After American-Turkish anti-Israel activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi mistakenly was shot by IDF troops during an altercation in northern Samaria ten days ago, Washington fumed, thundered, and threatened Israel.

President Joe Biden was “outraged.” He called Eygi’s death “totally unacceptable.” He demanded “full accountability” from Israel and “continued access” into investigation of the circumstances of the shooting (suggesting that IDF investigations cannot be trusted).

Biden went on to decry “ongoing violence” in the West Bank by “extremist Israeli settlers” – a false accusation that has become the standard line in Washington’s whippings of Israel. And then came the holy (im)moral equivalency statement: “I will continue to support policies that hold all extremists – Israelis and Palestinians alike – accountable for stoking violence and serving as obstacles to peace.”

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin broadened the US demand for “accountability” from Israel by insisting that the “unprovoked and unjustified death” proves that Israel needs to completely reexamine the IDF’s rules of engagement for operating in the West Bank. Secretary of State Antony Blinken expanded on this, fulminating that the Israeli military needs an “overhaul” and must make “fundamental changes” in its rules of live fire engagement.

Leaving aside the Eygi incident and Washington’s misdirected ire, one wonder’s where the US wrath was after Hamas purposefully executed six Israeli hostages (including an American citizen) one week earlier in one of Hamas’s terror attack tunnels.

But of course, the US and all decent people worldwide condemned the Hamas murders. The Biden-Harris administration was “pained” by the murders (not outraged), and toothlessly jabbered that “Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes.” But this was not followed-up by any moves against Hamas and its regional backers; anything concrete that would impose “full accountability” on Hamas.

Rather, the Hamas execution of Israeli hostages was followed-up by pressure on Israel to make concessions to Hamas and essentially concede defeat to them. President Biden took to the microphone to accuse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “not doing enough” to secure a hostage deal.

FULL ACCOUNTABILITY from Hamas might have included the following actions:

* Unflinchingly supplying Israel with more and better arms to crush Hamas, instead of agonizing over the deaths of Hamas supporters and pontificating about armament restrictions. This might also include leverage on British and Canadian leaders to back down from their arms embargoes against Israel.

* Rethinking of the “humanitarian train” for Gaza including enormous quantities of fuel and food, which everybody knows has been hijacked by Hamas to preserve its governing capabilities. How about cutting back a few fuel and flour trucks for Hamas every time that Hamas even threatens to torture or execute an Israeli hostage?

According to a report this week by the authoritative expert Ehud Yaari of Israeli TV Channel 12, Hamas has earned over half a billion dollars by seizing and then selling to Gazans almost every supply truck sent into Gaza over the past year.

This allows Hamas to recruit, renew, and pay for its terror troop force, prolonging the war in every way: prolonging the suffering of Gazans whom Hamas continues to exploit as human shields, prolonging the agony of destroyed and displaced Israeli communities in Israel’s south, prolonging the painful price paid by IDF soldiers on the battlefield, and prolonging the hostage torment.

But the Biden administration continues to insist on literally giving Hamas oxygen to persevere underground with most of the hostages and to toughen its stance on releasing hostages, instead of being forced to the surface and to accede defeat.

And then the administration outrageously slaps sanctions on Israeli civil protest organizations that call for a change in this insane “humanitarian supply” policy, a policy to aid an enemy that is without precedent in the annals of warfare.

So much for “full accountability” from Hamas.

* Adoption of a penalization policy against Hamas, something that actually hits its most sensitive spot: the loss of territory.

International legal expert Prof. Eugene Kontorovich suggested to the Biden administration a formula to get the hostages back and end the war very quickly: “For every day Hamas does not give up the hostages, America will recognize 100 square dunams (roughly 25 acres) of Gaza as a permanent Israeli buffer zone. For every murdered hostage, 1,000 square dunams (250 acres). The war would be over in days.”

* Recalibration of the American obsession with straightaway establishing a Palestinian state, nay the doubling down on sworn fealty to the so-called “two state solution.” (See Kamala Harris’s pledge to do so during the presidential debate this week). This, despite the indisputable fact that blabbering at this moment about a Palestinian state is the very picture of victory for Hamas terrorism and constitutes encouragement for more acts of massacre.

How do Biden-Harris not understand that merely discussing Palestinian statehood now gives Hamas more sway in Palestinian politics than it ever had, especially in Judea and Samaria? Is Hamas a suitable partner for ruling Gaza or establishing a “unified” Palestinian state? Or the current Palestinian Authority, which received Gaza under its control and failed, and is unable to contend with Hamas alone in Jenin and Tulkarem, and which encourages terror through payments and glorification of terrorists?

And don’t confuse Washington with facts like the support of three-quarters of Palestinians in the West Bank for the October 7 Hamas-led massacre, or the support of governors in the Palestinian Authority for terrorism and the active participation of Fatah in the surging wave of terror attacks currently threatening to engulf central Israel.

Instead of pushback against the increasingly genocidal Palestinian national movement overall, we get more perilous pablum about the “urgency” of Palestinian statehood. Instead of action to retaliate and truly deter Hamas from ever raising a hand against a hostage again, we get diplomatic rewards for Palestinian intransigence and violence.

So much for “full accountability” from Hamas.

* US pressure on direct backers of Hamas to end their sponsorship of the terrorist organization. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington DC has outlined a dozen measures that the Biden-Harris administration should do immediately to hold Hamas and its allies “fully accountable.”

This includes pressure on Qatar, Turkey, and Lebanon to extradite Hamas leaders for prosecution. Khaled Mashal, for example, lives a life of royal luxury in Qatar, sitting on an estimated $4 billion personal fortune. Why? He is a US “Specially Designated Global Terrorist”! Where is the American “outrage” at this “totally unacceptable” situation?

HOW ABOUT threats to remove Qatar’s status as a major non-NATO ally; to move Al Udeid air base assets; to impose sanctions on Qatari officials, instrumentalities, and assets; to impose sanctions on Qatar’s virulently genocidal (against Israel and the entire West) Al-Jazeera media network?

Qatar should be compelled to close all Hamas offices and operations, freeze and turn over to the US all Hamas-connected assets, and turn over to the US or Israel all Hamas officials who remain in the country. And in the process, this might also set the stage for Qatar to jettison leaders of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Islamic State.

How about sanctions against Hamas networks in foreign countries, including South Africa, which aside from harboring Hamas, is otherwise busy indicting Israel for war crimes in The Hague?

How about the imposition of sanctions on Turkish and Lebanese officials who provide material support to Hamas, which means almost all senior government ministers in these countries? How about the freezing and turning over to the US of all Hamas-connected assets in these countries, including the late Ismail Haniyeh’s assets reported to be in Turkish banks?

How about intense pressure on Egypt to permanently cut off Hamas supply routes above and below the Egypt-Gaza border, and to open its border for Palestinian refugee relief? The pressure should include threats to withhold a significant amount of US foreign assistance and impose sanctions on Egyptian officials and instrumentalities responsible for the Hamas smuggling operation; the same type of sanctions that Washington is so slap-happy and super-quick to impose on supposed Israeli vigilantes.

