Biden's cognitive weakness likely cost him a second term in office, but the Western leaders habit of speaking about the dead as if they were still among us did not disappear. And there is no doubt that the idea closest to their hearts is the two-state solution, which is as dead as Mitterrand and Kohl.

In the past week, the foreign ministers of the United Arab Emirates and Cyprus published joint understandings about the future of the region, declaring their commitment to long-term peace based on a two-state agreement. Italian President Giorgia Meloni met with Mahmoud Abbas and made clear her republic's commitment to the two-state solution. French President Emmanuel Macron has already recognized a Palestinian state, even though no such state has been declared or established, and one that, at least according to him, will live in peace and security alongside Israel.

It is not that regional peace is unimportant to the Cypriot foreign minister or that France's assurances for our security are unwelcome. But much like Biden's audiences, it is hard to avoid stating the obvious: the two-state solution is dead. It has become an empty phrase people use to signal discomfort with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Yet even the most left-leaning part of the Zionist majority in Israel does not seriously believe that a Palestinian state with its own military, its own airport, an independent economy and access to the sea will be created between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. The two-state solution resembles a unicorn, beautiful, heartwarming and entirely imaginary.

Israel cannot and will not relinquish control over the systems designed to protect its citizens and monitor the schemes of its enemies. Even the Oslo Accords, meant to be interim agreements on the way to a permanent settlement, promised the Palestinians internal policing within what Yitzhak Rabin insisted on defining as less than a state. The Palestinians, across their various factions, also understand that the train left the station long ago. In recent weeks I have met a wide range of Palestinian public figures, from social activists among Arab citizens of Israel to the most hostile spokespeople accusing Israel of genocide and calling it a colonialist entity. Surprisingly, they all acknowledge that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria and its responsibility for the entire security architecture between the river and the sea are facts on the ground. Perhaps, years ago, a Palestinian state might have been possible in the Gaza Strip, but everyone knows how that story ended.

The talk of the two-state solution is not harmless; it is simply unworkable. And unfortunately, this is no time to celebrate. I would be glad to say that since the two-state idea has outlived its historical role, we can ease our foot off the gas and raise a glass at a winery in Samaria. The opposite is true. While Macron, Meloni and Abdullah bin Zayed swear allegiance to the ideas of yesterday, a contingency plan is forming on the ground.

Until recently, the Israeli Left pushed for the two-state solution out of fear that reality would force us into a single binational state, while the Right invested enormous effort in proving that two states were not an acceptable alternative. Now that the bad alternative has disappeared, we are left de facto with one known option on the table. A sovereign Palestinian state will not be created. If we do not want to find ourselves within the next decade reluctantly granting citizenship to millions of Palestinians, we must quickly define the authorities, borders and status of Palestinian populated areas and apply Israeli sovereignty to everything else.

The post A Palestinian state is not going to happen appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

He did begin one year at a public college in Illinois, but he dropped out - not because of money, and not because he lacked intellectual ability, but because he saw the college system as a fraud, designed to impose woke indoctrination and restrict free thought.

At a remarkably young age he embarked on a new yet old mission. Old, because frontier conquest and taming the wilderness are deeply rooted American ideals. New, because the frontier Kirk set out to conquer was the minds and hearts of America's youth.

He abandoned the classroom and traveled across US campuses, determined to persuade his peers of the validity of common sense and of the values he cherished: family, nationalism, Christian faith, American pride, and unwavering support for Israel. Like most Israelis, I could not agree with all of his positions, but that pales in comparison with his absolute devotion to defending Israel's good name.

Dozens of clips appeared on my social media feeds, showing angry students demanding that Kirk condemn "genocide" or prove that Israel truly allows humanitarian aid into Gaza. He never backed down. While amused crowds cheered around him, he always responded with his trademark mix of determination, ease, and humor.

What drove Kirk, paraphrasing the British philosopher G.K. Chesterton, was not hatred for the angry youth before him, but a fierce love for the things he set out to defend. He loved America, he loved Israel, he loved his God, he loved his people, and he transformed that love into a mission. How many people in the world can say they turned love into a calling?

In ancient Rome, crowds gathered to watch gladiators fight one another or wild beasts until one killed the other. What seems to us today like horrific barbarism was then regarded as mass entertainment.

In a world where the pen aims to replace the sword, Kirk was a gladiator. He was part of a culture, flawed but vital, deeply American (and often entertaining), of people who refined the art of debate into machine-like speed. A culture of sharp, punchy lines delivered with the force and swiftness of sword strikes.

Like Kirk, dozens of American gladiators, most of them young, create these arenas and step into them eagerly, convinced of their ability to behead an opponent with the power of their tongue. Kirk, as I always perceived him, did not seek to behead anyone, but to put their heads in order by appealing to logic and to shared ethos. How tragic that his pioneering effort ended with him bleeding in the arena like a Roman gladiator.

