In 2008, Russian President Vladimir Putin's troops invaded neighboring Georgia and seized control of two regions. That chilled Russia's relations with the United States.

But not for long.

The following year, US President Barack Obama announced a "reset" of Washington's relations with Moscow.

"The United States and Russia have more in common than they have differences," Obama said. "We want to work with Russia on issues of common concern."

Where did that lead?

In 2014, Putin's troops invaded and then annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula and ignited an insurgency in Ukraine's Donbas region.

In 2022, as Putin's troops were preparing to again invade Ukraine, President Joe Biden suggested that if the Russian ruler planned to carry out only a "minor incursion," the impact on Washington's relations with Moscow would be minimal.

Where did that lead?

More than three years later, Russian troops are still waging a barbaric war to colonize Ukraine, subjugate its people, and exploit its natural resources.

Is President Donald Trump now being advised to replicate the failed policies of his Democratic predecessors?

That question might occur if you listened to presidential envoy Steve Witkoff's recent conversation with Tucker Carlson.

Witkoff said that Putin "has gotten what [he] wants" – just under 20% of Ukrainian territory – and wants no more.

The key question regarding the Russian conquest of eastern Ukraine and Crimea: "Will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories?"

Those territories can be regarded as Russian only based on what the Institute for the Study of War calls "sham referendums" along with a Russian "state-directed effort to deport Ukrainians from occupied Ukraine and to import Russians to live in occupied Ukraine."

Witkoff then reprised the Obama "reset," asking: "Who doesn't want to have a world where Russia and the United States are doing collaboratively good things together?"

Well, Putin for one.

He's called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest catastrophe" of the 20th century.

He is closely allied with – and his war is being aided and abetted by – Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Tehran, and North Korean President Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang. These dictators all want America diminished and its alliances dismantled.

As for Putin's ambitions, a video available online shows a Russian general saying on Russian state television: "Ukraine is only a stepping stone. If we are talking about Eastern Europe, which we will have to…"

I also was dismayed to hear Witkoff say: "Putin told me that when the president was shot, he went to his local church, met with his priest, and prayed for the president. Not because [Trump] could become the US president, but because he had a friendship with him, and he was praying for his friend."

Putinology 101: The former KGB officer in the Kremlin – in power for more than 20 years thanks to serial murders of opponents, dissidents, critics, and journalists – is neither sentimental nor religious.

Witkoff called Putin "super smart." That he possesses an uncanny ability to dupe Americans and Europeans is an established fact.

Recall, for example, how he convinced Germany's leaders to depend on Russian natural gas delivered through the Nord Stream pipelines. You know what that led to.

Speaking of Europeans, a little encouraging news: Britain and France are seriously considering deploying peacekeepers to enforce any ceasefire President Trump manages to catalyze.

And the foreign ministers of Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are formally urging the European Commission to accelerate Ukraine's request to join the European Union.

This is what President Trump, starting in his first term, has been demanding: that America's allies take responsibility and meaningfully contribute to the collective defense of the West.

If I had President Trump's ear, I'd suggest he build on this momentum by personally – not through an envoy – conveying to Putin a message that might sound something like this:

"Vlady, you and I have a great relationship. Very strong. You're a tough guy. I like that. I tell people that.

"But here's the thing: We both know you've reached a dead end in Ukraine. You can't have the whole country. And I don't want you to – not on my watch. You can keep what you've taken. But that's enough, okay?"

"Look, my economy is way bigger than yours. I can cut off your oil sales and do devastating damage to Russia like nobody's ever seen. You saw how I just sanctioned a Chinese refinery that's been buying Iranian oil? I want a big, beautiful ceasefire. No preconditions. The killing stops. I tell everybody you're a man of peace but tough as hell. Look, I'm not angry. But you don't want me to be. So, let's get this deal done, okay?"

If Trump can persuade Putin to agree to a ceasefire that leaves Ukraine independent, rather than a Kremlin possession or puppet, that will be a victory for Trumpian diplomacy; an outcome as good as can be expected at this tumultuous moment abroad and at home.

The alternative is for Putin to win his imperialist war and for his buddies in Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang to conclude that Trump, like the two American presidents who preceded him, can be counted on to go wobbly sooner or later.

Which would mean that to achieve their geopolitical ambitions, all they need do is stick to their guns – metaphorically and literally.

Where will that lead? The enemies of free nations will see American decline as baked in the cake – even under a president committed to making America great again.

That's not the legacy President Trump is striving for. His best advisors know that. It's their job to make sure he knows that, too.

Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a columnist for the Washington Times, and host of the "Foreign Podicy" podcast

The post Obama and Biden's failed Russia policies appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Since beginning his second term in office not quite a month ago, President Donald Trump has taken on multiple missions from securing the border to putting woke back to sleep to shrinking the administrative state to the multifront war against Israel – with fragile ceasefires currently in place.

Now Trump has begun to seriously turn his attention to Russia's war against Ukraine which began three years ago next Monday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz began meeting with their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. Ukrainian negotiators were not invited. Many commentators have already concluded that Trump is Neville Chamberlain reincarnated.

I think that's jumping the gun. There's a path that President Trump can take – indeed that he may already have in mind – that can lead to a reasonably good outcome.

I'll explain in a moment but, first, full disclosure: I regard Vladimir Putin as a villain and a war criminal.

He has intentionally targeted Ukrainian hospitals and schools. His troops have committed summary executions, employed sexual violence, and tortured prisoners.

I know there are those who regard all this as, to coin a phrase, "a quarrel in a far-away country, between people of whom we know nothing."

But Putin is partnering with fellow despots in communist China, jihadi Iran, and the dynastic dictatorship in North Korea. They have forged an Axis of Aggressors with a common goal: to make America great never again.

