Incoming US president Donald Trump’s statement that he does not intend to intervene in the war in Syria because “it’s not our war” reflects a narrow perspective; a broader regional vision is necessary.

The rebel factions in Syria eventually conquered Damascus and ousted Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The dramatic changes in Syria harm Iran’s strategic assets in the region, including the Al-Bukamal border crossing between Iraq and Syria, a central choke point in Iran’s land corridor to Hezbollah.

Only a few days ago, the Axis of Resistance signaled its high motivation to save Assad’s regime, as senior officials in Iran’s proxy network have declared their commitment to fight fiercely for the former president.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem stated in a speech on Thursday that Hezbollah would stand with Assad as much as it can, alongside the Syrian army.

Similarly, Qais al-Khazali, leader of the Iraqi Shi’ite militia Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, announced last Wednesday that his forces would not allow the Shrine of Zaynab in Damascus to fall into Sunni rebel hands.

Afghan fighters from the Fatemiyoun militia, supported by Iran’s IRGC Quds Force, have also been seen on the ground, attempting unsuccessfully to halt the rebels’ progress.

Despite these efforts, Assad’s regime quickly collapsed without any assistance by Moscow or Tehran to prevent it. In these dramatic hours, eyes turn to Iran, which views Syria as the “main link” in a chain stretching from Tehran to Beirut.

Even in earlier stages of the Syrian civil war, in February 2013, Mehdi Khazali, a member of a think tank advising Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stated that Tehran could afford to lose its oil-rich southern Khuzestan province, but not Syria. He argued that Syria’s fall would eventually lead to Tehran’s downfall.

Since then, Iranian officials have repeatedly described the war in Syria as part of an “American-Israeli plot” aimed at Iran. The astonishment gripping Tehran is therefore evident.

At this critical juncture, the Islamic Republic lacked Qasem Soleimani, who, as commander of the Quds Force, orchestrated Iran’s proxy forces with strategic skill and efficiency. Recent dissatisfaction with his successor, Esmail Qaani, has surfaced in Tehran, accompanied by nostalgia for Soleimani and too-late calls for urgent action in Syria.

Criticism of Iran

Criticism is also mounting regarding the delayed retaliation against Israel, with Iranians mocking the Khamenei-led regime on social media.

Hezbollah’s difficulties in supporting Assad are evident, given the severe blow it suffered at the hands of Israel. The specific reasons for Iran’s inability to assist Assad effectively remain unclear but are expected to become clearer in the coming days.

In any case, Trump will soon realize that Assad’s fall will resonate throughout the region, primarily impacting Tehran. Amid the rapid regional changes driven by the Israel-Hamas War and the renewal of the Syrian conflict, voices within Iran have been becoming increasingly urgent in their demands for Khamenei to adapt the country’s security doctrine to unfolding events.

Prominent figures, regime mouthpieces, and propagandists are calling for a shift in Iran’s nuclear doctrine, advocating for nuclear weapons development to restore its deterrence capabilities, which have been severely weakened by recent events, including the unprecedented Israeli attacks in October 2024.

Israel and the incoming US administration must urgently formulate a strategic plan addressing the security needs of both nations, given the swiftly and historic changing reality in Syria and its regional repercussions.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, December 10, 2024.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**

This week, Amnesty International released a 296-page report, accusing Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza. This charge, no less than a modern-day blood libel, is just the latest attack in Amnesty’s longstanding campaign of lawfare against and vilification of the State of Israel, having previously accused the Jewish state of the equally unfounded charge of apartheid.

To be sure, this report, written under the guise of international law and human rights, is utterly baseless, replete with malicious lies and gross distortions of fact, as well as wholesale fabrications of law. The crime of genocide, coined in 1944 by the Polish-Jewish jurist Raphael Lemkin to describe the systematic extermination of Jews by the Nazis, is one of the most serious accusations that can be leveled in international law. To accuse Israel of “genocide” in Gaza is a grotesque and egregious subversion and weaponization of the very term itself.

It is important to recognize that genocide is very clearly defined under Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948, to mean “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” The commission of genocide has nothing to do with the number of civilian casualties that occur in a conflict; the key element here is the need to possess relevant “intent.”

Whatever criticism one may have of Israeli policies or Israel Defense Forces (IDF) actions in Gaza, at no stage has Israel been seeking to destroy the people in Gaza, whether in whole, in part, or in any manner whatsoever.

