There are some news reports I've occasionally come across that have made me wonder if I've entered an alternate universe,  where sanity has been thrown out the window.This happened last week when I saw that our government was trying to arrange for the Russians to reoccupy their recently abandoned naval and air force bases in Syria. Although the idea seemed bizarre, I didn't appreciate just how insane this initiative was until I saw the lengths to which our government was going to bring this about.

It seems that our government is extremely nervous about Turkey's neo Ottoman intentions with regard to post Assad Syria. This concern is not unfounded given the extremely close relationship between Turkey and the new Salafi regime in Damascus. Besides generous offers of reconstruction aid, Erdogan has also indicated a willingness to have the Turkish Army convert the HTS militia into a conventional fighting force, and  to have the Turkish Air Force fly protective missions over Syria, presumably to deter us from striking targets of concern. There have also been reports that the Turkish Navy is keen to take over the former Russian naval base in Tartous. Perhaps most troubling of all, is Erdogan's desire to deploy Turkish ground forces into southern Syria. Should this occur, we could be facing an extremely volatile situation in the north, that might be much more dangerous than the one Iran previously presented. So, our government's fears about what Turkey is up to in Syria are quite rational. Having said this, it's how Bibi's administration is going about addressing this neo Ottoman threat that's problematic. Granted, the Israeli government has undertaken some highly appropriate measures against this potential Turkish threat, which we should acknowledge before we address the insanity they're now proposing.

Let's recall that shortly after the fall of the Assad regime, the Israeli Air Force conducted a devastating campaign over Syria that basically destroyed what remained of Assad's military assets. We quickly occupied Syria's strategic position atop Mount Hermon, moved into the 1974 disengagement zone, and offered to protect Syria's Druze community from being attacked by the new HTS rulers in Damascus. Taken as a whole, these actions constituted an excellent preventive response on our part to the possibility of Turkish and/or Salafi encroachments on our northern frontier. What the Israeli government is doing now, though, can only be described as the height of folly. Having the Russians insert themselves once again into Syria as some kind of buffer between the Turks and ourselves makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It would only make an already highly unstable situation even worse.

In spite of this danger, several weeks ago Israeli intelligence agents presented American officials with a white paper cataloging Turkey's covert activities in Syria. This paper also suggested that one solution to this problem of Turkish meddling would involve President Trump lobbying his friend,  Vladimir Putin, to negotiate new basing rights in Syria. Of course, missing from this report were all the subversive activities the Turkish Consulate in East Jerusalem was up to, which the Israeli government has so far declined to stop.

Be that as it may, our efforts to influence the Russians in this matter were further pursued by the arrival in Moscow of Bibi's Military Secretary, Major General Roman Gofman. Although he was ostensibly in the Russian capital to ask for Putin's help in freeing one of our hostages, Maxim Kharkin, Gofman's actual mission, was to discuss the possibility of Russia returning to its old Syrian bases in order to prevent the Turks from occupying them. In spite of our lobbying efforts, though, neither the Americans nor the Russians has officially responsed to our preposterous suggestion. But then something was reported this week that may suggest that the Russians are, indeed, making an effort to reach an agreement with Damascus that would allow them to keep their military bases in Syria.

According to The Wall Street Journal, back in January, senior Russian diplomats began discussions with the new Syrian government concerning Moscow's willingness to fund a number of significant economic projects in Syria. These reportedly would include the development of giant offshore gas concessions, phosphate mines and hydrocarbon fields near Palmyra and the construction of a fertilizer plant in Homs. The Russians also offered to complete a stalled port expansion project in Tartous, which was the location of their now abandoned naval base. Although there has been no indication that the Syrians have agreed to let the Russians move back into their old bases, these discussions are ongoing and apparently include Turkish representatives.

We should remember that when the Russians first sent an expeditionary force to Syria to prop up the Bashar Assad regime, it caused great concern within the IDF. The presence of Russian manned S-300/400 air defense batteries, in particular, was something that always had to be factored in to our air operations over Syria. Later, after we had signed a deconfliction agreement with the Russians, it looked as if we'd found a way of continuing our so-called "war between the wars" campaign against the Iranians without running the risk of inadvertently precipitating a war with Russia. Then, the Russo-Ukrainian War began, resulting in closer relations between Iran and Russia due to the latter's increasing dependence upon Iranian attack drones and other critical military equipment. But before this closer alliance between Moscow and Tehran could coalesce into a serious threat to our northern frontier, the Russian expeditionary force had to be significantly reduced in order to help reinforce the Russian Army's battered formations fighting the Ukrainians.  Eventually, the Russian bases in Syria were later evacuated due to the surprise victory of Turkey's Salafi surrogates,  who have understandably shown no interest in allowing the Russians to reestablish their military presence in Syria. More to the point, the Turks seem to be totally opposed to compromising their Syrian sphere of interest by sharing any part of it with Moscow. And confirmed reports indicate that Erdogan has made his position on this issue abundantly clear to the new regime in Damascus. Of course, Erdogan's perspective on this matter could theoretically change but, so far, he seems to be adamantly opposed to seeing the Russians regain their Eastern Mediterranean outposts. But, as has happened many times in the past, firm statements issued by Middle East despots may just be masking changed strategic perspectives on their part.

