Less than a week after US President Joe Biden left the Middle East following a visit that focused on the informal Israeli-Sunni Arab alliance in the region, Russian President Vladimir Putin boarded a plane to Iran, the leader of the opposing Shi'ite axis. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey joined the summit in Tehran.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The three regimes represented in Tehran are not friends of the West. Russia is engaged in a brutal war against Ukraine and dishes out threats to European countries on a weekly basis. Iran funds terrorist proxies across the Middle East, has a robust nuclear weapons project, and has stated many times that it seeks the complete annihilation of the United States and Israel. Finally, Turkey has proven itself an unreliable partner of the West on core issues such as sanctions on Russia, use of Russian defense systems, support for malign Iranian activities and more.

Putin's summit has worrying implications for the Middle East. It appears that an anti-American alliance is forming at the behest of Russia and China, and it includes Iran and its terrorist proxies. As a result, Iran could soon find itself comfortably exporting oil and weapons and attracting foreign investments, despite Western sanctions. It might well become self-sufficient within its bloc of allies, leaving the West unable to pressure Iran on its nuclear program and other malfeasances.

US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan revealed last week that Iran already feels emboldened enough to send sophisticated weapons systems to Russia. Putin said last week in Tehran that Russia-Iran relations "are developing at a good pace," adding that the countries can "boast of record figures in terms of trade growth, including the strengthening of cooperation on international security issues."

Such statements are made by leaders who are completely undeterred by the West.

When asked about the possibility of advanced Iranian weapons being sold to Russia, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said this week, "We would advise Iran to not do that." He added: "We think that's a really, really bad idea."

This is not enough. When Iran is emboldened enough to transfer sophisticated UAVs to Russia and attempt to bring Turkey into its orbit, the West must see Iran for what it is and what it is attempting to do: conquer the region in the name of the Islamic revolution. Iranian leaders say this on a daily basis. We need only listen.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Iran must be made to understand that it cannot continue to expand its influence and aggression in the region, detach Turkey from the Western orbit or find new ways to evade Western sanctions. Right now, it seems that, even if these messages are being sent by the West, Tehran doesn't particularly care.

The best way to make Iran care is by creating a strong and concrete alliance against the axis Iran is attempting to build. The US is already the leader of the bloc opposing Iran, and it must do all it can, in cooperation with its many allies, to stop Iran's aggression in the region, as well as its nuclear program.

Finally, just like Eastern European countries faced with Russian aggression in their region, Israel cannot be expected to remain passive in the face of Iranian aggression in the Middle East. Israel must be prepared to use all means at its disposal to stop this aggression and ensure its own security.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post The emerging unholy alliance between Russia, Turkey and Iran appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The attempt to politicize basic facts about the fatally flawed agreement with Iran will compromise Israel's security and its founding principle to reserve the right for self-defense.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

There is hardly any more frequently recycled false narrative like this: "Israel's security establishment" supports the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.
Promoters of this narrative would have you believe that "most experts" condemned the Israeli government's successful efforts in persuading the Trump administration into withdrawing from the deal, calling it a "strategic mistake." This overwhelmingly misleading claim is consistently trotted out in an attempt to reshape the debate into a binary choice between "serious security experts" who believe in diplomacy, versus "war-mongering extremists" who push for war.

Alas, no. The notion that cutting a deal with the world's most dangerous regime, which openly seeks Israel's annihilation, can somehow enhance Israel's security, is completely rejected by the overwhelming majority of senior figures in the Israeli security establishment.

Leaders of our 3,000-member-strong movement of recently retired high-ranking officers, combatants, and veterans known as Israel's Defense and Security Forum have their fingers on the pulse of the defense and security establishments. IDSF's leaders don't discard the responsibility of advocating for Israel's security in order to receive international accolades from Western countries eager to trade with Iran. Often, we find ourselves listening in disbelief to claims made by Israeli security veterans from earlier generations, who are completely disconnected from the majority of officers, commanders, and Mossad and Shin Bet senior officials of today's Israel.