Israeli leaders are directing military policy in accordance with the decisions of the War Cabinet, and Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Defense Minister, and the IDF Chief of Staff have been unequivocal: The intent of the operation in Gaza following October 7 is to eliminate Hamas by destroying its military and governing capabilities and to rescue the hostages. These are both entirely legitimate military objectives under the laws of armed conflict.

That there have been civilian casualties in Gaza is tragic, but it is also the inevitable consequence of Hamas using its own people as human shields and embedding its military operations in schools, hospitals, kindergartens, and homes. Notwithstanding the complex challenge of operating in such difficult environment, the IDF has gone to extraordinary lengths, not seen in modern warfare, to abide by the principles of International humanitarian law and avoid harm to civilians in Gaza. This has included implementing historic measures to prevent civilian harm, such as advanced alerts to provide early warning and temporary evacuations, daily pauses of fighting, distributing maps to civilians, using precision weapons, as well are facilitating daily provision of aid.

In fact, to demonstrate just how utterly ludicrous Amnesty’s accusation of genocide is, one only needs to see that, according to the CIA World Factbook, the population in Gaza has actually increased 2 percent in the last year. This is the very opposite of seeking to destroy, in whole or in part or in any way, a group of people.

Perhaps knowing it doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, Amnesty has resorted to manufacturing its own definition of genocide. Amnesty claims that the universally established and the sole accepted legal definition as outlined in the Genocide Convention of 1948 which requires the existence of intent is an “overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.”

It’s not just Israel that finds this redefinition ridiculous. In an absolutely scathing rebuke, even Amnesty’s own Israel office has totally rejected Amnesty International’s report, saying it was a “predetermined conclusion” based on “biased” and “artificial” analysis of the situation in Gaza and “motivated by a desire to support a popular narrative among Amnesty International’s target audience.”

If anyone is guilty of genocide here, it is Hamas. Not only does Hamas openly state that the destruction of Israel is its ultimate goal, as evidenced in their Charter, it acted out on those intentions on October 7, when Hamas massacred over 1,200 Israelis in a rampage that included raping, burning, mutilating, executing and abducting women and children. We’ve stood in the kibbutzim and communities in the south of Israel and saw first-hand the death and destruction. That is where the real attempted genocide occurred.

In an interview last year, shortly after the massacre, senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad admitted that the terror group would repeat the October 7 massacre “again and again” until Israel was “annihilated,” openly admitting the group’s genocidal intentions. But Amnesty has completely disregarded this, instead absolving and whitewashing the heinous actions of Hamas.

The incoming Trump Administration should declare Amnesty a hate-group and adopt blistering sanctions against them, including withdrawing financial support and any cooperation with government agencies.

Regrettably, Amnesty International, once a storied human rights organization, has lost all credibility, becoming nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the murderers and rapists of Hamas.

The article was written together with John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point

Published in Newsweek, December 05, 2024.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**

Fast forward one year, with Hamas still holding hostages and firing rockets, and Israel now engaged in multi-front battle for her existence against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its terrorist proxies, including Hezbollah, the Starmer government’s support is no longer unequivocal. In fact, it has completely turned its back on Israel, abandoning the Jewish state in her time of need.

For example, at the current Labour Party conference just concluded in Liverpool, instead of reiterating their support for Israel, Starmer’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy suggested UK could in fact impose further sanctions against Israelis.

This is just latest in a series of appalling betrayals, which follows the UK’s unconscionable decision earlier this month to institute an arms embargo against the Jewish state, while reversing the previous government’s principled appeal over the International Criminal Court’s mendacious and baseless warrants against the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister.

Britain has also renewed funding to UNRWA, the UN Palestinian refugee agency still embroiled in controversy surrounding their staff’s participation in the October 7^th massacre by Hamas.

One may indeed be forgiven for asking, is Jeremy Corbyn running the Foreign Office or David Lammy?

Whilst Lammy may have triumphantly touted some of these ‘achievements’, by saying“Britain is back,”the only thing Britain has returned to, is the viscerally anti-Israel foreign policy of Corbyn, when he was Labour leader. It would appear, despite different leaders and fanciful pre-election promises, the same disdain for the UK-Israel alliance and cold indifference to Jewish lives, remains at the heart of the UK Labour party under new leader Keir Starmer.

