The Judge Chose Family

by Hagit Rosenbaum, Besheva correspondent, translated by Hillel Fendel.

A judge in Haifa ruled that the Technion cannot shut down a student cell that promotes family values

A ruling like the one handed down a few days ago by Haifa District Court Judge Menachem Raniel has not been seen in these parts for quite a while. A firm and fair stance by a judge in Israel to the side of an organization that supports family values has most unfortunately become a rare judicial jewel of late.

Judge Raniel accepted in its entirety the claim of the Technion's "Choosing Family" organization against the university's administration, and ordered the president of the Technion to allow the cell members to act freely, without having to change its name. The judge also ordered the university to allow the group to adapt part of the Technion's logo within its own logo, just like all the other groups on campus do. He didn't stop there, and levied nearly 12,000 shekels of court costs upon the University. 

Not only is the ruling an exciting victory - at least as long as no appeal is filed that might lead to its overturning - for the conservative organization over the LGBT winds blowing in the Technion's administration, the road that led to it was equally fascinating. In his 40-page verdict, Judge Raniel carefully analyzes each of the quotes brought by the Technion to "prove" the invalidity of the Choosing Family movement and its leader Michael Fuah. His conclusion is that there is nothing wrong with the cell's activities to encourage the values ​​of the familiar and traditional family unit. In the Jewish State, this would appear to be self-evident.

The establishment of the campus Choosing Family club in the Technion was accompanied by all sorts of problems from the very outset. First the LGBT activists on campus did not like the group's message, and then they brought Technion President Uri Sivan on board with them. 

"When we originally held our founding meeting," Puah recounted, "President Sivan wrote us an encouraging letter, basically saying that there's room for everyone on campus. But the LGBT groups put their pressure on, and a few days letter, Sivan issued another letter in which he made a complete U-turn. He wrote that we are out of bounds, that I am forbidden to enter the campus, that our cell may not carry out any activity in the Technion, and that we incite and cause disturbances and hatred and harm to the students of the Technion."

"Choosing Family" in fact lowered its profile, maintaining only a Facebook page and holding no public activities. But then, just before Chanukah in late 2021, the members decided to hold a very minor event, without the "inciting" presence of Puah and aimed only at Technion graduates. The topic was to be: How to bridge between the needs of family and those of work. After everything was already approved and the event was publicized, suddenly the university issued a ban on the event – unless the sponsoring group, "Choosing Family," was not mentioned at all!

"That was already too much for us," said Puah. "We were forced to cancel the event, and we decided to file a lawsuit against the Technion. We claimed both that they were not allowing us to hold activities, and not allowing us to use a letter from the Technion's logo in our own logo – something that all the other campus cells are allowed to do. We claimed that this was pure discrimination."

It was not only the Administration, of course, that was involved in the campaign against Choosing Family. Professors in the institution wrote public letters against it, and the Haaretz newspaper came out with a large article against the cell and the traditional, non-LGBT values that it promulgates. Puah is also filing a claim of defamation against Haaretz.

Puah is quite pleased with the ruling: "The judge dissected every single one of our statements that the Technion claimed incriminated us – and showed that what we said is legitimate and acceptable. He actually came out strongly against the Technion, asking rhetorically if, when it calls itself a liberal institution, does that mean that only liberal people and groups have the right to self-expression, or are the religious and conservative also allowed to speak on campus? He actually came down quite hard on them."

Judge Raniel rejected every accusation levied against Puah, the Choosing Family cell, and the Choosing Family movement in general. He said that nothing Puah said – except for one particular statement by Puah that requires further examination – disqualifies them from taking part in the public discourse. Because, based on the group's Facebook page, there were actually no "offensive and poisonous sayings" on their part, as had been accused, the judge ruled that the Technion's ban on the group's activities is null and void.

For example, the judge wrote that "the central position of the organization is that Israel should not recognize any family structure other than what it calls the 'natural family.' This view cannot be considered illegitimate, because it reflects the legal reality in the State of Israel." That is, Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages, unless they were effected in or by foreign countries. "It cannot be that the opinion of one who wishes to retain the legal status-quo is not legitimate, and that the only legitimate opinion is held by those who wish to change the current status."

"Even the organization's position that other family structures are destructive of our society is one that should be dealt with, by using convincing arguments to say that other family formats build society in a different way, and not just be prevented from being heard."