But why the Israeli government would want the Russians back in Syria is totally beyond me. There is just no logic to it. We spent years trying to work around the Russian presence in Syria and now that they have left, we want them back again? Unfortunately, by attempting to bring this about, all we've succeeded in accomplishing is to demonstrate our fear of Turkey. That can only serve to encourage Erdogan's aggressiveness and contempt for us. This is why I've advocated a policy of preparing for war with Turkey.  This would involve rejecting any attempt by Erdogan to either establish military bases in Syria or troop deployments on our northern border.

Simply put, the best way of containing a megalomaniac like Erdogan, is to make sure he realizes that we're no push overs and that any attempt on his part to intimidate us will only backfire on him. On the other hand, if we want to ask for help from President Trump, I think this is where his relationship with Erdogan could be quite useful. A few cautionary words from President Trump just might convince Erdogan that he would be better off concentrating on improving his country's economy rather than trying to recreate the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, given Trump's desire to be seen as a "peace maker", our request would probably appeal to him.

The post The Russian option: An ill advised solution to the Turkish threat appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

President Biden has reacted with mounting anger at Israel's determination to eliminate Hamas even if this results in a rupture of the US-Israel special relationship. This has led to calls by numerous Democratic legislators and others within the Biden Administration to either restrict or condition US military aid to Israel. This, in turn, has awakened Israelis to the need to significantly increase our indigenous military production capability. To this end, there are an assortment of weapons that can be fairly easily manufactured in Israel. These include battle rifles, aircraft bombs, artillery shells and tank rounds. However, most people seem to believe that we are simply not in any position to build a stealth fighter comparable to the F-35 Adir. But this belief is wrong. We can, in fact, do this if we enter into a collaborative project with India to produce such a plane.

Just recently, the Indian government approved the manufacture of their Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft or AMCA. This twin engine jet is intended to be India's fifth generation stealth fighter. The Indian Air Force eventually intends to equip the plane with an engine capable of supersonic cruise capability and thrust vector control in cooperation with a foreign partner. We could be this partner.

Clearly, we have much to offer the Indians in terms of a co-production deal. This might also include one of the best phased array radars in the industry, passive infra red threat detectors and even a laser defense system that's currently under development. Such a deal might also include joint development of a new Phoenix type beyond visual range air-to-air missile and even an unmanned "loyal wingman" type aircraft, which is seen as a multi role aerial force multiplier.

Granted, we can't currently provide the Indians with the super cruise engine they want to install on the AMCA. But there's no reason our two countries can't develop one together. This might seem a bit much to accomplish, yet the payoff from such an effort would free not only India and Israel from dependence upon unreliable foreign suppliers but, also, many other countries that want to be sure to have a dependable supply of spare parts in future wars.

In conclusion, assuming the Indians would agree to such a co-production offer with us, both countries would gain an immense degree of operational freedom. We would also create a tremendous competitive alliance that would appeal to other countries that wanted to defend their ability to act unilaterally, if necessary, in defense of their own national security interests. So, instead of worrying about our perceived inability to produce a state-of-the-art stealth fighter, we should create such a possibility in collaboration with the Indians. Both countries would have everything to gain from such an arrangement, and absolutely nothing to lose- except our mutual vulnerability to foreign military embargoes

The post A proposal for a joint Indo-Israel stealth fighter appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Benny Gantz's unauthorized trip to Washington had several objectives, none of which had anything to do with advancing the national security of Israel. Quite the contrary. This American-organized PR production was most likely designed to accomplish two objectives: firstly, to boost Gantz's electability as America's preferred successor to Bibi Netanyahu and, secondly, to insulate Gantz from any possible criticism for having helped prepare the stage for the massacres that occurred on October 7.