How about targeting China with economic and political pressure for subsidizing Hamas through oil imports and from Iran? (US oil sanctions on Iran are already on the books, they just are not being enforced by Biden-Harris.) The administration should move forward with identifying Chinese ports that accept Iranian oil, as mandated by the newly enacted SHIP Act, and impose secondary sanctions on those ports.

How about fighting back against Hamas allies within international organizations such as the UN and ICC? The White House should end its opposition to threats of sanctions against the ICC and its chief prosecutor and instead lead an aggressive diplomatic campaign to get the ICC’s top donors such as Japan and Germany to end the illegitimate and baseless investigation of Israeli leaders (which also puts Americans at risk). The administration could also leverage US funding of the UN regular budget and other agencies to fight back against pro-Hamas, anti-Israel activity…

In short, instead of giving freebies to Hamas while pressuring Israel, instead of expressing “pain” when Hamas perpetrates outrages while expressing “outrage” when Israel acts uncompromisingly to crush its enemies – it is time for well-placed “full accountability” demands from the US that can help Israel win the war.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 13.09.2024

Speaking at the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this week, outgoing US President Joe Biden blabbered that “those protestors out in the street, they have a point. A lot of innocent people are being killed, on both sides.”

Biden was referring to the pro-Hamas mobs calling for “intifada revolution” and for “smashing the Zionist entity.” He was referring to people chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” barking “Bibi, we’re at your gate, we’re taking back ’48,” bellowing that “Hamas is coming,” and promising that October 7 would be repeated “10,000 times and every day.”

Biden was referring to rioters screaming “Stop Arming Israel” and calling for “Death to Zionists.” They were not mildly calling for a reasonable Mideast ceasefire, nor ardently advocating for a peaceful two-state solution.

He was referring to deeply unpatriotic goons, so-called “progressives” that have brought antisemitic street violence to America’s cities and whose prime targets are Israelis and Jews but whose targets also include American democracy.

But Biden says “they have a point” because “a lot of innocent people” have been killed on “both sides.” Correspondingly culpable sides, it would seem. Hamas and Israel: The jubilant murderers of Hamas and the heroic civilian-soldiers of the Jewish state. Both have shed “a lot of innocent” blood and are similarly at fault for continuation of the Gaza war. That is how it sounded to me.

Well, no, Joe, the people who say they support October 7 don’t have a point. What they really are demanding is the elimination of Israel and the exclusion of Jews from American life. They are wrong, and you should be calling them out, not coddling them. Instead, you insinuated horrifying moral equivalency between the Palestinian butchers of Gaza and the defenders of Israel.

Now I am sure that President Biden didn’t intend to do so. He knows better. But what Biden was trying to do, and this is the problem, was thread a needle: To signal to both supporters of Israel and those who genocidally oppose it that the Democrats sympathize with their positions.

By equivocating, Biden was trying to help Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign through the Mideast minefield. Biden and his handlers (former President Obama?) apparently think it better not to judge whether people waving Hezbollah and Hamas flags, and burning Israeli and American flags, are a constituency to be appeased or extremist radicals to be rejected.

This is weak-kneed leadership, verging on political debauchery. It portends a slide into policy that is hostage to the most rabidly anti-Israel forces in America.

VICE PRESIDENT Kamala Harris, who now officially holds the Democratic nomination for president, showed Biden the way. One month ago, she declared that Gaza “is not a binary issue,” meaning, I guess, that there are “very fine people on both sides” of the protest lines.

Asked for her opinion about the students “occupying” (vandalizing and terrorizing) the campuses at which they supposedly study, Harris said “They are showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza.”

Harris further wanted anti-Israel protestors to know “that I see you and I hear you,” and that she “will not be silent” about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. “I don’t mean to wholesale endorse their (the protestor’s) points,” Harris added as an aside. “But we have to navigate it. I understand the emotion behind it.”

It escapes me how blind rage, hate for America, and bashing of Israel that characterizes the mobs demonstrating against the Biden-Harris administration is a “human emotion” to be saluted. Alas, Harris is overcome with “emotions” that “have to be navigated and understood.”

Indeed, it seems that “famine” and feminine hygiene in Gaza are of greater concern to Kamala Harris than defeating Hamas or countering its near-nuclear Iranian sponsor. “Do they (Palestinian women in Gaza) have pads?” Harris emoted in a June interview with The Nation. “Early on (in the war) I was asking about sanitary hygiene, even if this makes people feel uncomfortable.”

And what about Palestinian cooking conditions? Harris worries about this too because she “likes to cook,” she told The Nation. And without good flour and clean water “you can’t make shit.”

So there you have it. The Democratic Party candidate for president has Palestinian sanitary hygiene and food security, “pads” and “shit” (how vulgar!), at the forefront of her concerns, and this has been the case from the early days of the war. She emotes about these things much more than defending embattled Israel or asserting American military dominance against Iran and its proxies (or against Russia, China, and other adversaries).

Maybe this is because Kamala Harris is just a potential “President of Joy,” as former President Bill Clinton hailed her this week. And joyous leaders don’t dirty themselves with difficult things like urban combat against radical Islamic enemies or winning wars against threatening hegemons.

Enraptured and overwhelmed by joy, they are incapable are understanding the clash between “barbarism and civilization” that is underway in the Middle East, as Prime Minister Netanyahu recently outlined in Congress.

At most, they emote about “suffering on both sides” while dialing away from America’s only true ally in the Mideast.

FOR ME, a joyous countenance and empathetic heart are not sufficient qualifications for the post of President of the United States of America; they even may be disqualifiers. Rather, I need to know what policies a candidate would pursue. So here are several concrete questions for Kamala to answer:

You have boasted that you were the “last person in the room” with President Biden before he announced America’s precipitous, slapdash withdrawal from Afghanistan, which left the Taliban with more than $5 billion in advanced American weaponry and military equipment. Do you still think this was wise, and are you planning similar American troop withdrawals from, say, the Iraq/Syria/Jordan border area or Taiwan or eastern Europe?

How do you intend to push back at Iran, as it ramps up its nuclear weapons program and expands its proxy terrorist network – which threaten American interests in the Middle East and indeed threaten global security? Are you waiting for Iran to test its first nuclear bomb, and what will you do then?

If/when Israel has to pulverize the Iranian-backed terrorist army in Lebanon called Hezbollah, will the US under your leadership provide Israel with every weapon necessary to get the job done swiftly and convincingly, or withhold weapons from Israel again because of concern over civilian casualties?

Instead of repining about pads for Palestinians in Gaza combat zones, wouldn’t it make more sense to force the creation of humanitarian relief precincts for Palestinian civilians in Sinai, despite Egyptian reticence to do so? Might your compassion for Palestinians lead to creative solutions led by America in this regard, not just to criticism of Israel?

