Why Not Just Bomb the Building

by MK Tzvi Sukkot a member of the Religious Zionism party, translated by Hillel Fendel.

MK Tzvi Sukkot – a member of the Religious Zionism party and former Director-General of the Jewish Power party – was tremendously concerned, as were many, by the fact that nine IDF officers and soldiers were killed last week in a military operation to clear out terrorists from a building. "Why were instructions not given to the Air Force to bomb the building instead of having our infantry endanger themselves?" was a frequent question. MK Sukkot investigated the matter, and wrote the following summation as to what he learned.

First, however, it must be made clear that in this specific case, the entire battle was initiated based on intelligence that Israeli hostages were in the building – in which case, aerial bombing was clearly not an option. Regarding the aerial bombing policy in general, Sukkot wrote: 

One of the main jobs of Knesset Members is to oversee the activities of the various arms of government. The overseeing of the IDF is done in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member.

When I heard of the terrible incident in which a large number of Golani Brigade soldiers were killed, my first thoughts too were: "How could it be that the building wasn't taken down beforehand from the air? Why would we endanger our soldiers in this way?" The parts of me that have trouble trusting some of our institutions immediately woke up, and I and a few colleagues conducted a mini-investigation.  

I spoke with senior army people, soldiers in the field, earth-works contractors, bulldozer operators, people with experience in both the military and in razing buildings, officers in charge of heavy equipment in Gaza, and more. Not including the material that I am not at liberty to share, here are my conclusions: 

1. There are approximately a quarter of a million buildings in Gaza. Even if we wanted to raze all of them, there are simply not enough armaments in the entire world to do so. Thus that this is clearly not an option. 
2. In the US, houses are built with wood, in Israel we build with layers of concrete blocks, and in Gaza they build with concrete. This means that the Israel Air Force (IAF) requires very specific armaments to raze a building of several floors. True, a half-destroyed building that is cannot be used for housing, but terrorists can certainly use it as a hideout, as they have done many times – and especially if the building is atop a tunnel opening. It is therefore not always beneficial to bomb buildings from the air. It is thus regrettable that a report originated in the U.S. this week saying that it takes only 20 minutes to bring down a building. That might be true for wooden houses, but certainly not for concrete ones. 
3. What about using a D9 bulldozer? The answer is that though it is quite large and powerful, it cannot bring down a building of several stories without gravely endangering the driver. Other giant bulldozers with long reaches are simply not in sufficient supply. In addition, securing an operation to demolish a four-story house takes more time and resources – and risks – than does checking it over by foot. Anyone who has ever seen the demolition of a building knows how long it takes.
4. The heavy equipment owned by the IDF is used practically 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for both combat activity and leveling out areas.
5. Buildings can be demolished with the help of explosives – but to this end, soldiers must arrive physically at the building and place the explosive at critical points of the building. Such that the explosives don’t spare us the need to endanger our soldiers.
6. Our previous rounds of battle with the terrorists of Gaza were based almost totally on IAF air raids – and we saw the sorry results these led to. Most fortunately, this time the IDF and the decision-makers understood that the methodology must be changed and that the areas must really be cleaned out. But this can only be done if we are able to get physically to the buildings, where we can find and destroy the underground bases and positions - and terrorists. When it is possible to bomb from the air, the IAF does so, but if it is not the strategically correct thing to do, then not. When the planes do not bomb, it is not because we're worried about harming innocent lives – and certainly not in a terrorist-infested neighborhood like Sajaiye. 

The pain at losing our soldiers is tremendous, and we must constantly be on the alert that progressive agendas do not infiltrate the IDF, as has happened in the past. I am the last person to call for placing blind trust in everything that the IDF or our government does. But it must be said, based on soldiers' testimonies from the battlefield, that the combat in Gaza is increasingly being waged the way we always wanted: minimum risk to soldiers, maximum aggressiveness in liquidating the enemy.

And why is it important to write this? Because when we are in wartime and fighting constant heavy daily battles, we may not give our soldiers the sense that they are dying in vain. That would be the most dangerous threat of all. No one – no mother, no wife, and no soldier – should have to think that we are sending our best boys to die in vain, especially when it is totally untrue.

