The Trump administration's deal with the Houthis appears on the surface like throwing Israel under the minibus. America has secured its economic interests, and freedom of navigation for commercial ships in Bab el-Mandeb is now guaranteed.

In return, the Houthis also maintained their freedom to launch missiles from Yemen toward Ben Gurion International Airport. The fact that Sanaa's destroyed airport and Hodeidah's bombarded pier didn't prevent the Houthis and their supporters from celebrating in ostentatious victory parades speaks volumes. Rightfully so. They not only forced the Americans to raise their hands in surrender, they also brought Washington to abandon Israel.

One can always hope, or fantasize, that Washington and Jerusalem are more coordinated than meets the eye. America is cutting its Yemeni adventure at a strategic point from its perspective, to concentrate political discipline and military resources for the truly important mission – confronting Iran.

Israel, for its part, is "holding back," helping America buy time and legitimacy through diplomatic channels. According to this line of thinking, the "fickleness" attributed to President Donald Trump, including the personnel changes at the top of the administration, is part of spreading a fog screen – a disguise of the true objectives and game pieces.

There is no privilege in building on this illusion. The practical meaning of the American retreat against the Houthis is that Israel is now free to strike targets in Yemen. But much more significantly, Israel should feel freer than ever to act against Iran as well. In this context, Benny Gantz is right – in the last two weeks he has voiced clear-cut political and policy positions we haven't heard from him in years. "It's not Yemen," he said, "it's Iran."

The post Israel can now focus on the big prize: Iran appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"I hate wars," the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy tells me this week, "but I've witnessed many up close, and for 50 years I've been going to the front lines to bear witness, to write, and to use my weapon – the pen – whenever I can to support just causes.

"What's happening now is no different. It's a war that Israel did not wish for even for a second – and one it must win. It's about Israel's survival, but it's also about justice, freedom, and human rights."

"I jumped on the first plane to Israel," he recounted to his European readers on October 23, just days after Oct. 7, vividly describing his impressions from Sderot, Beersheba, Kfar Gaza, and the area around, long before the ground incursion into the strip. But unlike other opinion leaders around the world, his solidarity with Israel did not wane in the passing weeks. On the contrary – through the pages of newspapers and interviews, he has issued a consistent, clear call: The world must not leave Israel alone in its battle against Hamas.

This, among other things, is also what prompted him to recently write and publish, amidst the atmosphere of Israel-hatred and antisemitism pervading Europe and North America, his book "The Loneliness of Israel." The book has been on French bookshelves for a few weeks now and is soon to be released in the United States as well.

Lévy has never been bound by the intellectual bon ton of his time – be it as a philosopher who challenged the neo-Marxist orthodoxy and the new leftist spirit of his generation or as the founder of the "New Philosophers" group in the late 1960s. The same holds true for his multi-disciplinary approach throughout his prolific career, which has included years of journalistic work, literary writing, and filmmaking, culminating in a series of documentary films from the battle zones of Ukraine, the latest of which was recently screened in France and the United States.

The similarities between the two countries, Ukraine and Israel, and between the two wars, especially concerning the Western world's attitude toward them, will resurface time and again in our conversation, held just before he arrives in Israel to present his book at an event held in his honor at Netanya Academic College.

Q: Israel will mark its 76th Independence Day just days after the interview, and the title of your new book is hardly the most joyous of birthday presents. Is Israel really so alone?

"Yes, it's utterly alone, more than ever before. The world doesn't understand it either, and it's reviled by everyone. There's absolute ignorance about it, about the history of the state, and about the place of the State of Israel in Jewish history.

"Yes, it's utterly alone, more than ever before. The world doesn't understand it either, and it's reviled by everyone. There's absolute ignorance about it, about the history of the state, and about the place of the State of Israel in Jewish history.

"That's why I wrote the book. It answers simple questions. It goes back to the basics of the State of Israel and asks the most basic questions, around which there's the most ignorance: Why does Israel exist? In what sense is it a colonial phenomenon? How can a people present in a place for 3,000 years be considered occupiers? And so on. People in Europe have no inkling about any of these things."

Q: We're talking about a world that questions the most fundamental thing: Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

"Exactly. That's what's meant when people sing in the streets of Paris or New York, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' The meaning of that chant is the erasure of Israel, its elimination as a Jewish state and as a state altogether."

Q: So who has left Israel alone? Who has abandoned it?

"Its allies, who've succumbed to public opinion at home. They're still Israel's allies, but today they're more cautious about anything concerning it."

Double standards

Lévy's preoccupation with "The Loneliness of Israel" is especially relevant this week, as the world seems to be negotiating with Hamas, recognizing some of its demands, and not committing to its elimination. "I hate being right about this, but the title of my book is still valid," he says regretfully. "Despite the wave of solidarity with Israel after Iran's attack on the night of April 13, the loneliness is returning with a vengeance.

"Israel's allies are saying: Jews are allowed to be strong, but not too strong. To defend themselves – but only up to a point. What country would allow its citizens to be attacked like that? None! And yet Israel is being asked to restrain itself. There's no limit to the double standards.

"The problem with Hamas is that it's not a normal, rational enemy, and yet we in the West keep trying to treat it as one. I said Russia is a terrorist state and should be treated as such – well, the same goes for Hamas, especially with Russia backing the terrorist organization. Of course, Iran is backing it too, and in a sense, so is Turkey – not to mention Qatar, which continues to give refuge to Hamas leaders and has the gall, on top of everything, to play the role of mediator."

Q: Does that mean Israel needs to "finish the job" in Rafah and defeat Hamas despite the international backlash?

"Yes. I've been saying from the start that the way to win in Gaza is to go through Rafah. Hamas must be dismantled for Israel's future, but also for the future of the Palestinians. Israel and the Palestinians must be liberated from Hamas. The world needs a Hamas-free space – from the river to the sea."

