Stop the Iranian Arms Smuggling from Jordan into Israel!

by Shai Alon, Mayor of Beit El, translated by Hillel Fendel.

These past two weeks provided several close-up opportunities for us to learn about a matter that has been of great concern for many years. It is something that the mayors of municipal councils and towns in Yosh (Judea and Samaria) have long been loudly warning about. I'm referring to the smuggling of large amounts of weapons, from Iran and elsewhere, into Judea and Samaria – for use against local pioneering Jews, and also in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

We saw in recent days and weeks a failed suicide terrorist in Tel Aviv; the elimination of Asin al Makdah in Lebanon, who together with his brother ran an arms smuggling operation into Yosh; and clear indications of anti-personnel mines among PA elements in Yosh. 

This is not a new phenomenon that we never knew about. It is rather something that has simply been not attended to sufficiently. Old Israel – i.e., Israel before Oct. 7th – acted in a tactical, local, and insufficient manner against the well-planned Iranian strategy that is gradually headed towards massive arming of the Arabs of Yosh and the terror organizations there. 

Old Israel, which carried out the successful Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, followed it by entering a phase of relative passivity vis-à-vis the terrorists. It thus bought a measure of quiet in Yosh, at the price of the continued entry of weapons and armed terrorists into the region. These policies of the past 20 years have brought us to a situation in which the IDF is unable to enter the PA villages without facing concrete threats to the lives of our soldiers. 

All these years, Israel preferred to avoid friction, and what we received was a threat many times larger than what we would have faced had we acted as we should have against the Iran/Jordan/PA smugglings into Judea and Samaria. 

Some ten days ago, the miraculous failure of a terrorist to detonate a suitcase full of explosives inside a packed Tel Aviv synagogue is an example of the sad reality in Yosh: Hamas and Islamic Jihad are recruiting more and more terrorists to their ranks in Judea and Samaria, as opposed to in Gaza, and are using advanced weaponry to carry out major attacks on civilian targets. 

The failed attack in Tel Aviv is actually a success from their standpoint, because of the fact that the terrorist was able to penetrate so deeply into "little Israel" with a large amount of explosives without being detected. The calamity that was avoided thanks to Divine Providence attests, more than ever, to the danger that our security forces face in Judea and Samaria. This was not an unusual incident, but rather a dangerous precedent. 

It is now the turn of "new Israel," the post-Oct. 7th Israel, to act differently and to take the bull by the horns. This could be the great opportunity of the still-new IDF Central Commander, Gen. Avi Blut, to take charge of our eastern border, through which many weapons have been smuggled, and make an essential change. True, we're engaged in a war already. But the State of Israel, and particularly its security establishment, may not allow themselves to take its eyes off this major strategic threat. 

The Arabs of Yosh's Jordan Valley, on the Jordanian border, have the will, intention, and ability to supply terrorists with many weapons and powerful charges. It is incumbent upon the security forces in the area to step up their offensives against the terrorist bodies that are increasingly establishing themselves as a leading arena in Judea and Samaria. The IDF must encircle the city centers, go from house to house, and simply clean them out of all weapons. The terrorists in Yosh must not be allowed to feel safe in their homes or in their market places. We must strengthen and reinforce the eastern border, and we must establish systems for identification, monitoring and warning, even as our ongoing security activities continue alongside it.

The current reality leaves us no choice. Israel must carry out a wide-ranging operation, as we have been calling for even before the current war began, and as is just as applicable and relevant even now. 

If not, the calamity that was averted in Tel Aviv will return to plague us in a different locale, but with horrific consequences, Heaven forbid. In order for this not to happen, we must truly internalize how explosive the situation is at present, take strong action against the smuggling, and search for and collect all the smuggled-in, dangerous weapons in Judea and Samaria.  

The recent successful liquidation of a smuggler in Lebanon must be the opening shot for "new Israel" and new, take-the-initiative policies to effectively answer our security needs.

The Dangers of the Narrow Waistline in Israel

Adapted from an article by journalist and former Likud MK Yossi Achimeir translated by Hillel Fendel.

Not many people remember that until 57 years ago, before 1967, Israel did not rule over Judea and Samaria. And yet, even so, no Palestinian state existed in these areas, nor was there a demand for one.

Actually, of course, an independent Palestinian state never existed in history, in Judea and Samaria or anywhere else. The areas west of the Jordan River were long known as the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and no one ever demanded that they be "liberated," or become home to an independent country.

King Hussein, the monarch of Jordan from 1953 until his death in 1999, was a ruler who did not tolerate insurgency. Any hint of a possible rebellion against the Hashemite Kingdom was immediately put down with an iron fist by the Jordanian Legion. Mercy played no role.