Now is the time to give full backing to our heroic soldiers!

Gaza and Israel: The Fantasy of the Day After

by veteran Arutz-7 correspondent Haggai Huberman, translated by Hillel Fendel.

One of the questions occupying the thoughts and "expert" opinions of many in the Israeli media, the Government of Israel, and the Biden Administration is what to do with Gaza when the current war ends. 

One of the more bizarre ideas being considered is that the Palestinian Authority, led by Fatah chief Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), must make certain changes and then take over the control of the Gaza Strip. These changes include: 

• stopping all PA activity against Israel in international bodies such as The Hague
• stopping all incitement against Israel in its media, textbooks, et al
• stopping all salaries and payments to terrorists sitting in Israeli prisons for their crimes
• and of course doing away with all internal PA corruption.

This idea is the fruit of the thinking not only of leading Biden Administration clerks, but also, and perhaps even more so, of the Israeli left.  And so I would like to address my dear fantasizing brethren here at home: Please wake up and return to solid ground! The chance that these changes will be made is approximately equivalent to the chance that Iran will announce a unilateral disarmament of its nuclear capabilities, that Nasrallah will destroy the many thousands of Hizbullah rockets he is pointing at Israel, and that the Hamas murderers now hiding for their lives in tunnels will give up their weapons this afternoon and announce that they are immigrating en-masse to Indonesia.

One would have thought that after the total collapse of so many clichés that have supported the peace camp over the years, it would finally come to its senses over the true intentions of our enemies. For instance, they long enthusiastically promoted the concept of "territories in exchange for peace" – which led directly to what has happened in Gaza since October 7th (Simchat Torah). It is now clear to all, or should be, that their dream of peace with the Palestinians, as they envisioned it, will not happen. 

Another left-wing cliché that has lost its vitality is "Israel cannot exist as a Jewish and democratic state if a Palestinian state is not established alongside it." Everyone now sees what came of the Palestinian entity that has existed in Gaza since the infamous Disengagement 18 years ago.

How can we be so sure that the Palestinian Authority will not make the necessary changes and become the civilized neighbor for which we have pined all these many years? Because those changes would negate the PA's essential existence. It has not made these changes in the 30 years of its existence not because they are lazy, but because teaching their children to hate Israel, the important value of martyrdom, and supporting terrorist murderers and their families are the fundamental elements of the very foundations of their societal existence and of what they hold dear. 

Ever since its establishment as a result of the Oslo Accords of the early 1990's, the PA's media and textbooks have been replete with incitement and hatred against Israel – despite all the many promises of its leaders to change this. For 30 years it has been supporting terrorists and their families with monthly salaries, while all this time its leaders have corruptly shaved off monies for their own personal use. Whoever believes that the PA will suddenly change its stripes, even to receive control over Gaza, is simply floating in outer space.

Another claim that has been heard in Israel these past weeks is this: The Government of Israel must decide right now the future of the Gaza Strip not only because Biden demands it, but also because the IDF cannot continue onto the next stages of its combat in Gaza without knowing the overall national strategy and plans for the area.

The logic of this claim escapes me. The IDF has a clear objective: to destroy the military capabilities of Hamas. This mission has nothing to do with who or what will control Gaza after Hamas is out of the picture. It has only to do with destroying the entire Hamas tunnels network, as large as it is, as well as all of its rockets, and killing as many terrorists as possible, including of course its leaders such as Yichye Sinwar and Muhammed Def. Though these goals might take a while, the IDF can definitely accomplish them, despite the accompanying difficulties, even without knowing what will happen afterwards.

It is nice to know that at least on one point even the Israeli left agrees: the fact that the security control of Gaza must remain exclusively in Israeli hands. No military entity other than the Israel Defense Forces can be entrusted with the responsibility of protecting Israel. 