It is difficult to predict how, and to what extent, the assassination of Kirk will affect America's political agenda in the long term. But it cannot be separated from the public storm over the random and horrific murder of Iryna Zorutska, a young Ukrainian refugee who was stabbed to death on a light rail train in North Carolina by a released convict while she sat in her seat.

The attacker had 14 prior convictions, yet the local mayor rushed to declare that he appeared mentally ill. The murder did not make headlines until surveillance footage from the train, capturing Zorutska's harrowing final moments, was released. She bled for a minute and a half before any passenger approached her, a victim of a lenient justice system and of public indifference.

Beyond Kirk's tangible impact on the opinions of millions of Americans, in a world where blood stains a train floor while no one looks up from their phone, the legacy of a man who put his own life's course on hold in order to influence the lives of others remains more relevant than ever.

The post Charlie Kirk was a modern gladiator in a world where the pen replaces the sword appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israeli travelers in South America are facing a dangerous new threat as pro-Palestinian social media accounts have launched a targeted campaign to identify and label them as "war criminals." Young Israelis who traveled to Latin America after their military service have discovered videos of themselves being shared online with harmful accusations, even though many never served in the Gaza conflict.

The video, which garnered 90,000 views, turned the Israelis featured in it into targets. The absurdity is that some of them didn't even serve in the reserves during Operation Iron Swords. The original video was filmed at a Chabad House in one of the capital cities in South America (exact locations cannot be specified for security concerns).

"After seeing the video for the first time, I thought it was just a small clip," says Yair (pseudonym), one of the young people appearing in it. "It had maybe 1,500 likes, and I didn't give it much importance. But after a few days, when the video continued to circulate and appear, I realized the problem was bigger. It became a tool for hatred against Israelis. I wasn't in Gaza, I didn't serve in the reserves, and yet I found myself accused of war crimes."

Security officials, whom the Israelis contacted, explained that there isn't much to do besides reporting the Instagram accounts spreading the video. "They told us that's the only way to deal with the distribution," the young man recounts.

Mexico should take legal action like Brazil did

This Israeli soldier is currently on a tourist trip in Mexico and has participated in the genocide in Gaza and South Lebanon.

Someone should contact the Hind Rajab organization @HindRFoundation pic.twitter.com/4NMlfC45fG

— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) January 5, 2025

The young Israelis are now careful to maintain a low profile. "I simply don't post anything, my account (Instagram) is private," says the young man. "The concern is that your name will spread, and the consequences could be severe. There's the thought sitting in your head of a video on hate pages with 90,000 views floating around the internet."

National Security Council's guidelines for travelers to South America:

Stay alert: Avoid conspicuous behavior that might draw unnecessary attention, and stay updated on the security situation in the country you're visiting.

Regular communication: It's recommended to maintain contact with family members and friends in Israel, and update them about your location and stay forecasts.

Avoid dangerous areas: Stay away from areas with high presence of terror supporters or known security threats.

The post Digital manhunt targets Israeli backpackers across South America appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

We lost the war against the Greeks the moment the Seleucid army stormed into the Temple and desecrated it. The moment Judah Maccabee was killed. The moment his last surviving brother was no longer among the living. The moment the Hasmonean dynasty became weak and corrupt.

The holiday we celebrate with lights and songs whitewashes—yes, whitewashes—the failure, the loss, the cost, the divisions within our people, even the bitter end of that earlier attempt to establish a Jewish state.

We lost the war against the Philistines the moment Goliath the giant stood and mocked us, crushing us completely with psychological warfare, while no one rose to confront him. We lost the war against the Germans every day thousands of Jews were murdered, and those who survived passed mountains of trauma to the generations that followed. We lost the War of Independence the moment almost every family in the land was condemned to bereavement. We lost the Yom Kippur War the moment the "conception" collapsed and wave after wave of our finest sons fell in their efforts to halt the enemy—victims of arrogance and blindness.

All of this is true, of course, but it's not the story we have learned to tell ourselves. Victory is always greater than the sum of its parts. In the face of the costs of war—especially the cost of failure—it's difficult to claim any military achievement was worth it. Yet our national memory, woven into our days of celebration and mourning alike, insists on moving us from the individual to the collective.

Judah Maccabee fell in battle, but the Kingdom of Judah arose and existed. Imperfect though it was, it gave millions of Jews around the world a reason to light candles in the depths of winter and believe in the triumph of light over darkness.

The Hasmonean kingdom—founded on the foundations of a civil war between the Maccabees and the Hellenists, whose founders did not live to see its glory—was the most powerful inspiration for the Zionist movement's vision of the "new Jew": strong, a fighter, confident in themselves. That vision continues today, embodied on diverse battlefields year after year.

