Civil War Provocations

by Emanuel Shilo, Editor of the Besheva weekly magazine, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The tremendous damage caused, both in the past and present, by left-wing organizations such as "Brothers in Arms" leave them no moral right to impose their divisive stance on the majority. 

1. The Israeli organization that calls itself "Brothers in Arms" revealed this week again its belligerent, divisive and hostile face, after having put on a show of unity and cooperation during the first months of the war. The "Brothers" have now returned to openly place atop their agenda what has always been and still is their overall goal: the overthrow of the Netanyahu government. 

Is it really too much to ask for a "ceasefire" in their ongoing aggression, at a time when the rest of us are working together against cruel external enemies supported by the hypocrisy of the international community? Do they not realize that practically the only thing that our soldiers who continue to endanger their lives, both physically and often economically, are asking is: "Stop fighting with each other!" 

Instead, they have now advanced to their next stage of their no-holds-barred campaign: violent protests and sieges against Israeli drivers. And we know that if all this doesn't work, they still have more ideas – some of which they have used in the past - as to how harm the country and step on its neck until their minority opinion succeeds in toppling the emergency unity government.

The other alternative, of course, is for the usually silent majority to wake up and make it patently clear that this time, they won't succeed; that we won't let them divide us and cause strife; and that those who waved the flag of "refusal to serve" over the IDF, and who violently disrupted the Yom Kippur prayers in Dizengoff Square, have lost their moral right to guide Israeli society and force their opinions upon us.

2. When it comes to the judicial and punitive measures leveled against the protestors, the "selective enforcement" cries out to the heavens in its injustice. The stench of the discrimination in favor of the left-wing protestors attests to a deep rot in the State Prosecution and the legal system. When Moshe Feiglin led civil protests, including road-blockings, 30 years ago against the Oslo Accords, the police cleared the roads very forcefully and quickly, and Feiglin was sentenced to six months of public service and a year on probation. Does anyone think there's a chance in the world that Shikma Bressler, a professor from Weizmann Institute who is using similar, but more acute, methodology in the current protests, will be prosecuted in the same way? No one on the left forgets to mention at every opportunity that Betzalel Smotrich was arrested by the Shabak on suspicion of wanting to light fires on the Ayalon Highway to protest the retreat from Gush Katif – but does anyone expect that those who lit the fires on Ayalon last month will sit even one day in a Shabak prison? Other examples abound, of course; the point is clear. 

It appears that the judges have decided that the left-wing protests must be allowed to continue under all circumstances, while the law itself that prohibits, or at least inhibits, such acts must be enforced only against hareidim, right-wingers, Ethiopians, and other citizens who are not part of the "enlightened" camp. 

3. This does not mean that there is never room for blocking roads as a means of protest. But this tool can be justified only when it is used in the correct proportions, in extreme cases, and of course when those who use it are willing to pay the legal price of doing so. Road-blockings, if carried out, must be a form of protest – not blackmail! Their objective must be to raise public awareness regarding an issue that has not found expression otherwise. But regarding the protests of the Kaplanists [those who protested against the government every week for months at the Kaplan Intersection in Tel Aviv, and who have now resumed this practice], there is no need to block roads in order to bring the issue to the public agenda – for it is in the public eye absolutely all the time, thanks to the many large media outlets that have enlisted for the cause. 

And even when done for the right reasons, road-blockings must be for short periods of time. The idea is that they will be merely bothersome, but not cause misery or harm by forcing tens of thousands of drivers to be stuck in their cars for hours at a time. The Kaplanists and Brothers in Arms are not following these guidelines, nor are they willing to pay for their actions, and this is why the broad public is sick of their divisive and damaging tactics – especially in the midst of a war.

4. Under normal circumstances, "Brothers in Arms" should have disappeared from the public arena immediately following the Oct. 7th massacre. Anyone with eyes in his head saw that one of the reasons Hamas set out to slaughter us was because of the assumption that the IDF had been significantly weakened by the noisy threats of refusal to serve, led and inspired by the Brothers. The fact that in the event, many thousands who had threatened to abandon their country did not do so, and instead fought bravely against the enemy, does not atone for the acute blow to our deterrence that was caused by their threats. 

In this war that was forced upon us, the sociological composition of the combat units was clearly seen in the list of IDF casualties, with a disproportionately high number of religious and Yesha-resident soldiers. This fact alone totally neutralizes the Brothers in Arms' arrogant claims that they speak in the name of those who bear the brunt of the war effort.

