In the field of international relations, the term "zero-sum game" is a familiar one. It's a term from a world long past, a realistic world where "if you're not with me, you're against me," a world of winners and losers, where both sides cannot harbor some ambiguous sense of victory, and where objective truth supersedes bizarre notions such as "subjective truth."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

In today's world, awash in post-modernism, such terms have fallen by the wayside. And through the lens of "neo-realism," meanwhile, which is just a watered-down version of that bygone world, everything and anything can seem rosier. But there's the rub. Ultimately, and despite all the efforts to create a blurry picture, here, as we sit and watch the crisis between Russia and the United States unfold, it seems as if we've truly gone back in time.

This is apparently the world's return to balance moment, and the natural state of things. And everything that happened in the past 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet bloc was a passing episode, in which American hegemony failed to change the world and prevent it from reverting to this state of inter-superpower balance. We are now witnessing the "correction" in financial terms.

What do we have here, essentially? Two global powers, one from the East, the other from the West, and one continent – Europe – in the middle, which, it must be said, is still post-traumatic from the Second World War. In the eye of this storm, meanwhile, is Ukraine, a buffer state upon which the future hinges. But when analyzing Russian President Vladimir Putin's behavior over the past 15 years and his consistent strategic modus operandi – he wants to reestablish Russia's status as a global superpower and an equal counterweight to dissipating American hegemony. Truth be told, from his perspective, he's justified. Since the 1990s, one after another, the West has appropriated all the countries west of the Ural Mountains that once belonged to the Soviet bloc. And the Russian bear openly and declaratively feels the noose closing in.

Putin has acted decisively against insurrections and has sought to create a clear line beyond which the West cannot gain a foothold. Not in Abkhazia, not in Georgia, not in the Baltics, and not in the Crimean Peninsula. Russia will not let the West reach its doorstep. The Russian leader has also proven he isn't afraid of using force, and sure enough, when he has done so, those same buffer countries fell into his hands like a house of cards.

And now to Ukraine – for many months Putin has amassed his forces around this buffer country, essentially signaling to the West "up to here." This signal caught Washington at a bad time, and all the more so Europe. They are busy with their own problems, and war from their point of view is a hellish prospect with which they have no true desire to contend. In this context, Putin is nothing more than a nuisance. Yet while Putin is maintaining a consistent strategy, the West is wavering and irresolute.

Right now, Russian military divisions, capable of firepower we haven't seen in a very long time, are prepared for a ground operation in Ukraine's north and east. The Russians are trained and ready, and the methods Putin will employ are diverse – cyber, domestic subversion, fomenting chaos, and finally, yes, charging armored divisions.

Rest assured – you won't see a war of East versus West here. This war has already been decided – the West does not intend to spill blood for Ukraine. Even if we do see Russian tank columns moving against Ukraine's brittle defenses – a scenario that most likely won't materialize – the West doesn't actually have the appetite for, or the ability to provide a sufficient countermeasure.

This war was over before it even began. Putin won, and now just wants a formal surrender and a captivating victory image. Yes, this is the world of today, which in many respects is similar to the world of yesteryear, and is still a world where you don't mess with the Russian bear and a culture that eats geopolitical strategy for breakfast.

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

The post Putin won the war for Ukraine before it began appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The words "lynch in Ramallah" are traumatic for a reason – they bring us back to the days of October 2000, the beginning of the Second Intifada, when two IDF reservists, Yossi Avrahami and Vadim Nurzhitz, were horrifically murdered by a frenzied Palestinian mob in the city.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

A little over 20 years have passed since that heinous incident, and on Wednesday night we almost witnessed history repeat itself after two Israeli were rescued by the skin of their teeth from a similarly crazed mob in Ramallah.

The sense of déjà vu is unavoidable, as is the inclination to link Wednesday's incident to the events surrounding Operation Guardian of the Walls in Gaza just a few months ago, during which we saw several lynching attempts in Israeli cities, particularly Lod and Acre. In Wednesday's incident, meanwhile, we can find signs of both hope and gloom.