That the Americans would prefer to see a pliant Gantz elected to the Premiership is an open secret. Certainly, Washington appreciates the fact that those advising Gantz are fully prepared to do America's bidding, regardless as to the consequences to Israel's independence. However, the problem that they and their American masters face is the chance that a truly honest post-war commission of inquiry could very well conclude that General Gantz, along with his friends, Generals Eisenkot, Gallant, Halevi, and Kochavi, to name but a few, should be held accountable for the "misconception" that resulted in Hamas' brutal invasion this past October. One way to insulate Gantz from any possible responsibility for this debacle would be to portray him as Washington's preferred choice to be the next Israeli Prime Minister. Staged pictures of him posing with the high and mighty of the Biden Administration were designed to do just that. Of course, the fact that Bibi has yet to receive an invitation to visit the White House, and is allegedly the object of disdain by President Biden, while Gantz is greeted warmly as someone the Americans are prepared to work with, just drives the point home that Gantz is Washington's man.

But let's be clear about one thing. The Americans can read polls just as accurately as Israeli citizens can. This means they understand that Bibi's intention to destroy Hamas is shared by the overwhelming majority of Israelis. With this political reality in mind, it was no surprise that the American-crafted script Gantz recited expressed both his desire to crush Hamas and recover our hostages. But behind the scenes, Gantz undoubtedly gave all the assurances Washington needed that he would be open to discussing the creation of some type of Palestinian state the day after the guns fell silent. The fact that Gantz has never categorically rejected this horrifying possibility provides all the confirmation we need to reach this conclusion.

At the end of the current hostilities, individuals like General Benny Gantz should not be allowed to evade being held accountable for the IDF's unpreparedness for war. This dereliction of duty is an unforgivable crime that both he and his fellow generals should be tried for. Having said this, I can understand why those who pathologically hate Bibi Netanyahu would want to see Gantz replace him. After all, unlike Bibi, Gantz seems to be a pretty decent guy. But the fact that Benny Gantz is perceived to be a "nice" person is irrelevant. It's a fact that the man's promotions always seemed to be the result of his being the default choice. Merit never appeared to play a part in his selection for various positions. That Gantz should not be allowed to win the premiership based on the same selection process seems logical. Simply put, the threats we are going to be facing in the near future will require a national leader who exhibits the type of outstanding intellectual capabilities and professional excellence that I believe Benny Gantz simply lacks. Clearly, such a person can not be counted on to protect us from yet another October 7. And given the fact that Hamas may very well survive the current conflict, such a reoccurrence is a certainty.

In conclusion, Benny Gantz may very well be a fine gentleman, but I'm just not convinced he has what it takes to stand up to the Americans and defend us from their insane determination to create a Palestinian terror state dedicated to our destruction. Moreover, from what I understand from those who know him, he also lacks the uncompromising nationalist spirit needed to defy the United States by ruthlessly crushing our enemies regardless as to the diplomatic fallout that may create with Washington. Indeed, the current war against Hamas has only underscored our absolute need to select a leader who will finally put an end to our dangerous dependence on the Americans for our military equipment while also imposing a resolution of the Palestinian problem based on terms that are good for us- not necessarily those that are desired by the international community. With these requirements in mind, I just can't see Benny Gantz as someone who can successfully fulfill the role as Bibi's successor.

The post Benny Gantz's act of disunity appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Down through history there have been a number of notorious urban battles that left a butcher's bill of casualties in their wake. These blood-soaked cities include Stalingrad, Konigsberg, Manila, Hue, Grozny, Mosul, Ramadi, and Falluja- to name but a few. And although glorified by many of the successful attacking forces, these urban meat grinders represented a type of military mentality that preferred to sacrifice manpower instead of using creative thinking about how to defeat an entrenched enemy. And now, we can add to this list of horror and grief the name of Gaza City.

We've known for years that if push came to shove, Hamas was more than happy to draw the IDF into a costly house-to-house battle for control of Gaza City. Moreover, the extensive tunnel system the terrorist group constructed was designed specifically to make our progress through the city as bloody as possible. And counting on the world's cynical "concern" for civilian casualties, Hamas also factored into their plans both the use of human shields and hospitals as ways of slowing and complicating the IDF's passage through their urban fortress complex. Given what we've seen so far since our army crossed into Gaza, Hamas' game plan has worked rather well.

For an army that supposedly values the lives of its troops, and is acutely sensitive to the need to win quickly so as to return the mobilized reservists back into the economy, I was appalled by the IDF's rather cavalier decision to accommodate Hamas' playbook. Indeed, at this time, nobody seems to know exactly when Gaza City will be cleared of its Hamas defenders or what the IDF's price for this accomplishment will come to. And with the situation up north ready to blow into a full scale war at any time, we simply can't afford to waste either the time or our soldiers' lives fighting block by block through the urban Hellscape that Gaza City represents. This is why before the IDF advanced into Gaza I warned everyone I could about the need to avoid what I characterized as a probable "Stalingrad on the Mediterranean" scenario. Did anyone listen? Judging by our mounting losses, apparently not.

