of togetherness and good things to say."  

A reality like that is much stronger and more truthful than what we see now on our screens. Let's just simply be Am Yisrael.