The hope stems from the fact that Palestinian security forces rescued the two Israelis. Don't think for a moment this was motivated by a sense of "neighborly love." The Palestinians haven't forgotten the chaos brought upon them by the Second Intifada.

Ramallah also knows the price of chaos

The Palestinian security forces are well aware that chaos on the ground will collapse the Palestinian Authority and open the door to Hamas – which from their perspective is worse than disastrous. Twenty years ago, the Palestinians chose not rescue Israeli border policeman Madhat Yousef, and the IDF's hesitation also led to his death.

The situation today appears to be different, indicating a clear preference for cooperation that largely stems from being deterred – not just by the IDF, but by the fear that Hamas will exploit any hint of instability to seize control of parts of Judea and Samaria.

Alongside this sign of hope, as stated, is also gloom. Two Israelis run into a crazed mob imbued with seething hatred and completely devoid of humanity. What was the sin of the two Israelis who found themselves in that situation? That they were driving around Area A heaven forbid? Does that justify such a pogrom? And what memories does it actually rekindle?

Despite relief: Seething hatred

The seething hatred that emanated from the incited Palestinian mob on the streets of Ramallah is identical to the enraged Arab mobs we saw on the streets of Lod, Acre, and elsewhere. The hatred and antisemitism have reached an alarming level. There is no value to human life – this is what the mob conveyed. And it aptly reflects the undercurrents in Palestinian society, which for the past 15 years has received economic relief and cooperation from Israel.

The chaos that raged through Judea and Samaria during the Second Intifada is gone, the streets of Ramallah are prospering – yet this matters not to the incited mob – which has apparently already forgotten what happens when the State of Israel decides to take the gloves off.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas hasn't forgotten, nor has the suit and tie-wearing cohort surrounding him. Their fear of being flung from rooftops and being slaughtered by Hamas – as their associates were in Gaza after the last democratic election held by the PA in 2006 – fills them with dread. And they will do all in their power, absolutely everything, for those events not to repeat themselves.

But there's a problem. Can the shaky PA government sufficiently contend with the masses? Can this rickety entity – which to a large extent is kept afloat by the IDF – cope with those undercurrents roused by Hamas? In recent weeks, to be sure, we have witnessed more than a few incidents on the ground, cheered on by Hezbollah as well, which is trying to flood the country with guns – and of course by Iran.

The hatred on the Palestinian street, therefore, can certainly be a sign of things to come, such that Judea and Samaria could erupt sooner rather than later. Israel, in recent years, has focused on fighting wars in the north and south. The recent cluster of events in Judea and Samaria, however, alongside the incidents during Operation Guardian of the Walls, are a clear indication: We must also be ready for a broad escalation in which the IDF will have to fight on three or maybe even four fronts simultaneously. This requires the right amount of troops, capabilities, and mainly readiness. The signal is clear, and the question is whether it will be translated correctly on the operative and strategic levels.

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

The post Ramallah: Hope, gloom and everything in between appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

For more than a decade now, we've all heard the idea that changing the IDF from a mandatory army to a professional volunteer army is a more correct service model, will make the army better and Israel stronger, and that social inequality related to mandatory service will become a thing of the past. It's completely clear to anyone who truly understands Israel's national security challenges that such an approach is utterly baseless.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

This problematic concept, however, which is absolutely incompatible with Israel's security and social challenges, is gaining supporters – as evidenced by the figures recently published by the Israel Democracy Institute whereby over 50% of the country's Jewish citizens support the shift to a professional army.

As a researcher focusing on social-military relations, alongside my vast experience in the field as a commander and soldier, I can express my reservations about these findings, and I can also express my reservations over the research methodology involved. In any case, however, I must ponder this statistic and try to understand what it means, and the implication that a non-inconsequential portion of the public actually believes a professional army is right for Israel.

Indeed, my answer to this notion is that it's not only unequivocally wrong but even very dangerous, both to society and to the country's security – and no less to the Israeli economy. To better understand the situation, I will endeavor to address the various approaches that cause many in the public to think of the professional army option as more correct and to dispel the notion.