Frustrating their ambitions is therefore a vital American national interest.

Also: If Putin should succeed in conquering Ukraine, why would he not soon attempt – utilizing Ukrainian human and other resources – to take over such NATO nations as Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and even Poland?

Americans would then face a terrible choice: Abide by Article 5 of the NATO treaty and consider that we, too, have been attacked which would mean a major war. Or renege on our commitment which would mean the collapse of the Atlantic alliance – soon to be followed by the collapse of our Pacific alliances.

Vice President J.D. Vance, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, articulated what needs to happen next to halt the worst conflict in Europe since World War II. He said, "that the US would hit Moscow with sanctions and potentially military action if. . . Putin won't agree to a peace deal with Ukraine that guarantees Kyiv's long-term independence."

As a longstanding, if amateur, Putinologist, I'm going to offer five points to keep in mind in whatever palavers follow.

One: Putin regards himself as Vladimir the Great and maybe Vladimir the Terrible. As tsar, his mission is to restore the Russian empire.

Two: He's made Belarus into a vassal state. He occupies about 20% of Georgia's territory and maintains significant influence over Georgia's government. Since no one has restrained him so far, he expects no one to stop him in Ukraine.

Three: Putin is not interested in finding a "path to peace." He doesn't want beach resorts on the Baltic Sea. If he thinks it's possible that President Trump will abandon Ukraine – as President Barak Obama abandoned Iraq and President Joe Biden abandoned Afghanistan – he will fight on no matter what.

Four: But if he sees a serious threat of punishments, as suggested by Vance, he may agree to pause the conflict. Actually, that may be what he wants because his troops have made only marginal advances over recent months, and he's running low on tanks, armored vehicles, and human cannon fodder.

Five: Should there be such a pause, he will obviously attempt to build back better for another round of fighting. But if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy can use the respite to purchase superior American weapons and get his generals and troops American military training, that would be a gamechanger.

Our European allies will need to write big checks and possibly provide peacekeepers, as British Prime Minister Kier Starmer has suggested.

As for borders, sanctions on Russia, Ukrainian membership in NATO and/or the European Union – such issues can be left for talks that are likely to be lengthy.

The objective is not peace and concord but merely a cessation of hostilities that, with skill and luck, can be turned into a long-term truce.

Ukraine might then become like South Korea – threatened chronically but not imminently. Putin would wake up every morning and decide that it's not the right day to resume massacring his neighbors.

Another analogy: In 1939, the Soviet Union waged what became known as the Winter War to drag Finland back into its empire. In the end, Finland lost about 11% of its territory but retained its independence. Two years ago, Finland joined NATO.

In an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier last week, President Trump said that in exchange for America's help, he wants "like $500 billion worth" of rare earth minerals from Ukraine.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called that "very self-centered." Two points Herr Schotz doesn't understand.

One: Trump is, as usual, to be taken seriously but not literally. In this case, as Sen. Lindsey Graham noted, the president "can go to the American people and say, 'Ukraine is not a burden, it is a benefit.'"

Two: A Ukraine that's supplying previously untapped raw materials to America rather than to China is a Ukraine that's not under the Russian jackboot.

Ending Russia's war against Ukraine, establishing an economic partnership between Ukraine and the US, and helping Ukraine build the deterrent capabilities it lacked three years ago would not count as the total victory to which Kyiv is entitled, nor the ignominious defeat Moscow deserves.

But it would be a reasonably good outcome – for Ukraine, America, and for Trump 2.0.

The post Trump can only pause the Russia-Ukraine War appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

By now, I expect, you're at least aware of the scandal rocking the United Kingdom. Over decades, thousands of young British girls were systematically raped and, in some cases, murdered by immigrant gangs. Police, politicians, social workers, and journalists refused to hold the criminals to account. Some helped cover up the crimes.

This scandal has been receiving greatly increased attention only since New Year's Day when Elon Musk began furiously tweeting about it. The members of the gangs have been identified as predominately Muslim men of Pakistani origin. Brits infected by what Musk calls "the woke virus," and fearful of being accused of "racism" and "Islamophobia," refused to crack down on these vile criminals.

The British media spoke of "Asian grooming gangs" – as though Japanese hairdressers might be implicated. Honest commentators, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali – a Somalia-born American citizen, author, and human rights activist – make clear that imams in British mosques teach that Islamic scripture authorizes Muslim men to sexually exploit infidel women. It goes without saying that Muslim men of Pakistani origin who were not involved in these crimes bear no responsibility for what National Review contributing editor Andrew C. McCarthy has called the "rape jihad."

But this scandal should raise questions about how Britain and other Western countries have subverted legal immigration and law enforcement to further woke visions of "diversity" and "multiculturalism." United States President Joe Biden encouraged millions of foreigners to cross illegally and unvetted into the country. "We're trying to make it easier for people to get here, opening up the capacity to get here," he acknowledged two years ago.

Americans re-elected Donald Trump in large measure to end this tsunami of illegal immigration. If Trump accomplishes that, can we also be confident that our legal visa and immigration system will strengthen America's national security? There's cause for skepticism.

Let me stress that most would-be immigrants from Muslim countries are not enemies of America. Indeed, some of the most ardent and courageous opponents of terrorism and jihadism I know came to America from Muslim countries.

But there is now a growing cohort of Islamic supremacists in American communities and especially on American university campuses. This has been going on since the early 1990s. Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the "Blind Sheikh," was an Egyptian cleric who had issued a fatwa, a religious opinion, calling for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Though he was on the US State Department's terrorism watchlist, he was permitted to legally enter and work in the US where he developed a reputation as a great scholar of Islamic jurisprudence.