Administrative and civilian control is another story. The questions are many: What civilian entity will run the lives of the Arab populace in Gaza? How much of the area will be under its control? How many Arabs will remain altogether in Gaza? What will be the future borders of the Gaza Strip? How much of the area will serve as a buffer zone between it and Israel? 

The plethora of question marks means that it would be a total waste of time and energy to try to predict such a cloudy and unstable future. First let us win – and afterwards we will already know what to do.

In Exchange for Hostages: "The Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Me – Lives Next Door Once Again"

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

 

In exchange for the dozens of Israeli hostages cruelly captured and held by Hamas, Israel released three times that number of terrorists – women and minors (as if it makes a difference to their victims). While none of them actually murdered Jews, some of them came quite close to doing so, and only miraculously are their victims still alive. 

Hagit Rosenbaum of the BeSheva weekly interviewed a Jewish mother of the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood in Jerusalem, in light of the release of a female terrorist who tried to stab her to death before the eyes of her four children. The attacker, 16-year-old Nafouz Jez Aref Hamed, was sentenced to 14 years in prison, but served only two of them before the hostage-terrorist deal came along.  

"When they originally told me that she was on the list of terrorists to be released," Moriah Cohen said, "I refused to believe it. Even now, I still can't believe that she has returned and is living right here in the neighborhood. It is terribly frustrating, as well as scary. I had to sit with my children and try to calm them down. I had to find a way to help them overcome their fear, even though there is really no way, since she's no longer in jail and is right here. Today they refused to go outside to the car even for a minute unless I went with them. They were with me during the attack and they saw everything." 

Cohen asks: "Why couldn't they at least have demanded that she not return to her home? Why can't they nullify her citizenship? To return her to her home right opposite the children whom she almost murdered – it's insane!" 

With the help of the Honenu civil rights organization, Moriah Cohen has begun a campaign to bring about the distancing of the would-be murderer from her home forever. "We will do everything we can so that we will not have to see her and that she should not frighten us and disrupt our routine," said Moriah.  

The campaign has been partially successful thus far. Following a request/demand by Honenu, the Jerusalem Magistrates Court issued a temporary restraining order forbidding the young terrorist from coming near Mrs. Cohen or children, and from making any contact with them. Another hearing will soon be held on permanent restrictions.  

Honenu continues to demand that this small step be expanded, and that the police do whatever necessary to ensure the security of the Cohen family. 

Two other Jews - shot at and injured moderately-to-seriously by a young Palestinian terrorist almost a year ago – asked that "their" terrorist not be freed. Yaakov Moses and Moshe Hass, who are still undergoing procedures for their full recovery, asked PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant to remove his name from their lists of terrorists to be released. They were unsuccessful, however, and the terrorist – whose legal proceedings had not yet even begun – was released. Atty. Chaim Bleicher of Honenu demands that the authorities give more consideration to the victims of terrorist crimes when deciding whom to release – and how to release them. 

Wrong, Blinken: Settler Violence is Minor

adapted from articles by Shilo Fried, Makor Rishon newspaper, translated by Hillel Fendel. 

It has been widely reported that the Biden Administration, perhaps most vocally represented by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has placed a heavy emphasis on stopping "settler violence" against Arabs of Judea and Samaria. The U.S. has even announced that it will restrict the entry of some Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria into its borders. 

But the facts actually indicate that there is no such phenomenon as "settler violence." Even IDF Central District Commander Gen. Yehuda Fuchs - in many ways no friend of the Jewish settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria – has said, "99% of the hilltop youth do nothing wrong to anyone, not to the army and not to others. There is no such concept as 'settler violence.' There are incidents of violence in all kinds of places." 

Left-wing organizations have initiated a campaign of late against a supposed increase in settler violence, which has had international success. Belgium, for instance, has announced that it will forbid entry into the country of "extremist settlers."  

However, Shiloh Fried of the Makor Rishon newspaper has reported, based on law-enforcement sources, that there is actually a significant decrease in violent incidents in general between Jewish residents and Arabs in Judea and Samaria.  