The leaders of Brothers in Arms would be well advised to sit in the corner in shame. If they wanted to contribute once the war started and take positive action on behalf of the country – perhaps in order to make up for the some of the damage they caused – they should not have done so under the logo of the organization that caused so much harm. Yes, they did some good things, but these were accompanied by a well-funded PR campaign that presented them as if they were the only body helping out during those difficult hours, and as if they had saved the country. Even if there were any truth to this claim, the bandages they offered us were much too small, in light of the tremendous wounds they caused us beforehand. They were actually just one body among very many that provided help without PR and the need to use their accomplishments for political gain.

5. Public personalities, including leading journalists and Religious-Zionist rabbis, rushed at the beginning of the war to embrace the left-wingers of Be'eri and Kfar Aza who paid such a heavy price. This was in the framework of their desire to increase brotherhood and unity. But they erred when they included in their embrace the leaders of Brothers in Arms as well, before receiving any type of commitment to refrain from again using the weapon of "refusal" in the future. Instead, the Brothers used their newly-gained legitimacy, including recognition by the Knesset Finance Committee as an organization with tax-deductible status, to return to their divisive and dangerous political activity - and during wartime at that.

A word to the well-meaning: Those who are not intimately familiar with the way these activists work, would be well-advised to utilize the services of those who follow them day-to-day so that they not fall into the trap of granting them legitimacy which they then use to harm the State of Israel. 

So Far: Israel's Achievements and Failures in the Gaza War

by Kobi Eliraz, former Advisor to the Defense Minister on Settlement Affairs, translated by Hillel Fendel.

As one who has been actively involved on the front lines in the Gaza Strip for several months now, I am well aware of the gap between the IDF's actual significant achievements in this war, and the public perception that we are not truly making great progress.

While the IDF indeed failed in its mission on October 7th - the result of the mistaken conception we all lived by, some more than others – it is important to know that even that very day, our forces regrouped, recovered, and found great strengths. In reality, we have had quite a few accomplishments on the battlefield, despite the boastful declarations by Hamas and its leaders. In the following lines, I will enumerate these achievements, and also point out the goals and areas in which we need to improve.

Ever since the IDF attacked the Gaza Strip following the Hamas massacre, our forces have exacted a significant civilian toll among the residents on all battlefields – north, south and central Gaza, in both urban and rural areas – while finding much evidence of the widespread extent of their hostility and support for terrorism. 

IDF forces razed tens of thousands of buildings and numerous civilian infrastructures, primarily those used by Hamas. The immense destruction we have caused has decreased, somewhat, the motivation of the other side to attack us and to continue supporting Hamas. It also sends a crucial message to others of our Middle Eastern enemies watching from the sidelines: "Whoever attacks us, remember: the price tag will be heavy."

Thus far, most of the underground infrastructures of Hamas have been destroyed. It is true that we were taken by surprise - and still are at times - from the extent of the underground city in Gaza. The fact is, however, that we have succeeded in destroying 70% of it (according to my estimation), using various means that keep on getting better. By the end of the current offensive in Rafah, I expect that we will have demolished 80% of the infrastructures. 

On the other hand, preserving this achievement and preventing the renewal of these underground cities when Gaza is once again rebuilt are critical objectives, in which we must invest much thought and creativity.  

Another important move that we have made there is to expand the "buffer zone" perimeter to one kilometer throughout the length of the Gaza Strip, within Gaza. Our forces have destroyed every building, orchard and greenhouse in this area, leaving us with a kilometer-wide zone that in effect distances the border from us and enables us a much better defense. Maintaining this achievement also requires much work.

In the seven-plus months of fighting we have also depleted the ranks of the terrorists, killing most of the combat fighters and wounding many as well. Many Nukhba troops (elite Hamas commando units who carried out the Simchat Torah massacre) are still active, but a large part of their leadership has been killed. The remaining enemy forces continue to cause us occasional casualties, but their effectiveness has been clearly depleted. The same is true for the amount of weapons they have, compared to the colossal amounts they held at the beginning of the war.

And last but not at all least: our soldiers' fighting spirit. If there were any questions and doubts about Israel's Tik-Tok generation's motivation to defend their country, the war came along and not only dispelled these reservations, but has shown the opposite. The question marks have become exclamation points, providing great encouragement regarding the state of our youth and society. The fighters take the offensive, and are imbued with a spirit of combativeness, great motivation, and notable capabilities.

Of course, there is still much to improve. Topping the list is the painful matter of the hostages still being held captive in Gaza. Aside from several dozen who were released during the ceasefire, a few others who were rescued by the IDF, and a few corpses that the army was able to locate and extract (involving great effort) – over 120 hostages still remain there, dead or alive. 

Second in importance is the fact that many Hamas leaders, including the top ones, have still not been killed. They are important symbols of Hamas strength, and thereby continue to inject life into the Hamas war effort.