A professional army will be more skilled. Upon cursory consideration, this would appear to be true but doesn't hold up to deeper analysis. Military history and a thorough understanding of military action at its core action always show that the quality of security depends first and foremost on the quality of the individual, and that no platform, training, or technology will change this. The quality of the manpower in a professional army is lower, mainly because those who choose it prefer it as a job over other jobs – and they don't have many other options. Those who choose to serve in the army for money do it because they don't have much to offer in the labor market. And for anyone doubting this claim, kindly examine who serves in professional armies across the globe.

A professional army will be cheaper. This is absolutely not the case. Western countries spend far more on these soldiers than meets the eye. Just imagine that instead of paying soldiers a subsistence salary of just a few thousand shekels per month, each soldier is paid as a career soldier. As it is, the Israeli public barely tolerates the salaries career soldiers make. What do you think will happen if the entire IDF becomes a career army? It's important, at this point, to also remind readers that over 50% of the IDF's might is predicated on its reserve forces. Obviously, in a professional army, these reserves will be slashed and replaced with more career soldiers. Yes, more expenditure; more salaries; more pensions.

A professional army is a progressive army. Some people argue that social agendas have turned the IDF into a battlefield for social causes such as feminism, religionization and more. Hence, they argue, all such tensions would disappear in a professional army. It would be an army based solely on professional (male) militarism. In fact, the exact opposite would be the case. A professional army is the pinnacle of all agendas because whoever wants to enlist can enlist, and whoever doesn't want to, doesn't. Who, then, will actually enlist? As I've already noted, on one hand unskilled, cheap manpower, and on the other hand people with nothing but agendas. Again, to those who are truly interested, kindly look at what happens in armies – which certain scholars describe as "post-modern militaries" – once they become professional.

There would be service equality in a professional army. In case it's important to say, again, that the exact opposite is the truth. By and large, those who enlist in a professional army hail from the lower socio-economic strata. They will be the ones to pay the price in blood for the country's defense. Do you understand the implications? The heaviest price a society pays, human life, will fall on a very specific social stratum – is this equality in your mind's eye?

A professional army will provide better security. To be sure, this is an exceedingly superficial view. The IDF's ability to alter its dimensions in accordance with fluctuating security situations is mostly based on the option of summoning reserve forces that allow it to double in size in times of emergency. This helps provide a response to security crises and buttresses the standing army. The State of Israel cannot rely on a professional army with fixed dimensions – it must have reserves to suit itself to the security changes that occasionally occur. A reserve army is a precondition for the country's security. And from where would these reserve soldiers come? The only pathway is for a mandatory army to feed the reserve units.

The five points I addressed are the most central to the debate. As you can discern for yourselves, in the best case none of them are cut and dry.

To all those in favor of a professional army, though, I have another question: Is there another social platform in our country that creates a similar meeting point between all strata of society? That truly connects the periphery to the center; between religious and secular; Jews and non-Jews? Is there another platform that brings everyone together under a shared sense of mutual guarantee? There isn't, obviously. The IDF is alone in this department and is the only stately body Israel has left.

Indeed, the IDF also has its warts, and there really are difficulties in creating social equality when the population grows and the army doesn't change proportionately. But this doesn't mean that mandatory service should be annulled – it means that beyond the IDF, the Israeli government needs to create other avenues of mandatory national service; in the Israel Police, the National Fire and Rescue Authority, the healthcare system and the bevy of other social fields starving for manpower. Israeli governments thus far have failed to move in this regard and have quite simply abandoned the IDF to deal alone with mandatory service.

The Israeli public needs to be told the truth; mandatory service in Israel is the way it is because that's what is needed and there really isn't any other option. And to the Israeli government, it's important to say – wake up, we are gradually losing the most important social-military asset we have, and there's no getting it back once it's gone.

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

The post A professional army: A danger in more ways than one appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Many are of the opinion that Israel faces no existential threats, and certainly not one as serious as during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. However, a quick analysis of our enemies' military and missile capabilities shows that the Jewish state might one day be caught off guard by a barrage unlike any it experienced before.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Imagine reading this piece with 4,000 missiles launched towards large Israeli cities and strategic military points. At the very least, we can say that that initial strike would be serious and would lead to hundreds of casualties and massive damage to property. We can talk about intelligence and preemptive strikes, but if there is one thing we learned during the Yom Kippur War is that we should never say never.