In 1995, he was convicted in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. McCarthy led the prosecution and detailed the history in his excellent book, "Willful Blindness: A Memoir of Jihad." A few years later, the 19 individuals who would carry out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were allowed to legally enter the US. It has since come to light that some had given false information on their visa applications. Those applications were inadequately scrutinized.

Fast-forward to this past New Year's Eve when Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar drove a rented pickup truck through a crowd on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, murdering as many people as he could. On the truck was a flag of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. Hours before the attack, Jabbar had posted videos on Facebook expressing his commitment to the "war between the believers and the disbelievers."

Jabbar was a Muslim American citizen. He lived near a Houston-area mosque, Masjid Bilal, whose imam, Eiad Soudan, is no exponent of moderate readings of Islam. For example, at a Nov. 17, 2023 program in the Islamic Center of Greater Houston, Soudan told congregants that the Jews, whom he referred to as "Israelites," seek to "take control of the economy" wherever they go, which is why Hitler – who, he noted, had a "nice moustache" – slaughtered them. A video of his talk was posted by MEMRI, the indispensable Middle East Media Research Institute.

After the Bourbon Street attack, Soudan advised congregants not to speak to investigators without consulting CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), a group that in 2008 was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in American history.

Soudan was born in Syria and, as far as I can tell, came to and remains in the US legally. Close to eight out of 10 full-time paid imams in the US are foreign-born according to a 2020 study by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. How many of these imams encourage jihad? More than a few, based on the videos of sermons posted by MEMRI over recent years.

"It seems clear that the US government is permitting the legal immigration of many individuals with Islamist, antisemitic and other extremist views," Amb. Alberto Fernandez, MEMRI's vice president, told me. "There doesn't seem to be much effort being made to exclude those with theologies or ideologies inimical to American interests and values."

American citizens, acting through their elected leaders, have the right to decide who may enter the US and for what purposes. It is neither racist nor Islamophobic to exclude advocates of jihad. Personally, I favor immigration of people from all races, creeds, and colors from anywhere in the world so long as they want to become Americans, embrace the American values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, contribute to America's economy, and don't threaten American security.

If Trump were to make that the guiding principle for a thoroughgoing reform of the legal immigration system, he would be – to coin a phrase – putting Americans first.

The post The blind spots of immigration appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

For my money, J.D. Vance's best moment on the campaign trail was when ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz attempted to grill him for supporting President Trump's claim that Venezuelan gang members had "invaded and conquered" a Denver suburb. Illegal immigrants belonging to Tren de Aragua had taken over apartment complexes in Aurora where their criminal activities included violence, extortion, drug trafficking, and child prostitution. The vice-presidential candidate defended Trump's characterization.

"Senator Vance, I'm gonna stop you because I know exactly what happened," Ms. Raddatz scolded. "I'm gonna stop you. The incidents were limited to a handful of apartment complexes, and the mayor said our dedicated police officers have acted on those concerns. A handful of problems!" "Martha, do you hear yourself?" Vance responded. "Only a handful of apartment complexes in America were taken over by Venezuelan gangs, and Donald Trump is the problem and not Kamala Harris's open border?" He further pointed out that "when you let people in by the millions, most of whom are unvetted, most of whom you don't know who they really are, you're going to have problems like this."

Yes, along with overburdened welfare, health, and educational systems, housing shortages, and heightened threats to national security (the issue about which I worry on a professional basis). Not so long ago, Republicans, Democrats, and even big-time TV reporters agreed that secure borders were both good and necessary. "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," Hillary Clinton said in a 2003 interview. Two years later, during her Senate re-election campaign, she warned that terrorists could be sneaking into the US.

In a 2015 interview, Sen. Bernie Sanders said that "What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy" because that would bring down wages. Reminder: One can oppose illegal immigration – especially on a massive scale – while also supporting legal and controlled immigration. I, for one, am grateful that Elon Musk, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Melania Trump chose to become Americans.

But throwing open the southern border and allowing – according to a recent House Judiciary report – upward of 8 million illegal immigrants from the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Latin America to stream into the country is an extreme and dangerous policy. And it has been President Biden's policy. Perhaps that shouldn't have surprised us. As Vice President, Biden asserted that a "constant, unrelenting stream" of immigrants into the US was "a source of our strength."

His view aligned with that of then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel who in 2015 "welcomed" a million immigrants from the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Africa. John Kerry, then the US Secretary of State, praised her. Time magazine named her "Person of the Year" and "Chancellor of the Free World." Britain's Economist magazine called her "The Indispensable European."

Before long, local governments in Germany were struggling to house, feed and acculturate the newcomers. On New Year's Eve, 2016, over 1,500 criminal complaints were filed in German cities, many involving sexual offenses by groups of men believed to be recent migrants. Frauke Petry, head of the then-three-year-old Alternative for Germany party, or AfD, told a Cologne newspaper that these atrocities were "the consequence of uncontrolled migration."

The crime wave has continued. And the AfD has become the strongest German voice arguing for restricting immigration. Which brings us to a simmering controversy. On Dec. 20, Elon Musk tweeted: "Only the AfD can save Germany."

A few days later, he published an article in the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag describing the AfD as the "last vestige of hope" for Germany. Vance, now Vice President-elect, also has made statements in support of the AfD. That's drawn multiple criticisms including from Rep. Daniel Goldman, a New York Democrat, who called AfD a "Neo-Nazi" party.

Is it? In the long and detailed "Manifesto for Germany: The Political Programme of the Alternative for Germany," you'll find nothing to substantiate such allegations. On the contrary, the AfD "pledges its unconditional support to the freedom of faith, worship and conscience."

It opposes "Islamic practice which is directed against our liberal-democratic constitutional order, our laws, and the Judeo-Christian and humanist foundations of our culture." That said, there are extremists in the AfD. One example: Björn Höcke, leader of the AfD party in the eastern German state of Thuringia.