Are you going to continue the outrageous Biden-Harris administration focus on sanctioning right-wing Israelis that you don’t like, ranging from settlers to opponents of humanitarian aid for Hamas; while negotiating sanctions relief for Iran and pumping the terrorist-supporting Palestinian Authority with more US taxpayer dollars?

Published in The Jerusalem Post, 23.08.2024

As a former member of the Knesset, a Jewish citizen of Israel, and a mother who was moved to see you in Israel following the events of October 7 and to hear you declare that one does not have to be Jewish to be a Zionist, I would like to share with you, Mr. President, my belief that you carry within you a deep emotional and spiritual commitment to the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

I feel that you, personally, understand the righteousness of my people’s path, despite the fact that it is, of course, not devoid of errors.

Nonetheless, Mr. President, I would like to share with you my deep concern in light of your call on Israel not to respond to the recent unprecedented Iranian attack on our soil. That is, in your words, to prevent the situation from escalating into a regional war. Mr. President, we are already in a regional war!

For whatever reason, the West chooses to continue to turn a blind eye to the terror cultivated by the Ayatollah regime. I cannot imagine that this regime’s ideology and ambitions remain hidden from you, a leader who has the best intelligence capabilities at his disposal.

This is a regime that began its relentless, systematic, and meticulously planned assault on Western values in 1979, immediately following the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

It is a regime that teaches tens of thousands of Shi’ite girls in Syria and Iraq to engage in temporary “marriages of convenience,” which are annulled shortly after consummation.

After annulment, the “fruits” of these temporary marriages are then taken to be cultivated as future soldiers in the Shi’ite militias in Iraq and Syria. The long arms of this terror take the form of the Houthis in Yemen; Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria, and Lebanon; as well as Hezbollah.

Iran sponsors terror in Sudan and many other countries on the African continent and quietly nurtures “terror cells” in the West, including in Europe, Canada, Australia, and, of course, the US. All this, Mr. President, is well beyond a regional war.

In the wake of the current Iranian regime’s show of terror in the form of over 300 missiles aimed and fired at Israeli cities, it is hard to imagine that its declaration of intent regarding the destruction of the State of Israel is empty of content and that it will not do everything in its power to realize its threats. That is, particularly if Iran continues to see, hear, and feel the hesitation of Western countries to stop it.

Your clear stand on Israel’s side – intercepting and stopping this unprecedented attack – did not go unnoticed by me or by my fellow citizens. It moved me and re-instilled in me the hope that good will yet prevail.

You were also able to produce an impressive and unprecedented international and regional coalition that even included Arab countries whose interests align with the national security of the State of Israel.

But at the same time, you hastened to publicly warn Israel not to respond to Iran’s horrifying act of aggression.

The reason behind this aggression is undoubtedly our enemies’ perception that Israel’s deterrence is not what it once was – a perception that is strengthened by statements that clearly indicate that Israel’s hands are asked to be tied by none other than our greatest friends in the international arena.

Can you imagine, Mr. President, that if the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, or any other country in the West were attacked in this way, it could be expected not to respond? When the United States was attacked in 2001 by despicable terrorists, was it at all conceivable that it would not retaliate?

Indeed, the dangers inherent in each step must be weighed with the utmost care. The potential consequences of each step are fateful. Yet, not responding, in and within itself, is a choice that has far-reaching consequences.

This strife that we are currently facing on several fronts is one that we did not initiate nor wish for. Mr. President, you have witnessed the pain of my people, the trauma of the families of those among us who are still held captive in Gaza, and the constant threat to our civilians from the east, the south, and the north. All of this can be traced back to none other than the same murderous, hateful regime.

Destiny has placed you, at this particular time, in a position of power and at the helm. You currently hold the reins on the stability of our region and the protection of Western values.

As such, Mr. President, I believe that you simply no longer have the privilege to unsee the clear situation and that you must act in good conscience.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, April 19, 2024

In the age before Hamas’s October 7 massacre, the air defense operation that successfully intercepted Iran’s air assault against Israel would have seemed like a victory. Almost all (99%) of the over 300 missiles and UAVs launched by Tehran and its proxies were shot down by an international coalition led by the United States, and Israel emerged largely unscathed.

However, the failed paradigms that led to Hamas’s October 7 massacre have taught us that Israel and its allies, including the US, must not revert to a merely defensive posture. They must demonstrate clearly to Iran and the entire Middle East that there is a significant price to be paid for launching such attacks, even if they are deflected.

Before October 7, 2023, the dominant security paradigm in Israel was one that relied on defensive capabilities. Israel had become adept at shooting down Hamas rockets from the Gaza Strip with its Iron Dome system. Even as Hamas’s arsenal in Gaza grew more sophisticated, and Iran provided Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border with precise missiles, Jerusalem’s security concept remained grounded in preserving quiet to the extent possible by relying on its multi-layered air defenses. As long as damage to Israel’s home front could be minimized, the Jewish state could make do with limited strikes on the terrorist organizations that surrounded it.

This paradigm was supported not only by Israel’s military and political echelons, but also by the United States, which provided billions in support for Israeli air defense under the US-Israel 2018 Memorandum of Understanding. In 2022, Congress approved an additional $1 billion for Iron Dome. President Joe Biden’s November 2023 request for supplemental aid to Israel includes funding for 100 Iron Dome launchers.

This assistance has saved countless Israeli lives and Israelis are rightfully grateful for it. At the same time, this approach allowed Israel to tell itself that “defense is deterrence.” Jerusalem adopted the belief that the proper response to Tehran’s increasingly-dangerous efforts to build a ring of terror around Israel through its proxies in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, was to build a defensive wall.

ON OCTOBER 7, that paradigm came crashing down. Despite all of Israel’s hi-tech systems, Hamas showed that it was not deterred, and launched a horrifically brazen and barbaric attack. One by one, Israel’s defensive systems failed to prevent Hamas terrorists from murdering more than 1,200 mostly Israelis and kidnapping more than 250 others, leading to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. Israel’s reliance on its Iron Dome air defense made its security establishment overly-complacent in the face of Hamas, leading to a failure to detect the terrorist group’s plans for attacking Israel along other vectors.

In parallel, in line with its defensive posture, Israel evacuated the towns along its northern border, in order to move civilians out of the way of Hezbollah’s Iranian-funded missiles. It is not clear when the tens of thousands of internally displaced Israeli refugees will be able to return to their homes in the North.

On the night between October 13-14, Iran launched over 300 cruise and ballistic missiles and UAVs at Israel. Some 99% of them were intercepted by the Israeli, American, British and Jordanian militaries, reportedly with the involvement of Saudi Arabia and other countries as well. The successful response showed the utility of the nascent Middle East Air Defense architecture, built since the signing of the Abraham Accords.

According to media reports, President Biden told Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu soon after the successful interception that Israel should see the results as a victory, and that the US would not support an Israeli counter-strike.