The enemy possesses such capabilities, and therefore, the question is not whether such an attack could happen, but how long it would take to eliminate this threat.

Over the past 30 years, the Israeli Defense Forces has built up its air defense – which provides a partial response – and significant aerial attack and ground maneuver capabilities.

I don't need to tell you that the Israeli Air Force is one of the most advanced in the world. Let us, instead, talk about the IDF's ground maneuverability and, most importantly, its reserve forces.

After the 2006 Second Lebanon War, the IDF invested heavily into training its reservists. However, much of the military training back then was designed to prepare for an escalation from an Israeli attack on the nuclear reactor in Syria at the time, and the IDF, therefore, had to be prepared for a potential war. Billions were invested back then into training, improving infrastructure, and purchasing equipment.

Since then, however, the reserve duty has been moved onto the back burner: Training has plummeted and units have been disbanded. The reserve service has become a great financial burden and in an effort to cut costs, the IDF has all but ceased calling up reservists for routine activity.

According to a seven-year study I conducted, most reservists believe they are not being mobilized often enough. In their opinion, the threats to Israel's security warranted more reserve training.

To put it into perspective: In the 1980s a reservist spent an average 50 days a year in training, but in 2021, that number has shrunk to just 10.

We must ask ourselves one big question: How ready is a reserve unit – whose soldiers have met so infrequently in the last decade – to protect our country against an existential threat?

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

The post How much longer will IDF neglect its reservists? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

On Tuesday night an analysis of Israel's lack of response to rockets fired at Sderot form the Gaza Strip said that one possible reason Israel might have remained mum was Egyptian involvement in brokering a long-term truce between Israel and the criminals in Gaza. And indeed, on Wednesday an Egyptian representative arrived for talks with Prime Minister Bennett.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Anyone who thinks that the current Israeli government, which includes four MKs from an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, is capable of applying any leverage to Egypt or Hamas is badly deluded.

We are seeing a dramatic erosion in American deterrence and image in our region – a situation in which Iran is pulling the strings of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and funding Hamas, not to mention the nuclear talks in which we can assume how "hard" a line the Americans are taking. The trend is clear and destabilizing the geostrategic balance in the region, which is necessarily bad for Israel.

Everything happening here is bad news, and with a government of "healing" like the current one, no one is concerned about any determined Israeli step in the right direction, as its helplessness continues to grow.

It's worth pointing out that the Egyptians aren't mediating between Israel and Hamas out of any great love for Israel. They are taking care of Egyptian's biggest interest, which is preventing escalation in the Gaza Strip that will prompt the Muslim Brotherhood to light up the streets of Cairo with riots. Egypt doesn't want that, and will do all it can to prevent it. The question is, where are Israel's interests in all this?

We should think back to the days of the Obama administration and understand the correct tactics at both the diplomatic and military levels. Israel must act aggressively, in any way possible, to damage Hamas' capabilities. Now more than ever, Israel needs to say that Gaza must demilitarize voluntarily or be forced to, set an ultimatum, and prepare the military to show the entire region that Israel will no longer ignore attacks, and the next time there is need to enter Gaza – it will be the end of Hamas' military wing. If the Americans and the Egyptians want quiet, they need to take serious action to demilitarize Gaza. This is the only condition that Israel should insist upon during truce talks. No demilitarization – no truce.

The issue is that, unlike Operation Cast Lead in 2009, the IDF is much better prepared for a ground operation in Gaza, and has plans that can be executed relatively quickly. To put it simply, Bennett needs to show force in a way that will spur power players to rein in Hamas and start the process of demilitarizing Gaza.

But there's a problem – Bennett can't. He has no room to maneuver due to the political situation in Israel. A reality like this only underscores the limitations of the current government, even more so when Biden is president of the US.