He has opined that it was problematic to think of "Hitler as absolutely evil." And, in May of last year, he was convicted of using a banned Nazi slogan during a campaign rally. Höcke also has expressed favorable views toward Vladimir Putin, the Russian dictator now waging a barbaric war of conquest against Ukraine.

To be fair, it's not unusual for political parties to have extremists within their ranks. I'm old enough to remember David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who ran as a Republican in various elections in the 1980s and 1990s. You're not old enough to have forgotten how radical are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal.

Sometimes, political parties marginalize their extremists. (Duke eventually left the GOP.) Sometimes the extremists take over. We don't yet know which path the AfD will follow. So, it would be prudent to exercise caution.

Germany's federal elections are scheduled for Feb. 23. Polls indicate the center-right Christian Democratic Union leading with 31% of the vote. The AfD is polling second at 19%, a significant gain over earlier years. I'll leave you with this bit of uncommon sense from economist and social philosopher Thomas Sowell: "The first responsibility of any government is to protect the people already in the country."

When conventional politicians shirk their first responsibility, expect unconventional politicians to take up the mission.

Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times.

The post Border security is national security appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Following revolutions, we Americans have a touching inclination to ask: "Are the new leaders like us? Are they moderates who believe in tolerance and peaceful coexistence?" Generally, the answer is no.

Take the revolution that just occurred in Syria. It was led by Ahmad al-Sharaa, better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Julani. He runs Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a rebel group with roots in both al Qaeda and the Islamic State (also known as ISIS). He and HTS have been officially designated as terrorists by the US government.

Al-Julani is no moderate. Could he be a pragmatist? It's not impossible that, at this very moment, he's asking himself: "Should I climb into a Toyota pickup with a few of my jihadi buddies, drive up to the Golan Heights and kill some Jews? Or would I rather take a long, hot bath in the presidential palace?"

If I were in his shoes, I know what my answer would be. But my ideology, theology, and psychology likely differ from his.

Inclining him toward pragmatism, however, could be the fact that, over recent days, the Israelis have carried out more than 450 aerial strikes against Syrian fighter jets, combat helicopters, ballistic missiles, precision-guided missiles, warships, air defense systems, and – importantly – chemical weapons stockpiles.

Those weapons, mostly supplied by Moscow and Tehran, had belonged to Bashar Assad, the mass-murdering dictator overthrown by al-Julani and associates. So, he and HTS inherit none of that hardware.

Al-Julani's most important backer is Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president – presumably for life – of Turkey. Though Turkey is a member of NATO, Erdogan is neither moderate nor tolerant. He is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. He despises Israel.

He also despises the Kurds, an ancient people of the Middle East whose historic homeland spans southeastern Turkey, northern Syria, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran. The Kurds have never had their own nation-state, and no one on American campuses is demonstrating for their right to self-determination.

In the Kurdish regions of Syria, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces have long partnered with the American military. That was key to depriving ISIS of the caliphate it declared in 2014 and killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the terrorist organization's founder and leader, in 2019.

Since then, American and SDF cooperation has prevented ISIS from reviving in the region. The SDF also guards detention centers holding tens of thousands of ISIS fighters.

Rebel groups backed by Erdogan – particularly the Syrian National Army – have been attacking the SDF. The Biden administration should be exerting whatever pressure is necessary to halt these assaults on an American ally participating in a vital mission.

President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to pursue "peace through strength." I'm hopeful that he also recognizes that for America to be great again, its reputation must again become: "No better friend, no worse enemy."

The fall of the Assad regime represents a huge loss for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, who intervened militarily to prop up Assad in 2015 and, in exchange, was given naval and air bases in Syria. From these bases, Putin has been projecting power into Africa, where the Wagner Group, a barbarous proxy military force, protects local strongmen and exploits natural resources – the worst forms of imperialism.

An even bigger loser in this game of thrones is Ali Khamenei, the longtime dictator of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khamenei had utilized Hezbollah, his foreign legion, to defend Assad, his dutiful client. He maintained military bases in Syria and shipped arms across Iraq and through Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon,

Khamenei has spent billions of dollars on Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen – a "ring of fire" that was intended to incinerate Israel. Over the past year, however, following Hamas' invasion of Israel and the pogrom it carried out there, the Israelis have – to an extent few thought possible – reduced most of those fires to embers.

The danger, of course, is that Khamenei may now be more determined than ever to produce nuclear warheads and affix them to his missiles. I expect President Joe Biden to do nothing about that.

Trump, by contrast, is devising what his transition team calls a "Maximum Pressure 2.0" economic strategy. He's also been discussing with his transition team the possibility of surgical military strikes to prevent Khamenei's Islamic Republic from becoming a nuclear-armed enemy in an increasingly close alliance with nuclear-armed Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang.

The Israelis – who recently wiped out Tehran's air defenses – would undoubtedly be pleased to contribute to such a mission.

I'm going to conclude with a few words about the day after in Syria. As noted above, though it would be naïve to expect al-Julani to be a moderate, he could prove to be pragmatic. If so, he will avoid provoking the Israelis, protect Syria's minorities, and not forget the terrible crimes that the rulers of Iran and Russia have committed against the country's peoples.

He will need aid – especially as millions of Syrian refugees stream back from Turkey. Good behavior could result in the removal of his terrorist designation and an end to US sanctions. But that should come only as a reward – not as a bribe.

As for Erdogan, he will insist on being influential in Damascus. Will that satisfy him, or will his goal be to make Syria a colony of an expanding neo-Ottoman empire? Did I mention that Erdogan is no moderate?

Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times.

