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.  

Understanding "Idée Fix" and Ridding the IDF of its Misconceptions

Abridged from an article by journalist Dr. Tzvi Sadan in Israel National News, translated by Hillel Fendel.

One can read on the website of the IDF Intelligence Wing quotes from top army officials at a recent "Intelligence Wing Day" gathering. It was held this year, just 25 days before this past Oct. 7th, and the topic was "50 Years Since the Yom Kippur War" – the war that Israel almost lost because of major intelligence failures. Leading Israeli military figures spoke of the lessons that had been learned since then: 

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said there, "Even today, 50 years later, the lessons we learned then are seared deep into our flesh. We must be ready for war, even if it comes by surprise." 

Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Hertzy Levy said, "The past 50 years have brought us inestimably strong and precise Israeli intelligence."  

Intelligence Chief Maj.-Gen. Aharon Haliwa said, "In order to prevent another intelligence failure, IDF Intelligence has turned Yom Kippur into a professional and profound day of reckoning." 

These three men, those who were responsible for fulfilling the words "Never Again!" for the State of Israel, were, simply put, totally blinded. Their remarks proved, just 25 days later, to be totally inaccurate and detached from reality. 

Some explain this colossal failure as rooted in "hubris," arrogance that leads to catastrophe.  

But the inclination to place total blame on one body (Intelligence) and on one person (the head of Intelligence) is actually very dangerous. This is because it is liable to overlook and free of responsibility all those others who were party and partners to the formation and acceptance of the false intelligence evaluation. But neither can the responsibility borne by the Intelligence Wing be made light of: The Intelligence Wing and its head serve as a type of military oracle, whose evaluations are accepted as a form of prophecy. 

In truth, blame for the colossal failure of Oct. 7th can be placed upon the idea known as idée fixe, i.e, described correctly by Wikipedia as follows: "A preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it."  

Wikipedia in Hebrew adds: "This refers to a sickly condition in which one is not aware of his blindness, rejects all criticism, and even blames his critics." This is not the same thing as a misconception or being entrapped in the conception of a particular ideology or outlook. The problem of a wrong "conception" becomes an idée fixe when people insist on retaining their conception even after it has been proven wrong.  

The IDF's conception of reality before Oct. 7, which unfortunately seems not to have changed since then, is based on a twisted ideology. Inter alia, it sees the murderers of Jews as normative people deserving of all civil rights based on the foundation of "Human Dignity and Liberty." 

How did this IDF ideology begin? It began when philosopher Prof. Asa Kasher wrote the IDF Code of Ethics, a dogmatic document of principles of faith that, apparently, are never to be doubted or questioned. One of the ideals promoted by this Code of Ethics – unparalleled in any other army in the world – is that the IDF "and its soldiers… must maintain and preserve human dignity of every person" – even if that person was captured after having murdered, raped, burnt, and captured Jews from ages 10 months to over 80 years.  

The Code instructs IDF soldiers "never to use their weapons or strength to harm people who are not warriors or who are prisoners, and to do everything possible [emphasis added] to prevent harm to their lives, bodies, dignity, and property." 

In short, the IDF Code of Ethics with its emphasis on "the supreme importance of human life," instructs our soldiers to do precisely the opposite of what an army is supposed to do: to kill the enemy and harm his health and property. The Code tells the soldier that he must "endanger himself and his comrades to the extent necessary to fulfill this mission." Again, this includes those who claim to be "innocent bystanders" yet actually supported, in many ways, the above crimes of murder, rape, kidnapping and the like.  

It was apparently this Code of Ethics that led to the hospitalization in Israel of the very terrorists who carried out the massacre, adjacent to several of those who were wounded there! This happened within days of the massacre, and a stop was put to it only after an outburst of public outrage. 

Returning to the military idée fixe, we must recall the many times over the years that IDF experts reassured us that Hamas was "deterred" from starting up with us. In fact, after every one of the 16 operations or mini-operations that the IDF carried out in Gaza since 2005, the General Staff boasted, "We have succeeded once again, and Hamas is deterred." [Translator's note: Precise quotes are provided in the original Hebrew article.] 

The famous unparalleled-ethical spirit of the IDF, and its adherence to the idee fixe that its approach to Hamas is the absolute truth, especially after the "Holocaust in the Negev," is now seen to be a spirit of evil that needs to be expelled and eradicated. Until this happens, someone - perhaps the Minister of Defense - should demand that someone - perhaps the Chief of Staff – finally wake up and realize that what it thought was the unbridled and unchallengeable veritable truth, might not be quite that.

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.