Here's another quote from the ruling, for yet another breath of fresh air: "The conclusion from the evidence that has been presented is that Choosing Family stands for positions that are part of a sharp controversy regarding the concept of 'family.' But even when the organization calls those who object to its positions 'family destroyers' and the like, these are not expressions of hatred, but rather the group's opinion regarding what they do, and are not curses or attempted humiliation." How simple, logical, and just – and sadly, not self-evident.

Choosing Family plans to sue the Technion for damages caused it over the two years it was unable to hold activities, as well as for defamation. It will also sue for the harm caused to Puah himself – who in the past delivered many lectures in the Technion, but was of late prevented from doing so by President Sivan's edict. 

Puah says that a similar situation is developing in Ben Gurion University in Be'er Sheva, whose administration is making life difficult for Choosing Family. The university has actually sued Choosing Family for 100,000 shekels for using what it claims is its trademarked university logo. "Not only has the symbol not been registered for 20 years," says Puah, "but we found, based on a Freedom of Information inquiry, that the university never demanded that any other organization receive permission for using its logo, and no other organization every asked for such."

Back in Haifa, Choosing Family will begin in the coming days planning its activities for the coming semester, including gatherings, lectures, and the like – and this time, with the official kashrut certificate of the State of Israel.

Israel Must Rebuild Jewish Gaza

by Michael Freund, Jewish Journal of Los Angeles.

As Israel's ground operations against Hamas in Gaza continue, an open question that remains unanswered is what will happen the day after the terrorist organization is eliminated.

Various proposals have been bandied about, one more unrealistic than the other, leaving the fate of the territory and its inhabitants uncertain.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and expelled 9,000 Jews living in 21 communities there, the Palestinian Authority was given the task of administering the area, but its corruption and mismanagement paved the way for Hamas to take control two years later. Realistically, then, there is no Palestinian leadership with a proven track record that can be trusted to run Gaza for the benefit of its people while also preventing attacks against the Jewish state.

Hence, I want to suggest a simple, though far from simplistic, solution: Israel should reassert full military and civilian control over Gaza and rebuild the Jewish communities that were uprooted. This is the only way to ensure that Gaza will both prosper and not pose a threat to Israel's existence.

After all, in August 2005, we were assured by then-prime minister Ariel Sharon, and much of the mainstream media, that Israel's pullout would strengthen Palestinian moderates, weaken Islamic extremists, and silence the world's criticism. Those who opposed the withdrawal, myself included, were derided as pessimists and naysayers.

But if the October 7 attack taught us anything, it is that the lack of an Israeli presence in Gaza undermined the country's deterrent posture and intelligence-gathering capability and allowed Hamas to plan and train at will.

That cannot and must not be allowed to happen ever again.

Anyone who studies the region knows that it is a basic and fundamental truth of Zionist history and Middle Eastern reality that Jewish settlements are not an obstacle to peace but an impediment to war.

Moreover, Hamas' goal of destroying Israel is based in part on the assumption that the Jewish presence in that part of the world is temporary or transitory. Logically, the best way to combat that is to demonstrate in a tangible way that it is wrong and that the Jewish people are not going anywhere.

The fact is that Gaza has a long and proud Jewish history that stretches back to biblical times.

During the Talmudic era, Gaza was home to a large Jewish population and served as a major port of commerce. Indeed, one of the oldest synagogues ever found in the Land of Israel is in Gaza, and it dates back to the early sixth century, more than 1,400 years before Hamas or the PLO were founded. During the Middle Ages, Gaza was home to a thriving Jewish community, including in Rafah, where Jews flourished for nearly 300 years until the arrival of the Crusaders in the 12th century.

Gaza also boasted its share of prominent rabbis who left a lasting imprint on Judaism. These include Rabbi Yisrael Najara, author of "Kah Ribbon Olam," the popular hymn sung in Jewish homes around the world every Shabbat. He served as Gaza's chief rabbi until his death in 1625, and he was buried in the city's Jewish cemetery. Yes, Gaza had an ancient Jewish cemetery.

It is perhaps due to the Jewish people's deep roots in Gaza that despite having been expelled from the Strip seven times over the past 2,000 years, they always sought to return. In 61 CE, the Romans evicted the Jews from Gaza, as did the Crusaders, Napoleon, the Ottoman Turks, the British Army in 1929, and the Egyptians in 1948.