The news that Lammy is now seeking to adopt further sanctions against Israelis that the British government unilaterally deems as ‘extremist’ or ‘violence’, also only underscores the glaring arbitrariness and politicization of the existing UK sanctions regime, which has singled out Israelis for opprobrium and punishment, but not Palestinian extremists and officials who continue to incite violence and racial hatred, or those who call for jihad and intifada on the streets of London every other week, with impunity.

Whilst a robust sanctions regime is as a key foreign policy and national security tool for any nation, it is only credible insofar as it is fair, transparent and based on clearly defined criteria. It must also conform with Britain’s obligations under international law and respect for the principles of due process and individual rights, not a politicized tool to be used at the whim of any sitting Foreign Secretary.

Speaking at the same Labour Party conference, Starmer’s Attorney-General, Lord Hermer, said that the Government must be “militant about our belief in the rule of law and human rights.”

Indeed, it ought to, yet this British government betrays that very commitment, in endorsing the ICC Prosecutor’s attempt to indict Israeli leaders, which is the most egregious and unprecedented abuse of rule of law in recent memory, while applying an arms embargo on Israel, based on a false and politicized interpretation of international humanitarian law and arbitrarily singling out Jewish Israelis for illegitimate sanctions.

In view of the Starmer government’s abdication of principled leadership on the foreign stage and unequivocal determination to fight terror, it is therefore hardly surprising that ahead of his G7 meeting this week, Lammy hasrefused to condemn Hezbollah, a UK-designated terror group which has fired almost 10,000 rockets against Israel the last 12 twelve months, displacing almost 100,000 residents from the north of the country.

Instead, in a Chamberlainesque display, Lammy demonstrated only pitiful moral cowardice, in calling for a “ceasefire on both sides”.

It this kind of exasperation with a once cherished ally, that led even Israel’s normally exceedingly diplomatic President, Isaac Herzog, to proclaim in a Sky News interview this week that “there is a sense of disappointment in Israel. We expect that all our allies will be side by side with us.”

Yet regrettably, the cold hard truth is that, given the choice between standing with its democratic ally Israel, or the jihadist proxies serving at the behest of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this UK government has shamefully turned its back on Israel, betraying an ally engaged in an existential battle and its very own principles and commitment to rule of law.

Published in Eu Reporter, October 1, 2024.

Following the exploding Hezbollah pagers in Lebanon and the elimination of the terrorist organization’s senior leadership in the last week, there is a sense that Israel is shifting from a strategy of containment to one of decisive action. This paradigm shift moves beyond merely managing the threat toward a bolder objective: pre-emption and total victory.  

As President Isaac Herzog said, “we don’t want war, but if it’s waged against us, we go all the way.”

Israeli leaders have long understood the existential danger posed by Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Yet over the last two decades, instead of eliminating these threats, Israeli policies — at the West’s insistence — have often emboldened the rise of these powerful non-state militias. The policy of limited warfare has allowed these groups to survive, grow and become more entrenched. 

This strategy is not unique to Israel. Since the end of World War II, Western powers have consistently avoided all-out victories, often choosing containment and appeasement or limited engagement over total warfare and the crippling of these terror networks. The result? Persistent, unresolved conflicts which, like the Korean War, linger to this day with continued threats.  

If the West had allowed Gen. Douglas MacArthur to fully deploy his military strategy against North Korea and its Chinese backers — including a blockade of Chinese ports and decisive action to cut off supply lines — the outcome could have been quite different. As matters stand, we are left with a North Korean regime that continues to destabilize global security to this day. 

The Vietnam War presents another example of limited warfare’s long-term costs. President Richard Nixon eventually escalated U.S. actions with the bombing of Haiphong and incursions into Laos and Cambodia, but by then, it was too late. Had the U.S. taken these decisive steps earlier or used the full force of its military to block the Ho Chi Minh Trail from the start, the course of the war might have shifted. Instead, Vietnam became a symbol of American defeat. 

The escalation in Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel in recent weeks and Israel’s response, including the pinpoint attack on Hezbollah terrorists via their pagers, sparked talk that PM Benjamin Netanyahu would, or maybe should, stay in Jerusalem while the UN General Assembly takes place in New York this week.