The data show that in the month beginning Oct. 7, there were 20 violent incidents – as compared to 53 in the same period last year. Similarly, the number of cases in which property was damaged during this period was down from 19 last year to 10 this year.  

Prime Minister Netanyahu has addressed the issue, minimizing its extent while at the same time seemingly trying to appease the White House. He has said that only "a handful of extremists who do not represent the public take the law into their hands and cause great damage to Israel. We are unwilling to tolerate this and we will act against it." General Security Service (Shabak) head Ronen Barr said that the number of these "extremists" is not more than 40, of whom some do not even live in Judea and Samaria.  

In response to strong accusations and even sanctions against Yesha extremists – which often leave the impression that the entire Yesha public is guilty – Yesha Council head Shlomo Ne'eman said: "We were surprised to see that the President of the United States, who from the beginning of the war has been on the side of truth and justice, has chosen to fall into the trap of the deceptive campaign by [left-wing organizations] B'Tzelem and Breaking the Silence. Mr. President, please understand that 'settler violence' is the fruit of the imagination of fringe left-wing propaganda." 

Strong punitive measures have been taken against Jews of Yesha, at least some of which have been found to be unjustified. For instance, just last month an IDF soldier was returned to his army unit, after having been under arrest for five days on suspicion of having killed an Arab in the Shomron. Ultimately, the IDF Military Court ordered him released after finding that a small Arab mob had approached, threw rocks and dangerous objects, and threatened the lives of his family, leading the soldier to shoot in self-defense and kill one of the Arabs.   

Just today, a youth named Elisha Yered, who resides in southern Shomron, was placed under administrative arrest for at least 24 hours, with no explanation. He has been living in the Jordan Valley for the last several months because of a restraining order signed by Gen. Fuchs. An IDF military court shortened the order, such that it was to end three weeks from now. In the meanwhile, however, Fuchs submitted an appeal of this decision – and Yered suddenly found himself under arrest. 

Approximately six other Jews are currently being held in administrative detention. Just this past Friday, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant signed a four-month order against one youth, leading to strong criticism by the Honenu civil rights organization: "Gallant is acting like the representative of the US in the Israeli government. There seem to be no laws, no government – just orders from Biden, the result of a campaign to blacken the settlers by anti-Semitic organizations abroad. Israel deserves its own Minister of Defense, not one acting on behalf of the U.S." 

Fried further reported that MK Tzvi Sukkot (Religious Zionism), Chairman of the Knesset Subcommittee on Judea/Samaria Affairs, turned to the IDF Spokesman and asked that an announcement be issued denying the phenomenon of "settler violence." Sukkot said today, however, that no official announcement to this effect has yet been issued. 

Also just recently, the IDF Prosecution announced that because of a "lack of evidence," it will not indict axe-wielding Arab attackers of a Jew. The reason is that the Israel Police refuse to question the Jew, for two reasons: He is still undergoing operations after having been seriously wounded in the attack, including a loss of consciousness, and also because of the message it would give over. "This was a nationalist attack of Arab terrorism against a Jewish victim, and we will not cooperate with placing the blame on the latter," Fried was told in the name of the police. Thus, just a month after the nearly fatal attack, the perpetrators have been set free.  

In short, it may be justifiably said that the "settler violence" being bandied about in high-level negotiating rooms and in the media should more correctly be applied to the violence perpetrated upon the settlers.

Terrorists Who "Give Up" Must Still be Shot

by Michael Puah in INN, translated by Hillel Fendel. 

This past Thursday, Yuval Kestelman shot and killed a terrorist who had just murdered three Jews, then raised his hands and showed that he had no bomb on him – and was shot and killed by a reserves soldier who thought he was a terrorist. Was the soldier wrong?  

The death of the hero Yuval Kestelman was very shocking and tragic – but it must not confuse us: Terrorists who commit, or try to commit, murderous attacks must be killed. 