Another point that we must note is that a significant amount of Hamas terrorists have returned to areas that the IDF already succeeded in conquering and cleaning out. They have also begun rebuilding the terrorist infrastructures there. Similar problems have arisen regarding the Philadelphi route and the Rafah district in southern Gaza. This is something that must be dealt with immediately.

The IDF is expected to complete its mission in Rafah within a few weeks, and consideration must be given to the question of who will control the area afterwards. Both above and below ground must be secured, and ground obstacles that will prevent the prevalent smuggling of arms into Gaza must be built. The same applies to the new Netzarim route: Who will hold it, and how? Is another route needed between Rafah and Khan Yunis, and perhaps elsewhere? Despite the controversies surrounding the issue, it is becoming clear to all that the IDF must and will continue to hold the Gaza Strip in the near future, though it is not clear how this will be manifest. Clear statements from Israel's diplomatic echelon are also required here.

Israel's strategy during this war is to conquer territory, save soldiers' lives, and not cause harm to our captives. Fighting this type of war comes at the price of slow advancement of our forces, the enemy's ability to constantly reorganize, and more. In addition, the international pressure, in the form of recognition of a Palestinian state, arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, and the Hague's demand for an end to the Rafah offensive, make it quite difficult for us to achieve our defined war objectives.

It can be said that we have failed to present our case effectively in the world arena, though the international community has long been known for its hypocrisy and ignorance when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict. However, it is still better late than never. We must not give up on the very important issue, and we have no choice but to invest great efforts in fighting on this critical front.  

An objective examination of the seven months of fighting in Gaza reveals significant achievements in the campaign. It can cautiously be said that we are actually winning, though dozens of captives still remain concealed in Gaza. A structured and detailed plan for Israel's continued presence in Gaza for at least the coming decade is direly required.

The Day After

by Dr. Ron Breiman, former Chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel, translated by Hillel Fendel.

What must not be done with Gaza after the war… 

The phrase "the day after" is often bandied about these days, generally in criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu for not laying out a specific program outlining the desired situation following the current war in Gaza. 

It should be known, however, that this phrase is really a code word meaning "return to the conceptzia" – which itself refers to the mistaken mindset of our military and political leadership ("Hamas doesn't want to fight us," "Hamas [and/or Hizbullah] is deterred," etc.) that brought us to the difficult situation in which Israel now finds itself. Most specifically, the idea of a two-state "solution" is false and dangerous, as is similar arrangement in Gaza.

Even given the very complex situation into which we were forced this past Simchat Torah, the following must be patently clear:

** On the day after, under no circumstances may Hamas rule in Gaza, militarily or administratively. To this end, the IDF must defeat it.

** On the day after, under no circumstances may the terrorist-sponsoring Palestinian Authority rule in Gaza – even if the United States says that it has improved and upgraded itself. The PA does not even have the wherewithal to rule in Gaza, if not with the help of the IDF. But the IDF, under all circumstances, may not serve as a silver platter to help the "good" terrorists of the PLO rule over the "bad" terrorists of Hamas. (Don't forget that PLO stands for Palestinian Liberation Organization – in its entirety, from the river to the sea!) The goals of both the PLO and Hamas are the same.

** We must not let the IDF facilitate the formation of a Palestinian Arab state. There would be nothing less ethical than this use of our soldiers' sacrifices.

** On the day after, the State of Israel must not run the civilian lives of the residents of the Gaza Strip via a military administration [as exists in Judea and Samaria – but see below]. 

By the same token, it must be understood clearly that we will brook no more deceptive talk regarding a "small and smart IDF" that will defend Israel. Israel requires a large and effective army [including the hareidim], whose officers are no longer captive to the Oslo view that "two states" will provide a solution to our problems.

If so, we are asked, "What then? There must be a diplomatic approach and strategy that will enable us to leave Gaza."

Yes, it's true: There is currently no choice other than an Israeli military administration in Gaza for as short a period as possible, up to the point that Hamas is totally defeated. And if we don't get to that point of the defeat of Hamas, we'll never get to "the day after!" 

Only after Israel's total victory can there arise in the Gaza Strip a local leadership that will be able to run the lives of the local residents.

This new leadership, if and when it arises, will have to accept the fact that Israel will retain security control over the area. It will also have to engage with various nations with the goal of building a new reality in Gaza – one that will have costs for these other countries as well: 

• Egypt, which shares a border with southern Gaza, will have to contribute its fair share towards a regional solution by enabling several hundred thousand Gazans to rebuild their lives in the Sinai Peninsula. 

• The United Arab Emirates will have to contribute by sponsoring the rebuilding of Gaza and the resettlement of Gazans in Sinai. 