After the Six-Day War, when Jews once again returned to Gaza, building flourishing communities that were subsequently demolished in 2005 as part of Israel's withdrawal.

The very idea that Gaza, or anywhere else for that matter, should be off-limits to Jews is discriminatory and antisemitic, and there is no reason to deny Israelis who wish to resettle Gaza the right to do so.

By reviving Gazan Jewish communities, Israel can rewrite the reality on the ground and send a clear message to the Palestinians: The more you try to kill us, the more we will rebuild.

Sure, such a move will not be popular in the White House or at the United Nations, but nothing Israel does ever really is.

Regardless, full Israeli control over Gaza is the best guarantee that the strip of land along the Mediterranean will thrive, for both Jews and Arabs alike.

How the Biden Administration's Policies Have Led to the Gravest Escalation in the Middle East in Decades.

by Nitzan David Fuchs, geopolitical analyst, Makor Rishon columnist, and "The Great Game" podcast host, translated by Hillel Fendel.

If anyone was surprised at the Biden Administration's restrained response to the murderous Hizbullah rocket attack on the Israeli-Druze city of Majdal Shams that killed 12 teenagers, he has not been paying attention very well for the past nine months. Note, too, that this a response also includes the expectation that Israel should show similar restraint.

The Biden-Harris government has committed itself to the concept of "de-escalation," even in light of blatant Iranian provocations. The primary question for Israel is how to navigate its moves so that it can properly protect its citizens under such circumstances. 

De-escalation has become a mantra in the strategic discourse of the Administration. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan tends to use it very often in various contexts, from Gaza to Ukraine. In an article in November 2023, Sullivan wrote proudly of the Administration's success in de-escalating the Gaza-Israel situation – without analyzing whether the mega-event of the month before had been a result of that policy. 

What exactly is de-escalation? The nub of the Biden-Harris strategy and order of priorities is this: China is the primary challenge, and everything else, including Iran, is secondary. De-escalation therefore dictates a policy of reducing tensions with Iran, including giving preference to diplomatic channels over a military conflict, all for the goal of freeing up resources for a clash with China.

This strategy has produced mixed results. While the resuscitation of the nuclear agreement with Iran has failed, understandings have been reached to ease sanctions against Iran in return for Iranian restraint in its race to achieve nuclear bomb capabilities. On the ground, Tehran continued to enrich uranium, though at a slower rate, and stepped up its support for Russia, while improving its international standing. The Biden-Harris regime chose to ignore these developments, in return for relative quiet.  

The murderous Hamas onslaught of Oct. 7th shook up regional stability, but did not change the American strategy. The Administration continued to stick with de-escalation, in an attempt to contain the warfare in Gaza and to prevent a broad regional escalation. Even in the face of attacks on American forces in Syria and Iraq, the US response remained restrained, allowing for a strong but still restrained military response only after American lives were lost. 

The Houthi threat on maritime freedom in the Red Sea – a historic and vital American interest – also elicited a lukewarm US response. The American rejoinder focused on thwarting future attacks, and was nowhere near a comprehensive offensive against the Houthis. 

The climax of the de-escalation policy came in reaction to the unprecedented Iranian attack against Israel this past April. Israel successfully repelled the more than 300 Iranian drones and missiles fired at Israel, and the Americans viewed this as a great victory for the regional air defenses. Others, such as Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the like saw it very differently. They have likely chalked it up in their book as proof of Iran's ability to target Israel, or possibly any American ally, with impunity and barely any US response. The United States is allowing Iran to behave with increasing aggressiveness – which ironically is itself what will increase the chances of a crisis that will force it to retaliate militarily.

The policy of de-escalation is expected to continue under a future Harris presidency, if the American electorate so decides. Israel will have to get used to the fact that American support for its military initiatives will be limited, even if this strengthens Iran and its proxies. If Donald Trump is elected, he can perhaps be expected to take a more aggressive approach vis-à-vis Iran, but it is still doubtful whether he will want or tolerate a regional war. 

The conclusion is straightforward: No one in the world can act for Israel's security except for Israel.

Make a Hostage Deal Soon – But Not Yet!

by Emanuel Shilo, editor of Besheva, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The IDF's latest successes – both in battle and in eliminating Hamas leaders – bring us closer to breaking the fighting spirit of both Hamas and the Gazan populace. Now is not the time to stop!