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

The post Egypt sees Bennett's weakness and exploits it appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Did the champions of disengagement who declared it would immeasurably improve Israel's strategic situation believe we would see the establishment of another state by the name of Hamastan? Did they believe this new country would have Jerusalem as its capital?

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Let's lay all our cards on the table. The way things look now, Hamas' military wing achieved a dramatic strategic objective: control of Jerusalem. How else can we explain that in the capital of the Jewish state – the city Diaspora Jews dreamed of returning to for 2,000 years, the one we paid for in blood, and the place where Israel's historic kings once walked – we cannot hold a march with our national flag due to purported security sensitivities, or in other words, fear of Hamas' response.

To be honest, I never imagined we would be in a situation where we would put control of the city in Hamas' hands, within the framework of security establishment dictates to the diplomatic echelon.

Let's focus a bit on the democracy aspect. In a country where individual liberties, in particular freedom of movement, are respected, we should be able to travel freely through the capital with Israeli flags. Yet the flag march was postponed, and now Israeli lawmakers - elected officials - have been banned from moving freely within the city. Some call this a provocation that could raise tensions. To this, we must ask: Is Jerusalem really in our hands? And what kind of democracy is this in the first place?

Seeing as thousands protested outside of the Prime Minister's Residence weekly at the height of the coronavirus outbreak, the claim the flag march and the entry of Israeli lawmakers into Jerusalem's Muslim Quarter constitute a "public threat" is ridiculous. In our country, the protection of individual liberties, as it turns out, is dependent on their political context.

The decision not to hold the flag march and to prevent lawmakers from entering the Old City is therefore anti-democratic. Furthermore, it has been blatantly dictated by Hamas threats.

The decisions adopted by the Israeli government in adherence to defense officials' recommendations are outrageous and constitute a serious blow to the State of Israel's national security. They are also an expression of the unfortunate fact that Operation Guardian of the Walls did not deter Hamas. This is the reality, and we should agree on it.

This fact must bring us back to the basic question: Why haven't we acted decisively to destroy Hamas' military force? After all, we've been here before. We prepared for it, but we never went for the necessary end goal. This was the case even when half of Israel's population was under fire, our capital was on fire, and the port of entry to Israel, Ben-Gurion International Airport was under attack. The Israeli government has lost its sovereignty.

It's not too late. The government must make the necessary decisions based on our national security needs, not today, this week, or this year, but for hundreds of years to come. I was taught that today's acquiescence is tomorrow's norm. This repeated cowering to Hamas has led us to a troubling norm in which there is no democracy, and there is no sovereignty.

The fact that Hamas is the first organization to pose a threat to our capital and severely limit our citizens' freedom of movement bolsters the conclusion this organization must be toppled, and its military capabilities eradicated. Complicated and difficult as this may be, it must be clear to every citizen here that this reality is intolerable. We must act quickly to change it fundamentally.

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

The post Hamas dictating Israel's policies on Jerusalem appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The ongoing chain of security-related events in recent months, specifically within the context of the strategic shift in the United States and the political instability in Israel, should come as no surprise. In the current reality, all the "players" on the geo-strategic playing field are jockeying for the best possible position ahead of the next stage, which could either be a military conflagration, or some sort of accord.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The political conflict in Israel between Netanyahu and Sa'ar, or between Lapid and Netanyahu, believe it or not, is minor in the global context. The world is mired in the throes of upheaval and instability. Some of the difficulty stems from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which is rattling regimes and fostering volatility in many places across the globe. The administration change in America, however, which has included a sharp strategic shift, has reverberated worldwide while the Middle East, of course, has been thrown particularly off-kilter.

The Russian military build-up on the Ukrainian border, for example, which is simply a "flex" by Putin to embarrass the Biden administration and test its mettle – aptly illustrates that we are just secondary players in this game. Still, when it comes to Israel, the reality is a bit more nuanced. The shift of power from Trump, who was unprecedentedly supportive of Israel, to the Biden administration, which has naturally turned a cold shoulder to Israel, has been felt even more acutely these days. America wants to leave the Middle East and to this end is trying to stabilize the conflict with Iran by making a deal –the results be damned. What does Israel have to say on this matter? It seems Biden doesn't really care. I would expect an American president to meet with the Israeli prime minister and formulate a general course of action vis-à-vis the Iranians – but this isn't happening and we can all guess why.