The post The day after in Syria appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, liked to chant "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!" Ali Khamenei, who succeeded him in 1989, designed a strategy to make progress toward those goals. He organized, funded, and armed multiple terrorist groups in the lands surrounding Israel.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett likened these proxies to the tentacles of an octopus. So long as Israel was busy wrestling with them, the head of the octopus could rest safely in Tehran. Meanwhile, Khamenei's scientists were developing nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them to targets anywhere – America very much included. This shrewd strategy has now unraveled – significantly though not completely.

Following Hamas' barbaric invasion into Israel from Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, Hezbollah began firing rockets from Lebanon into Israel. The IDF mounted a counterattack that, more than a year later, has succeeded in crippling Hamas and Hezbollah – to the chagrin of "the international community." Plus, in response to enormous missile barrages fired from Iranian soil in April and October of this year, the Israeli Air Force moved to strip Khamenei of his air defenses.

In Syria, rebels recognized the unique opportunity these developments presented. Late last month, they attacked the armed forces of longtime dictator Bashar Assad in Aleppo, Syria's second largest city. Those forces turned tail and ran. The rebels then marched south to the cities of Hama and Homs and, on Sunday, they took Damascus, the Syrian capital.

Hezbollah did not ride to Assad's rescue. Nor did Russian dictator Vladimir Putin who has been stretched thin by his imperialist war against Ukraine. Instead, he pulled some of his ships and military equipment from the sole Mediterranean naval base he occupies – for now – at the port of Tartus. As for Khamenei, he decided not to risk his own troops or those of his Shia militias in Iraq.

Assad has reportedly fled to Moscow. You'll note he did not choose to relocate to Tehran where his wife, Asma, might have had to drape herself in a burka. (This must come as a relief to the editors at Vogue magazine who, in a March 2011 cover story, praised the fashionable Mrs. Assad as "A Rose in the Desert.")

The defeat of the dynastic Syrian dictator, responsible for the slaughter of a half million of his fellow countrymen and the displacement of millions more, deserves celebration, as does the cracking of Khamenei's imperialist, settler-colonialist project. But, in the world we live in, there are no permanent victories. Remember the excitement over the Arab Spring? And who did not think that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia would have decent governments?

Of the many Syrian rebel groups now vying for power, the strongest is Hayat Tahrir al Sham. Designated by the US as a foreign terrorist organization, HTS's roots trace to al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Its leader, Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani, claims he has broken with both. HTS is supported by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of Turkey which is a member of NATO. If that sounds reassuring, factor in that Erdogan also is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. He recently said, "Western civilization will collapse; our divine and humane civilization will flourish."

HTS is believed to receive support as well from Qatar, which President Joe Biden, for reasons I can't fathom, named a "major non-NATO ally." Qatar's rulers also are pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Hamas. Al Jazeera, their global media network, is cleverly anti-American and viciously anti-Israeli.

Meanwhile, in Tehran, I imagine that Khamenei is furiously pounding his desk, asking his underlings how long before his nukes will be ready. At this point, the US government – it would be useful for the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration to be on the same page here – should warn HTS and others, Erdogan included, that attacks against Americans or friends of Americans will bring severe consequences. Among those friends: Christians, Druze, and Kurds (who have been working hand-in-glove with 900 elite US troops to prevent the Islamic State from reconstituting).

While it's too soon to say who will rule Syria, a land once known as the "cradle of civilization," over the months and years ahead, the Israelis are shaping the environment. More specifically: They are demilitarizing Syria.

Israeli fighter jets have struck tanks, helicopters, planes, and warships. Most significantly, they have destroyed the weapons facilities where Assad stockpiled chemical weapons that could have fallen into the hands of terrorists. The "international community" should thank the Israelis. Don't hold your breath.

Here's what else would make the world a safer place: If the US, on its own or in cooperation with Israel, would make plans to derail Tehran's nuclear weapons and missile programs. The fall of the Assad regime and the fracturing of Khamenei's anti-American and anti-Israeli axis have created a chance to restructure the Middle East.

This lesson should be clear: Though might may not make right, it is might that alters reality in ways that diplomats, peace processers, and calls for "de-escalation" and "ceasefire" do not. That suggests that Trump's most essential mission should be to re-build US military strength; to ensure that America's capabilities are sufficient to overwhelm any enemy or combination of enemies. If those enemies perceive that we have such capabilities and the will to deploy them, they are likely to be deterred.

Such capabilities do not come cheap, but deterring enemies is always cheaper than fighting wars against them. And winning wars is always preferable – in multiple ways – to losing wars.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times.

The post Assad exits and Khamenei's strategy unravels appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Do you recall the Cedar Revolution? Almost 20 years ago, the Lebanese rose against Syria's domination of their country, including an occupation force of roughly 14,000 Syrian troops and a government that was all too eager to do Damascus' bidding. The Cedar Revolution slogan: "Freedom, Sovereignty, Independence."

The Lebanese now have a chance to say those words again; to fight Cedar Revolution 2.0; to end the domination of Tehran and Hezbollah, the Islamist regime's foreign legion, and those toadies who collaborate with them. This opportunity is a gift from Israel. Are there Lebanese patriots with the guts and gumption to take advantage of it? I'll return to that question in a moment, but first a bit of context.

Lebanon is a beautiful land of forests, mountains, and seashore. Its population is diverse. But diversity is not its strength. From 1975 to 1990, Lebanon's main ethnic and religious communities – Shia, Sunni, Maronite Christian, and Druze – were embroiled in a bloody civil war. Hezbollah was founded by the imperialist regime that came to power in Tehran in 1979, as the Lebanese branch of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Hezbollah has since murdered hundreds of Americans, dragged Lebanon into multiple conflicts with Israel, and embroiled the country in Syria's long civil war. Hezbollah's most recent conflict with Israel ended – or perhaps just paused – with a ceasefire agreement last week. More on that in a moment, too.