Q: But the international community is pressuring Israel to end the war and reach a ceasefire.

"Western leaders, led by President Joe Biden, should invest every effort in pressuring Hamas until it surrenders. As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal: Enough with these endless negotiations with the Qataris. Maximum pressure must be applied to Hamas. A military victory over Hamas is essential; there's no other way for Israel and the region as a whole to move forward. Otherwise, Hamas will emerge victorious from this war and be able to take pride in having won."

Q: In other words, go all the way.

"Absolutely. Israel must go all the way in this war. For its security, for the sake of the Palestinians, for the sake of the entire region, and for the world. Just like Ukraine, Israel is fighting for the values of democracy and freedom. Like the Kurds who fought against ISIS to defend their land but also to prevent the next 9/11 or the next Bataclan (the Paris theater where an attack took place in November 2015). Israel is in the same position, fighting on the same kind of front."

A war of existence

"Israel's victory is a victory for freedom, for democracy, for everything right and just, whereas a Hamas victory is a victory for barbarism, for terror, for murder and rape," he tells me when I press him again on the international pressure. "An Israeli victory is the victory of the defenders of Ukraine in the trenches of Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine, and of the children hiding in shelters in Kharkiv.

"Israel's victory is a victory for freedom, for democracy, for everything right and just, whereas a Hamas victory is a victory for barbarism, for terror, for murder and rape," he tells me when I press him again on the international pressure. "An Israeli victory is the victory of the defenders of Ukraine in the trenches of Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine, and of the children hiding in shelters in Kharkiv.

"It's the victory of the Uyghurs, of the brave Kurds still defending us from ISIS, of the Nigerian Christians who have only stones against the killers of Boko Haram and Fulani, and of all those who don't want war – but must fight to be free. A Hamas victory is a victory for the Islamic Republic, for Russia, for Turkey, for China, for extremist Islam. To allow such a thing – that is, to push Israel to stop the war – would not just be a defeat for Israel, but for all of us. And that is unacceptable."

Q: So how do you explain the international pressure?

"The American elections. It's small politics. It's sad, but it's the truth. I was surprised by President Biden's behavior. On one hand, the military and economic aid keeps flowing. On the other, you can clearly sense that he's hearing the protests and the rumblings coming from his base. Franklin Foer recently published an article in The Atlantic: 'The Golden Age of Jewish America is Over.' I think that's tragically correct."

Q: Time for Aliyah – for You?

"Perhaps, but for now it's not my choice, nor the role I've given myself. My role is to fight here, in France. To explain to the French that if there is a true, great republic – in the good sense that word has in France – then that republic is Israel. A liberal, multi-cultural republic with the rule of law."

Q: What exactly are you trying to explain to them and to the world?

"Historically, the world has forgotten about the need for a State of Israel. It has forgotten that if nations ultimately gave the Jews this small strip of land called Israel, it was to erect a barrier, to build a fortress against the rivers of Jewish blood spilled by hatred, pogroms, and the Holocaust over thousands of years. Today, it seems, no one understands that Israel is waging a war of existence."

Q: Which is something, unlike many others, you insisted on witnessing firsthand from day one.

"That's right. I came to Israel on instinct. On Saturday morning at 9 a.m., I saw the first news alerts on my phone. I understood something enormous was happening. Not a regular event – but the event, with a capital T. I decided to get on the first plane and go to Sderot, and then to the kibbutzim.

"It was a reflex, an instinct. The things I saw are in the book I wrote. I was with ZAKA. The bodies that were found in Kfar Aza had already been buried. Only the bodies of the Hamas killers remained, and body parts, pieces of skin they couldn't identify that hadn't yet decomposed. I'll never forget those images, those smells."

Q: What kind of reactions are you getting?

"It seems the book has shaken some people. Maybe not convinced them, but shaken them. People whose minds aren't made up, who've been manipulated, but who still heard my arguments. The battle isn't lost, far from it."

Q: Could it be that things are simply not being conveyed accurately to the world?

"I don't think there's an issue with the information people are receiving. The data is available to them. The problem is that people really don't want to hear. There are too many preconceptions, too many clichés. A thick layer of false knowledge has accumulated, preventing people from knowing the facts, from knowing what really happened. It's a phenomenon we've known since Spinoza and Freud – willful ignorance. That's what's driving people now."

Q: You use a harsh term in the book: the denial of October 7. Like Holocaust denial, except here you're pointing to simultaneity. In other words, denial in real-time.

"That's exactly it. There was a first event, October 7, and immediately after, a second event – the erasure of October 7. I don't think I've ever seen such a thing happen simultaneously."

Academic wilderness

Q: After the recent decision against Israel at the UN, you recently referred to the UN as an entity in a "brain-dead" state.

"The UN is in the same state the League of Nations was in 1938, only worse. In the book, I've compiled the statements, the non-statements, the hypocrisy, the frivolity, and the lies of UN agencies from day one of the war. It's terrible. The UN is dead. It's still twitching a bit, but it's dead. The time is approaching when we'll need to invent something else."

Q: You're referring to the decision in March.

"Yes, we're entering a dangerous zone. We're seeing how an empire like America is dancing two steps forward and one step back. Historically, Washington hasn't always supported Israel unconditionally, and we mustn't take its support for granted. We saw that in its latest abstention."

Q: This adds to the International Criminal Court.

"It's an absurdity. A scandal. A completely distorted situation. History will judge all those who twisted the truth."

Q: I think some of what you're saying also applies to the intellectual sphere and academia in particular. How did the academic establishment reach this point?

"It's something that's been brewing for a long time. I remember a lecture at a university in San Francisco ten years ago, and another at a Hillel organization in New York 15 years ago. Everything we're seeing today began taking shape back then. What students no longer understand is that even if there are two extreme right-wing ministers in Israel, even if Netanyahu wants to reform the Supreme Court – Israel itself still embodies the liberal values they're fighting for. I'll say it again: all the liberal and progressive values."