These claims are echoed in forums such as "Iran Diplomacy Works," a Washington-based campaign initiated by the J Street advocacy group, pushing for "proactive American diplomacy as the only effective way to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon." Feigning to represent "pro-Israel, pro-peace American" views, the campaign cited a series of older Israeli generals, Middle East researchers, and politicians, who have become quite partisan in their analysis against the American withdrawal from the JCPOA and in favor of rejoining it.

It is regrettable that basic facts about the Iran deal, and core principles of Israel's national security, are being used in such a political manner. In fact, it is this attempt to politicize the struggle against Iran's military nuclear program and to applaud a fatally flawed agreement that threatens Israel's security.

The vast majority of Israel's security and political establishment have been clear in their opposition to a return to the JCPOA, including Mossad director David Barnea and his predecessor, Yossi Cohen; IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi; Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and his predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu; a series of IDF senior officers, including newly installed Air Force Commander Tomer Bar; and the majority of Knesset members. This long list is added by our own IDSF members, including myself, former Intelligence Research Division Chief Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, former Commanding Officer of the Northern Command Maj. Gen. Gershon Hacohen and more.

The JCPOA gave Iran unparalleled concessions by compromising "anywhere, anytime verification" into a deeply flawed verification mechanism, preventing IAEA inspectors from accounting for Iran's undeclared nuclear work or visiting military sites where nuclear-related work continues today.

It not only skipped major issues such as the Iranian ballistic missiles program and regional terrorism. It effectively allowed Iran to enrich mass amounts of uranium with advanced centrifuges despite being party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty while saving Iran's economy by lifting sanctions, an infusion of cash that boosted its terror machine throughout the region.

Indeed, following the agreement Iran, upped its defense budget by 40% and upgraded its support for terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Palestinian terrorists in Israel and Shi'ite terrorists in Lebanon are paid off by JCPOA money.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Yet above all, the Iran nuclear deal gave Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's regime a clear runway and international legitimacy to develop an arsenal of atomic weapons within several years, as a short-lived deal with numerous "sunset clauses" that make large parts of the deal become obsolete within several years. Instead of keeping the mounting pressure on Iran, forcing it into carefully calculating its steps while fearing military retribution, the agreement has given Iran a pathway to the bomb with cushy economic conditions while only forcing it to lower its profile to a certain degree.

There was never a more lethal attempt to score a few political points than granting a regime openly calling for Israel's destruction with this kind of unmatched luxury.

We have always believed strongly in Israel's right to self-defense, independently from international political arrangements such as the Iran nuclear deal. When world leaders sweep the Iranian "monster" under the rug for political gain and disregard Iran's real advancement towards a nuclear weapon, it is a clear sign that Israel cannot allow itself to adopt the "Ukrainian model." Israeli security can only be guaranteed by Israel – and will never rely on international forces or agreements for its security.

The way to foil Iran's attempt to destroy Israel is through a credible military threat and crippling maximum pressure, not containment and appeasement. Rejoining the JCPOA will accomplish the polar opposite of its objective, fueling the Iranian terror machine with cash and deteriorating the region into a certain war in the short term. If there is one lesson that Israel can draw from experience, it's that looking the other way does not make the problem go away.

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Israeli security officials agree: Iran deal is a strategic calamity appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, one of the architects of the war in Afghanistan, made a point of distinguishing between the "known knowns" (already known variables), the predictable, though still indistinct, "known unknowns" and the completely obscure "unknown unknowns."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Twenty years after the grand debut of the longest war in American and NATO history, however, one has to wonder why such a particularly heavy toll of blood, treasure and conflict was necessary in order to know what was safely considered to be well-known. That is, upon the hasty withdrawal of deployed international forces, the Taliban wasted no time in completely filling the vacuum they left behind; Al-Qaida, which drew the United States into Afghanistan in the first place, is already operating in at least 15 provinces; and ISIS Khorasan is on the rise.

While the complex evacuation operation certainly deserves credit, returning to square one is hardly what the United States was hoping for upon the conclusion of this sanguinary campaign.

Understandably, from the American point of view, it was no longer in America's interest to prolong this war. Nation-building turned out to be a fiasco. During the transitional period, acting US Ambassador to Afghanistan James Dobbins once put it: In Afghanistan, one has to choose "between losing and not losing." Placing a high premium on the priorities of the people he was elected to serve, US President Joe Biden simply did not see any reason to distinguish counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan from those in Yemen or Mali, with no permanent boots on the ground.