Rumors spread that Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer would be delivering the address instead; one high-level diplomatic source said this week that Foreign Minister Israel Katz or UN Ambassador Danny Danon were being considered as understudies for the prime minister. That being said, the source emphasized that Netanyahu planned to be in Turtle Bay on Friday to give his speech: “The U.N is also an arena; the prime minister sees it as an important platform,” the source said.

Some analysts have said that Netanyahu must stay in Israel because of the imminent risk of war with Lebanon. They have even suggested that if the prime minister feels the need to make an address to the world, he can do so from Israel and it will surely be televised.

According to the high-level diplomatic source, Israel is not interested in launching a ground invasion at this point, and Netanyahu has instructed the IDF to pursue a gradual escalation in response to escalations by Hezbollah. Even if that was not the message the Prime Minister’s Office sought to relay to the world this week, it would be unlikely that the IDF would begin a ground invasion while Netanyahu is out of the country, unless doing so was some kind of intentional bait-and-switch.

Still, there are other major security concerns that may arise while he is out of the country. When Hezbollah killed 12 children in the Golan Heights earlier this year, Netanyahu was in Washington, D.C. He was able to get on a flight back to Israel within hours, even though it was still Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, in the U.S. That was possible because Israel now has a plane for prime ministers and presidents, rather than chartering flights from Israel’s flag carrier El Al, which does not fly on the Sabbath. The prime minister’s plane, called Wing of Zion, also has the technology installed allowing him to remain confidentially connected to what is happening in Israel while in the air.

There are also many advantages to Netanyahu being present and delivering a speech at the UNGA this week.

Counter-intuitively, the timing of the UNGA and the escalation in the north may be opportune as opposed to inconvenient. Netanyahu can use the time to effectively make the case that Israel needs to strongly defend itself from the threats of the Shiite jihadist group on its northern border, and his arguments will be fresh in the international community’s minds should the situation escalate into a ground war in Lebanon. This would also be the time to advocate for the world to pressure Hamas to free Israeli hostages, some of whose relatives will be flying to New York with Netanyahu and attending his speech.

Just being in New York during UN week enables Netanyahu to hold face-to-face meetings with world leaders like US President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz who addressed the General Assembly this week. This will allow him to make the case for Israel’s defense in person and hear the concerns of Israel’s allies.

Netanyahu has long distrusted Israel’s Foreign Ministry and overshadowed Israel’s foreign ministers when he does not hold the portfolio himself. That attitude has weakened the ability of others to make Israel’s case on a prominent global stage such as the UNGA. The fact that Katz is not fully proficient in English, and that his messages are not always aligned with those of other parts of the government, (for example, he regularly posts AI-generated images mocking antagonistic world leaders,) makes him a less-than-ideal substitute for Netanyahu at this time. And while Danon’s English is better and he is more in sync with Netanyahu, ambassador-level addresses rarely garner attention during the UNGA when presidents and prime ministers speak.

Whether one likes Netanyahu or not, he is by far the best-known Israeli political figure today, and possibly the best-known Israeli, period. That already draws international attention to his speeches in a way that addresses by other Israeli prime ministers and foreign ministers in recent years did not. In addition – again, whether one agrees with the message or not – Netanyahu is a gifted orator who knows how to relay messages effectively and memorably, with visual aids and turns of phrase.

For all of these reasons, having Netanyahu address the UN General Assembly this week would be the right thing to do for Israel.

“The transition ahead presents a historic opportunity to reform and revitalise the country’s institutions, to restore fundamental freedoms and civic space, and to give all in Bangladesh a part in building the future.” – Volker Türk, UN Human Rights Chief

The student-led protests in Bangladesh in July this year violently ended Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year iron fist rule and paved the way for a dramatic transition of power in an already fragile democracy. Almost two months later, the unfolding events exposed the true nature of the political crisis and evaporated hopes for re-establishing the democratic process in the country under the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.

First, in his quest to form an interim government that would represent all sections of the political system, Yunus appointed ex-army general Sakhawat Hussain as the home affairs advisor (equivalent to minister in an interim government), but three days later, Hussain was given a different portfolio due to criticism stemming from the protest leaders, including the BNP. They argued that Hussain advised officials of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League to reorganise with new faces and play a part in Bangladeshi politics.