Q: But it's more than anti-Israel or anti-Zionist sentiment. It's antidemitism, and a profound sense of insecurity that Jews feel at prestigious institutions, in intellectual ivory towers, much of whose legacy and achievements were authored by Jews. What does that say about the world of learning?

"It's a bit like the question that was asked when the Weimar Republic collapsed. It was the place that represented the pinnacle of intellectualism, the place where Goethe lived and Hegel taught. It had all the symbols of the Enlightenment, of freedom of research and thought. It was the place to which Jewish science, knowledge, and research contributed greatly to its excellence. But then that place turned into an intellectual desert, led by the most racist sciences, the most delusional linguistic research, and Nazi stormtroopers. How could this happen? How did this regression occur? That's more or less the question we're asking ourselves today when we see these universities."

Q: It raises a somber question: Have the intellectuals betrayed us? Where is the Émile Zola of our time?

"I believe these intellectuals exist, but they're younger. Fortunately, they're here, they exist. I've seen the reactions to my book. My readers are young, and that's wonderful and encouraging."

Q: Still, they seem to be pushed to the margins. In today's reality, Jonathan Glazer and Judith Butler can freely speak out against Israel, while Israel supporters fear raising their voices.

"We need to look at it from both sides. Glazer has disgraced himself in the eyes of an entire group of artists in Hollywood. Butler gave a lecture at the Sorbonne but was then barred from giving her follow-up lectures. I'm trying to say there's an ideological war raging here, a fierce, stubborn war. The Jews and their friends are indeed at a disadvantage, but they haven't lost yet."

Q: It seems to be getting harder to draw a line between opposition to Israel or Zionism and antisemitism.

"It's not just hard – it's already impossible. It's the same thing. In other words, using a new word to say the same thing. In France, Jean-Luc Mélenchon's far-left party is at the forefront of this phenomenon. It's terrible to say it, even depressing, but it's the truth. Antisemitism has become a stream that stands on its own in Western political life."

Q: Students protesting not just in the US, but in France too. Even at institutions like the prestigious Sciences Po in Paris, which police had to storm to evacuate barricaded students. How is the French academic community receiving this?

"There's no doubt the academic world is worried, but all of France is watching this rout of the spirit. It's not a subversive spirit that has infiltrated the French workshops that produce the elite, because ultimately this subversive spirit is part of the existing order in France, part of the French tradition. The problem in this case is that it's stupid subversion, pitiable subversion that seduces people.

"In 1968, during the student protests, we were rebelling because of the Vietnam War, but we were still humanists. Our true aspiration was the liberation of mankind, and antisemitism, like terrorism, was forbidden. The central Maoist group of those years – the Proletarian Left – disbanded after the massacre of the Israeli athletes in Munich. In other words, the moment terrorism appeared. What we're seeing today is a caricature, a joke of what happened back then. And Judith Butler, compared to Michel Foucault, is a joke."

Q: What forces are shaping public opinion in France regarding Israel?

"There are two: From the left, as I said, it's the extremism of Mélenchon, the return of that old antisemitic socialist tradition that began with the Dreyfus Affair. But you also have a second tradition, from the right, that started with Archbishop Marcion in the second century.

"He was a divisive archbishop whose core belief boiled down to the idea that the new Christianity must uproot any remaining roots connecting it to Judaism. According to his doctrine, the great divide between Judaism and Christianity lies in the nature and character of God in each religion: the God of love for the Christians, the God of vengeance for the Jews.

"This division is idiotic. Marcion didn't take into account the fact that the Christian commandment to love stems directly from Moses' commandments. But this God, the God of vengeance, is what took root with Marcion. This view has persisted through the generations, despite Marcion's excommunication – and reemerges whenever we're told in various ways that Israel is taking a vengeful approach to Hamas.

"I was in Israel on October 7, I've visited since, and I've never heard anyone actually talk about revenge. Justice – yes. Freeing the captives – yes. Destroying Hamas' political and military capabilities – absolutely. But not revenge."

Q: It seems their future in France and around the world is uncertain.

"The future of Jews is not assured anywhere. Not in Europe, as we're seeing right now, and not in America, where we're discovering an antisemitism I long suspected existed, which has now exploded in the face of American Jews. But even in Israel, the future of Jews is not assured, as October 7 proved. This is our existential condition today."

Q: President Macron recently condemned some of the student protests, while in the same breath warning of "the death of Europe."

"Macron acted like a good republican president regarding the student support for terrorism. He said: Here, in France, there is no room for justifying mass murder. But when it comes to Europe, it's more complicated. It's an old idea we have in Europe, that we view Europe as a beautiful, good idea in its historical sense, one that was created by itself and which doesn't need to be dealt with, because it also develops naturally by itself. Macron said – no, Europe is an artificial creature that is by no means self-evident, and it can certainly collapse."

First line of defense

Q: This connects to another statement of his, that the possibility of France sending troops to Ukraine cannot be ruled out.

"Here too he was right. I've filmed three movies in Ukraine, in the combat zones, and I'm among those who believe that the defense of Europe is taking place there. The first line of European defense is on the Ukrainian front, and the implication is that all major European nations must be prepared for anything.

"Which is why I also believe we must defend Israel. Of course, because of everything connected to Western values, but there's another interest here: Our national defense, as the Americans say, is at stake. There will be no national security for France and nothing to stop terrorism if we don't stop Hamas in Gaza."

Q: It's hard not to see a certain similarity between Israel's geopolitical loneliness and that of France.

"I've said it many times, and showed it in my films. I interviewed IDF soldiers who went to fight alongside Zelenskyy's army from the very start of the invasion of Ukraine. You're right – it's the same war, the same problem in both cases, the same struggle for freedom against tyranny."