Yuval was a true hero. This past Thursday morning, he ran towards two Hamas terrorists who were in the midst of gunning down Jews at the entrance to Jerusalem. He was practically on top of one of them when he, together with two IDF reserves soldiers, shot and killed him and the other terrorist. He thus saved many people. However, in the midst of the raging battle, and specifically because he was so close to the terrorists, the soldiers thought he was one of the attackers. Yuval raised his hands, and even his shirt, but it didn't help him: The soldiers figured that terrorists can also raise their hands and shirt. At least one of them fired, and Yuval was taken to the hospital with wounds from which he would not recover. 

This terrible incident is hard to swallow and raises strong emotions from all angles. The heart of the question is: Should terrorists engaged in an attack, but who appear to present no threat at the moment, be shot? 

The raising of hands during warfare is a universally agreed-upon signal by which to signal surrender. According to Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, armed forces that lay down their arms must be treated humanely. The idea is that when armies battle against each other, a soldier who lays down his arms and raises his hands thus leaves the circle of combat and becomes a prisoner of war, whose rights are clear and defined by the Convention. 

However, Article 4 of the same Convention states that these principles apply only to parties that are bound to the Convention and who bear an identifying mark that can be identified from afar. Clearly, terrorists who murder civilians do not operate according to the laws of war and do not identify themselves in advance. Their claim to protection by virtue of their raising hands and laying down weapons does therefore not apply to them.  

For years, the judicial establishment and the Israeli left operated in opposition to this principle and sought to imbue us with the deception that it is forbidden to kill a terrorist after he raises his hands or is wounded. [Translator's note: This phenomenon continues even as this is being translated: IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Hertzi HaLevy said this afternoon that terrorists with their hands up should not be shot…] This undermines our ability to protect ourselves. It has led terrorists to take advantage and continue to shoot even after they had "given up."  

Even worse, citizens and soldiers who endangered their lives to liquidate terrorists have found themselves under interrogation, even being punished, for their courageous actions. We all remember the trial and imprisonment of El'or Azariah, whose case brought the issue to the heart of the headlines. 

Of late, the understanding was beginning to take root that a terrorist who even merely attempted murder, and all the more so if he succeeded, must not come out of the attack alive. This, even though the Shabak would then be unable to interrogate him and obtain important information. On the other hand, the deterrence factor is invaluable, and in addition, we will also be saved from having to hold him in luxurious prison conditions throughout his life – or at least until the next prisoner exchange… 

A dead terrorist will not be able to serve as a bargaining chip for the release of Israeli hostages, will never be released in any deal, and will certainly not return to terrorist activity, as many prisoners who were freed did – including Hamas chieftain Yichye Sinwar. In short, a dead terrorist will never kill again. Killing terrorists under these conditions is the appropriate way to act, morally and justly – even though it can also be painfully dangerous, as unfortunately happened in the death of Yuval Kestelman. 

We can sum up and say that whoever shoots, even when seemingly justifiably, must be very cautious and focused. But as a society that desires to exist, we must support and back even soldiers who make a mistake.  

The IDF announcement that no one whose hands are raised may be shot, and the interrogation "under caution" and the arrest of the soldier in the Kestelman shooting, endanger all of us. It returns the State of Israel to the old and dangerous conceptions that brought us to the horrific events of this past Simchat Torah. To liken the terrorists of Hamas in any way to soldiers protected by the Geneva Convention is simply an unethical comparison. It grants preference to the cruel perpetrators of atrocities over Israeli citizens and soldiers who endanger their lives in battle with them. This mistaken "morality" sometimes even enables the terrorists to continue their cruel attacks – whether immediately in the same attack, or later after they are released. 

The killing of the courageous Yuval Kestelman is truly heart-rending – but we must not allow harm to befall soldiers who made a mistake, no matter how grave the results. The soldiers involved must be questioned at length, so that we can learn from their mistakes. But they must not be questioned under caution, i.e., with the express suspicion that they have committed a crime. Nor must they be taken to task for the way they acted under the pressure of a hopefully life-saving mission that lasted for mere seconds. Similarly, confiscating their weapons and imposing other disciplinary measures against these heroic soldiers is liable to cost us immediate responses in future attacks.  

We don't want to castrate ourselves as a society that desires life, and we don't want further murders.