The right to life is a supreme value and trumps even the right to have freedom of movement. It should be obvious to everyone that this distinction has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity, race, gender, or any other human trait. There should be a distinction, though, between innocent law-abiding civilians and murderous terrorists. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The smart and quiet policy that Israel has pursued – in which it treats innocent Palestinians differently than terrorists – has saved many lives, both Arabs' and Jews'. The fight against Palestinian terrorism is very precise, intelligence-based, and pinpointed; it does not involve collective punishment that only leads to more people becoming terrorists. 

Video: Manhunt underway near Hawara after deadly attack / Usage under Article 27a in Israel's intellectual property law

Had Itamar Ben-Gvir simply stated these facts, there would have been no problem explaining his comments abroad. But he made an unfortunate statement in which he implied that his family's right to travel on the roads in Judea and Samaria trumps that of Palestinians – all Palestinians. This is a racist, immoral statement and is also a stupid one politically and diplomatically. 

This gaffe not only slanders Israel but also inflicts major PR damage on the world stage on an unprecedented scale. For years Israel had been highlighting its democratic character and the principles on which it had been founded: the biblical prophets' vision, equality, democracy, and enlightenment. 

Israel haters have for years tried to pigeonhole Israel as an apartheid state in the hope of having it excluded from the club of enlightened nations. Not only is this comparison insulting and slanderous – it is very dangerous. The Palestinians have long realized that they cannot overcome Israel with military or economic means. That is why they have trained their firepower on the political-diplomatic arena. Having this narrative sink in – that Israel is what South Africa was several decades ago – has become a top foreign policy objective for Ramallah.

As a result of Ben-Gvir's gaffe, even the most talented diplomats will now find it hard to explain Israeli policy to the world and have its smiling face shine. The threat posed by Ben-Gvir's comments – which represent the ideology championed by his party and the faction led by Bezalel Smotrich – is not just external; it could also impact our lives inside the country and for the settler enterprise and its residents in Judea and Samaria.  

There is no doubt that the majority of the settlers are law-abiding citizens, who subscribe to Jewish morality and democratic values. But today they are represented by radical leaders. Ben-Gvir and Smotrich not only put Israel in danger because of their conduct – but they also jeopardize the support for the settlement enterprise among large swaths of the Israeli public. If the more moderate and sane elements among the settlers do not disavow the radical leaders, they could threaten the very existence of the settlements. Settlers will be the losers if they fail to embrace the strong ethical ethos of Israel and the Jewish people. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have proved they no longer share it.

Danny Ayalon is a former ambassador to the United States who served as deputy foreign minister and MK. He is the co-founder and chairman of the Silver Road Capital holdings and financial advisory firm.

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

The post Ben-Gvir's gaffe jeopardizes the settlement enterprise appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A visa waiver is a sign of deep friendship and trust between nations. The US has waiver arrangements with about 40 countries, including some – like Chile or Brunei – do not enjoy the same level of closeness with the US that Israel does. Citizens of Israel, the most important strategic ally to the US in the Middle East, still need to request visas, just like the citizens of Russia or China, which the US sees as opponents.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The formal explanation is that Israel does not meet the criteria. The Americans have argued in the past that a relatively large number of Israeli visa requests are denied, indicating a need to filter applicant, as well as many cases of Israelis violating the terms of their visas. On the other hand, it's not certain that the countries that enjoy a visa waiver meet these criteria.

So the real reasons are deeper. Some are even historical. It simply hasn't been a high-priority issue for Israel's governments over the years. Until the 1980s, mostly in times of economic crises and a lack of foreign currency, Israel's governments had a stake in making it easier for Israelis to withdraw dollars abroad. This never stopped the promotion of American investment in and tourism to Israel, because US citizens did not need a visa to enter Israel.

The change began when Israeli government began to realize the popularity of the issue and hoped to leverage it for PR purposes. From Ariel Sharon to Naftali Bennett, even prime minister has raised the issue of a visa waiver in talks with the Americans. But the American answer to Israel's requests and declarations has remained unwavering: We'll look into it and issue instructions.

In 2002, when I started my term as Israel's ambassador to Washington, I received the same "promises" from then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and his consular staff that Bennett was just now given at the White House. But despite the promises, the issue never came up in the strategic dialogue I led at the time with Bill Barnes, who is now head of the CIA. It seems that all Israeli ambassadors and prime ministers since then have been given the same empty "promise."

After 9/11, the authority to approve US entry visas was transferred from the State Department to the Department of Homeland Security, for fear terrorists would enter the country. This meant that any discussion about visa waivers needed to take place with a joint team from both departments. A team like that, as far as I know, was never established. So the first signal that the Americans are serious this time, an immediate indication that the promise made to Bennett carries any more weight than the previous ones of the last 20 y ears, will be the formation of such teams and the start of intensive work with them, until a formula can be achieved. Until that happens, there is no operative importance to the announcement of a potential visa waiver.

Even now, it's hard to spot any American interest in changing the visa policy. After all, if under four years of Trump, the most pro-Israel president ever, with the most friendly team and the warmest ambassador, the Americans did not comply with the diplomatic code of reciprocity and grant Israelis a visa waiver, one might be skeptical about whether the longed-for change will arrive because of the Biden-Bennett meeting.

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

The post A US visa waiver for Israelis? Doubtful appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

I met Lieberman in 1997, upon ending my role as Israel's ambassador to the U.N. At the time, Lieberman was serving as the director general of the Prime Minister's Office under Benjamin Netanyahu.

Later, in 2008, then-opposition leader Netanyahu offered me to join the Likud Party.

I consulted with Lieberman on the matter in his Knesset office and was surprised by his unequivocal response: Lieberman described Netanyahu in unflattering terms, to say the least. At the same time, he took the opportunity to suggest that I join Yisrael Beytenu. With some impressive sweet talk, something he excels at in one-on-one conversations, he presented an organized ideological platform. In time, I came to understand this was a pattern: Lieberman simply enjoys torpedoing Netanyahu's moves.

A decisive point in their relationship was the scandal involving the alleged appointment of Roni Aryeh Deri to attorney general, in an alleged attempt to avoid a trial on corruption charges. Netanyahu fired Lieberman in the wake of that scandal in what was to be a formative point in Lieberman's life, one he has yet to forgive or forget. Lieberman has a strong desire for revenge, one that continues to bubble up inside him to this day.

At a broader glance, this desire for revenge can be seen in all of Lieberman's contacts with Netanyahu, including his attempts to squeeze the prime minister and humiliate him in every round of coalition talks since the 2009 election. In adopting this tactic, he is able to portray Netanyahu as a man who can be pressured and prone to panic.

It is interesting to note that despite his years of zigzagging, Lieberman has worked over the years to foster an image of himself as a "bulldozer," although, in practice, he has no real record to speak of. To his credit, though, it must be noted that Lieberman is an excellent campaigner, who each election, decides on a catchy new gimmick, whether that be "Only Lieberman understands Arabic"; "No loyalty, no citizenship"; and now "Right-wing and secular."

In conclusion, Lieberman's obstinacy is not rooted in ideology, nor is it due to the desire for a particular government role. According to my assessment, Lieberman has reached the understanding that, as a member of Yisrael Beytenu, he has no chance of making it to a position from where he can replace Netanyahu as prime minister. It is from this starting point that we should analyze the motives behind his moves. The sad thing is that these caprices could thwart the establishment of a government that reflects the will of the people as expressed in the results of the election.

The post A vindictive politician with no record to speak of appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.