What I had proposed instead was a one week pre-invasion bombardment of Gaza City employing a number of non-nuclear weapons that would decisively degrade Hamas' surface defenses without requiring weeks of bombardment. Perhaps more importantly, Hamas' tunnel complex and rocket arsenal would also be neutralized during this time without the need for lengthy ground operations by our combat engineers or rocket suppression missions by the IAF. Although intrigued by some of the weapons I'd suggested, the army, unfortunately, seemed more concerned about world opinion than the lives of our soldiers, and the rest is history.

At this point in time, it's worth asking whether there is anything we could do to reduce our escalating casualties in Gaza while, at the same time, shorten the time necessary to destroy Hamas. I think we still have the option of building and utilizing special munitions. Assuming this were to be done, it would allow us to reduce the size of the force we've committed to handle the Gaza front. The forces saved could then be redeployed to the north, allowing the IDF the option of launching a preventive strike against Hezbollah. Use of these special weapons would also encourage the Palestinian evacuees in southern Gaza to crash the Egyptian border before we employed them against Khan Yunis and Rafah. Granted, Egypt might not appreciate this development, but our need to clear Gaza of it's radicalized residents is of supreme importance if we are going to annex the Strip and successfully rebuild our destroyed Gaza envelope communities. The international community could complain all it wants about our actions, but we simply have to go forward with this plan if our southern region is to have any chance of enjoying peace and security.

The post The price of folly appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Why the Russians have granted such unjustified support to Hamas is not really that hard to discern. Basically, it has to do with how Hamas' October 7 onslaught against southern Israel helped Russia by diverting the West's attention away from Moscow's war against Ukraine. For this, the Kremlin feels a sense of gratitude to the terrorist organization, which may materialize into something more serious should Hamas manage to survive. In the meantime, every day the Western media focuses on the plight of Hamas' suffering civilian auxiliaries in Gaza, is one less day they spend covering the Russian Army's slaughter of truly innocent Ukrainian civilians. This is why I feel the best way of undermining Moscow's use of Hamas as a means of diverting people's attention away from its war against Ukraine, is by arming Ukraine to the point where they can inflict some real pain on the Russians.

There have been three reasons Israel has used to justify our refusal to provide Kyiv with military assistance: the first has to do with Ukraine's anti-Israel voting record in the UN. This situation could easily be overcome with an unwritten diplomatic understanding with the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry involving its commitment to become more supportive of our position at the UN. Certainly, President Zelensky would be inclined to order such a change in Ukrainian foreign policy in order to secure our military assistance.

The second explanation Israel has offered to justify its arms policy towards Kyiv, has to do with our reluctance to sell any of our Iron Dome batteries to Ukraine. Here, we have been correct in arguing that we have so few of them that we simply don't have any that we could safely spare. Our current trouble handling Hamas' saturation rocket barrages is proof that we do, indeed, need every single battery in our arsenal.

But the most serious reason why we haven't provided arms to Ukraine has to do with our fear of undermining our aerial deconfliction agreement with the Russians, which guarantees their noninterference with our bombing campaign over Syria. Our concern, though, may be overstated. We should appreciate the fact that over the past year, Russia's Syrian Expeditionary Corps has been significantly reduced due to the Russian army's pressing need to replace the enormous losses suffered fighting the Ukrainians. Perhaps more to the point, though, is the undeniable fact that the Russian army's performance has been less than stellar, to put it mildly. Then again, the deployment of two US Navy carrier battle groups in the eastern Mediterranean can't help but have a deterrent effect on any Russian inclination to threaten us. And while I wouldn't want to underestimate the possibility of the Russians doing something totally unexpected to reassert their great power status in the Middle East, they are simply in no position to jeopardize the survival of their under-strength Syrian-based expeditionary force. Of course, the Russians could allow the Iranians to significantly increase their aerial supply runs to the Russian-controlled air base in Hmeimim, Syria. But, if necessary, those Iran Air flights could easily be interdicted by the IAF whenever we wanted to do so. Even if one Iranian cargo plane was to be shot down, it would seriously degrade Iran's ability to maintain its aerial supply bridge with its proxies in Lebanon and Syria. So, even if the Russians allowed an unlimited number of Iranian cargo flights to use its Hmeimim facility, we would always retain the ability to stop the Iranians from getting through to it.