For centuries, the land we now call Lebanon was a possession of the Ottomans, Muslim imperialist settler-colonialists whose capital was in Istanbul. That metropolis, you should know, was earlier called Constantinople and it was the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire until the Ottomans conquered it in 1453. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed following World War I, the League of Nations – the "international community" of the era – gave the French Empire a "mandate" to administer Lebanon and help it develop into a nation-state. Lebanon formally received its independence in 1943, though French troops didn't withdraw until three years later.

The political structure that Lebanon adopted might be called identitarian. Its goal was diversity, equity, and inclusion through sectarian power-sharing: a Maronite Christian was always to serve as president, a Shiite as speaker of Parliament, and a Sunni as prime minister. But Hezbollah, with Tehran's money, guns, and support, came to overpower all the other sects and factions. Both the 1989 Taif Agreement and the 2004 UN Security Council Resolution 1559 called for disarming Lebanese militias. But Hezbollah's leaders were not about to voluntarily lay down their weapons, and no one dared attempt to force them. Many Lebanese, mainly Shia but not only Shia, supported Hezbollah and Tehran for a variety of reasons.

In 2006, Hezbollah precipitated a war with Israel. After 34 days, under the newly passed UN Security Council Resolution 1701, the Israelis ceased firing and withdrew. In exchange, Hezbollah was to pull out of southern Lebanon, from the Litani River to the northern Israeli frontier under the supervision of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Instead, both the LAF and UNIFIL did nothing – or actively collaborated: Hezbollah has now spent almost two decades emplacing missiles in schools and mosques, building underground fortresses, and storing chemical weapons.

All this was in preparation for a future invasion of Israel that was to be followed by massacres, hostage-taking, and, if possible, the conquest of the Galilee and other northern Israeli territories. Had this plan been carried out in coordination with Hamas' invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, along with missile barrages from Iranian territory, and strikes by the Houthis in Yemen and Shia militias in Syria and Iraq, who knows how many Israelis might have been killed? Who knows whether Israel would have survived?

For reasons about which we can only speculate, that didn't happen. But on Oct. 8, 2023, Hezbollah demonstrated solidarity with Hamas by firing missiles at northern Israeli communities. These strikes have continued for more than a year. Tens of thousands of Israelis have had to abandon their homes. Enormous numbers of Iranian missiles were launched against Israel from Iranian soil in April and October of this year and sporadically by the Houthis. Israel's missile defense systems, augmented by American systems, minimized damage and, in response to Tehran's attacks, Israel destroyed Iran's air defense systems.

In September, the pagers carried by hundreds of Hezbollah operatives suddenly exploded. Days later, an Israeli airstrike killed longtime Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah deep in his bunker. The Israelis then proceeded to destroy hundreds of Hezbollah missiles, launchers, and weapons caches. Most of the group's senior leadership has now been eliminated.

The ceasefire the Biden administration arranged last week has left Israelis arguing among themselves. Critics contend that it will allow Hezbollah to get up off the mat, and that it doesn't ensure that displaced Israelis can return to their homes. My reading is that, on balance, the Israelis come out ahead. President Biden was adamant to achieve a "diplomatic solution," and the Israelis need a prompt resupply of American munitions. That now appears to be in train.

The Israelis are already responding forcefully to Hezbollah's violations of the ceasefire. And next month, President Trump will bring a new approach to the Tehran-fueled conflicts of the Middle East.

But back to the Lebanese. They now have a chance to remove the imperial yoke Iran's rulers put around their neck and regain their freedom, sovereignty, and independence. The LAF, long funded and trained by the US, should at least attempt to disarm a crippled Hezbollah. Lebanese patriots need to ask themselves two very Israeli questions: If not now, when? If not us, who?

The post Israel's gift appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

For more than a year, Israel has been fighting a brutal multifront war against Iran's rulers and their terrorist proxies: Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. Last month, Israel also was attacked by enemies in New York, Washington, and The Hague. Although these were not kinetic battles, they did damage.

First attack: On Nov. 20, 14 members of the UN Security Council voted in favor of a resolution that did not call on Hamas to release its hostages – Americans among them – as a precondition for a ceasefire in Gaza.

President Biden, credit where it's due, instructed his envoy at the UN to veto the resolution. Allowing the resolution to pass, Ambassador Robert Wood said, would have "sent a dangerous message to Hamas." Which raises this question: Do the leaders of France, Britain, Japan, and South Korea who voted with Beijing and Moscow not understand the message they just sent to Americans – at a time of rising isolationism?

And if American diplomats tried but were unable to persuade America's allies to stand with the US, how likely is it that they will prevail when negotiating with the envoys of Beijing, Moscow, and their buddies in Tehran and Pyongyang?

Second attack: Also on Nov. 20: Sen. Bernie Sanders led what The Nation, a far-left journal, called a "Bold New Effort to Block Arms Sales to Israel."

He and 18 other senators, all Democrats or self-styled independents, apparently would prefer that Hamas survive the war it launched against Israel with its invasion and barbaric pogrom on Oct. 7, 2023. And they clearly don't regard liberating the hostages as an urgent concern.

Mr. Sanders' resolutions to limit munitions sales to an ally defending itself from genocidal enemies failed. But Mother Jones, another far-left journal, noted that the vote, "shows Dems are shifting." Hard to disagree.

The third attack: On Nov. 21, Karim Ahmad Khan, prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Mr. Khan also issued a warrant for Mohammed Deif, the head of the military wing of Hamas in Gaza. However, since Mr. Deif was "martyred" in July, I doubt his lawyers will put him on the stand.

Mr. Khan has not just politicized international law, he's weaponized it to defame and blood libel the only surviving and thriving Jewish community remaining in the Middle East. To achieve that, he violated both international law and the rules of his court.