Although the Awami League’s participation in Bangladeshi politics after Hasina is crucial for an equal representation of all views and communities in the country, it was seen by the protest leaders as a move to rehabilitate and whitewash the “murderers” from the Awami League and immediately threatened to oust anyone who would tread this path.

This might explain why since Yunus took over, he made several decisions in favour of the BNP and its allies. He lifted a ban on Jamaat-e-Islami that had been in place since 2013 due to the party’s charter violating the constitution. Now, the Islamist party can resume its activities and run in future elections. Asif Nazrul who was appointed as the Law advisor in the interim government defended the decision, saying that the ban on Jamaat was used for political manoeuvring. Nazrul has been a strong defender of the Jamaat since the 2010 war crimes trial began.

Moreover, the Yunus-led interim government appointed Supreme Court lawyer Tajul Islam as the chief prosecutor of the international crimes tribunal (to investigate the crimes committed during the liberation war in 1971 by Pakistan and its local accomplices such as the Jamaat). It is worth pointing out that Tajul Islam was the joint convener of a political branch of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Amar Bangladesh Party, and is known as the top lawyer of the Jamaat. The other prosecutors, appointed by Yunus, also hold a track record of defending Jamaat activists and working on cases against Hasina.

As the Islamists regain their place in Bangladeshi society and politics, fears loom over the safety and freedom of Hindus. Since the protests, the Hindu minority, constituting about 13 million individuals or nearly 7.95 per cent of the total population, has been a target of more than 200 attacks on communal backgrounds.

The government led by Yunus argued that reports on the attacks are exaggerated and a non-issue. He also reiterated that the security and freedom of all communities in Bangladesh is a top priority, and Hindus can feel safe, a message he also conveyed to India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Even if such reports were an exaggeration, the fears among the Hindu minority have solid grounds. In the current political environment, there is no party to represent the interests of the Hindu community, which generally supports the Awami League, and is on a path to becoming alienated from the country’s politics.

Moreover, in a recent order by the home affairs advisor, Jahangir Alam Chowdhury, he urged the Hindu community to halt some of the traditional activities practised during Durga Puja (mainly playing music), and not to interfere with the Muslim prayers. Such a step, even if minor, indicates the shrinking space of religious freedom in Bangladesh.

These developments do not hold a positive prospect for Bangladeshi democracy under the interim government, which seems to bend under the pressure of anti-Hasina and Awami League factions, drifting away from achieving the goals of inclusion and unity. Those who led the opposition not long ago, are now using similar means to suppress their opponents, proving that not much has changed in Bangladesh and unity seems unachievable.

This is a concern, not only internally for the stability of Bangladesh and the future of its people but also in the broader geopolitical rivalry between China and the US with mounting challenges to India. Following the coup, Hasina fled to her close ally India, exposing it to pressure from all directions.

On the one hand, families of the 1,000 protesters killed during the violent protests in July and early August demanded Sheikh Hasina be brought to trial on accusations of crimes against humanity, including in the International Criminal Court, if she seeks asylum. Bangladesh and India signed an extradition treaty in 2013 and as the chief prosecutor, Mohammad Tajul Islam, expressed his plans to request Hasina’s extradition.

On the other hand, India is expected to protect the Hindu community in Bangladesh and be more vocal about it in the international community. Yet, India is not seeking to meddle in Bangladesh’s internal affairs and maintains a delicate approach as it was considered by BNP and others as the enabler of Hasina’s government for many years.

In the meantime, the US sent an official delegation to assess the new situation. Yunus met with the delegation and expressed his desire to “reset, reform, restart” the country. In return, he got a promise from the US for additional aid during the transition. At the same time, the Chinese ambassador in Dhaka met with the leadership of Jamaat-e-Islami, a natural engagement between the two, as China became the main supporter of Pakistan and one of the few countries to interact with the Taliban in Afghanistan. This may be another negative development for Western interests in the Indo-Pacific.

Published in Firstpost, September 22, 2024.

As if the ongoing war in Gaza, the 120 remaining Israeli hostages, and the increasing threats from Iran and Hezbollah were not enough, Israel currently finds itself in a very volatile political situation from an international perspective.

In the last two months alone, Europe has seen elections in the European Union, Belgium, the United Kingdom, France, Iceland, and Bulgaria.