If we can't provide the Ukrainians with Iron Dome technology, what could we send to them that wouldn't jeopardize our current needs? Firstly, we have a vast array of loitering munitions or Kamikaze drones that would be very helpful in permitting the Ukrainians to target Russian armor formations, artillery units, and command/control facilities. Secondly, we have precision 122mm multiple rocket systems, which would allow the Ukrainian army to lay down highly accurate counter-battery fire and disruptive fire on Russian attack formations. We also have the IAI-produced Barak ER ground-based air defense system, which has an operational range of 150 KM and a service altitude of 30 KM. Making this SAM system available to Ukraine just might add another layer of protection to Ukraine's Black Sea grain loading facilities, which have been under merciless Russian missile attacks. But, perhaps the most important weapon system we could make available to Kyiv would be the extended-range version of the LORA ballistic missile that has a range of about 430 KM. This mobile missile system would provide the Ukrainians with the ability to destroy critical Russian infrastructure and logistical assets deep behind their lines within 10 minutes of launch. What the Ukrainians could do with this precision system can only be imagined.

While these previously mentioned Israeli-manufactured weapons systems may not be able to provide the Ukrainian armed forces with war-winning solutions, they definitely would allow Kyiv to inflict on Russia an escalating level of manpower casualties and material asset losses. Whether this would convince Moscow to reevaluate its support of Hamas is, admittedly, questionable. However, what it might do is convince saner Russian decision-makers that Israel does have the ability to seriously hurt them where it counts: namely, on the blood-soaked battlefields of Ukraine. And that would be better than simply allowing them to honor the murderers of our children with impunity.

The post Can Israel help Ukraine? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

As I write this essay, rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza are being intercepted over my home in Jerusalem. And while the successive detonations I hear provide a sense of relief that these enemy rockets are being successfully destroyed by our Iron Dome defenses, I'm reminded that each one of them was launched with the specific intention of murdering innocent civilians in our capital. However, given the fact that Hamas has apparently only used up about a third of its estimated long-range rocket arsenal, they can continue to keep launching missiles at central Israel for quite some time. This is just one of many reasons why Israel must crush Hamas and make sure that it never has the ability to threaten us ever again. But after we accomplish this goal, what will become of Gaza and its civilian population? My hope is that the enemy population residing there now will be expelled and that the Strip will be annexed and repopulated by Israel. Granted, this objective may seem cruel to the Palestinian expellees, but there is just no other alternative if Gaza is to be free of terrorists that can threaten us.

The Americans evidently are opposed to this solution. Instead, they –and a few of their left-wing supporters in Israel – would prefer to see the PA once again installed in Gaza. But having failed at this task once before, with disastrous consequences, it's highly unlikely that the PA would do any better job this time around. Indeed, they would simply pick up where Hamas left off by continuing to install a hate-filled educational system that has already poisoned the minds of successive generations of Palestinian students in the Territories. Moreover, by maintaining their so-called "pay for slay" policy, it would probably be only a short matter of time before new terrorist organizations are once again present in Gaza. Suggestions that the UN or some other international security force could ensure that this didn't reoccur are totally unworthy of consideration given our past disappointing experiences with such "solutions".

But what really seems to be the number one problem to be solved has to do with what should be done with the resident Palestinian population. Not surprisingly, no Arab country wants them. And one could hardly blame them. Wherever they go they seem to bring a host of serious problems with them. Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait have all experienced internal security difficulties due to the presence of large numbers of radicalized Palestinians. Yet if no Arab country wants them, where are these displaced Gazans supposed to go? Europe? That's highly unlikely for all the obvious reasons. North America? Again, the local backlash would undoubtedly be severe. Latin America? Given the economic problems many countries there are currently experiencing, I can't see them predisposed to accept an influx of untrained Palestinians, who will only add to the political instability of their countries. Clearly, the Arab League would have to take the lead on accepting displaced Palestinians.

At the present time, Israel's national unity government doesn't quite seem ready to announce its intentions toward a Hamas-free Gaza. Most polls, though, suggest a very strong desire by a majority of Israeli citizens to clear the resident Palestinians out of Gaza by whatever means and then flatten the region. The sight of countless Palestinians pillaging Israeli border communities and violently humiliating Israeli hostages taken by Hamas back to Gaza and paraded through the streets hasn't exactly endeared these people to most Israelis. Indeed, there seems to be an understandable seething hatred exhibited by Israelis towards these Palestinians, who glorified in the slaughter of their defenseless fellow countrymen this past Simchat Torah. Clearly, any attempt by the Israeli government to allow the same kind of Palestinian presence in Gaza after Hamas has been defeated is therefore going to encounter fierce political resistance from the Israeli public.

How the Biden Administration would react to this situation can only be imagined. But if the leaders of the national unity government appreciate the probable electoral consequences of showing sympathy to these particular Palestinians, there is a possibility that they'll find the backbone needed to hold their ground against the Americans. Assuming this is the case, it would be prudent for our government to announce its decision to clear and annex Gaza at the end of the war against Hamas, so as to remove any ambiguity about what its intentions are with regard to the area. Perhaps most importantly, such a declaration will also give our soldiers the confidence to know that their efforts will not be surrendered at some negotiating table at the conclusion of the war. That kind of reassurance is the least we can do for our brave men and women who will be fighting on our behalf.