Yet this is precisely the point. When interests change or interest is lost, international policies that were easily promised may just as easily be reversed at the stroke of a pen. From UN peacekeeping forces standing idly by as massacres unfolded in Yugoslavia to ISIS's takeover of Iraq, one cannot avoid drawing a strong conclusion on the genuine value of international security guarantees, to whose limitations the Afghan case provided a perfect illustration.

Indeed, there has never been a successful attempt to artificially replace self-reliance with international commitments, simply because no mercenary or foreign force can be a substitute for an authentic, grassroots creed to safeguard one's own homeland.

Already in 1776, Adam Smith understood what we know today – that prosperity and stability stem from self-interest, in the best sense of the word. In his book, The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

This is the genuine engine behind the dynamics that rule the international arena. Self-interest also drove the United States – justifiably, from its perspective – to reach an understanding with the Taliban that it is free to target the local Afghan population, certainly the "corrupt pro-American puppet government," so long as it doesn't "interfere with" the US withdrawal.

This "deconfliction mechanism" echoes the 2020 accord that only tackled US-Taliban relations, not the fate of the Afghan people. No nation can survive in security and prosperity at the mercy of international benevolence.

Yet, relying on this very model has been at the core of international security guarantees to Israel – attempting to persuade it into making impossible territorial concessions and retreat to indefensible borders.

Take Gen. John Allen's 2013 plan, for example. Initiated by the Obama White House and echoed today by certain officials with influence on the Biden administration, it was aimed at addressing Israel's security concerns by – you guessed it – removing Israeli forces from the territories and deploying US troops around Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Jordan Valley, along with "training, equipping, evaluating and monitoring" local Palestinian forces.

Then-Secretary of State John Kerry even offered then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a clandestine visit to have a close look at the successful "Afghan model." Netanyahu politely declined the offer.

Replicating the "Afghan model" in Israel was and still is unrealistic for multiple reasons. There can be no guarantee that the above-mentioned "Palestinian forces" will not be replaced by Iran-backed Hamas militias, much like the coup that was staged in Gaza a mere two years after Israel's withdrawal from the Strip; that scenario is, in fact, highly plausible.

The Samaria mountain range is an elevated, 3,300-foot terrain that overlooks the densely populated Israeli shoreline, the nerve center of the Israeli economy, as well as virtually all of the tiny country's strategic infrastructure, from military facilities to power plants. There already exists a multilayered terror infrastructure from both Gaza and the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories around Judea and Samaria targeting the Israeli population. The current threats of ground-to-ground missiles, drive-by shootings and infiltration by elite terrorist squads leave no doubt as to the existential menace to Israel that a reckless step of strengthening such units would bring about.

Further still, guarantees on paper, as diplomatically wordsmithed as they may be, were given to both the Afghani and Israeli people – and proved meaningless. With much pomp and circumstance, well-meaning, but naive international actors promise "multilayered systems," "target timetables and benchmarks," "state-of-the-art technology" and "unfettered support," then land in the unpleasant, scorching Middle Eastern sand dunes.

When these failed models collapse, it is the local people who are left to deal with the fallout, while airlifts take international forces to safety.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Other variants, such as the ravaging corruption within the Afghan government, or the inauthentic national identity forced on the country's many tribes may, also account for the failure of the Afghanistan campaign. Still, when international commitments prove to be in vain, time and again, from peacekeeping forces in the Sinai – ordered to evacuate by then-Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser prior to the 1967 Six-Day War – to UNIFIL standing by as Hezbollah takes over southern Lebanon, Israel cannot seriously be expected to entrust its security to the hands of unaccountable international forces with fluctuating interests. Israel cannot allow the potential creation of a strategic existential threat – an Iranian vassal state in the outskirts of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

In any future arrangement with the Palestinians, then, Israel must keep full sovereign control over the Jordan Valley, as well as over large parts of strategic areas around Judea and Samaria, and keep operational freedom everywhere in the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. This was also the position of the government of late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, which signed the Oslo Accords with the PLO, and it remains true today.