Steadfast American support for an Israeli operation against Iran and Hezbollah will send a clear message to the Islamic Republic, while improving overall security in the region and laying the groundwork for future stability. A US-Israel show of unity and determination will lead Iran to limit its response. It must be remembered that the Iranian economy is in dire straits, with an increased reliance on energy sales to China and weapons sales to Russia. The ayatollah regime faces substantial opposition at home. Iran is therefore much more vulnerable to a strike targeting strategic assets.

President Biden warned Iran before it launched its attack with one word: “Don’t”. But Iran did. Now is the time to turn words into actions. Israel must demonstrate that it has learned the lessons of October 7, and will no longer make do with mere defense. The United States must show that its repeated assurances of “ironclad” support for Israel include the Jewish state’s ability not just to block blows, but to strike those who threaten its people.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, April 16, 2024

The pullout of the vast majority of the IDF’s troops from Gaza in recent days has raised questions about whether Israel’s military campaign is ending with a whimper.

Amid pressure from its most important ally and weapon supplier, the US, the operation in Rafah — where Hamas’s remaining battalions are located — has not yet begun. But based on the remarks made by Israel’s top generals and politicians, it appears as though it will go ahead. After IDF troops left Khan Younis on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared: “We are but a step away from victory.”

Yet members of his governing coalition remain sceptical, with far-Right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir responding that “if the Prime Minister decides to end the war without a broad attack on Rafah to defeat Hamas, he won’t have a mandate to continue serving.” Hours later, Netanyahu released a video in which he said “there is a date” for the operation.

The continued delay of the Rafah invasion also shows that Washington has greater sway than Israel’s leadership is willing to acknowledge — at least publicly. Out in the open and in meetings with Israeli officials, the White House’s criticisms have grown sharper and more threatening to the alliance with Israel. Indeed, the withdrawal of troops from Khan Younis came only three days after Netanyahu and Joe Biden spoke on the phone, with the American President saying that “US policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by [its] assessment of Israel’s immediate action” to improve the humanitarian situation. He also called for an “immediate ceasefire”. Netanyahu’s office announced the opening of more crossings for humanitarian aid hours later.

A source familiar with Netanyahu’s thinking confirmed that there are several motivations behind the troop withdrawal: giving a chance for a hostage release and ceasefire deal; calming the Americans down; the beginning of Eid al-Fitr; and preparing for invading Rafah, which he said Netanyahu plans to do.

The Biden administration’s influence over the war effort in Gaza is apparent: the President and his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, have taken part in Israeli war cabinet meetings and this week’s increased aid is not the first time Israel has changed its plans after meetings and conversations with White House officials.

The danger is that if this withdrawal is part of a mini-ceasefire or a brief pause, the US will try to make it permanent, as Biden administration officials have said they hoped to do in the past. Then, Israel will be faced with the choice of either going it alone, without American support, or giving in, thus allowing for Hamas’s remaining brigades in Rafah to continue posing a threat.

But it should also be noted that the US continues to supply weapons to Israel, and the Biden administration has yet to set additional conditions on its military aid, despite unprecedented backing for such a policy from within the Democratic Party. The President has not backed down from his support for the war aims of eliminating the Hamas threat and bringing home the more than 130 hostages remaining in Gaza.

What’s more, influence does not mean omnipotence. Biden also demanded that Netanyahu “empower his negotiators to conclude a deal without delay to bring the hostages home” — yet the deal still fell through.

The question, then, is whether this influence is such that Israel will make any major changes due to US influence, such as backing down from eliminating the final Hamas battalions in Rafah.

Recent remarks from Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, someone so close to Netanyahu that he has been nicknamed “Bibi’s brain”, indicate that Jerusalem is determined to push forward regardless of the pressure from Washington.

“If Israel does not take care of Hamas in Gaza after what it did on October 7th,” Dermer said, “I truly believe that this country has no future because all the buzzards circling around this country are going to think that you can pick apart this carcass […] That’s why the determination to take them out is so strong, even if it leads to a potential breach with the United States.”

Published in UnHerd, April 10, 2024.

In June 2014, then-US president Barack Obama green-lighted a Fatah-Hamas unity coalition, leaving Israel ominously isolated. Israel stood by its solitary self in absolute opposition to the government cunningly created by Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh.

Just about every Western leader was prepared to swallow the Palestinian deception in which “technocrats” were to run government ministries as stand-ins for the real power brokers in Palestinian politics (i.e., Hamas). Just about everybody was prepared to play dumb and pretend that Iranian-backed jihadists committed to the genocide of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel weren’t going to be the recipients of Western aid and diplomatic cooperation.

Nobody was prepared to admit that the Palestinian Authority had gone defunct; that Palestinian statehood had become a hazardous idea; and that Israel had no genuine Palestinian partner for a peaceful two-state scenario.

Obama and the Europeans were unable to acknowledge any of this since they had invested so heavily in the PA and Abbas, and it was so much simpler to vilify Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as the obstacle to peace.

Indeed, distancing America from Israel had been Obama’s modus operandi from day one. He infamously warned in March 2014 that Israel could expect to face international isolation and sanctions from countries and companies across the world if Netanyahu failed to endorse his bid for Palestinian statehood.

He proceeded to lament the fact that America, in his words, did not any longer have absolute power in this “diffuse” world, and that he would not be able to “manage” the coming anti-Israel fallout.

There wasn’t really much anguish in Obama’s voice. Obama wasn’t too upset about Israel’s “impending isolation” or the fact that America “would have reduced influence in issues that are of interest to Israel.”

It was all very artificial. Obama was merely feigning dismay at the possible isolation of Israel, while in practice purposefully paving the way towards Israel’s isolation and an American distancing from Israel.

The give-away was Obama’s total failure to place any responsibility on Palestinian leaders for retardation of peace. There was not a smidgeon of answerability that he attached to Abbas or Hamas. He had nothing to say about Hamas stockpiling of Iranian missiles and RPGs. He issued no warnings of PA diplomatic isolation or economic collapse if Abbas did not compromise and advance the peace process. Only to Netanyahu.

But of course, Obama truly “wished he had the influence” to arrest the isolation of Israel. Yeah, right. The big chill was on.

The situation today is a repeat of the Obama era

THIS HISTORY is relevant to the current moment when Israel is being threatened once again with “international isolation” and even an arms boycott by a US administration filled with Obama acolytes.

US-Israel relations are indeed at a watershed moment following the administration’s decision this week to abstain on (i.e., not veto) a rotten UN Security Council resolution that thoroughly delegitimizes Israel’s necessary and continuing war effort to eliminate Hamas in Gaza.

Next will be a long series of demonizing and criminalizing anti-Israel resolutions in UN agencies and international courts. (The Human Rights Council discussed four vicious reports on Israel this week and is to front several resolutions including a finding of “genocide” supposedly being committed by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza.)