The price we paid for this war was far too high from the day it began. No military achievement can console us for the massacres in our towns, the horrific scenes in Sderot and Ofakim, or the dozens of children orphaned of both parents within mere hours.

No effort to shape public consciousness will erase the pain, grief, and trauma. Yet this holiday teaches us that the Jewish and Zionist chain of generations rests on one core decision: to persevere. It is not the fall that defines us, our lives, or our central focus—it is the resurgence. Resurgence is not denial of what happened, nor a whitewashing or leniency for those responsible, but a decision to once again take control of our fate and our grand narrative.

Resurgence demands that we embrace two consciousnesses simultaneously: first, the value of the individual, recognizing that every person murdered or fallen in this war was an entire world, and that every effort must be made to bring back the hostages. Second, the understanding that each of us is part of a larger whole, fighting a war over the broader picture.

The State of Israel did not fall on October 7, though only later did we learn how close it came to the brink. Millions of citizens displayed extraordinary courage, self-sacrifice, infinite solidarity, and an unrelenting zest for life, reminding us anew of the incredible human resources we possess. And yes, despite everything, we dealt our enemies an unprecedented blow. After more than 20 years, the "Red Alert" sirens in Sderot have become a rare event. Farmers in the Ramim Ridge area are no longer exposed to short-range gunfire. IDF soldiers are lighting Hanukkah candles atop Mount Hermon.

We lost much on the morning of October 7, but we did not lose. There's no need to aim for "absolute victory."

It's enough to say that, like our ancestors, we proudly continue to carry torches through the darkest nights, ensuring that this flame will be passed on to the next generation.

The post On Oct. 7 we lost much, but did not lose appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A decade ago, at a passport control checkpoint in New Zealand, I presented my Israeli passport to a stern-faced officer. He cast a seemingly polite glance at me, waiting for me to show him my visa. Then I realized my mistake: I put away the Israeli passport and pulled out my British one. The officer's face lit up with a reverent smile as he bowed and directed me to the baggage carousel.

I'm not sharing this anecdote to brag about my foreign passport, but to briefly reflect on the nature of Britain. While it has its glaring flaws – such as questionable cuisine and a national museum brimming with artifacts from around the world – it also boasts excellent soccer, a respected philosophical tradition, and an exceptional survival instinct. When I think about it, if there's one European nation I'd trust for its survival instinct, it would be the British.

Some of you might wonder why not the Swiss or the Swedes, who weathered the darkest periods of modern times without their capitals being bombarded. But sitting on the sidelines and letting others do the dirty work isn't particularly admirable, and Britain has earned its respect fair and square.

For the first time in a decade and a half, the Labour Party has defeated the Conservative Party – a particularly interesting development given the new right-wing wave sweeping across Europe, in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and beyond. The Right and Left in Israel love to feel that if "their" side is elected in a country somewhere around the globe, it's solid evidence of the righteousness of their path. However, the political divide between right and left can vary greatly from country to country.

In Britain, for instance, the vote for Labour doesn't stem from a massive awakening in the social sphere, but mainly from weariness with the current government. Its leaders are perceived as seeing themselves above the law, and it has failed to deliver significant achievements in areas close to the British heart: The cost of living, the poor state of public healthcare, immigration that hasn't been curbed despite Brexit, and trains that don't arrive on time. No, this isn't a joke – proper public transportation is a real issue for the middle class living in the suburbs.

The Right and Left in Israel love to feel that if "their" side is elected in a country somewhere around the globe, it's solid evidence of the righteousness of their path. However, the political divide between right and left can vary greatly from country to country.

The British Left understood that most voters identify more with the values of the Conservative Party, but to win their hearts (and their votes), Labour wisely made two significant moves: First, they got rid of the radical Jeremy Corbyn and replaced him with Keir Starmer, whose parents were blue-collar workers, who attended a public school, and who deeply resonates with the working class. Second, they abandoned the left-wing identity politics and the progressive-conservative culture war. Instead, they talk about mortgages, health, affordable housing, and wages.

The message to the global Left, including the Israeli Left, is clear: Want to be an alternative to a right-wing government that few are satisfied with? No more elitist and detached politicians talking about lofty world issues – but humble politicians who know firsthand the struggles of citizens and are willing to forgo grand words in favor of concrete solutions.

The post Strategic shifting: What Starmer can teach our politicians appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Thirty years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, perhaps nothing exemplifies the outcome of the agreements better than last week's explosives hurled by Palestinian terrorists in Nablus at Israeli forces securing the route for Jewish worshippers to Joseph's Tomb.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The media barrage of fire and brimstone directed at those who dared to travel to the holy site was second only to the actual barrage directed at the soldiers. "Why did these lunatics travel there?" "This is not what the IDF was created for!" "Why take such a risk to pray at Joseph's Tomb?"