The post Gaza: The case for annexation appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

When I heard that the cabinet had voted to declare war on Hamas, I was reminded of the old adage that it's easy to declare war, but very hard to end one. I thought of this when I realized that none of the ministers who voted for this declaration had a clue as to how this war should be waged or what the war's actual objectives should be. And this includes our Prime Minister, who had the gall to invite Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz to join a so-called National Unity government. These are the two individuals, along with a host of ex high ranking military personnel, such as Gadi Eisenkot and Ehud Barak, who helped create the false impression of a demoralized IDF that couldn't defend our country. According to several captured Hamas terrorists, it was this impression, perhaps more than anything else, that convinced them that they could beat our army. And they did, over the course of one blood soaked day.

But the reason we suffered such a devastating surprise attack by Hamas had less to do with the Kaplan Force than it did with the IDF's failure to maintain an offensive strategic doctrine. Instead, our military establishment adopted a defensive mind set that has been described as "kicking the can down the road", "mowing the grass" and "managing" the enemy. These methods were in place of undertaking decisive offensive operations designed to eliminate our enemies, not tolerate them. And, not surprisingly, our corrupt and incompetent political establishment went right along with this insanity either due to their inability or unwillingness to do what was necessary to defend our country. So, what are our generals and politicians planning to do to Hamas, now that they've declared war without any idea about how it should be waged?

At the present time, we are in the process of a general mobilization. However, the army is apparently short of such vital equipment as ceramic plates and clothing for the infantry, modern armored infantry fighting vehicles, artillery shells and ground to ground rockets, other precision guided munitions and Iron Dome interceptors. So, once again, victory in this war will apparently be won at the cost of our soldiers lives because the IDF's high command didn't think that our sons and daughters were that important to waste money on. That's a hard statement, but it's an accurate one. But, unfortunately, this is just the beginning of our problems.

As the IDF's leadership has acknowledged, our mobilized army is also expected to fight not just Hamas, but a multi front war that may involve Hezbollah, Iranian proxy forces in Syria, various terrorist groups in the Territories, Arab Israelis in our mixed cities and Iran. That would be a tall order for any army, even one as presumably sophisticated as the IDF. However, given our government's refusal to order the army to decisively crush the terrorist threat in the Territories, it led our other enemies to conclude that we had lost the will to win. And that's not my assessment. It's what the leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran have openly stated. The fact that Bibi sabotaged Itamar Ben G'vir's attempt to form a National Guard for enhanced internal security just added to the impression that we weren't taking our enemies' desire to bleed us very seriously. And so the slaughter of our civilians and soldiers on Simchat Torah commenced.

At this point, nobody seems to know exactly how we're going to crush Hamas. My fear is that the army eventually intends to commit our infantry to an intensive urban warfare campaign in Gaza, which I've described as "Stalingrad on the Med". This would not only be incredibly stupid, as we would be fighting exactly the way Hamas wants us to, but our expected casualties would be enormous and beyond our ability to justify, let alone sustain. So, if our goal is to eliminate Hamas without incurring a butcher's bill in the process, is there another, more rational, way of doing this? Yes, there is and it would not require one Israeli soldier to cross over into a Gazan meat grinder.

The first thing we have to do is blow open an escape valve for the approximately 70% of Gazans who want to leave their Hamas ruled hell hole. We can do this by eliminating the barriers Hamas has erected on the Egyptian border and drop leaflets throughout Gaza warning the inhabitants to leave immediately if they want to live. I believe most of them will run and overcome any Egyptian measures to stop them from entering their territory. After that, it's up to the Egyptians, the Arab League and the UN to figure out where these refugees should go. My personal preference for what it's worth would be Ireland. The remaining civilians in Gaza should be considered terrorist auxiliaries and targeted accordingly.

What happens after that is a bit complicated but involves a number of weapons that totally disable all of Hamas' communications and rocket forces. At that point, we undertake a sustained bombardment campaign employing a variety of conventional weapons that will first obliterate most surface structures in the Strip then create a firestorm that will burn and asphyxiate everyone of the terrorists hiding in their tunnel complexes. I expect that after one week the IDF could enter Gaza and prepare the area for our annexation and repopulation.

By implementing this plan, we would not only eliminate one very dangerous front, but also do so in a manner that could very well deter Hezbollah and the various Arab terror groups in the Territories from activating their equally dangerous fronts. What we would do against these particular enemies at that point would depend on whether or not the people of Israel wake up and vote in a new government that will immediately implement a comprehensive military reform program that replaces the current failed policy of appeasement with one that calls for the decisive destruction of our enemies.