"I've said it many times, and showed it in my films. I interviewed IDF soldiers who went to fight alongside Zelenskyy's army from the very start of the invasion of Ukraine. You're right – it's the same war, the same problem in both cases, the same struggle for freedom against tyranny."

A lone soldier

Q: But let's return to the book. Why now, specifically?

"I was meant to write this book a long time ago. Is there a Jewish writer in Europe or America who wasn't destined to write such a book? That was my case. The tragedy of October 7 only expedited things."

Q: A friend told me this is Bernard-Henri Lévy's "J'Accuse."

"That's a great compliment to my book. I love Émile Zola very much. His 'J'Accuse' is a historical text, and even more so – it's the birth certificate of the intellectuals in France."

Q: He was specific. Whom are you accusing – and of what?

"Mélenchon, the 'Squad' – the farthest left wing of the Democratic Party in America – and all the bad lecturers teaching the wrong lesson to the world. The very many people that October 7 did not arouse compassion for the victims in, but rather – a wave of joy and hatred."

Q: You also have substantial criticism in the book of Israel's leadership and some of its ministers.

"That's the last chapter of my book, called 'If I Forget You, the Jewish Soul.' My main argument towards the extremist ministers in this government is that they've forgotten the beauty, the nobility, the fragility, and the strength of the Jewish soul."

Q: Still, I feel compelled to ask again – are we really alone?

"Yes, and I think this loneliness will grow. We need to get used to it – and resist it."

Q: How so?

"Through a change of thought, through learning, through defending Israel, and through not giving in to threats. We need to remind the world, and Israelis too, that Israel is not just a geographical area on the globe – it's also an area of the human spirit. It's not just a geographical terrain – it's also an ontological, existential category. If Israel disappears, all of that will disappear with it."

Q: In your arena, the intellectual field, don't you also feel a bit alone in defending Israel?

"Yes, sometimes. And to tell you the truth, it's a bit frightening."

The post Loneliness of Israel: Bernard-Henri Lévy speaks appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In the annals of the documentaries of cinema, a place of honor is reserved for a small, modest, simple – but exceptionally brilliant movie. It focuses on the face of a young boy over 10 minutes, during which he is watching a puppet show. The 3-year-old boy is frightened and calms down gets sad and laughs, is bored and captivated: we don't know what exactly causes this, but we get a glimpse into his soul while he is riding an emotional roller coaster and will eventually grow up within 10 minutes.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The 100th day of the war is not a landmark requiring a strategic assessment of the situation or a discussion on directions that we must take on the day after. One hundred is a nice and round number, and nothing more. Any ritual, apparently, is unnecessary. You can move on. But it is customary to scatter milestones to mark distances along the length of main roads. The war appears to be one such long road. And since we do not know how far the destination is, we can at least remind ourselves, from time to time, how far we are from the starting point. It is an anchor.

This is perhaps the most documented, photographed, and exposed war we have ever experienced, and still everything in it is shrouded in the fog of battle, in intelligence camouflage, in psychological warfare. Everything within it remains in military code. It emerged from the thick of the earth, from the depths of our haunted memories, from the slopes of our stories as a people. It initiated riddles, traumas, nightmares – which we did not fully solve. We look into the eyes of the hostages who have returned from the branching network of tunnels below the surface of the earth as if they have ascended from the underworld after meeting Satan himself. What do they know we don't? What are they telling us?

It seems that we knew everything there was to know about our enemies' religious fanaticism – about incitement, about preaching hatred, about an organized and systematic ideology that seeks to exterminate us. Didn't we read the Hamas charter? But we didn't believe, we couldn't believe, that this culture of hatred was just waiting for an opportunity to fulfill its sick desires in such a sickening and horrible cult of sadistic violence, of a chilling delight in mass suffering, and blood, and screams. Now we know.

Apparently, we also knew everything there was to know about the collapse of values ​​in the West, about the "progressive troll" that reigned in wild moral confusion. We mocked the theories that conquered social sciences and the humanities and scoffed at agendas that took over film and art festivals. But we did not believe, we did not want to believe, that this troll would reach a state where intellectuals, authors, students, and people of culture would be able to look at pictures of a horrific massacre – and then go out and demonstrate against the victim. Now we know.

We knew that international institutions are rotten, that the world of diplomacy is steeped in double standards, that "the whole world is against us", and that hypocrisy is applauded. Did we not see who is running the circus of human rights at the United Nations, who is bowing to Iran, and how Ukraine was abandoned to face a war on its own? But we did not believe, we did not want to believe, that even in the face of clear, blatant, and obvious crime – stupidity and hypocrisy would stand up showing their most primal expression in the courtroom of The Hague, in a despicable show of insulting intelligence and a criminal desecration of humanism itself.

We thought we knew our soldiers. We thought that they were the most patriotic, boldest, bravest, and most loving army imaginable, even when in the world – and in Israel itself – some worked hard to convince us that they were, in fact, war criminals, low-life fighters, abusers of other humans. But we did not know, we could not know, to what extent our soldiers would revive the IDF's vitality. To what extent are our combat fights made of the stuff from which heroes are made? How determined are they to win, how willing are they to sacrifice, how devoted are they to their mission, what legends are they? Who knew it would be like this? Now we know.

And we knew we had a great country. Or at least it was. We knew that we used to be a beautiful and honest nation of caring, loving, and amiable people. They sang "this nation that is divided all year round, how does it arise when it smells danger". But we did not believe, we could not believe, that even in our generation we would rise in such a way from the dust of internal clashes to such an enormous group hug. And we awaken those beautiful songs, and the beautiful people, and the volunteering, and the packages for the soldiers, and we wave the flag, also towards each other in peace. We thought that the Israeli spirit, the spirit of the generation of founders and the generation of our parents, would no longer arise anymore. Now we know even better.