Critically, these territories are also viewed by Israel as its ancestral homeland, intrinsically wedded to the raison-d'être of "the return to Zion," which were merely snatched away temporarily due to arbitrary armistice lines that were signed and agreed upon as politically meaningless. In terms of national security, instilling the "Afghan model" in Israel would be promoting an allegiance-free security paradigm that has failed time and again, with zero benefit and overwhelming risk.

While international actors may be able to afford the gamble of being wrong, a menaced country such as Israel does not have the luxury to survive a failed security guarantee.

IDF Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Amir Avivi is the founder and CEO of Habithonistim–Protectors of Israel.

Or Yissachar is a researcher at Israel's Defense and Security Forum (IDSF) – HaBithonistim, and an Associate Fellow at the Austrian Institute for European and Security Studies (AIES).

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post A lesson in international 'security guarantees' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A red line was crossed this week when the already biased Israel reportage by some of the mainstream media has seen an unprecedented spike. At a time when disinformation is designated as one of the chief strategic adversaries facing modern democracies, those who profess the arbitration of truth and accurate reporting fall time and again in the all-too-tempting anti-Israeli trap.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Unfortunately, CNN has joined the choir by embracing the once-fashionable anti-Israel vogue, especially by categorizing as "news" false accusations propagated by negligible political activists, such as the far-left Israeli NGO B'Tselem.

In its recent publication, B'Tselem not only has embraced the Palestinian narrative about Israeli presence in the disputed 1967 territories, as it often does, but has stepped up its assault by attacking the state's core founding principle as the democratic home of the Jewish people. It does this by characterizing any policy pursuant to this objective as no less than a "Jewish superiority" regime – reminiscent of history's worst anti-Semitic blood libels.

B'Tselem offers to strip the sole home state of the Jews of its core identity while adopting the equivalent Palestinian national aspiration. Its propaganda has also determined that the only democracy in the region can no longer be called a democracy, but rather an "apartheid state."

While we would normally disregard it as another PR stunt by a marginal political organization, designated to tarnish Israel on the world stage, we were shocked and appalled to learn it was given a platform by CNN as a news item.

B'Tselem is infamous for calling Israel an "occupying force" in the cradle of Judaism – the Holy Basin in Jerusalem or the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron – allegedly committing "ethnic cleansing" against the Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria ("the West Bank"), whose population has more than tripled since 1967.

Now, it is deliberately obscuring the difference between three separate governing entities: the State of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip.

It is surprising that CNN quotes B'Tselem without fact-checking its accusations, especially in light of the network's tireless efforts to do so with stories that shed a positive light on Israel. Contrary to B'Tselem's claims, Israel is far from governing 14 million people.

To set the record straight, the Gaza Strip was delivered to the Palestinians following Israel's disengagement from the Strip in 2005. And since 2007, it has been under separatist Hamas rule, not administered by Israel.

Hamas's ongoing terrorist activities have forced Israel to instate partial marine restrictions on Gaza, including the interception of Iranian cargo ships filled with weapons and explosives. Palestinians living both in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria are regularly hospitalized in Israeli medical centers, visit their families and receive dozens of daily humanitarian and financial aid deliveries facilitated by Israel. It is also worth noting that Gaza shares a land border with Egypt.

In Judea and Samaria, the PA has been in full civil charge of Palestinians living in Areas A and B since the 1995 finalization of the Oslo Accords, following the arrangements agreed upon with the Israeli government. Much like the small minority of Palestinians living in the Israel-controlled Area C, tens of thousands of them are provided with regular work permits that allow them to provide for their families through employment in Israel, in joint Israeli-Palestinian industrial zones and in the agriculture and services sectors around Judea and Samaria.

Furthermore, contrary to CNN's claims, the government of the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin government never endorsed the "two-state solution" – but rather called to form an autonomous Palestinian entity that is "less than a state."

To add insult to injury, B'Tselem concluded that 2 million Arab-Israelis somehow live under an "apartheid regime." To quote legal expert Eugene Kontorovich, "Apartheid is not just a term for policies one dislikes," but a clearly defined international crime that includes "widespread" racial-based segregation, murder and enslavement.

Accusing democratic Israel of committing "apartheid" against its Arab community, which enjoys full equality under the law and has been seeing an unprecedented rise in the number of working women (up 5%) and students in universities (up from 10% to 18%), while being highly represented among the country's doctors (17%) and pharmacists (47%), is patently absurd.