There is wide-ranging speculation, from warnings about a rise of far-Right political parties in Europe to cautious optimism that a moderate center might re-emerge.

All this comes ahead of momentous elections in the United States in November and in the middle of a seemingly never-ending war in Ukraine.

The underlying trend, across the European continent, of ascending right-wing parties is undeniable.

In the European Parliament (EP), a new political group was just established: Patriots for Europe, which encompasses 84 members from 12 countries (France, Hungary, Italy, Czech Republic, Austria, Netherlands, Spain, Flanders (in Belgium), Portugal, Denmark, Greece, and Latvia. This is the third-largest group in the parliament and the largest right-wing group ever to have existed in the EP.

The same is happening on the national level: The new Dutch government was formed by Geert Wilders, leader of a Right-to-far-Right party; and in France, Le Pen’s party won 33 % in the first round of elections. Hard right-wing parties lead governments in Italy, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, and the Czech Republic.

A new political reality in Europe?

Even young voters – for the first time, the age for the EU elections was lowered to 16 – voted more conservatively than expected, implying that this is a sign of a new political reality in Europe.

Historically, Israel has sought to engage with centrist parties through consensus, balancing between its right to defend itself (an issue closer to conservative circles) and its obvious commitment to fighting discrimination and antisemitism (an issue traditionally championed by more progressive groups).

Far-Right and far-Left parties were seen as extremist and often as heirs to fascist and Communist ideologies respectively. Consequently, Israel shied away from engaging with either.

This paradigm is now being seriously challenged as the political map in Europe becomes increasingly polarized, especially regarding issues concerning Israel and the safety of the Jewish communities, most significantly since the October 7 Hamas massacre.

On one hand, hard-Right parties offer their unwavering support now, when Israel needs it most.

Geert Wilders openly stated his full support for Israel: “Keep strong, my Israeli friends, in fighting Hamas. The United Nations, the United States, and Europe don’t understand you are fighting an existential war against the dark forces of hate and destruction called Hamas. I will always support you.”

In a speech before parliament, Marine Le Pen openly condemned the “pogroms on Israeli soil” and France’s insufficient attempts at protecting Jewish life in the country.

At the same time, left-wing-leaning leaders of countries like Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Belgium were the most vocal in criticizing Israel and accusing it of human rights violations, while failing to condemn Hamas’s terrorist attack, at times even openly supporting it.

This became particularly apparent in the cases against Israel brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, in which those countries were the ones upholding false genocide claims and delegitimizing Israel’s right to defend itself, with Spain being the most vocal.

IT WOULD be a mistake, however, to misinterpret this polarization and view it through Israel-centric lenses.

European reactions to the war and the horrors of October 7 are only a byproduct of much larger pan-European sentiments that revolve around issues such as immigration and economic (China) and military (Russia) fears.

That is what the election results clearly showed.

This is why Israel must develop a more sophisticated diplomatic approach that will know how to part ways with the old paradigm.

One key will be recruiting support from “smaller” countries that have a major say in appointing EU commissioners responsible for making policy and can significantly influence or veto EU policies on the EU Council level.

When it comes to engaging with the extremes of the political map, Israel should engage locally, using country-specific and unique bilateral dialogue.

This still means taking global geopolitical developments into account and emphasizing strategic relationships with major European powers such as Germany, the UK, and France.

But, in parallel, Israel must invest significantly more in relationships with other countries that, especially if they join forces, can seriously counter the dominant voices inside the EU.

It’s important to understand that these countries too, increasingly set their priorities through seeking to forge regional strategic alliances that go beyond the EU and its member states.

This means that increasing Central European and Balkan countries in Europe becomes more important than ever, as they too can  – indirectly – impact broader EU policies.

Whether addressing the threat of arrest warrants against senior Israeli politicians and soldiers, as proposed at the ICC, or the fear of an international arms embargo, European countries will stay divided and Israel’s only chance of garnering enough support is through careful engagement on a bilateral level.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, July 23, 2024.

Yesterday was a dark day for justice.

The announcement by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan that he is pursuing arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant alongside the leaders of Hamas is an egregious and unconscionable perversion of the law, and a gift to the murderers and rapists of October 7 – one which Yahya Sinwar could never have imagined in his wildest dreams.

That Khan would even utter Israel and Hamas in the same breath is simply unfathomable.