After 100 days, we know. Like that 3-year-old boy, who grew up within 10 minutes in Herz Frank's short movie from 1978. we know. Forget the screens for a moment and look at our faces. How much have they changed in the last 100 days; fluctuating between panic and calm, between sadness and laughter, between curiosity and escapism, and most importantly – between repression and knowledge? Look how much we have grown in 100 days.

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

The post 100 days that made us grow up appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

To be honest, we didn't need to wait for Thomas Friedman's latest New York Times piece to understand who we're dealing with. The hero of the enlightened class has again displayed the most Orientalist kind of Western arrogance imaginable – even though it's dressed up in the guise of liberal democratic rhetoric.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Need we remind you who he is? He swooned over the Arab Spring, said the Taliban were history, and declared that the young generation of Islam had abandoned extremism. Such is the nature of his expertise.

The problem is that he is still regarded in certain influential circles as some kind of authority on Israel and the Middle East. And if it needs spelling out, let's be blunt for a moment: It's no coincidence that he was close to President Barack Obama, and that he's considered a regular "house guest" at the White House – he's the kind of person his critics use the term "messenger" to describe, meaning a "mouthpiece," to characterize the relationship between the journalist and the most important and dominant center of power in the world.

Precisely for this reason, it's hard to sit idly by as he makes his pronouncements, which should be understood as almost foundational tenets of American policy towards Israel. A month ago, he declared that "Israel has the worst leader in its history – maybe in all of Jewish history" making no secret of his hostility towards Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Ten days after the Oct. 7 attack, he stated that "President Joe Biden needs to understand that Netanyahu is not fit to manage this war."

Even before the recent Israeli military campaign, he published details of the conversation in which Biden gave Netanyahu the unambiguous message to stop it. He also reported that the US had decided to "reassess" its relations with Israel. Incidentally, this happened the previous time a little over a decade ago, with President Obama.

So now Friedman is pleading with the White House, meaning his friend Biden, to have the Israeli war machine halt, to draw a red line, "to declare victory in Gaza and go home," because at this point "Israeli prime minister is utterly useless as a leader" and "prioritizing his own electoral needs over the interests of Israelis."

He suggests a framework: IDF withdrawal, return of captives, and a permanent ceasefire under international supervision. The captive issue, he reckons, "makes rational military decision-making there impossible," and he believes that there is "increasing discomfort in the Israel Defense Forces leadership over the fact that it is being asked by the far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu to fight a war in Gaza without a clearly defined political objective."

The problem is that such words could make the Western world – and worse, Hamas – conclude that Israel's international credit is running out, that there's a rift between Washington and Jerusalem. Nothing can give Hamas a better lifeline than that. Friedman might as well have written in his column to Yahya Sinwar: "Hold on a little longer, comrade. It's almost over."

Incidentally, he reckons that after an Israeli withdrawal, Gaza's population will take care of Sinwar themselves. You'd need outbursts of obsessive hatred for Netanyahu and the Right, as well as emotional numbness, to put a stick in Israel's spokes right now, to cast aspersions and make terrible accusations against a Jewish state fighting for its existence and its leadership, and to call on its ally to tie its hands.

It's almost ironic that the most hollow oracle of the liberal-Democratic wing, the one vocally opposed to the "occupation" and Israeli control in the West Bank, is calling on the leader of the great empire to leverage its weight against what he apparently sees as a vassal state – an impudent province that has reared its head higher than it should. It's even more astonishing to see how little respect, if any, this great democrat has for Israeli democracy and sovereignty.

It's one thing to criticize Israel, its government, leaders, military on the pages of a newspaper. But Friedman's explicit call for the superpower to impose policy on Israel as it fights for its survival is a frightening vestige of the imperialist master-subject mentality. It's stunning how such a voice emerges from the heart of the Democratic establishment that effectively views US-Israel relations as analogous to Iran-Hezbollah.

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

The post Thomas Friedman's emotional numbness appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

There is much talk about how the tragedy of the past week is a redux of the Yom Kippur War of 1973. It's also symbolic, as they both took place 50 years apart, almost to the day. Indeed there are quite a few similarities: The intelligence lapses; the operational shock; the painful first strike by the enemy; the High Holidays; the emergency military call-up in the middle of Shabbat. It is as if one trauma dictates the interpretation of the second trauma.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The memory of the past indeed shapes the perspective on the present. That's natural, perhaps necessary, as a means of dealing with the chaos and shock. It had been less than ten hours since the event began when one commentator announced that this time too, there would be no escape from the domestic political consequences. Because if we go from October 2023 to October 1973, we can cut straight to the findings – and perhaps, straight to the conclusions. Cynicism does not stop at the trauma threshold.

But the shock of the tragic Simchat Torah reminds me also – and perhaps even more so – of what I felt on September 11, 2001. It may be a generational and cultural issue. Just like back then we are now glued to the TV screens and reports to keep updated on an event that continues to roll and unfold beneath our feet. It's not just a terrorist act that we follow it as breaking news as the IDF hunts down the perpetrators. Rather, it's an event that has multiple dimensions as we try to process the situation on the go, seeing people on live television experiencing horrors. Trapped; taken hostage; captured; calling their loved ones as try to evade the terrorists under the mattress and in the dark shelter, whispering into the phone so that the evildoers who had entered would not notice, saying what they believe are their final words because their fate has been sealed unless some miracle happens. But no miracle is performed, and no soldier is there to rescue them.

Our soft underbelly was exposed, as was our helplessness. That's the shock. And the fact that the situation continues to unfold and we are told that we are "under attack." In the present tense. The present continues. In a live broadcast. And then the casualty numbers just grow exponentially, and accumulate, and gather, and the shock solidifies on the faces, in the streets, on the roads. And it's palpable in the air. Something we haven't experienced with such intensity. An order of magnitude of a calamity.