Finally, CNN echoes the outrageous position that Israel's identity as the homeland of the Jewish people, guaranteeing a Jewish majority and encouraging the "ingathering of exiles," should be considered racism. This reflects an attempt to apply globalist and racialist theories to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fundamentally considering the world as an ethnic struggle between "oppressors" and "oppressed," and rejecting the very concept of religious and national identity – yet only when it comes to Jews.

B'Tselem attempts here to fawn on world progressive movements, creating an artificial parallel to the common trope of "white supremacy," by considering the Jewish affinity to Israel a form of "Jewish superiority."

The recent example of this "fashion" on social media to refer to "Jewish privilege" as a parallel to "white privilege" proves how anti-Semitic sentiments traditionally and still apply to these groups' credo. This is not only an insult to the historic yearning of Jews worldwide, but also to Israel's recognition and endorsement by the international community – in the 1920 San Remo Conference, in the 1947 Partition Plan, preceding Israel's foundation a year later, and on countless other occasions.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

It is regretful that CNN has chosen to cooperate with the attempt to subvert Israel's very existence. Far from covering news, it cherishes distortions.

Israel is not an identity-free immigration hub; it has always been intrinsically bonded with Judaism as an inseparable part of Jewish existence while preserving equality under the law of all of its citizens, as is stated in its Declaration of Independence.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Anti-Semitic propaganda is not news appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Anyone who cares about Israel's security and future should be concerned by the initial buds of an attempt to return to the dangerous path of reliance on international forces to protect the country. These poisonous seeds have begun to crop up with a renewed discussion about the evacuation of Jewish communities in the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria. The phenomenon is particularly worrisome, given the approach of the next administrations in Washington.

A blatant example of such seeds can be seen in Defense Minister Benny Gantz's interview with Saudi newspaper Asharq Al Awsat on Thursday. In the interview, Gantz expressed support, with slight reservations, for the "Allen Plan."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

This was a proposal, formulated by Gen. John Allen during the administration of former US President Barack Obama, which called for a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, with no presence of the Israel Defense Forces. It is a plan that former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon rejected hands-down, calling it "messianic."

Gantz also suggested the possibility of dividing Jerusalem, though the United States has already recognized it as Israel's eternal united capital, and even leading religious figures in the Arab world – citing Quranic verses – have stated that Jerusalem and the Land of Israel belong to the Jews.

Gantz's position is astounding, especially in view of the fact that, in the past year, for the first time, the US has fully recognized Israel's rights – and settlements – in Judea and Samaria, as well as the area's historic, national-religious and security importance. It is even more shocking, considering the Arab world has come to terms with these principles and, under the spirit of US President Donald Trump's Peace to Prosperity plan, has opted for peace and normalization with Israel.

Earlier this month, for instance, Samaria Regional Council Chairman Yossi Dagan met with a delegation of businessmen from the United Arab Emirates to sign an export agreement, according to which all goods from Samaria to the UAE will be listed as "made in Israel."

In addition, among many other joint ventures, the markets of Manama and Dubai are now filled with fruit and vegetables with Israeli flags denoting them. This is not to mention the thousands of Israeli tourists who have been welcomed in Bahrain and the UAE.

It is important to understand that in order for the state of Israel to survive in the long term, it must have sovereignty over the entire Jordan Valley in the broadest sense (as defined by late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin). Israel also needs full security control in Judea and Samaria, based on the Jewish communities that are spread along all major roads.

This deployment gives Israel's security forces the ability to carry out their mission and protect the country from any current or future threats. It does not contradict the kind of demilitarized, independent Palestinian entity that Rabin envisioned or that is part of Trump's peace plan.

Indeed, in line with the concept of a two-state solution, there are at least four different plans that could solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without posing an existential threat to the Jewish state, the way that Obama's Allen Plan did.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The desire to return, time and time again, to a program that has no chance of success, even after all the achievements of recent years, is beyond disappointing. Gantz has completely deviated from his own party's agenda, and from all the basic principles of Israel's national security.