Internationalizing the conflict and criminalizing Israel always was a central Palestinian strategy. Alas, US President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken are now acquiescing in this horrible scheme, in order to wedge Israel into their fantasy framework for a swift, dangerously indecisive, end to the Gaza war.

This includes a gambit for “revitalized” Palestinian statehood and a magnanimous soft deal with Iran that magically will make all regional wars go away, from Sana’a to Beirut and Rafah.

Like Obama, Biden and Blinken will be “unable to manage” or mount a defense of Israel if Israel does not bend to their will.

The big chill again coming from Washington is uncomfortable, but Israel has no choice but to resist. It is not an exaggeration to say that Israel stands at a moment of grand diplomatic inflection, a pivotal moment with historical implications for Israel’s sovereignty and long-term security.

At issue is not just the question of how and when to destroy the remaining four Hamas brigades in Rafah in Gaza. Nor is the issue humanitarian aid to Palestinians trapped in the hell created by Hamas.

At issue is the regional and international perception of Israel as a country capable of resoundingly winning an existential war of self-defense; a war against the first Muslim Brotherhood state ever established (Hamas in Gaza), a state that has genocidal plans for Israel long into the future again and again – unless eliminated.

At issue is the regional and international perception of Israel as a country with the determination to rout the Iranian-backed Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah proxies that have forced Israel into repeated rounds of draining warfare, and which now have depopulated and destroyed significant parts of southern and northern Israel.

At issue is the regional and international perception of Israel as a nation that cannot be steamrolled into diplomatic or military defeat; that is able to act on its essential security imperatives and free all of Israel (including Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Judea and Samaria) of terrorist violence and rocket attacks.

At issue are regional and international perceptions of Israel as a society that is unified, resolute, and just; whose moral compass in wartime is unwavering; and whose partnership is reliable.

WHAT THE Biden administration all of a sudden does not seem to understand (perhaps due to narrow electoral reasons), is that Israelis are mobilized and united to unambiguously win, with crushing certainty. This is not just “Netanyahu’s war,” as Western wags have slurred.

For all of Biden’s true personal commitment to Israel, his administration also does not seem to comprehend that Western civilization itself is under attack from radical Islamist barbarians – with the Hamas war on Israel (alongside Hezbollah and Houthi attacks) being only the frontline of a broader assault on “Rome,” i.e., all the West.

This is truly a world war that cannot be nicely dialed down by accommodationist diplomacy. And this is a war that best can be won if Washington stands by natural allies like Israel instead of punishing them.

Israel cannot knuckle under. Israel stands quite alone, but what is new about that? “Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9). Being “unreckoned” is unnerving but familiar territory for the People and the State of Israel.

This is not a desirable situation, nor should Israel accept this as a permanent reality. There is much Israel must do to overcome gaps between its perception of the immediate and long-term challenges and those of other nations. There is much that Israel can and will do by resolute action that will force a grudging, positive reassessment by other nations, in due time.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 29.03.2024 and Israel Hayom 31.03.2024.

The US fails to understand the current dialectic in Israeli politics, whereby harsh Israeli public criticism of the Netanyahu governement coexists with widespread consensus regarding the goals of the war against Hamas and the necessity of achieving them. By distancing itself from Israel, the only US “achievement” is damage to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political fortunes.

For the first time since October 7, the US recently abstained from vetoing two resolutions put forward for approval by the UN Security Council. While the two approved resolutions are non-binding, as they were not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which authorizes the Security Council to enforce the resolution by imposing sanctions, nonetheless this is a dangerous and problematic precedent by the US with respect to the war against Hamas in general, and relations with Israel in particular.

Moreover, there are already countries for whom this resolution presented a golden opportunity. The President of Columbia Gustavo Petro, for example, has announced that he will sever diplomatic relations with Israel if it does not abide by the UN resolution.

The US abstention from vetoing the resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan,which makes no reference to the hostages, and the second resolution which includes a call for an immediate ceasefire and the release of the hostages without any preconditions, but does not stipulate that the ceasefire is contingent on the release of the hostages – indicates a fundamental change in the US attitude toward the goals of the war as defined by the government of Israel, and which the US fully and adamantly supported in the first months of the war. 

This is not the first time the US has abstained from vetoing a Security Council resolution against Israel. Thus, for example, it abstained from vetoing Resolution 2334 against the settlements that was passed in December 2016, towards the end of President Obama’s second term. However, that was at the end of a Democratic US president’s term in office, and also not in the midst of a war. Therefore, by any comparative measure, this is an unusual action on the part of the US in its severity and harshness, and may attest to the depth of the crisis between the two countries, and mainly between their leaders.

By abstaining, the US deliberately weakens Israel and helps create conditions for imposing an end to the war by securing a deal for the hostages realease and a long ceasefire, which its clear meaning is finishing the war, even at the cost of not achieving Israeli war goals, which again, were until now supported by the US.

Anyone that doubts the essence of the resolution that was passed due to the US abstention, and its problematic ramifications, needs only listen to how Hamas welcomed the resolution. The fact that Hamas celebrated the resolution affirms that it works in favor of Hamas, and consequently is bad for Israel and harms its vital interests.

There are those who attribute the US decision to internal considerations related to President Biden’s election campaign, and to the need to appease the Muslim electorate and progressives following its low polling ranking and the criticism for supporting Israel. Some attribute this to deep frustration of the President and the Adminstration with Prime Minister Netanyahu, whom they view as foot-dragging and avoiding a discussion about the “day after,” alongside a show of defiance against the US, including the President himself. It is reasonable to assume that these are indeed influencing factors. However, it appears that there are much more fundamental reasons. These pertain to an American desire for a diplomatic achievement that will advance its vision of a new regional architecture to counter the Iranian axis, prevention of the war’s expansion into a regional war, and avoidance at any cost of direct confrontation with Iran which would draw US troops into conflict, in the sense of “boots on the ground.”

The cornerstone of the US vision or strategy is the cessation of the war in the Gaza Strip alongside “rehabilitation” of the Palestinian Authority and its return to Gaza and advancement of the two-state idea. According to the US, cessation of the war also will allow for an end to fighting in the north against Hezbollah and advancement of a diplomatic arragement in the spirit of UN Resolution 1701. This will also enable renewal of the normalization process with Saudi Arabia, and will convince Iran to restrain its proxies, especially the Houthis.   

Since halting the war in Gaza Strip is the cornerstone of the entire process, the US is willing to force Israel to stop the war even at the cost of short-changing Israel’s war goals and forgoeing the full dismantling of Hamas’ governing and military capabilities. The US assumes, at least so it appears, that Hamas will cease to be the sovereign power in the Gaza Strip with the return of the Palestinian Authority or the establishment of some other alternative governing structure.   

It is doubtful whether US senior officials really believe in the feasibility of the return of the Palestinian Authority and in its ability to function as an effective governing body in Gaza. It can be assumed that senior officials also understand that the appointment of Mohammad Mustafa as the Palesitnian Authority’s prime minister is a deception of sorts that will not lead to significant reforms in the Palestinian Authority. Therefore, it is difficult not to view the US decision to abstain from vetoing the UN resolution as reflecting something deeper, a move reminiscent of stopping Israel from destroying the Egyptian Third Field Army in the Yom Kippur War. 