I put aside the blame game for a moment. It's a failure, and we'll investigate it. Definitely. And heads will roll. Everything is correct. But in the realm of national experience, in the realm of consciousness, in the realm of shock, it's closer to the events of September 11th, and in that, October 2023 (slightly) differs from October 1973, and closer to September 2001. It's something that cannot be fully processed, comprehended, or "investigated" at the level of military or political logic. It's something that emerges from a darkness of cruelty and brutality that is just beyond disbelief, that cannot be fully fathomed.

The clock is ticking, some rumors are confirmed, and from time to time, the horror is revealed. Like then, when the Western world as a whole and America, in particular, had to face some kind of total evil, we have to do that now, without overlooking the operational failures and the responsibility of various parties. What sets this event apart is that we get to gaze into the eyes of the villain. It's an event that uproots the ground from beneath our feet, undermining all our attempts to understand it, to dissect its complexity, and to comprehend it.

Suddenly, it looks like what we subscribed to – our overarching paradigm – was upended when jeeps and motorcycles rolled through the fence and indiscriminate shooting began against civilians, the elderly, and children. This was just pure murder; not a strategic accomplishment and a tactical achievement – it was primarily barbaric murder.

This shock is that much greater when we realize what it means: that the very party with which we hope to reconcile, with whom we aspire to at least reach an arrangement, that we very much want to believe will be deep down a rational and sensible actor – who ostensibly puts the welfare of its people first – is actually a retaliatory murderous entity defined by bloodlust.

We need to remember this well, especially when some of us are too loose in using terms like "evil government" or "evil regime" or "fascists" or even "apartheid" in relation to the Israeli government and its soldiers. Not to mention foolish comparisons, truly foolish comparisons, between the Israeli government and the most threatening evil regimes that humanity has known in recent generations.

Perhaps from now on, it will be clearer to us, at least, how true evil behaves, and what the face of pure evil looks like. Maybe after we collect the pieces – which we undoubtedly will – this shock memory will regain some proportion. Maybe we will remember who we stand against and which side we are on. All of us.

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

The post It's not the 1973 war all over again; it's 9/11 appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A little note to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Enough is enough. The multitude of interviews he has given to foreign media outlets, mainly in the US, conveys a message at home as well.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

And this message is getting frustrating. Why is the prime minister willing to give interviews to reporters abroad, including those critical of his policies, but Israeli viewers only get a pre-written sterile statement from a podium?

Video: Israelis protest against the judicial reform for the 30th consecutive week. Credit: Yoni Rikner

Why is it that Jennifer and Jimmy from Arkansas get to watch the Israeli prime minister answer challenging questions on the crisis in Israel, but Yael and Amir from Gedera have to settle for a 40-second video from the hospital?

The problem is not so much in Netanyahu's many interviews with foreign news outlets, but the conspicuous and defiant absence of meaningful interviews here, in Israel, in Hebrew.

It sends a message that the Israeli public's opinion does not matter; that Israelis, including right-wing voters, do not deserve such reports, not even when it comes to questions about the unprecedented, perhaps even existential crisis brought about by the judicial reform.

And the same goes for Justice Minister Yariv Levin: One simply cannot spearhead a change as major as the judicial reform without consistently and continuously communicating to the public through the means at one's disposal.

Going around the public like that could lead to something much more fearful than the possibility of a "lack of respect" or "trolling" on behalf of the journalists toward Netanyahu.

While a justified concern, it cannot be an excuse for Netanyahu's continuous absence from Israeli media. Could the experience be difficult for him? Yes. But he is the prime minister and he should be able to deal with it.

The more serious message conveyed by this unofficial boycott of Israeli media – compared to the extreme generosity toward American ones – is the indifference to the great drama that washes over the public, marked by a reluctance by those in charge to provide answers, explain their moves, and calm the winds.

It is a most divisive practice that leaves many supporters of the government and reform helpless at a time of unprecedented public discord and polarization.

Netanyahu, speak to your people.

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

The post It's high time Netanyahu gave the Israeli media an interview appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

When did the anti-LGBT agenda, if you can call it that, become part of the Right-wing in Israel? Wherever you look, on both sides of the national camp, there are signs of open hostility to gender identity.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

On the ultra-Orthodox Right, it is the Noam party, which now waves the ideological banner of family values; a flimsy name, a euphemism, for the fight against new-style families, that is, a distinct dislike of father-father and mother-mother families. They are, of course, not alone and not the first to express this. We clearly remember similar claims by members of the Habayit Hayehudi party on the eve of the 2015 elections, along the lines of "a gay-lesbian climate is like a collective suicide." Even then they marked this issue for "emergency attention." And it's a pity because these votes concealed some wonderfully pluralistic and tolerant voices within the same party; and within the same conceptual circle.

But this event is not limited to those within the realm of religion. In recent years, certain sectors of the secular, seemingly liberal Right, have also had some incomprehensible obsession with gender discourse in general, and with transgender people, in particular.

This is often sugarcoated in the rhetoric of social marketing: We are warned of the serious consequences of the trans-industry on the mental and physical health of our children and adolescents. We are warned of a murky and dangerous wave coming to us from the US. It is possible that part of the medical establishment is slowly mustering the courage to breach the rules of political correctness and say out loud: This is a social trend that is causing irreversible damage, and cultural legitimacy is exacerbating the situation. We should listen to them, shouldn't we?

But, this is not America

Well no. This might have been a convincing argument in Israel as well, if it had not also been part of an American trend, that has been a bit forcefully translated into Hebrew, as part of the rather pressured line of importing conservative US ideas, made directly to the state of Israeli hot winds. Homophobia, in general – and transphobia, in particular – are a prominent flag in the wave of moral panic sweeping through American conservatism.