The minister of defense of the state of Israel cannot hold opinions that are antithetical to his country's national-security needs. He should retract the statements he made in the Saudi press or resign.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Benny Gantz's dangerous position appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The submarines affair has been much written about and discussed, and it appears that there is a lot of confusion surrounding it. As the former bureau head of the IDF chief of staff and someone who spent three and a half years in charge of all oversight of the defense establishment on behalf of the State Comptroller, I would like to contribute to the discourse.

As part of my work, I held hundreds of meetings with high-ranking officials in the defense and security establishment, from the defense minister to officials in the field, and they never made any claims about anything problematic in Israel's submarines acquisitions. The same cannot be said for other kinds of vessels, about which claims were raised over the Israeli Navy's decision to switch from Korean to German boats.

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The years-long debate about the submarines has to do with the question of whether Israel needs a fleet of five or six submarines. A submarine is a strategic tool, and defining the need for one is a matter of national security that is decided far above the head of the Navy, which is the one that actually operates them. There are a number of operational and logistic considerations that serve as the basis for the question of how many submarines are needed. But one thing is clear: at any one time, only some of the submarines can be in the water, due to a variety of reasons having to do with maintenance, refresher courses for the crew, and the length of operations. Therefore, every additional submarine is significant, and doubles Israel's operational power.

Because the acquisitions are made with Israeli money, rather than American military aid, and money is scarce, there is no doubt an inherent tension between members of the military top brass when it comes to the best use of budget money. An example would be the decision by former Defense Minister Amir Peretz, against the recommendation of the military, to purchase the Iron Dome system, or the prime minister's decision to build a security fence on the Egyptian border – after a long debate that cost us heavily in the form of tens of thousands of illegal migrants whose entry could have been prevented.

The question that needs to be asked in where the seventh through ninth submarines come in, and the answer is that those three are intended to replace Israel's three oldest submarines, which have lower capabilities than the new ones. The argument is about the timing of the replacement and the quality of the long-term contracts. I have not come across any discussion about expanding Israel's submarine fleet beyond six.

As for the sale of a submarine to Egypt, Germany – unlike the US – has no laws that mandate that Israel retain a qualitative edge over Arab states. Moreover, Germany does not need Israel's approval to sell its submarines to Egypt or any other country. However, the two countries are talking, and Israel is doing its best to restrict the sale of submarines to countries it does not want to see gain prowess. If it cannot ensure restrictions of that kind, it wants to secure some kind of benefit, either in purchasing terms or in areas unrelated to submarines but are of diplomatic importance.

In that context, it's obvious that there is, has been, and will be widespread, fruitful dialogue between the prime ministers and their teams, with each side trying to maximize the gains for their countries while eradicating possible dangers. You must understand – if Egypt budgets for a submarine, it will buy a submarine, and the one question is from whom.

The Navy patrol boats are a different matter. After intense background work, the Israeli Navy laid out operational demands to purchase the vessels from South Korea. These boats were smaller than the ones in use. After a time, the Navy changed its mind and made new demands, which entailed buying boasts from Germany that were significantly bigger than the Korean ones and much more expensive.

The reason for the change has never been probed, so even now it is unclear what considerations were behind the decision. The defense establishment should delve into this.

To sum up, there are three different issues here, all three of which have to do with aspects of the dialogue between the IDF, the Defense Ministry, the National Security Council, and the Prime Minister's Office. The world of defense acquisitions is a complicated one, involving vested interests and mediators who stick their fingers in the mix, and sometimes it can slip into criminality. In these situations, law enforcement should be allowed to investigate them in depth to improve oversight and control of the delicate and risky process.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Let's dive into the confusion about the submarines   appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Last week, two former Obama administration officials, Eric Lynn and Daniel Shapiro, took to the pages of The Miami Herald to claim that President Donald Trump's policies have been harmful to Israel and indeed "endangered the Jewish State in many ways." As Israelis and high-ranking retired military officers who have worked for decades on the nation's security, we cannot think of a more baseless claim. Whatever one thinks of Trump, his record on Israel outshines not only that of his predecessor, but of all previous US presidents.