The elimination two Sabbaths ago of arch-terrorist and Hamas mastermind Muhammed Deif two weeks ago – no proof that he is alive has been forthcoming since then – is of truly critical strategic importance in the ongoing war in Gaza. The Sabbath-observant public in Israel was happy to once again be the last to hear about this great success, just as it was regarding the IDF's Sabbath rescue of four hostages several weeks ago. Keep the good news coming, no matter when we hear about them!

The strike in Khan Yunis in which, with near certainty, Deif was killed, also did away with one of his associates and a mastermind of the October 7th attacks, Khan Yunis Brigade commander Rafa’a Salameh. The bombing attack is likely to become the decisive success of the current war – on condition that the Government of Israel and the IDF do not fall into the trap of giving away our military achievements of the past months, and those on the way, in exchange for a pot of porridge in the form of a surrender agreement with Hamas. The deal currently under consideration would return only some of the hostages, and would require at least six weeks of ceasefire during which Hamas will be able to regroup, regain control, and prepare for the next round of war. 

The assassination of Deif was enabled because the IDF took control of the Philadelphi Route in Rafah, on the Gaza-Egypt border. This move was a true game-changer, as is evident by the measure of flexibility that Hamas has actually been showing of late in the negotiations with Israel. It is as clear as day that Sinwar and his men are suffering from a shortage of armaments, given Israel's destruction of many – but not all – arms tunnels from Egypt under Rafah to Gaza. This marks the beginning of the end for Hamas, with its paucity of production means and trade connections. What Hamas needs now is nothing other than a deal with Israel that will halt the fighting; time is not working in Sinwar's favor. 

Proof that the murderous Hamas terrorist organization is very short on armaments lies in the fact that it has stopped firing long-range missiles into central Israel. It used to be, during the rounds of fighting that broke out every few years between Hamas and Israel, that Hamas would let loose with large numbers of such rockets towards Ashkelon and elsewhere – but recently, there have been little if any such attacks. In addition, Kassam and other projectiles are much less frequent than they used to be. In many cases, the IDF, which is deployed widely in and around the Gaza Strip, succeeds in identifying and eliminating the terrorists and their rocket launchers within minutes of their rocket launches.

As long as the IDF continues to hold the Philadelphi Route and engage in destroying the remaining tunnels under it, the total depletion of Hamas weaponry is just a matter of time. With persistence and patience, we can make sure to clean out Gaza of all weapons and explosive materials. We will discover and collapse more and more tunnels, and we will reach every weapons manufacturing lab. Gone will be the days when acquiring an RPG launcher in Gaza was as easy as buying a broom. 

It won't happen in a week or a month, and it might even be years – but with much firmness and patience, and Divine help and inspiration, it is within our ability to get the job done, as long as we don't fill ourselves with weakness and cowardice. 

One of the more interesting reports that emerged after the Khan Yunis strike was that of former senior Israeli journalist Yoni Ben-Menachem, a researcher for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He wrote that the prize offered by Israel of $100,000 for information about Muhammed Deif was shared by two Gazan residents, who supplied information about his whereabouts. 

This must be taken in the context of the difficulties that the ongoing war is having on the average Gaza resident. Typical Gazans who are sick of the war, and of the Hamas leadership that caused and is causing it, can very likely be induced to cooperate with Israel, for a monetary price of course. This could then lead to the finding and rescue of additional hostages, and even the locating and targeting of the few remaining senior Hamas leaders, such as Yichye Sinwar.  

It's not only money that interests the Gazans. The action that took out Deif and Salameh also killed dozens of local residents, demonstrating the dangers inherent in living near the terrorist leaders, and even in the vicinity of Israeli hostages. As time goes on, more and more Gazans will be interested in helping Israel defeat Hamas and end the war. All that is needed is to continue to apply military and other pressure upon Sinwar and Hamas. 

Thus, we can also expect, if we are consistent, to rescue more hostages, either militarily or via hostage-holders who come forward to IDF representatives on their own (for a hefty sum of money). But even if not, we can expect that Sinwar will be increasingly willing to relax his conditions for a deal as he increasingly realizes that his end is otherwise near. It is likely that he will be happy to settle for his own safe passage out of Gaza, together with his close family and aides, in exchange for the release of the remaining hostages. 