In certain sections of the US, it has become a real obsession. Economy, security, immigration: Everything has been put aside. Disney videos and the wording of school registration forms are the biggest problems concerning the world's strongest superpower. And no matter how much they try to dress up this conversation with Source sandals and Israeli-style sunhats, you can recognize the American accent right on the spot.

Between these two extremes – the ultra-conservative wing in Israel and the conservative wing in the US – stretches a simple, normal right-wing group of people. These are the ones who were never particularly ambitious in engaging in a war against the LGBT, while, on the other hand, were not overly excited when one of their own became the first gay speaker of the Knesset. These are the ones for whom it is simply not "an issue" – neither strongly in favor nor strongly against. And this is not part of a tactic of "closing their eyes" or burying their head in the sand, but because they really don't make a big deal out of it.

There is really no big mystery to crack and no ideological conflict to settle. This area is more social and progressive than it is given credit for. This is the political space that, in many cases, triumphed precisely where Israel's social-democratic Left failed – or never really wanted to succeed. This is the political space that created the conditions for the upward social mobility of the Sephardi underclass; the same economic and sectoral leadership that puts so much stress on and threatens the centers of institutional power – in particular in justice, culture, and academia.

This is the social space that has always pushed for unity governments, dialogue with political opponents, and the creation of ideological compromises. It is a fact that those who oppose this camp, always accuse its members of not being "real right-wingers." This is the social space, that despite being constantly accused of racism and incitement, has also allowed and encouraged the unexpected growth of the Arab middle class in the last fifteen years. This is also the social space that can teach his opponents how to handle demonstrations, and how to treat protests. Compare the suppression of the protest against the Disengagement [2005] or the October 2000 riots, and the police handling of the Guardian of the Walls riots or the protest against the legal reform. The differences are incomprehensible.

And just as this pluralistic, liberal, tolerant Right does not deserve to be labeled "racist" and "messianic," so it does not deserve to be labeled "homophobe," because of its loud margins. Most certainly not while large sections of this group are generating such far-reaching, symbolic, and cultural changes in their social relationship to gender identities – and even more so in the most complex and challenging cultural areas imaginable.

This is, of course, not only a matter of fairness and visibility. This disproportionate, obsessive anti-LGBT discourse has also had a bad cultural effect on the Israeli Right, which increasingly marks itself as inherently reactionary, rather than as a trailblazer: as a camp that is involved in formulating the memorandum against the partially imaginary "progressive craziness," instead of cultivating its own ideological identity; as a countermovement, whose agenda is overwhelmingly dictated in reaction to the beliefs that are dispersed on the other side of the road, and not as a sustainable movement that is setting its own agenda.

And that is even before we start discussing the more basic question, the one that is related to the vulgar invasion of another person's private space. The blatant intrusion into the conscientious, personal, and identity choices of individuals and families. To fuel the threatening, explosive, alienating atmosphere toward large sections of society.

It is a shame; a real shame that the Israeli Right, who is greatly unique in relation to right-wing movements around the world and has become an agent of tolerant and pluralistic social change now finds itself – and pardon the cliché – on the very indecent side of history.

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

The post The Right's ill-advised embrace of the anti-LGBT obsessionists appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

That escalated quickly. Israel, it turns out, is now in the phase where people warn that a civil war is brewing. This pregame being played out in the media is now over the question of who is responsible for fanning the flames of this emerging clash. According to former Defense Minister Benny Gantz, if it breaks out, the responsibility will lay on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's shoulders. Yet, Gantz believes the Left should "shake Israel to its core", effectively daring the Right to act. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

What's clear is that the rhetoric that calls for civil disobedience that has now become common parlance among Opposition members is drawing Israel to one direction: a clash between two segments of society. Call it what you want, but the bottom line is that we have a fierce conflict in the making, and its origins go way back and predate the recent controversy over judiciary reforms and even the swearing-in of the government. 

Ever since losing the Nov. 1 election, the Left has been busy spreading doom and gloom and creating a feeling of emergency. "The end of democracy" has become an accepted description of the situation, and as far as the Opposition leaders are concerned, we are now well into the final chapter of our state's history. They passed on the baton to Netanyahu with a heavy heart and great concern. The Israeli commonwealth is over. Naftali Bennett went a step further and wrote a column in The New York Times essentially all but describing Israel's new government as an illegitimate entity. 

And then the onslaught began: A whole host of key figures said they could no longer take it, warning that the new government would scare away investors and essentially signaling to the outside world that Israel was no longer a safe place for their money. There were also letters by former high-ranking military officials who handed back their ranks to the state, and at one point some even suggested that the country be divided into an "enlightened" entity and the "backward" entity. 

And then came the protest on Saturday in Tel Aviv, where SS signs were held next to the image of Justice Minister Yariv Levin and a slap on the face by a protester to an Arab MK. The heads of the Opposition refused to disavow this action and draw a red line on the same level in which they attack the government. In fact, they showed empathy to the threats of those threatening to resign and show civil disobedience. Suddenly acting in a stately and responsible manner and speaking about "having only one military" is no longer part of their rhetoric and one MK even said that "Israelis should take to the streets." The result of the irresponsible rhetoric was having people get into a civil war mindset. The feeling is that it is now ok to do away with the rules and perhaps there is even a moral calling to do so. Now everyone can feel that they are a hero in the local La Résistance. 

But the new government also shares part of the blame for this escalation. Perhaps it did not start the fire, but it has not extinguished it. It would be well-advised to stop fomenting this by talking about having gravel cannons deployed against rioters or to respond to the provocations of those on the Left by calling for the arrest of Opposition members. 

The government should respond to the protesters through the proper channels, not by adopting the lowly conduct of the rioters. But even the nonsense uttered by the Coalition members pales in comparison to the messages sent by Opposition members to their supporters, which threaten our very social fabric. 