It seems that the motivation was the same in both cases: Preventing Israel from achieving full victory, so that it will continue to hemorrhage for many years, thus deepening its dependence on the US and establishing a reality based on patron-client relations. Perhaps we are now being exposed to a strategic, deep, cold, cynical and callous consideration whose purpose is to secure US interests even at the expense of Israel’s vital interests.

If these are not the considerations guiding US action, then in that case they reflect a deep lack of understanding of processes taking place in the Middle East, and they will cause many in the region, including its close allies, to pay heavy prices.     

The US decision constitutes a fatal blow to Washington’s attempts to advance a regional architecture based on Saudi Arabia and the Abraham Accords countries. If the US abandons its main ally in the Middle East, what should its other allies understand about the US commitment to them?

The US tried to advance a three-way defense treaty with Saudi Arabia and Israel, however this dream now seems farther away than ever, with US allies in the Middle-East facing a broken dream, while Hamas may remain standing as the governing body in the Gaza Strip. This will provide a strong tailwind to all elements of the resistance axis, with an emphasis on Iran, the leader of the resistance axis, as well as a tailwind to the Muslim Brotherhood and to other Jihad organizations in the region. 

Iran is consolidating its power in the comfort zone the US essentially has created for it, clapping its hands in pleasure as it sees Israel becoming isolated from its allies and friends, which in turn enables Iran to continue to challenge the US through its proxies, and of course to move forward with its nuclear weapon project. 

The US decision also has immediate ramifications for Hamas’ motivation to advance a hostage deal. Hamas sees the growing pressure on Israel, so all it needs to do is to continue to delay its response and increase the price it demands. The US abstention and the pressure on Israel to avoid completing the operation in Rafah provide a huge tailwind to Hamas leadership in Gaza, and further consolidates the popular and political support it already has, in addition to providing a tailwind to the resistance axis not only in Gaza but also in Lebanon, and mainly in Iran. 

The only US “achievement” here is damage to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political fortunes. Washington is deepening a rift with the prime minister, knowing that this may lead to elections in Israel and to establishment of a government more favorable to US ideas. This was well expressed by Vice President Kamala Harris, who drew a distinction between the prime minister and the government of Israel and the people of Israel; as well as by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who in his speech in the Senate stated that Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost his way and then also called for new elections in Israel.

At the same time, Netanyahu’s statement regarding an operation in Rafah – that he would proceed even without US approval – is problematic. Though his statement is logical, he shouldn’t have exacerbated the crisis. Everyone knows that such statements are not helpful.

Overall, Washington errs in its understanding of Israeli society and politics – a matter which seems even complicated for us, Israelis. It fails to understand the current dialectic in Israeli politics, whereby harsh Israeli public criticism of the Netanyahu governement coexists with widespread consensus regarding the goals of the war against Hamas and the necessity of achieving them. Israelis broadly oppose a return of the Palestinian Authority to the Gaza Strip, and they have a deep lack of trust in the Palestinians and in the feasibility of a two-state solution. The majority of those who oppose Netanyahu also reject blatant US interference in Israeli politics and the attempt to impose an end to the war on Israel before the war goals are achieved.   

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that US actions will not achieve their aims. On the contrary, US pressures may even increase support for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu is likely to be perceived by the Israeli public as protecting Israel’s interests and national honor – even at the cost of escalating tensions with the administration.

The growing tension between Washington and Jerusalem, which this week escalated into blunt messages towards Benjamin Netanyahu from President Joe Biden, makes it that much worse for the IDF to ensure it would have the freedom of operation in Gaza. It also presents Israel’s civilian leadership with a challenge: Is there a way to achieve the war objectives in Gaza without escalating the confrontation with the Biden administration and losing the support of the White House?

Biden’s standing by Israel at the start of the war will be remembered as one of the high points in the special relationship between the countries. But this has been blunted by the passage of time, the images from Gaza, the disputes over the “day after”, and domestic US politics ahead of the presidential elections, all of which have made relations tense and delicate.

While Biden says that he continues to support the goals Israel has defined for the war, the limits he has placed on Israel make achieving them an almost impossible task.

The points of friction can be summed up as follows:

Israeli action in Rafah

Hamas’ brigade in Rafah, with its four battalions, constitutes one-fifth of the organization’s military force. In addition to its missions, it is also responsible for the stretch of border connecting Gaza to the outside world via Egypt. Through it, weapons, technical equipment, operatives, and commanders are smuggled in. Terrorists from other areas of the strip have found refuge in Rafah during the fighting. Does anyone really think that Hamas’ rule and military capabilities can be defeated without action in Rafah?

Reducing Palestinian casualties

Biden expects the fighting to continue while reducing Palestinian civilian casualties. He relies on data from Hamas’ Ministry of Health, whose reliability is unclear, and is not satisfied with the IDF’s evidence of an extremely low fatality ratio of “uninvolved” vs. combatants, partly thanks to population evacuation and stringent precautions taken by Israeli troops, which some say are overly stringent.

Should the entire burden be on Israel’s shoulders? Have they thought in Washington about persuading Egypt to allow temporary humanitarian refuge in Egyptian Rafah to enable the fighting? At a time when the US, the EU, and other countries are providing billions of dollars in aid to the Egyptian economy, this option could have been seriously considered as well.

Increasing humanitarian aid

Biden’s demand to increase humanitarian aid and related initiatives (airdrops, maritime pier) show that his administration has not internalized that the problem is not delivering aid to the strip, but its distribution within it. Hamas will take control of everything that enters. It will use it to supply its fighters (and prolong their ability to fight) and strengthen its rule. The way to prevent this is to deliver the aid to areas that Hamas would not be able to access it, which could also be achieved by establishing a humanitarian refuge in the Egyptian side of Rafah.

An “improved Palestinian Authority” in Gaza

Another issue straining relations with the Americans is the Israeli position regarding the establishment of an “improved Palestinian Authority” in Gaza. The Biden administration has not internalized the suspicion Israelis harbor towards the PA and its current or former leaders, and to the possibility of establishing a Palestinian government in the terror city that will not cooperate with Hamas.

The US’ posture of discounting the extent of public support for Hamas in Gaza, and the fact that it is entrenched in all spheres of life in the strip has had the administration hold on to an optimistic assessment regarding the ability to bring about deep change through governmental models under Arab or international auspices, detached from Hamas. As long as there remains a strong, organized, and armed core of the terror organization in Gaza, it will have effective control over the strip.

“Regional integration” and a “Palestinian state”

Looming over all these issues is the disagreement over America’s vision, which seeks to create regional integration that includes peace agreements between Israel and Saudi Arabia and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The war provided the Biden administration with an opportunity to bring about a new regional order. The president also needs this ahead of his elections, but from Israel’s perspective, normalization with Saudi Arabia will not compensate for Hamas’ non-defeat.