The ICC has jurisdiction only over states that choose to become members. Israel, like the US, has declined to join. Mr. Khan is asserting that Israel – and by implication the US – is bound by a treaty it hasn't signed. Globalism on steroids.

Also: Because Gaza is neither a state nor a member of the ICC, there is no entity that has standing to file a complaint with the ICC. How does Mr. Khan get around those inconvenient facts?

In 2015, the ICC granted membership to the Palestinian Authority which also is not a state and, what's more, hasn't governed Gaza since 2007 when, two years after Israelis withdrew from the territory, it was ousted by Hamas in a brief but bloody civil war.

Leaving aside Mr. Khan's unlawful usurpation of power, the charges he has leveled are bogus, based on disinformation from groups hostile to Israel.

Take, for example, his primary allegation of "starvation as a method of warfare." In fact, never in history has a state done more to assist the population of an enemy during hostilities. Israel has transferred to Gazans more than a million tons of aid carried by 57,000 trucks. The International Famine Review Committee has confirmed that there is no famine in Gaza. Yes, there are individuals who have likely starved to death in Gaza. But the ICC said nothing about those Hamas-held hostages.

What's next for Mr. Khan? He'll probably meet with his own lawyers. The ICC announced earlier this month that he's facing an external investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct.

Despite all this, many of the ICC's 124 member states have said they will be only too pleased to arrest Messrs. Netanyahu and Gallant should they get the chance. "That's just who we are as Canadians," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week. How sad if that's true.

Among the nations that fund the ICC are France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea. American diplomats ought to be making clear why their money would be better directed toward helping Ukraine and Taiwan, democracies threatened by Moscow and Beijing.

President Biden accurately called Mr. Khan's lawfare against Israel "outrageous," adding that "whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas." But he also could do something. In 2020, President Trump sanctioned ICC officials for investigating American troops. President Biden revoked those sanctions in 2021.

In June, the House, on a bipartisan basis, passed a bill to sanction the ICC. But Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has prevented a vote in the Senate, reportedly on instructions from the White House. Rep. Michael Waltz, Mr. Trump's nominee for national security advisor, predicted a "strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC and the UN come January."

The incoming administration should use sanctions not just to punish the ICC but to shutter an institution that, since its founding in the early years of this century, has achieved little at enormous cost.

The ICC's 900 employees would then need to find more useful ways to earn a living. The court's elaborate headquarters, six towers connected on the ground and first floors, could perhaps be converted into condominiums.

Clifford D. May is the founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times.

The post Another week of attacks on Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Dear President Biden,

I imagine the past few weeks have been stressful for you and Dr. Jill. I noticed that on election day, she was dressed in red – not blue. Was her Freudian slip showing?

Still, you can take some consolation in the fact that you beat The Donald while Kamala did not. No one can deny that you were a successful politician for most of your life.

As for your presidency…well, you're a grownup so I'm going to give it to you straight. Almost six out of ten Americans now judge you unfavorably. And when it comes to foreign policy, which you thought was your strong suit, your overall record is nothing to write home about.

You shamefully capitulated to the Taliban in Afghanistan and did so in a manner that was both shambolic and lethal.

We may assume that Vladimir Putin figured: "If a ragtag gang of terrorists can make Biden turn tail and run, what do I have to fear?" A few months later, Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine.

On Oct. 7 of the following year, Hamas, backed by the jihadist regime in Tehran – which you enriched by replacing President Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign with appeasement and accommodation – invaded Israel.

On Oct. 8, Hezbollah, Tehran's most powerful foreign legion, began launching missiles at Israel from Lebanon.

On Oct. 19, the Houthi rebels in Yemen began attacking commercial ships in the Bab-el-Mandeb, among the world's most strategic waterways. Your whack-a-mole response has neither defeated nor deterred them, not even after they started targeting US Navy vessels.

I could go on, but my purpose today is to tell you that, as Yogi Berra is said to have comprehended: "It ain't over till it's over." You still have a few weeks before the moving vans arrive at the White House. Time enough to establish a legacy for the history books. Four suggestions follow.

First, do no harm. Don't do what Barack Obama did during his lame-duck session: stab Israel, America's most reliable ally, in the back.

Mr. Obama engineered passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, ludicrously labeling even the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, the holiest site for Jews, "occupied territory." For what has followed – for example, the pogrom in Amsterdam last week – Mr. Obama deserves a large measure of blame.

Last week, your State Department waived sanctions on the Palestinian Authority despite its pay-for-slay program – its continuing provision of financial rewards to convicted terrorists.

Meanwhile, your Executive Order 14115 establishes sanctions on Israeli citizens whom you accuse – based on information from blatantly anti-Israeli organizations – of "undermining peace, security, and stability in the West Bank."

Among the results: You're financially ruining an Israeli mother of eight for organizing protests against aid to Gaza so long as Gazans are holding hostages in Gaza.

Whether you agree with her is beside the point: You're punishing and impeding free speech in a democratic country.

Second, days after Mr. Trump's election, it was reported that Qatar's rulers had told Hamas leaders, including Khaled Meshal and Khalil Al-Hayya, that they would no longer be treated as honored guests and should pack up and leave. Qatar is now denying these reports but, in any case, mere expulsion would be insufficient.

You should tell Qatar's rulers to give the Hamas leaders this choice: Order their followers in Gaza to release the hostages – Americans among them – or prepare for extradition to the US for trial.

Third, tell Vladimir Putin that by importing North Korean troops to help him slaughter Ukrainians, and by – we fear – providing technology to help North Korea's dynastic dictator develop improved ICBMs that can hit American targets with nuclear warheads, he's provoked you. In response, lift the prohibition on Ukrainians using American weapons to strike military targets anywhere in Russia.