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

The post The first rule of avoiding civil war: Don't talk about a civil war appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In honor of the new year and the swearing-in of the Netanyahu government, Israel Hayom has conducted a poll to see what Israelis think 2023 has in store for them in terms of politics.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

As many as 64% of respondents said they are looking ahead to the new year with optimism. These include right-wing voters, 80% of whom said they were optimistic, as well as left-wing voters, of whom only 45% said they were optimistic.

When asked to rate their level of happiness from 1 to 10, the average answer was 7. Here too politics played a role, with supporters of the right-win bloc – which includes Likud, ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, Ashkenazi Haredi United Torah Judaism and the Religious Zionist Party – coming in around 8, and supporters of the left-wing bloc – Yesh Atid, Labor, Meretz and the State Party – coming in around 6.5-7. As for Arab Israelis, the average answer with regard to their level of happiness stood at 6.

When asked about the political agenda for this year, the majority of respondents said that they were most affected by – and therefore most cared about – the economy, which surpassed even such major issues as defense, governance, and the expected judicial reforms. As many as 60% said their ability to make a living was affected by inflation.

Around 60% said the cost of living was the most important matter on the new government's agenda, with only 18% expressing belief that their situation will improve in 2023.

As for the composition of the incoming government – Israel's most right-wing to date – only 29% (mostly observant respondents) said they were satisfied with it, while the majority said they were discontent at the lack of diverse representation.

With regard to the stability of the coalition, only 57% of Likud voters said they expected the government to serve its full four-year term, compared to 75% of Religious Zionist Party voters and 71% of Shas voters.

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

The post Israel Hayom poll finds Israelis look forward to 2023 disenchanted, but optimistic appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

There is a common motif that gently interweaves the visit of US President Joe Biden with the Gantz-Sa'ar merger and even touches on Yair Lapid's political project. We could call it the "charisma threat." After the Lapid-style politics' abuse of the ideological debate, which is the life and soul of any vibrant democracy, it's time to isolate the chemical element – support by the majority.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

It has to be admitted that the Biden visit met with apathy here. Despite the concerted efforts by his hosts in Israel's leadership to market it as a formative national event, and despite the reporters' excitement at the sight of the presidential convoy. It might be the political crisis that colors everything in propaganda, or the clarity of the American president's interests. But more than anything else, it's apparently the knowledge that the distinguished guest is what's known as a "weak president," one who is losing support. There is no point in pretending that a star the likes of Barack Obama or Donald Trump is here to spread intercontinental stardust. Formally, he is the president of the biggest superpower in the western world and our best friend. In reality, it's less of a thrill because of the sense that it's not a leader of historic proportions who is visiting, but rather – with all due respect – a consensus candidate who managed to lead an emergency vote against Trumpism. And the truth is, the exact same thing can be said about his host.

This is the same sense that arose from the press briefing that announced that the Blue and White and New Hope political corporations would be merging. Formally, this is a move that could turn out to be important to the political system, but in reality, there was no sense of a "big bang." It wasn't Ariel Sharon founding Kadima, or even Ehud Barak leaving Labor to found his own party. This was a union of functionaries, nothing more.

Here, too, it was about charisma, or more precisely, the lack of it. Neither Gantz nor Sa'ar is managing to gain traction in the public's mind as the future of the nation's leadership. Gantz somehow retains his military glory, which has also waned. But with Sa'ar, it looks like the fact is that the public simply isn't following him.

We need to note a political pattern that is growing more common in which the "genius chess player" image attributed to figures like Zeev Elkin or Gideon Sa'ar does not come with a charismatic presence. Everything rests on calculations, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Everything is built on cunning. Political intrigue is replacing electoral success, not just serving it.

This applies to Yair Lapid, too. True, compared to Sa'ar he enjoys genuine support, but it's limited in scope. Let's put thing in proportion – he doesn't approach Netanyahu's leadership presence, even though on paper he has potential. Twenty seats isn't bad, but there's no coherent bloc behind him. Gantz and Sa'ar expressed their opinion of him by announcing that Gantz was their candidate prime minister, and the only person in Labor who had acknowledged that he sees Lapid as prime minister is bloc leader Omer Barlev. That's it.

This means that Lapid also knows that the qualities pundits ascribe to him, like hard work and patience have nothing to do with his ability to be seen as a leader, but rather his ability to play the cards he was dealt through the slow erosion of the Netanyahu bloc. It's true that we're heading toward a face-off between two blocs, but when it comes to personalities, there is no real "Lapid vs. Netanyahu," because there isn't so much a "Yes to Lapid" as there is a "No to Netanyahu."

Charisma, the type Netanyahu embodies, has recently been framed as vital and unique to dangerous populism. Netanyahu doesn't "convince" so much as he enchants, and his attraction is seen as poisonous. The popular support itself is seen as evil tidings.

Of course, this is a nice way for people like Hendel, Sa'ar, Hauser, and Elkin to rectify the contradiction between how they see themselves and their actual public weight. Look at how deep and nuanced Yoaz Hendel's expression "A mentality of drums vs. a concert mentality" is. Sweeping charisma like Netanyahu's is identified with the masses and a low common denominator. Thus, the unpopular is painted as high-quality and complex.

This is a mistake. Leadership charisma isn't about the candidate's ability to charm, or mislead a captive audience. We must not fall victim to discourse that identifies "charisma" with "demagoguery" or "populism." Charisma is the ability to be seen by much of the public as a true representative of their feelings and a figure who accurately reflects their system of values.

This is an important element in politics, because a leader with a charismatic presence expresses a broad national sentiment, perhaps one that is disputed, but broad enough to ensure that the leadership has legitimacy. The fact is that all the talk about a "parliamentary majority" didn't help the "government of change," because it lacked the elementary ingredient we've now learned that democracies find it difficult to function without: respect for the decision of the majority.

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

The post Not really a duel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.