Talk of a “Palestinian state” after the Oct. 7 massacre constitutes a prize for Hamas and also expresses a lack of understanding of the sentiment in the Israeli public. Anyone who thinks that after the October events Israel will take risks like those taken in the past lives in La La Land. 

The root problem

The root of the dispute between Washington and Jerusalem concerns the meaning of the war, which brought Israel back to the realization that it is still fighting for its existence. The Biden administration has not internalized that for Israel, the defeat of Hamas is an existential issue. It is not like America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were conducted thousands of miles away.

The players in our region are keeping a watchful eye on what is unfolding. Their posture and conduct toward Israel will be influenced by the results. The deterrence that collapsed on October 7 will not be restored if Israel stops short of meeting the goals it has defined for the war. An Israeli failure will have it face an existential threat, the temptation to attack it will grow, and its diplomatic standing will be severely crippled. Therefore, the room for maneuver that Israel can afford is highly constricted.

Biden expects the fighting to continue while reducing the scope of civilian casualties.

The administration’s approach plays into Hamas’ hands and has granted Hamas freebies: A delay in action in Rafah and increased humanitarian aid – conditions that help it reassert its control. The pressure from Washington moves Israel closer to a war of attrition, whose costs are high and its duration is difficult to control. They even push away America’s hopes of advancing a deal for the release of the captives.

So what should we do?

First, continue public diplomacy and persuasion efforts with administration officials and the American people despite the slim chances of moving the needle. 

Second, increase efforts in areas where there is no dispute: targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders abroad, raids on targets in the strip where signs of Hamas has been rearing its head. 

Third, promote the establishment of temporary humanitarian shelters, in Egyptian Rafah (with Egyptian consent) or the strip (such as in the Dahaniya area near Rafah), and accelerate preparations for action in Rafah.

In the spirit of President Biden’s words, in the speech he gave after the massacre: “Hamas’ stated purpose is the annihilation of the State of Israel and the murder of Jewish people. Israel has the right to respond — indeed has a duty to respond – to these vicious attacks.”

Published in  Israel Hayom, March 17, 2024. 

While most of the world’s attention regarding Israel’s current war is focused on Gaza, Israel is simultaneously fighting an entirely separate front against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It can be described as a war of attrition, as there has yet to be a ground invasion from either side, but in all other respects it is a war, and it is more severe than any of the skirmishes with Hezbollah since 2006. Immediately after Hamas’ attack and through to today, Hezbollah began attacking Israel daily with missiles, RPG’s, attack drones, and has amassed ground forces along the border, who are prepared to invade Israeli towns and enact a slaughter which would make October 7^th look mild. This has forced Israel to evacuate the entire civilian population within a few miles of the border with Lebanon, creating a crisis in which approximately 80,000 residents of Israel’s north have become internally displaced and remain so. Israel has struck back at Hezbollah targets, seeking to weaken the terror organization’s military capabilities and command structure, but has not sought to undertake a large-scale maneuver while it is still focused on the Gazan theatre. But it must be understood, that this is an ongoing warfront and far from stable.

Recent reporting has suggested the Biden administration is heavily invested in negotiating a deal to end the battle between Israel and Hezbollah. In doing so, he is attempting to convince Israel to accept a deal that will slightly lower the immediate threat level, but essentially keep in place the continued strategic threat which Hezbollah poses to the entire country and most acutely to the northern region. The steps under discussion include having Hezbollah forces pull back 8-10 kilometers but they fall short of implementation of UNSC 1701, which requires Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and outlaws its military presence south of the Litani river, close to 30 km from the border with Israel. Even worse, some reports have indicated that Israel is being asked to negotiate on surrendering control of territories along the “Blue-Line,” the border demarcated by the UN in 2000, and reiterated by UNCS 1701. Among the points claimed by Lebanon is Mount Dov, an area of strategic topographic importance, which the UN has clearly declared as not belonging to Lebanon and should not be up for discussion.

Biden is motivated by a desire to prevent further escalation of the war between Israel and the Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, out of concern that this could eventually drag the US into a broader war against Iran. He also fears that a larger war with Hezbollah would undermine any chances for reaching a diplomatic understanding with Iran, which he hopes would stabilize the region and prevent Tehran’s nuclear progress.

However, his current strategy of declaring publicly his commitment not to escalate vis-à-vis Iran, while pressuring Israel to stand down will likely have the precise opposite effect of what he is trying to achieve. In order to prevent further escalation, he must instead send the message that he is willing to escalate and that he will back Israel in its demands to fully enforce UNSC 1701.

Biden may be worried about a ‘full-scale’ war with Iran, but in reality, it is Khamenei who should be most concerned over this prospect. Given the vast disparity in military strength between the two countries, Iran understands that an all-out war with the US could lead to a collapse of the regime. Tehran is only willing to push the boundaries of aggression when it assesses that the US will not react with greater force, something Biden has all but given a written guarantee.

Iran’s regional strategy turns upon the idea that it can attack its enemies through its Arab proxies while avoiding any direct retaliation against Iran itself. But historically speaking, any time the regime felt threatened directly, it has consistently turned to caution and sought to avoid escalation. A number of examples illustrate this pattern of behavior.

Most recently, after the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani by the US in January 2020, Iran responded by launching 16 missiles at 2 US bases in Iraq, resulting in some damage but no American casualties. Supreme Leader, Khamenei, defined the purpose of the attack as “a blow to the dignity of the U.S. as a superpower,” meaning it was a symbolic retaliation.

Not long before this, when the Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear deal, adopted a policy of maximum pressure and began to return sanctions in 2018, Iran did nothing for a full year. When it attacked, ostensibly in response to Trump’s policies, it was in the form of a carefully calibrated strike on oil tankers, a Saudi oil pipeline, cautious progress in the nuclear realm, and an attack on Saudi oil refineries, which was certainly egregious, but ultimately designed to prove a point, not to start a war.

The last time Israel fought Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, in 2006, Israel invaded Lebanon and brought vast destruction to local infrastructure and Hezbollah installations, but Iran merely supported Hezbollah logistically and with strategic advice. It called for a ceasefire and conveyed messages to Hezbollah not to escalate beyond necessity.

In 2003, against the backdrop of the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and President Bush’s threats to continue the march on to Tehran, Iran froze its illegal enrichment of uranium and halted research into the military dimensions of its nuclear program.

This pattern held even under the founder of revolutionary Iran, Khomeini, when in 1988, in response to an Iranian attack on an American destroyer in the Persian Gulf, the US launched a punitive operation, sinking three Iranian ships and destroying two oil drilling rigs. The US then offered a cease-fire, which Iran swiftly accepted.