The post Here is what needs to happen appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In 168 BCE, Gaius Popillius Leanas, the Roman Ambassador to a holdout Ptolemaen garrison in Alexandria, met Antiochus IV Eliphanes, King of the Seleucid Syrian Kingdom, who had just conquered Cyprus and most of Lower Egypt. When Laenas, after telling the Seleucid King to abandon his conquests, was met with an evasive answer, he drew a circle in the earth around Antiochus and demanded an unequivocal answer before he left the circle. That Antiochus caved was no surprise given the fact that his Macedonian allies had just been roundly defeated by the Romans at Pydna. But his humiliation was still personal, and by resuscitating his perennial Ptolemaic enemies, the Romans had reestablished his worst strategic nightmare.

I was reminded of this ancient event when I read how President Biden had recently demanded that Prime Minister Netanyahu choose between "peace", by agreeing to a raft of incredibly dangerous concessions to the PA, or stick with his "extremist" coalition. Now the cognitively challenged Biden is clearly no latter-day Gaius Popillius Laenas, who was one of the Roman Republic's most skilled diplomats. And Bibi Netanyahu, for all of his pretentious royal behavior, is no modern incarnation of King Antiochus IV, who also went by the moniker "Epimanes" or the "Mad". But the historical anecdote does have one troubling aspect that is quite relevant to the alleged incident between Biden and Netanyahu: namely, both were exchanges between the representative of a powerful state and someone he thought was his inferior.

That Bibi did not immediately reject Biden's diktat speaks volumes about how our current leadership has accepted its position of abject weakness vis-a-vis its erstwhile "ally", the United States. Under ordinary circumstances, Bibi would have been correct to push back against Biden's insult by pointing out the President's unethical refusal to abide by the Taylor Force Act, or his unconscionable funding of the PA despite their incitement to violence or their illegal land grab in Area C. But Bibi apparently remained silent.

On the one hand, part of the reason for the excruciating situation we find ourselves in with regard to our confused efforts to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia has to do with our Prime Minister's desperate efforts to safeguard his legacy seemingly at any cost. On the other hand, the Biden Administration's duplicitous effort to blackmail Israel into accepting a Palestinian state along the so-called "Auschwitz" borders of 1967, clearly establishes the United States as something far less than a reliable ally that "has our back". Indeed, by publicly coercing Israel to concede to virtually every outrageous demand made by the homicidal PA regime, Washington has also effectively boxed in Saudi Arabia, which now can't afford to look less pro-Palestinian than the Americans. Certainly, our own failure to state our rejection of Biden's delusion about Abbas' role as a legitimate partner in this diplomatic high-wire act leaves our position dangerously ambiguous, at best, and subject to coercion, at worst. And the latter outcome is exactly what's occurring right now.

Granted, our pressing need to correct Washington's insane insistence that we must formally agree to the "two-state solution" before normalization with Saudi Arabia can occur seems impossible given the Democratic party's counterproductive belief that the key to Middle East peace somehow runs through Ramallah.

But is there a way to get the Saudis to accept the concept of dropping their insistence on involving the Palestinians in their negotiations with us? Yes, there is, but it may require both Israel and the US to drop our justified reservations about giving Riyadh the ability to reprocess their uranium into weapons-grade ore at some future date, if they felt the need to do so. This would be a horrendous deal that would be just as bad, if not worse, than allowing a second Gaza to appear next to our coastal plain. But we do have to acknowledge Riyadh's understandable reluctance to rely upon an American guarantee of support against a nuclear-armed Iran given Washington's perceived unreliability and strategic focus on the Indo-Pacific region.

As I see it, the only way out of this American-created mess would be for the Saudis to drop their desire for a Congressionally approved defense pact with the US in return for a jointly run American tactical nuclear weapons depot in Saudi Arabia. Assuming this arrangement could be agreed upon, the US could go ahead with an executive agreement allowing the Saudis to purchase state-of-the-art American nuclear power plants, whose uranium fuel would be reprocessed by a European-based international consortium. If the US further agreed to a long-term uranium purchasing agreement for Saudi mined ore, this idea might just work.

In theory, this proposed plan would guarantee Saudi Arabia's minimum nuclear defense requirements while providing it with not only a reliable uranium export market but also all the critical nuclear-generating technology it needs to maximize its fossil fuel exports.

As for the Palestinians, Israel must make it crystal clear to Riyadh that there is no way we will ever allow the creation of a Palestinian state and that they should therefore concentrate on securing their own national security interests, rather than catering to the thugs masquerading as a normal government in Ramallah.