America and Iran will reach an agreement. Iran will continue to consolidate its hegemony in the Middle East and we will have to continue dealing with it. There are consequences to this. The Iranian plot includes a gun and a trigger; partly aimed at Lebanon, partly at Syria and partly at Gaza. Syria, for the time being, is out of the game in terms of sovereign action against us, largely due to Putin's desire to preserve stability, but the signals Israel is sending on several fronts reveal exactly what the Iranians want. One signal pertains to the activities attributed to Israel against Iranian vessels at sea; a second signal is the attacks attributed to Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities; and a third signal is to America, regarding preconditions for a nuclear deal.

Tensions are percolating on all fronts right now, particularly on the Gaza front. We've had a lot of peace and quiet in this sector these past two years – some of it due to the pandemic and some because of negotiated understandings, but the status quo in the south has held relatively firm. Hamas, however, is not resting on its laurels amid this relative tranquillity, certainly not when Israel's political system is crippled, when Arab Israelis could possibly become part of a political coalition for the first time, and certainly not when Mahmoud Abbas has canceled the parliamentary elections that Hamas was expected to win – here Hamas has found an opportunity to send Israel a signal.

We saw this signal in recent days as the terrorist organization made sure to restrict the range of the rocket fire, didn't intensify the attacks, and the recent skirmish has thus far been limited in scope and hasn't claimed any lives. Much of this is due to Israel's restraint, which perhaps allowed it to dodge a "strategic ambush" to drag us into an escalation under suboptimal conditions from Israel's perspective in light of the aforementioned factors. When you are mired in political infighting and your most important ally appears indifferent at best to Shiite hegemony – you are handcuffed. Hence the tactic derived by Israel.

Israel does not want an escalation. This is not a default position – the current reality is being dictated by developments as they unfold on the ground. The world is at a significant crossroads, the government in Israel is at a significant crossroads, and a military escalation could trump everyone's cards. For now, as stated, all sides prefer quiet; as does Hamas, apparently. Maybe the recent rocket fire was a sign of things to come; maybe it was just a provocation, perhaps it was an attempt to forge a link to the Arab street, specifically in Jerusalem. In any case, Hamas isn't going any further.

Meanwhile, the question we must ask is whether this quiet actually serves us. Maybe now is the time to do something completely unexpected and pummel Hamas and the other hostile elements around us. Israel is looking at the pandemic in its rearview mirror, our starting position is far better, the IDF is ready; conceivably this is the right time to act against all those plotting against us, including Iran.

Israel does not run the world, but Israel is most definitely a factor, and as a people who love life we are at a point where the initiative must be ours. Is it time to remove some of the threats we face from the field of play? Perhaps it's counterintuitive due to all the unrest and instability around us, but maybe this is the best time to deliver another punch or push and destroy what has threatened us here for more than two decades now.

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

The post Time to seize the initiative appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It seems that in modern-day Israel no former general can make a successful transition into politics. When one reads about the latest failures of Blue and White, which until recently was led by three former chiefs of staff, one cannot help but wonder: is it that these generals specifically have lost their public and political support or are we witnessing the general decline of the Israeli security ethos?

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Until recently, Blue and White claimed to be the alternative to the disintegrating government. Now, the party is on the verge of collapse. It is very unlikely that party leader Benny Gantz and his No. 2, Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi, will stay in politics for very long. The imploding of Blue and White reflects the leadership difficulties of the two, not to mention their colossal political failure.

But Gantz and Ashkenazi are not the only former military chiefs who failed to establish political power. Their predecessors include failed Kadima chairman Shaul Mofaz, his successor in the army, MK Moshe Ya'alon, who has failed to establish an influential political platform since resigning from the Likud, and former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz who was a member of Kadima, but most likely no one even remembers that.