Since the beginning of the war, Iran has been testing US resolve, and because Biden has made it clear that his first priority is to limit the war at all costs, Iran’s actions have become increasingly daring. Even as Washington has been forced to react, for example to protect maritime traffic against the Houthi threat in the Red Sea, and to retaliate against Iran’s killing of three Americans, it has done this while declaring its intention to prevent a larger war, and limiting its response to targeting Iran’s Arab proxies only. This only serves to clarify to Iran that it continues to have a free hand to attack the US, and to clarify to Hezbollah that if it threatens escalation, the US will likely pressure Israel to back down.

But it is precisely this dynamic that may drag Washington further into the conflict. If it continues, it will also clarify for Iran that it will not pay a price for progress on the nuclear front, and would therefore be more likely to attempt a break out in the next year, while it can still be certain that the Biden administration will be in power.

Instead, the US must show resolve and project its willingness to exact a higher price than Iran is expecting for its aggressions. Washington must also make clear that it will allow Israel to act as it sees fit to protect itself against Hezbollah’s aggression, even if this means using force. Any pressure on Israel to make territorial concessions, especially on land for which Lebanon has no legal basis to demand, would only strengthen Hezbollah’s resolve. A pullback of 8-10 km from the border would be a minor and reversable concession from Hezbollah. If it were to agree to do this, it would behave just has it did in the past, following the 2006 war. Hezbollah will give the appearance of a pullback, while in practice it would simply go undercover, operate wearing civilian clothes, dig more bunkers under the cover of civilians and return fully to its positions at the first opportunity. It would do nothing to fundamentally change the severe threat that is posed to Israel’s north, and would remain an intolerable security situation for Israel’s civilian population, who rightly refuse to live as sitting ducks for the next slaughter. The only reasonable end-state can be a full implementation of UNSC 1701, and it is an embarrassment to Washington that even its opening position is not to demand the enforcement of the Security Council decision for which it played a crucial role in formulating 18 years ago.

This applies no less to the nuclear realm. The only reason Iran has to date not yet developed a nuclear weapon has been the credible threats of force that it has faced. In the 2000s, it felt this threat from the United States following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Throughout the 2010s it felt this threat mainly from Israel. Now is the time to strengthen this deterrence by clearly indicating that the US will not prevent Israel from acting directly against Iran if necessary. If Washington truly wants to engender the stability that will allow it to focus less on the region, it must stop restraining its allies and start supporting them decisively in their battles against Iran and its proxies.

Published in The national interest,  February 15, 2024.

The United States explained the purpose of Kamala Harris’ trip this week to Dubai. Among the points were that the US will have conversations with Israel to “shape the next phase of the war” in Gaza. While this is clearly further pressure on Israel to avoid greater civilian casualties – a reasonable but unnecessary request since Israel has already gone to impossible lengths to protect Palestinian civilians — it is also suggests how the US expects to leverage the course of this war to affect post-war outcome.

There has been confusion regarding the nature of American support for Israel. It was the consensus in Israel in the first weeks that the United States under the Biden team had two common goals: remove Hamas and help Israel focus on the south and avoid a two-front war immediately. True enough. But Israelis of all stripes projected their hopes further and welcomed the impression that the US now “gets it” the same way as has been seared into Israel’s soul through the horror of October 7. Not only that Washington “switched its diskette” on Hamas, but on Palestinians, Hizballah and Iran. As such, American actions — including moving carrier battle groups and reinforcing US bases region-wide — were assumed first to be support on helping Israel survive initial attack and second to adopt a muscular, if not even threatening policy on Iran.  In essence, Israelis believed that Israel and the US were traveling along the same line, or at least two closely tracking parallel lines.

The problem is they are not.

The United States and Israel travel on intersecting and not parallel lines. The distinction is important. Parallel lines never touch, but they always run together. Intersecting lines on the other hand, converge at one point but eternally diverge afterwards. The point of convergence between the United States and Israel has now yielded to the inevitable divergence, and the strategic implications could not be graver. Moreover, the vast chasm emerging is both on the issue of Palestinians and the larger threat of Iran.

The divergence is most evident through the increasing tone of statements coming from Washington about how to “shape” this war.  There is a tension — strategic and moral –between a war narrowly focused on defeating Hamas and extending the Palestinian Authority, and a broader strategic war to change Israeli security on every border let alone advance a regional defeat of Iran and its proxies, which remain the ultimate source of the problem.

Israel’s population has undergone a traumatic paradigm shift. It fights this war informed by a broader and grounded understanding of the region and its dynamics that unfortunately indicts policy on the region that both Jerusalem and Washington had indulged for the last thirty years. Washington, however, proceeds as if nothing has changed. It remains in paradigmatic stasis. It still labors under the delusion that the exit to all this is a combination of some sort of Oslo 2.0 and JCPOA 2.0 (Iran deal).  Hence its engagement with Abu Mazen and its cultivated restraint and lack of meaningful responses to nearly 80 attacks on US bases across the region and regional attacks by Iran’s proxies from Yemen to Iraq.

Because the US now focuses on “the day after” plans for Gaza, and because Secretary Blinken reportedly demanded that Israel not expand the geographic parameters of the war, it has essentially made support for Israel conditional — specifically as long as the goal of the war remains laser-focused on the removal of Hamas to facilitate restoring Palestinian Authority (PA) control over Gaza.

Stripped of all the noise, essentially this is less support for Israel than support for the Palestinian Authority via Israel, while ignoring Hizballah and Iran.  The US is using this war — and all Israel’s sacrifice — to revive Oslo by making Palestine safe for Abu Mazen.

For the US, this is a war to save a paradigm in Washington. For Israel, it is a war for survival against a vast Iranian threat and Palestinian irridentism. As long as the United States fails to appreciate the war in this context, then it bodes ill about the future of Israeli American relations.

Or does it?

In my many years as a senior US official dealing with Israeli officials, it always struck me that they regard State Department corridor messages as the definitive word on US policy for Israel. Yet, Americans strongly support Israel. Congressional support is strong and growing. No President can afford to abandon Israel as long as the American people view it as a close ally fighting darkness. The belief Israel is acting fiercely to defend its independence and freedom — alone if necessary – taps into classic American imagination in popular culture as the epic hero. The irony missed often by Israelis is that the more they act in deference to the State Department, the more they damage their brand in the American public’s psyche, and the more they surrender popular support now and affinity in the long run.

The President does have a problem with progressives’ pressure to confront Israel. As long as Israel defers to American demands, it yields the field to progressives to dominate cost-free. If however, this president is forced to choose, the Democratic leadership understands that the party will lose swing districts in the 2024 Congressional elections as well as possibly the White House. Progressives cannot deliver the floating center of American politics. They have nowhere else to go; centrist liberals do.

As such, Israeli deference is self-defeating. Israel suffers self-deterrence.

The stakes could not be higher. Israel must decisively win this war, secure its citizenry country-wide, strategically devastate Iran’s regional reputation, and establish Israel as a powerful regional actor. The viability of the state depends on it.

Published in The Institute for A Secure America, December 4, 2023.