When the Six Day War broke out, King Hussein made the mistake of his life by joining up with the armies of Egypt and Syria against Israel – leading to his loss of Judea, Samaria, and of course, eastern Jerusalem and environs.

What happened was that the Legion fired mortar shells from the area of Kalkilye towards Tel Aviv; nearby Kibbutz Bahan, east of Netanya, was heavily bombarded in the process. Israel did not hesitate, and not only repelled the attacks, but conquered the entire area.

Why was the response so sharp and immediate? Because the Jordanian attack represented a major threat to divide the Jewish State into two parts, north and south. Only about 15 kilometers separate Netanya from the former Green Line that marked the border between Israel and Jordan. By repelling the Jordanian offensive, Israel ended up the war in control not only of Sinai, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, but also of all of Judea and Samaria (Yesha). By removing the threat from Jordan, this became the greatest of Israel's victories over her enemies.

We're now 57 years later, and reminders of the acute dangers we faced at the beginning of the Six Day War are again on our radar screen. The reminders come in the form of growing threats, but also in a more passive form: the sign at a new monument in memory of Captain Assaf Master of Kibbutz Bahan. Master was killed at the beginning of the current war while battling Palestinian terrorists in northern Gaza.

The Council for the Preservation of Cultural Sites in Israel erected a sign outside the Assaf Lookout, erected near Bahan in the fallen soldier's memory. The sign announces simply: "The Narrow Waistline of the State of Israel." It explains that the very fact of the narrow waistline was a grave danger for Israel before 1967, in that an enemy force could arrive from the east, quickly cut across to the sea, and slice the country in half. 

There is no better place for such a sign than the Assaf Lookout. For from here can be seen, on the east, the fence (with its many holes, through which Palestinians sneak into Israel) between Israel and the Shomron, while on the west, spread out as if on the palm of the observer's hand, is seen the Coastal Plane of Israel all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. 

Visitors to the site in the evening hours are treated to one of the most beautiful sunsets in all of Israel. But the beauty can be dangerously lulling. For we know that it is precisely from here, and other areas along the former Green Line, that our enemies might very well seek to infiltrate and cut our state into two. 

The narrow waistline of the sign refers to the very narrow area between the sea and the Arab-populated areas of the western Shomron. It appears that this narrowness presents a perpetual enticement for the many terrorist elements in the Shomron. 

The dimensions of the "narrow waistline" were determined by the Armistice Agreement of 1949, based on the areas the IDF had managed to reach during the War of independence of 1948-49. Iraqi forces, arriving from Jordan, had reached an Arab village named Kakon, just aside Gan Yoshiya, only two kilometers west of Bahan as the crow flies. The IDF's Alexandroni Brigade repelled the Iraqis.

Today, as well, we continue to fight off our enemies in these areas – and the dozens of Jewish communities there help bolster our security. These are similar to what in Yesha are called "settlements," but which, as even President Yitzchak Herzog said last week, are very valuable for Israeli security in general. 

Kibbutz Bahan is beautiful, vibrant, and a great place to live. Has the pre-1967 threat to it been removed? 

It does not appear so. Bahan, Bat Hefer, and the other Israeli villages in the area hear signals every evening of the military preparations being made by the terrorist organizations, whether they be shooting practice or even the sound of drilling underground tunnels. 

The nearby Arab city of Tul Karem has become a Hamas stronghold. As these words are being written, the IDF is engaged in anti-terrorist activity in the area, having encircled neighboring Tur a-Shams and eliminating five terrorists, and at least ten more in other areas nearby. But this is not expected to stop the incessant flow of infiltrations from east to west, including not only thieves, but also would-be murderers and suicide terrorists. Our forces have sent katbamim (unmanned drones) to strike down terrorists, and are taking the offensive to destroy terrorist infrastructures. 

But the danger of a Palestinian state in these areas is still quite acute. The international pressure for its establishment – and thus a re-creation of the dangers we faced before 1967 – is very strong, and we must not cave in.

Those abroad, and even here at home, who believe that peace will come only when a Palestinian state is established as a final end to the "occupation," please understand: We have learned our lesson from the Disengagement from Gush Katif (Gaza) in 2005, which led directly to the catastrophe of Oct. 7th. We realize with utmost clarity that abandoning Judea and Samaria to Palestinian rule means Hamas on Jerusalem's doorstep, and terrorists striding not only Bahan and Bat Hefer, but also Kfar Saba and even Afula. 

And to those who thought our war today is "limited" to Gaza, Hizbullah, Yemen, and Iran/Syria, the response is no: The closest front of all is right here in Judea and Samaria, where potentially lethal rock-attacks are also on the sharp rise and have become a daily occurrence.

And so, let it be clear: Israel will never again agree to revert to its "narrow waistline."

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.