Since Ehud Barak, who became prime minister six years after retiring from the IDF, no chief of staff has even come close to becoming prime minister. And even Barak held office for less than two years before being replaced by Ariel Sharon.

The historical perspective makes one understand that Gantz and Ashkenazi never stood a chance to begin with. History show us time and time again: not only do chiefs of staff fail to reach a position of power, they leave the political arena disgraced.

There might be a few reasons for this. If you ask someone from the military, they will probably tell you that military officials are honest people and they are not fit for the dirty world of politics. There might be some truth to that, but why is it that again and again they leave the field of politics in humiliation?

The IDF possesses the highest level of public trust, or so it seems on paper. Many say they respect each unit individually, but the institution in its entirety is quite mediocre. In any case, the army has been the target of more and more public criticism in the last few decades.

The IDF has never been perfect, and perhaps it has been even less effective and efficient in the last few decades. Why is it that Yitzhak Rabin and Rafael Eitan succeeded in going from military leaders to successful politicians? If they did it, why did Gantz and Ashkenazi fail? Were the chiefs of staff more successful back then and therefore their path in the world of politics was more comfortable? Or vice versa?

Some say that Israel has become disenchanted with the IDF, that military officials are no longer considered as brilliant as they used to be, and therefore are less valued by the public and are less influential.

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

The disenchantment of the Israeli public and the questionable political capability of the chiefs of staff have led to a decline in the added value former generals bring to politics, spelling big-time defeat.

How can Israeli society, which still defines itself as militaristic, oust its chiefs of staff in such disgrace? After all, these generals gave decades of their lives to the state and have literally put their lives on the line for our security.

The IDF is no longer the people's army. All that remains is to ask: is the generation declining or is it the quality of the generals that is diminishing?

Col. Ronen Itsik (Res.) is a researcher and lecturer in political science and the author of "Behind The Armor: The story of an Israeli soldier," describing military service and combat situations against terrorist organizations.

The post Political game again proves too tough for generals appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

As a former military man and a nationalist who holds a few liberal positions, I am amazed at what goes on in Israel's left-wing camp.

One can argue against the directions the camp has taken and its ideas, just as one can sometimes attack the nationalist stance, but one simply cannot understand how the left-wing camp manages each time to destroy anyone who has taken a chance at serving as its leader of late, whether that be the late Prime Minister Shimon Peres; former Prime Minister Ehud Barak; former Labor leaders Amram Mitzna, Shelly Yachimovich, and Avi Gabbay; current Labor leader Amir Peretz; and now Blue and White head Benny Gantz.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Gantz, a former IDF chief of staff who commanded over the Israel Air Force's commando unit, Shaldag, and the Paratroopers Brigade, has recently been called a "loser," "liar," traitor," and "evil" by members of the very same camp that once saw him as their only hope of salvation.

There's no doubt Gantz failed at the task at hand. He was unable to present a true political alternative, he's lost a lot of his political clout, his standing in the media is on shaky ground, and he is not at his best, to say the least. But why does the leftist camp insist time and again on taking out its leaders in such an incredibly brutal manner, and what can we learn from this practice?

After all, it is those on the Left who repeatedly select a new "idol" to fawn over and then throw them to the wolves shortly thereafter. What does that say about your choice and about your understanding of leadership and people in general? Is there any venerable person who would be willing to lead this camp today, with the understanding they are destined to be just another victim in a long and respected list of victims of the Left?

For a supposedly enlightened, tolerant, and pluralistic camp, what does its treatment of its leaders tell us? They are lightyears away from the values they purport to endorse. Above all else, they are disloyal, and they have no faith in the man they chose to call their leader.

Worst of all, they took people with excellent public service or military records, gave them their trust, and in a matter of months, managed to roll them into the dustbin of history as if they were nothing but a worthless piece of trash. This cannot be allowed to happen. I didn't vote for Gantz; I know him, and I know his abilities. Did you also know? Then what are you complaining about?

I won't get into the defense minister's political talents, but one thing I will say. He's a mentsch. He's a good, decent, and trustworthy person. He's a man who's very easy to work with. He listens, really listens. So he isn't the world's greatest politician, does that justify treating him like a doormat? There can be no other explanation than the Left suffers from a chronic case of self-hatred.