But in order for all this to happen, Israel must exhibit cohesiveness, stability, and determination. When the enemy sees us bickering among ourselves, and when we give the sense that the government is about to fall, and when we act as if Israel is on its way to giving up on all the war objectives it set for itself in the days after Simchat Torah – and all this simply for only some of the hostages – then we prop up the enemy with our own hands, and fan anew the flames of their flickering battle spirit. 

"Yes to victory, no to a cave-in agreement!" This must be the message that the Prime Minister and all our politicians must receive from the public. And this is also the demand that IDF leaders must hear from the fighters and officers in the field. Most unfortunately, the senior security echelons - whose leaders bear the primary responsibility (aside from Hamas) for the travesty of Oct. 7 - are still entrapped in the "conceptions" that led to it in the first place. They are willing to give up a victory, and for what? For a hostage deal of doubtful value. Their pangs of conscience for the suffering caused to the hostages and their families because of their terrible mistakes are pushing them to try to find a solution for today's problems without concern for the dire security situation in which the entire State of Israel will find itself a short time afterwards. As the Torah tells us, those who are too scared to fight a war like they should – let them turn back and go home.

Response to The Hague: Sovereignty Now!

by Yossi Dagan, Head of the Shomron Regional Council, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The international court in The Hague ruled scandalously and anti-Semitically several days ago that the entire Jewish settlement enterprise in the Jewish homeland areas of Judea and Samaria, as well as eastern Jerusalem, is illegal. The ruling is not binding, but it certainly increases both the pressure on, and the isolation of, Israel in the international arena. 

How must Israel respond? It must grow a backbone and a proud national posture, and respond with a unilateral decision of its own, to counter the court's one-sided decision: Israel must immediately annex all of Judea and Samaria and declare sovereignty there.

It was just before the onset of this past Sabbath that we heard the initial reports of the latest anti-Israel decision by the circus known as the International Court of Justice in The Hague – which was not a surprise in any way. The court headed by Judge Nawaf Salam of Lebanon, a country run by Hizbullah, ruled that Israel is an occupying power in its own homeland – Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem. But not only there: the same applies to Gush Katif, from where we voluntarily transferred nearly 9,000 men, women, and children, as well as gravesites, in the course of our unilateral withdrawal 19 years ago.

The Court's "Advisory Opinion" on this matter is so ridiculous, so detached from the reality of the evidence and of international law itself, that it can lead us to only one, incontrovertible conclusion: This international court decision is, not for the first time, openly anti-Semitic. The ruling is not based on one single piece of true or serious evidence. It in fact brings us back to the Medieval era courts, in which decisions were made first and evidence was sought only afterwards. 

Judea and Samaria – Yehuda v'Shomron, in Hebrew, or "Yesha" for short – is the cradle of Jewish history. The word "Jew" even stems from the name "Judea." It was here that the Patriarch Abraham, and his descendants Isaac and Jacob and their sons, walked the sacred soil. The first Temple was here in Shilo, and the Machpelah Cave, in which are buried our holy ancestors Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Leah, and Jacob and Leah, is here in Hevron. In between Jerusalem and Hevron is Bethlehem, where the Matriarch Rachel was interred and where the Prophet Jeremiah envisioned her weeping over her exiled sons and daughters. And here was established the first Jewish kingdom by King David, and here was erected the altar of Yehoshua bin Nun.

It cannot be said, therefore, that the Jewish Nation, is a conqueror or occupier of the area of Judea. The Bible, accepted as G-d's truth even by Christians and Muslims, testifies like 1,000 witnesses that the Land of Israel belongs to no one but the People of Israel.

On a more technical level, a simple reason that Israel cannot be an occupying power here is because the territory was not under any national sovereignty at the time Israel took it over. Jordan's annexation of eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria in 1949 was not recognized by the international community, not even the Arab League – such that the area was desolate of foreign ownership when Israel entered the picture.

This latest decision reached in The Hague was not only one-sided and unjust. It was a ringing slap in the face to Israel and its efforts over the course of decades not to make unilateral decisions in Yesha, and to thus leave the way open for dialogue. Such a brazen anti-Israel move cannot go unanswered by Israel, and the response must be absolutely unambiguous. Israel must respond with a proud national posture and issue its own one-sided decision, just as The Hague did.

Namely, Israel must apply its sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, as a clear response to the anti-Semitic and laughable decision by the ICJ in The Hague. The time to do this has long passed, but it is not too late.