There is absolutely no comparison between a genocidal terrorist organisation like Hamas and a democratic state like Israel, seeking to defend its citizens and rescue its hostages, following the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

To draw such equivalence, which is no different to equating Churchill and Hitler, is abominable and morally repugnant.

The ICC was established in 2002 as a “court of last resort” to end impunity for the perpetrators of the most heinous of crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide – not the Orwellian circumstances of arresting Israeli leaders for responding to the pogrom of October 7.

Notwithstanding  the heinous crimes inflicted upon the Jewish state, which continue to this day with the holding of 128 hostages in Gaza and ongoing rocket attacks, the IDF has gone to unprecedented lengths – not seen until now in the history of modern warfare – to abide by the laws of war and avoid harm to Palestinian civilians.

As a court of last resort, the ICC is governed by the principle of “complementarity”, meaning it may only assert jurisdiction in circumstances where a national legal system fails to act, or to do so in a bona fide manner.

Khan himself stated during a visit to Israel after the October massacre that “Israel has trained lawyers who advise commanders and a robust system intended to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law.” How quickly has Khan forgotten his own words.

Furthermore, as Rishi Sunak’s spokesperson noted immediately after Khan’s announcement, “As we have said from the outset, we do not think the ICC has jurisdiction in this case. The UK has not yet recognised Palestine as a state, and Israel is not a State Party to the Rome Statute.”

But when it comes to Israel it seems that considerations of law are not even an afterthought to the chief prosecutor of the court of last resort.

In fact, Karim Khan was scheduled to visit Israel next week for high-level discussions with the Israeli government, including on steps it was taking to abide by international humanitarian law and investigate allegations of wrongdoing. Khan’s team were meant to land in Israel yesterday to coordinate the visit, but Israel was reportedly informed that they did not board their flight only at the same time as Khan went on TV to announce the warrants.

This deceitful act by Khan only underscores that there is not even the pretext of adherence to the rule of law here, and that this is no more than a ratings-based show trial.

Khan’s actions represent not only an assault on Israel’s inalienable right to self-defence but a national security threat to the UK and every democracy fighting terror, exposing them to spurious and unfounded charges based on political considerations.

Mere condemnations will not suffice here. This sham of a court, which Khan has turned into a tool of Palestinian lawfare, entirely devaluing its very mission, cannot be allowed to stand by those who hold the Rule of Law as sacrosanct.

The UK, as one of the top 5 donors to the ICC and champions of the international rules-based order, has considerable sway and ought to withdraw its funds immediately, lest it continue to underwrite this ongoing perversion of justice.

It was barely two weeks ago that we observed Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), yet today Khan has unleashed the worst antisemitic blood libel of this century, masquerading as a quest for justice.

Published in The Jewish Chronicle, May 21, 2024.

As Israel approaches its 76th Independence Day, it must withstand ugly narratives of delegitimization that are crashing like tidal waves around the world and international dictates meant to emasculate the Jewish state.

It is maddening to see Western leaders and the supposedly great minds of Western academia succumb with equanimity to Hamas’ genocidal agenda and obviously criminal conduct.

They disregard Hamas’ anti-Semitic discourse and its record of Islamist oppression and human rights abuse. They overlook its total backing by Iran. They take little heed of its path of kidnappings, rockets, border-breaching massacres, and terror attack tunnels – with Palestinians as calculated cannon fodder. They profess to be concerned for Palestinian rights yet ignore Hamas’ radical Islamic oppression of Palestinians alongside its murderous intentions against Israel.

It is exasperating that people pretend that Hamas’ assaults on Israel’s sovereignty and security have anything to do with demands for humanitarian aid or for a two-state solution.

Nonsense! Hamas has repeatedly blown up the civilian and humanitarian supply infrastructures that Israel has facilitated for Gaza, and instead spent hundreds of millions of dollars in aid on military attack infrastructures.

How is it that foreign ministers and foreign correspondents fail to appreciate that over the past 20 years Hamas rejected US, UN, EU, and Arab offers of billions of dollars of aid to the people of Gaza if only Hamas were to demilitarize, end terrorism against Israel, and recognize Israel through acceptance of previous Palestinian agreements with Israel?

How is it that they fail to credit Israel with trying to mollify Hamas by facilitating tens of millions of dollars of Qatari cash for Hamas in Gaza over the past decade? (Alas, this obviously was a failed strategy).