• Saudi Arabia is invited as well to take part in funding these efforts, and also to give up on its demand for a Palestinian state, which is nothing more than a recipe for the destruction of the Jewish State.

• The European countries, often known as the "international community," are asked to be kind enough to absorb Gazans, each country in accordance with its size. There should be 200,000 in each of the large European countries, and proportionately less in the other ones. This will relieve the problem of population density in Gaza.

• Finally, the United States will have to lead a type of Marshall Plan – a post-WW2 program to aid in the economic recovery of Western European countries. Israel will be able to reduce its security involvement in Gaza as this plan progresses.

There are no magic solutions, or even easy ones. The complex reality obligates us to understand that the three other alternatives mentioned above are much worse than the above. We must not grant them the slightest legitimacy.

Post-Colonialism as an Introduction to Anti-Semitism

by Dr. Avi Bareli, historian, and senior lecturer at Ben Gurion University , translated by Hillel Fendel.

Anti-Semitic college students threatening Jews on campus and calling for Israel's liquidation is not a new phenomenon and is not exclusively related to October 7^th. At least since the 1970's, a post-colonial school of thought has spread and gained steam in academia, seeking to explain Zionism based on two seemingly academic assumptions: that there is no Jewish nation, and that the return of this non-nation to "its land" is nothing more than cruel conquest and dispossession.

According to the cultivators of this approach in Western academia, the group of people known as "Jews" has no right to self-determination. They would be best advised to disperse throughout the world and assimilate, or else continue to absorb the special type of hatred known as anti-Semitism [or both]. The source of anti-Jewish hatred, according to this view, lies in religious separatism, or in the Jews' attempt to be a distinct "people" among the nations - in the lands of the Diaspora, or in Palestine, which, it is claimed, is Muslim or Arab in its essence.

This school of thought has a history starting back in 19th century Europe. It is rooted in the liberal ideology of the European multinational states and empires, and then in the "anti-colonialist" propaganda of early Soviet communism (which itself then practiced oppressive colonialism in its territories). European Communism was instilled with a view that the Zionist enterprise was a dispossessing colonialist enterprise – a far cry from a national enterprise of a native, dispossessed, and oppressed people returning to their ancient homeland.

Today's Brand

The contemporary academic school of thought continues to absurdly "explain" the Zionist enterprise and Israel as an enterprise of pure colonialism, based on the Communist legacy. In its historical explanation of the reasons for the establishment of Israel, it is a distinct academic failure. But this has not prevented it from gradually gaining dominance in the humanities and social sciences in Western academia. This dominance is concretized, for example, in the way the elite Harvard University behaved precisely when it was trying to cleanse itself of charges of anti-Semitism. These charges, it will be recalled, were based on the school's negation of the Jews' right to self-determination, and on the absurdity of its president telling the US Congress that calls for Jewish genocide must be evaluated "in context."

And whom did Harvard appoint for the cleansing operation? Jewish History Professor Derek J. Penslar, who teaches courses, inter alia, in the history of Zionism and Israel. He recently told an Israeli media outlet, for example, that "the Zionist enterprise definitely has colonialist attributes." That is, he feels that the post-colonialist, non-nationalist approach provides at least part of the causal explanation for Israel's establishment.

However, he did qualify this by saying that describing Zionism as a colonial, conquering dispossession of another people explains only part of the historic phenomenon of Zionism.

This halfway approach is very evasive. For if we remove the nationalist motivations that brought Jews from around the world to move to, and invest their capital in, Israel, and remain with only the colonialist motives, we are left with no way to explain the success of Zionism. Zionism is primarily and essentially a movement to liberate the Jewish Nation. A historian who runs away from this conclusion for the sake of some "middle ground" – maintaining that Zionism is both colonial and nationalist – will not be able to counter the arguments of a wave of anti-Semitism that denies that Zionism is a movement for national self-determination.

Harvard can rectify its recent anti-Semitism only by totally denying any colonialist nature to Zionism, and not by taking a pareve, in-between approach.

We see the dominance of this post-colonialist approach to explaining Israel in American academia by the very fact that Harvard chose someone like Prof. Penslar to cleanse itself of charges of anti-Semitism. It is not surprising that a historian like him sought, in the above interview, to take a middle-ground approach even between Jews and those who wish to murder them – even to the point in which he makes a form of equivalence between the bloodthirsty sadism of Hamas and the self-defense of Israel.

[Translator's note: The writer seems to be ahead of his time, even if just by a few days, given the decision by the ICC prosecutor to request war-crime warrants for the arrests of both Netanyahu and Sinwar, warmly welcomed by various countries.]

The Tests for Israel and for the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There is none like England in matters of nobility:

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

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

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

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

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

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