Lynn and Shapiro's piece relies on an extraordinarily selective history – not mentioning some of Trump's most significant actions or former President Barack Obama's most destructive ones. So let's directly compare the record of the Trump administration with that of its predecessor.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Trump recognized the unified city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a historic shift whose magnitude can be appreciated from the fact that several prior presidents promised to do it, but none had the courage to follow through. Other countries are continuing to follow Trump's lead, and thus Israel's sovereignty over the Western Wall and Temple Mount is now more secure than ever.

Under the Obama administration, Vice President Joe Biden threw a much-publicized fit when Israel announced plans to build some apartments in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Jerusalem (but across the magical "Green Line"). Our right to build anywhere in our capital must be respected.

Trump did what prior presidents did not even dream of and recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, thus ensuring this strategically vital territory would not fall into the hands of Iranian proxies. Obama insisted that Israel accept negotiations based on the "1967 borders," pushing a plan that would have put Israel's security in United Nations and Arab hands and would deny Israel a defensible border – the Jordan Valley. Obama allowed the UN Security Council to pass its infamous Resolution 2334 – opposed by almost every Democratic senator – that encourages a boycott against any Israeli presence in these territories.

The Trump administration announced the "Pompeo Doctrine," clearly articulating that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria ("settlements") are not illegal and are part of Israel's Jewish heritage.

Obama forced Israel to accept an unprecedented 10-month freeze on any building of Jewish homes in these areas, ostensibly to encourage Palestinians to negotiate, which the Palestinians nevertheless refused to do.

Obama made a deal with Iran that gave it access to billions of dollars that they used to terrorize the whole Middle East and in effect impeded Israeli military flexibility against Iranian targets. Under Trump, Israel has gone on a sustained offensive against Iranian proxies in Syria, launching numerous attacks on imminent threats. Israel is also widely thought to be responsible for a series of unexplained explosions at Iranian nuclear and industrial facilities that have significantly set back Tehran's weapons program. Such attacks were off-limits under Obama, who did not want anything to upset his Iran nuclear deal.

Finally, Trump coordinated the most successful Middle East peace effort in history, opening formal relations between Israel and a growing list of Arab states, including even such former arch-enemies as Sudan, which has now been firmly pulled from Iran's orbit. This wave of normalization is truly epochal. Indeed, the Obama doctrine held that Israel could not achieve peace with Arab states without giving away vital territory to the Palestinians. Trump proved that Israel did not have to choose between expelling Jews from their homes and peace.

Jerusalem, the Golan, the legality of settlements, pushing back on Iran and making peace between Israel and Arab states – each of these would have been enough to make Trump a game-changing leader for Israel and its security. But the whole is even greater than the sum of its parts. It has ushered in a period of unparalleled diplomatic calm and goodwill for Israel. Few now recall that during the Obama years, Israel was under constant attack from the European Union and many talked of Israel's coming isolation. Now the opposite has happened, and the specter of BDS has receded.

Israelis overwhelmingly view the Trump administration as a historic period that has fundamentally transformed the country's international standing and security. A recent poll showed Israelis favor Trump by a margin of five to one. That means that even most left-wing Israelis prefer Trump to Obama's vice president. Indeed, all of Trump's Israeli initiatives, from recognizing Jerusalem to the Abraham Accords, have had overwhelming support from politicians of all major Israeli parties.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Obama tried to frame his hostility to Israel as being focused on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, even if other Israelis may have suffered from the collateral damage. But Trump has managed to get along both with the prime minister and with his political rivals.

Israel respects American democracy and is committed to working positively with whoever is elected on Nov. 3. But when American officials put their views of Israeli security or those of a stray Israeli pundit above those of Israel's elected officials, they do not show us the same respect.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Trump is the best president for Israel's security appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Sadly, the greater the opportunity, the greater the numbers of those who oppose it. The long list of opponents, especially among senior military commanders, can be split in two. Some adhere to a plan of separation from the Palestinians and withdrawing to the ceasefire lines of 1949 and using the security barrier (Highway 6) as the basis of an international border. This would forgo any claims to sovereignty beyond the Green Line, or in other words, giving up our security and handing responsibility for it over to the Palestinians and the Jordanians, the ones who trumpet Arabs' (nearly nonexistent) contribution to the security of Israel at every opportunity.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

There is another group, which realizes the security importance of the Jordan Valley and settlements in Judea and Samaria, but lack the vision and courage to make decisions on behalf of the generations to come. "Why on my watch?" they say. "What's wrong with the quiet?"