Instead, they complain that while at war Israel restricts supply convoys into Gaza and they worry aloud that Hamas will not get kid gloves treatment when the fighting ends (such as the provision of cement and other building materials, which once again will poured in underground terror complexes instead of civilian reconstruction).

How is it that they call the Israeli-Palestinian death toll “disproportionate,” suggesting that not enough Israelis have been killed to justify Israel’s military counterstrikes on Hamas. How many more Israelis must die for the sake of immoral symmetry and ersatz Western scruples?

How is it that they ignore the fact that thousands of Hamas rockets fired from Gaza have fallen inside Gaza and likely are responsible for many Palestinian civilian deaths? How do they discount the fact that many of the Palestinian dead are clearly identified Hamas and Islamic Jihad military personnel – by admission of the terrorists themselves?

It also is galling that Western do-gooders seem to view Palestinian “Days of Rage,” “Nakba Day” riots, and missile barrage eruptions as expected behavior. As if the Palestinians cannot help themselves from throwing a tantrum. As if responsible and reasonable behavior – such as negotiation, democratic and peaceful discourse, and normative state-building – cannot be demanded of the Palestinians.

This is the soft bigotry of low expectations from Palestinians, which is the counterpart of hard bigotry – impossible demands – made on Israel.

I sense that this stems from reluctance to internalize the fact that, despite Israel’s Oslo Accord concessions and multiple peace offers ever since, much of the Palestinian national movement has not changed its goal of annihilating Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” or with an Islamic caliphate.

IN RESPONSE, Israel has no choice but to stiffen its spine; and in some matters to grow a spine. More than ever before, Israel must reject impossible international dictates and demands.

Among the wrong-headed ideas that must be rejected are Washington’s insistence that Israel’s “primary goal” must be provision of humanitarian aid to an enemy population in wartime, which is an absurdity never broached before in the history of wars.

Also to be rebuffed: American insistence that the necessary next stage of the Israeli military campaign to rout-out Hamas, in Rafah and the Philadelphi Corridor, is “unacceptable,” a “red line that must not be crossed.” This includes the Biden administration’s attempt to micromanage IDF operations, house-by-house, bullet-by-bullet; handcuffing Israel by denying it weapons and driving Israel into another disastrous draw against Hamas.

(This, from a country that has not won a war in 80 years, despite carpet bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and more.)

Israel must also repudiate the arrogant talk in Western capitals of unilaterally recognizing Palestinian statehood and anointing the decrepit Palestinian Authority as a stabilizing force in Gaza. These are debilitating ideas that seed the likelihood of long-term strategic defeat for Israel.

Israel must also reject the erroneous strategic thinking that sees a grand soft deal with Iran as the panacea for all regional ills. Alas, the Biden administration seems more obsessed with thwarting the swagger of Israel than it is concerned with halting Iran’s race to nuclear weapons and its region-wide hegemonic ambitions.

AMBASSADOR Rabbi Dr. Yaacov Herzog (1921-1972) once explained why Israel sometimes stubbornly refuses to accept rational calculations of diplomatic cost/benefit that are politely or impolitely impressed on it by allies.

Israelis, he clarified, can shake-off the bleak prognostications advanced by both friends and enemies because of a deep-rooted belief in the power of Jewish history; by faith that Israel is guided by an astral calculus that is not always perceptible. This, he wrote, undergirds the willingness of Israelis to sacrifice for independence.

And thus, those who consider history only in terms of politics and international relations underestimate Israel. They apply temporal yardsticks of measurement to Israel but fail to fathom the processes at work behind the curtain of current affairs.

They fail to understand that Israel is on historic mission where the lines are blurred between imagination and reality, between the possible and the feasible. And so, Israel plows forward despite all critics and adversaries.

And at this very moment, true atzmaut, real independence, means that Israel must advance in defiance of those who seek to emasculate it (deny it weapons), of those who would prevent Israel from achieving its necessary and justified war goals of crushing Hamas and Hezbollah, countering Iran, and restoring this country’s deterrent power.

Remember: None of the brutal dictatorships or arrogant empires throughout history that sought to destroy the physical core or sap the indomitable spirit of the Jewish People succeeded. Neither will they do so today.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 10.05.2024