Fourth and most important: Iran's Islamist rulers are behind all the conflicts in the Middle East. They fund, arm, and instruct the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Shia militias in both Syria and Iraq.

Their weapons and militias have killed hundreds of Americans. They've been plotting to murder Americans on American soil – a former president among them.

You've pledged that you're "committed to never letting Iran obtain a nuclear weapon" and that you're "prepared to use all elements of national power to ensure that outcome."

Fulfill that promise. You are the commander in chief. You could at least set back Tehran's nuclear weapons program by several years. That would require no American boots on the ground, just a brief bombing run by some B-2s flying out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

It might then occur to Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei and his partners in Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang – along with America's allies – that you're not an over-the-hill president after all and that the US is not an over-the-hill superpower after all.

The long-oppressed people of Iran will be encouraged and inspired.

Of course, Bernie Sanders and Ilhan Omar will be furious. But why let them manipulate you now that their illiberal-left, woke, multicultural, transnational, balkanizing identitarian policies have led the Democratic Party to disaster?

Do as I advise and you'll leave the White House with historic national security achievements. You'll become what hoped to be: not a transitional president but a transformational president.

"We all get knocked down," you philosophized after Ms. Harris' defeat last week. "But the measure of our character – as my dad would say – is how quickly we get back up."

So, on your feet, Joey. Show us that we never knew the real you. Get the job done and then ride off into the sunset. On your bicycle, of course. Don't forget to wear your helmet.

Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times.

The post Joey, we hardly knew ye appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

There's a tiny barren island off the coast of Maine that both the US and Canada claim. If Washington and Ottawa wanted to settle the long-simmering dispute over Machias Seal Island they could send diplomats to sit down at a "negotiating table" and come up with a compromise or maybe even a "win-win solution."

That's how diplomacy works between civilized nations.

But that's not how diplomacy works between civilized nations and terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels of Yemen, or their patron: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nor is it how diplomacy works with the neo-fascist/neo-imperialist dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin, or the Communist ruler of China, Xi Jinping.

All the above will sign treaties and cut deals, but only a fool believes their word is their bond.

I'll give you three quick examples.

The Sino-British Joint Declaration promised that the people of Hong Kong, handed over by the United Kingdom to Beijing in 1997, would retain their freedoms until 2047. Mr. Xi egregiously broke that promise in 2020.

In the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, Russia committed to "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine." Mr. Putin's forces invaded Ukraine for the first time in 2014. He's been waging a brutal war of conquest since Feb. 24, 2022.

As an original signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), considered the most important global treaty on the world's deadliest weapon, Tehran committed to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is now closer than ever to developing nukes and missiles that can deliver them to targets anywhere in the world.

Why is it so difficult for some people – not least those in the White House and State Department – to see a pattern here?

George Shultz, secretary of state under President Reagan, did get it, and he explained it succinctly: "Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table."

In other words, behind American diplomats there must be military and political leaders with both the capabilities and the will to inflict serious consequences. The alternative is appeasement which aggressors will always find provocative.

Teddy Roosevelt also understood this dynamic. To achieve foreign policy successes, he said, Americans should "speak softly and carry a big stick."

You know who else didn't harbor the delusion that diplomacy is an end rather than a means? Zhou Enlai, premier of the People's Republic of China from 1954 to 1976. "All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means," he instructed his comrades.

For nearly a year, President Biden's envoys have been negotiating through untrustworthy intermediaries with Hamas and Hezbollah. The former is holding civilian hostages, Americans among them. The latter has killed more Americans than any other terrorist group except al Qaeda.

As should be obvious by now, the leaders of these terrorist groups have no interest in "diplomatic solutions." Their goal is genocide – the annihilation of Israel. They say so clearly and even proudly.

Nevertheless, Secretary of State Antony Blinken keeps telling Israelis: "Progress must be made through diplomacy."

He appears to forget that, where Hezbollah is concerned, a "diplomatic solution" was put in place in 2006. That's when the last major war between Hezbollah and Israel was halted by UN Security Council Resolution 1701. It mandated that Israel cease firing at Hezbollah in exchange for Hezbollah removing its forces and missiles from southern Lebanon and, what's more, disarming.

The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and UNIFIL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) never enforced 1701. They never even tried.

Instead, they watched with bovine passivity as Hezbollah imported weapons and other munitions from Iran and deployed them in Lebanese homes, schools, hospitals, and mosques.

On Oct. 8, the day after Hamas terrorists invaded Israel from Gaza and before Israel responded militarily, Hezbollah began firing missiles at Israel's northern territories, destroying villages, homes and farms, killing children, and displacing tens of thousands of Israelis – essentially shrinking Israel.

Last week, Israel struck back hard, destroying Hezbollah's subterranean command-and-control headquarters in Beirut where longtime Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was meeting with his high command.

Their deaths set off celebrations in Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other countries long victimized by Hezbollah and Tehran's other foreign legions. Most mainstream media ignored the cheering crowds, probably because their jubilation contradicts the fashionable narrative of Israel as pariah.

On Saturday, Biden said his "aim is to de-escalate the ongoing conflicts in both Gaza and Lebanon through diplomatic means." He called for a ceasefire which would, of course, give Hezbollah time to regroup, rearm, and revive.

A few days earlier, Biden had given his last speech at the UN, claiming that his foreign policies have been an enormous success. Not even Hunter Biden could find that credible.

But there's still time for a course correction. In his UN speech, the president also vowed that "Iran will never, ever obtain a nuclear weapon." Two years ago, he pledged "never to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon" and to "use all elements of its national power to ensure that outcome."

His predecessors, Republican and Democratic, have made similar promises.

He could accomplish this mission between now and January 20, 2025.

What a legacy that would leave!

What a lesson that would be for both America's enemies and friends!

What a speech he could give!

The post The problem with American diplomacy appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.