This man, like some of the others who came before him, dedicated 40 years of his life to the people of Israel at an unfathomable personal cost, and all it takes is seeing him serve five months in a political role for the Left to wipe him out as if he were nothing. It's outrageous. To think that only a few months ago, over a million of them voted for him in an election.

I am not a man of the Left, but I am an Israeli patriot. I voted for someone else, but I will never forget who Benny Gantz is. And I will never treat him the way you, his voters, are treating him now. It would seem that a man who led others for 40 years has more principles than those who are trampling all over him now.

As an Israeli, an officer, and a commander, I am ashamed of the way the leftist camp treats the people who have sacrificed so much for the state. When I see how they treat these people, with whom I have deep differences of opinion, I realize they never deserved to have them as their leader in the first place.

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

The post The Left's treatment of Gantz is shameful appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

As we deal with a global epidemic that – vaccine aside – the end of which remains unknown, and the long-term consequences of which remain an even greater unknown, it is doubly difficult to ignore the ease with which open borders, geographically and virtually, have resulted in a host of new threats with which we are not necessarily to deal.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Dealing with cyber threats is no longer as foreboding as it once was, thanks to various solutions that provide a response to most threats. However, reports of cyberattacks on major firms and infrastructure could significantly disrupt our lives, and dealing with them requires taking a different approach.

If the coronavirus pandemic has taught us anything is that in the age of globalism, an issue that affects one corner of the world can become a worldwide challenge in a heartbeat – to the point of crippling our daily lives.

The Butterfly Effect – the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state – has long become the reality, and it often raises the question, have we gone too far? Is there such a thing as too open a border?

Some would argue that answer is yes – we have gone too far, perhaps losing control on the way. Reality has proven time and again that systems are chaotic by nature and they could therefore manufacture the type of change we which we neither predicted nor to which we are accustomed.

Many of these dangers lie in our behavior and in how we, as individuals, deal with threats in whatever spectrum - from terrorism, through a biological threat, to the cyber sphere.

It is clear that when we open a door to something new, no matter how positive it may be – something nefarious is likely to slither through as well.

We would be wise to understand that not everything global is necessarily positive. Take for example online shopping on retail giants such as Ali Express and its ilk. People seem oblivious to the fact that buying something more cheaply comes with a hidden price – from phishing, through tracking online activity, to a direct remote impact on various aspects of our lives.

I would rather use my credit card less than I do, but reality leads us directly to behavior we would not necessarily like. The temptation to be "like everyone else" and shop online also holds many dangers, not only to the individual but to the collective, as well.

Much of what we saw in science fiction movies two decades ago is now a fact of life. There is a troubling dimension to this and beyond individual private behavior, each country must invest considerable resources in protecting its infrastructure on a growing number of fronts, as the potential damage is enormous.

This reality is much more complex when it comes to non-governmental organizations, as information could fall into the hands of terrorist groups, underground organizations planning cyberattacks, or labs producing biological threats.

The age of cyberspace has an almost inconceivable intelligence dimension and most threats are invisible unless you go looking for them.

Take for example the attempted cyberattacks on institutes researching and producing a vaccine against the coronavirus. While we are all thinking about the threats emanating from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon – an unforeseen cyber threat has been trying to undermine our ability to combat the global pandemic.

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

Dealing with these threats raises a growing number of questions that have to do with almost every aspect of our lives. Naturally, you cannot ward off all of the threats all of the time. Eventually, something comes through and deals you a blow. This is a humbling thought and we would be wise to remember it.

If anything, 2020 has been humbling. Coronavirus may be only the first sign of a massive change the third millennium in store for us. Naturally, this requires a multisystem approach, but also a good dose of personal responsibility.

Col. Ronen Itsik (Res.) is a researcher and lecturer in political science and the author of "Behind The Armor: The story of an Israeli soldier," describing military service and combat situations against terrorist organizations.

The post Is cyber terrorism a manageable threat? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.