Hopefully, such a deal would also have the effect of forcing the Americans to quit acting as if we were the scared Seleucid Kingdom of Antiochus IV and they were the all-powerful Roman Republic. This change of behavior would go far towards resetting Washington's relationship with us in a way that just might bring some much-needed reality to American Middle East policy. However, I won't be holding my breath about this occurring given the Biden Administration's blind refusal to rethink its assumptions about how the two-state solution is the prerequisite for Middle East peace. That, and Washington's unwillingness to do anything serious about preventing the Iranians from obtaining the bomb are two of America's main strategic failures that are threatening to lead to nuclear proliferation and war in the Middle East. However, our own lack of clarity on the dangerous idea of yet another Palestinian terror state being created is not not helping matters at all."

The post Israel must send a clear message to Saudi Arabia appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

For example, the Fatah terrorist organization, which is associated with the Abbas regime has even bragged about the number of its members in the PA security forces who have died while carrying out murderous attacks against Israelis!

So what will happen if one or more of these transferred armored vehicles are "hijacked" by such uniformed terrorists and used to storm an Israeli settlement in the territories?

It's likely that by the time the armored vehicles are neutralized a massacre of our citizens will have occurred. Then what? Hand wringing by our government that such an eventuality could not have been foreseen?

The fact of the matter is that the PA has more than enough security forces to reimpose control over places like Jenin and Nablus if they really wanted to do so. However, Abbas can't have his forces do this without running the risk of inflicting a large number of civilian casualties that will further inflame the Palestinian masses against his regime. And the PA regime itself has been largely responsible for the growth of the terrorist groups now operating in the Territories due to its rampant corruption and radicalization of its population. The PA has even approved "pay for slay" payments to those individuals belonging to the very organizations it now claims it needs armored vehicles to defeat!

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the PA attempts to storm a terrorist urban enclave with their new armored force. If the past is any guide, this effort will undoubtedly fail. At that point, the PA will simply turn to the Americans for more heavily armored vehicles and the transfer of a 10,000 man Jordanian trained commando force, which could presumably do the job. I think people can see where this process would lead to: namely, the creation of yet another "front" that we would have to deal with during a multi front war.

We have to remember that Oslo was originally premised on the PA undertaking security measures against terrorist groups that our own forces presumably couldn't perform because of Supreme Court imposed operational restrictions.

Or, at least, that was the theory. The actual reason behind our readiness to hand over security responsibilities to the PA was due to a failure on the part of the Israeli government and military to do what was necessary to clamp down on Palestinian violence with whatever force was required.

So we subcontracted the dirty job to Arafat and armed him to the teeth only to have him repeatedly turn those weapons against us. And now we're repeating this lethal mistake by handing over armored vehicles to the same corrupt PA regime that will undoubtedly, one way or another, turn these weapons against us.

Providing the PA with heavier firepower will just postpone the day we'll finally have to do go in and clean out the terrorists' urban enclaves ourselves. We should just get on with it before the job becomes much harder.

The post This is not the time to help the PA appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Recent criticism of Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant and the head of the IDF's Central Command, Major General Yehuda Fuchs, are entirely appropriate and justified by their apparent indifference to the lives of those living in the territories.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Their politically correct "concern" for the welfare of the enemy Palestinian population in Samaria and Judaea is totally unbecoming of Israeli officers. It is also costing us lives- both military and civilian.

As an example of their unacceptable behavior is their refusal to take action against rioters in Judea and Samaria. Just recently, one senior organizer in a Palestinian organization and his deputy actually had the temerity to film their destruction of property around Avnei Hefetz in Samaria.

And the reaction of Gallant and Fuchs? Crickets.

How many of our soldiers and civilians have been killed or wounded by actions inspired by such rioters? The actual number is beyond belief. Yet the minister of defense and the GOC Central Command can't bring themselves to target that organization's leadership, probably out of fear of how the Americans would react.

What is ironic, though, is the Opposition's chest-thumping defense of these officers' "honor" and "dignity". After everything the Leftists have done to politicize and demoralize the army their hypocritical statements in defense of the army high command's sanctity are nauseating. The army's collective leadership is not some sacred cow, which is beyond criticism! If you can't agree with this statement, then just remember all our truly sacred soldiers who were needlessly lost during the Yom Kippur War and Lebanon because of the high command's arrogance and outright unprofessionalism.

In my opinion, individuals like General Fuchs and Defense Minister Gallant represent everything that's wrong with our military. I have too much respect and love for our soldiers and brave settlers to let them continue to suffer under such insensitive military leaders."

The post Conduct of IDF leadership deserves criticism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.