Our message to the people of Israel and the prime minister is clear – if we do not apply sovereignty and if we show weakness to our enemies and the world, the result will be growing pressure on us to carry out reckless withdrawals that will put Israel in existential danger in the future.

It seems as if everyone is an expert when it comes to explaining why a Zionist act that promotes Israel's interests is causing opposition, but few are dealing with the question of what will happen if we fold and send the world a message that we are not determined to protect our national rights in the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria.

It's vital to understand that the dangers in not applying sovereignty are manifold greater than the specific challenge of dealing with the various and sundry ramifications of the move.

When it comes to those challenges, if sovereignty is applied, it is important to say that conditions will never be better for it to happen. The world is busy with economic troubles and coronavirus. Jordan expects its food supply to run dry in a year and a half, and when that happens, more people will die from hunger than from corona, according to an interview with King Abdullah II in Der Spiegel.

Palestinian Authority officials fear that they will lose control, so they are being careful. It is time for Israel to send the PA a clear message that it can get along without them, as the PA could be replaced by local leadership. The future of Israel does not depend on PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and it's time for both us and him to realize that.

Once every 70 years, all the stars align in favor of Israel. Soon, these stars will be scattered. Who knows when, or if, they will align again? This is a time for determined, shrewd leadership that knows how to overcome all difficulties and do the right thing.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this is what you were elected for. Do the right thing and instate full sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and settlements, and you will go down in the history of the Jewish people and be remembered for generations. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post There won't be better conditions for sovereignty appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

This principle was first outlined in the peace deal with Egypt when then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin sought Palestinian autonomy while safeguarding Israel's national security. This principle was adopted by Yitzhak Rabin in the 1992 election when he determined that Jerusalem wouldn't be divided, the Jordan Valley and settlements would remain in Israel's hands, the Palestinian entity would be demilitarized and Israel would retain responsibility for its own security. It's important to say – no one in the 1990s argued that applying sovereignty in areas not controlled by the Palestinians would eventually mean giving the Palestinians living in those areas Israeli citizenship. This was never said because it's simply not true.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The attempts by left-leaning generals, the champions of stoking fears, to intimidate the public in this regard, are unbecoming and misleading. Unequivocally, Israel can apply sovereignty in the Jordan Valley and settlements. The Palestinian Authority will continue to exist, similar to the Hamas regime in Gaza. The Americans, too, don't view this outline as a problem and don't believe that a demilitarized Palestinian Authority is a problem in terms of international law.   

Just to illustrate – the Vatican is a state for all intents and purposes, it issues passports and operates diplomatic embassies, and is even a member of the United Nations. It's important to understand, the diplomatic world is entirely flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of solutions. The world of defense and security, on the other hand, is rigid. Israel's security cannot be played with. In order to exist and prosper, Israel needs the Jordan Valley and most of Judea and Samaria, not including areas under PA control.  

I was recently asked by my high-ranking officer colleagues on the left: What will happen if the PA collapses, and what will happen if security cooperation with Jordan ceases? The answer is that Israel is the stabilizing factor sustaining the PA and Jordan. The day Israel isn't stable anymore, is the day both those entities collapse. 

What's more, these questions are completely irrelevant to the issue of applying sovereignty. The PA can collapse the moment Mahmoud Abbas resigns, and Jordan is a country built on a house of cards, whose future is shrouded in fog. In the Jordanian context, the solution is not to trust the Jordanians in the long-term to uphold the peace along the border, rather to install security mechanisms similar to Israel's other borders where it only relies on itself for protection.

As for the Palestinians, Israel needs to formulate a backup plan to address the possibility of the PA's collapse. It has to consider transferring control to the powerful clans inside the cities while rethinking establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza, where the Palestinians already have a de-facto state.

We also have the opportunity to insist that all the Palestinian residents of Judea and Samaria get back what was taken from them in contravention of international law, that is to say: Jordanian citizenship. To summarize, we can move toward sovereignty confidently, and with our heads held high. Enough with the lies, enough with the misleading. No one intends to annex Palestinians.

The post The time to apply sovereignty is now appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.