Perhaps the question should have been addressed to Yitzhak Rabin, the architect of the Oslo II Accord, under which the Palestinian Authority would assume responsibility for the site while guaranteeing free and safe passage for Jews.

Although there is no archaeological evidence to support this, the site is believed to be the burial place of the Biblical patriarch Joseph and as such, carries religious significance. And not only for Jews – for whom it's a symbol of their connection to the land – but Christians and Muslims as well.

The Palestinians understand this well, which is why mere months after the signing of the accords, they torched the tomb and have continued attacking – and killing – Israelis and soldiers visiting the site ever since.

Israel withdrew from Nablus and agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian Authority on the condition that it would guarantee free access to Joseph's Tomb, among other things.

Rabin was the one who signed the agreement, not any current lawmaker. The Palestinians never honored the deal, while the Jews – or should I use the hijacked term "settlers – are condemned for daring to attempt to continue to visit. It seems that in 2023, the only civil right respected by some in Israel is the right to protest.

Were any soldiers injured while protecting the lunatics who pray at the site? Let's not forget that just recently a municipal security guard was killed while protecting lunatics in Tel Aviv. Don't roll your eyes. The Palestinian enemy sees both as "settlers."

Only we think that there is a difference. We tell ourselves that if we just draw an imaginary line and never cross it, the Palestinians will be willing to give up their dream of a state "from the river to the sea" and stop slaughtering us.

Jewish desire to pray at the holy site is seen as madness, while Palestinian murder of Israelis – as fate.

Thirty years later we should we wise enough to understand that instead of asking why Jews continue to make the dangerous journey to Joseph's Tomb, we should really by asking why we would ever abandon it.

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

The post How the Oslo Accords failed at Joseph's Tomb appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

There is a lot we do not know about the incoming government, but their main agenda is clear: they have set out to restore democracy, return the power of decision-making to those elected by the people, and limit the influence of those who never had to be elected, a.k.a. the judges.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

At first glance, it sounds wonderful, but only let us remember that there is another group that was never elected by the people and whose newly-found influence also needs to be limited: the spouses of elected officials.
Of course, I am not talking about a husband and wife consulting on a particular matter, as it is completely natural to do so in a supportive relationship. But in recent months we have heard too much from people who based their importance on the role of his or her spouse.

Just the other day, Ayala Ben-Gvir was being interviewed by Channel 13 News at the same time as her husband, Itamar Ben-Gvir, was interviewed by Channel 12 News. Yes, Ben-Gvir's Otzma Yehudit garnered a respectable amount of Knesset seats in the election, but that does not mean that his wife is his representative.

And earlier this year, when Idit Silman defected from then-Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's Yamina party – sending ripples throughout the political system that ultimately resulted in the downfall of the Bennett-Lapid government – her husband kept jumping from one news channel to another.

Caution is necessary even when both spouses are public figures in their own right, but certainly when it comes to individuals whose title boils down to "wife of" or "husband of."

The media, in turn, has to learn to separate the political-public sphere from the personal and refrain from dragging – intentionally or unintentionally – the private lives of elected officials into the spotlight.

True, the public is much more likely to read such a story, but it undermines the work of elected officials who intend to get things done and presents the media as unprofessional.

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

The post When political spouses are unclear about their roles appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Jerusalem Day has long since turned from one marking a joyous festival to one mired by an exhausting political raucous. The issue of Israel and its Arab citizens, and the question of east versus west Jerusalem are, of course, worthy topics of discussion, but the choice to make them the heart of the conversation on Jerusalem Day of all days is unfortunate.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The attempt to paint Jerusalem as the exclusive focus of conflict and controversy is shallow and narrow-minded and is useful only to those who thrive on strife. Jerusalem is first and foremost the fulfillment of an old-new vision, and its liberation is a sign of the independence and aptitude of the Jewish state.

Jerusalem often finds itself labeled as "controversial" alongside other areas associated with the 1967 Six-Day War, and there is certainly a clear link between the nature of the debate on Jerusalem and the nature of the debate on Judea and Samaria. I have often spoken to audiences abroad about the issues in Judea and Samaria. I always tell them: It doesn't matter if you are for or against the Jewish settlement enterprise, or for or against a Palestinian state – never limit your connection to Israel to this question alone.

It is unthinkable that after 2,000 years of Jewish longing and 150 years of Zionism, the connection between Jews and the Jewish state will be reduced to the question of "to what extent does Israel cope with the complex reality it faces."

Those sparing no effort to convince Diaspora Jewry that the "occupation" is the only prism by which they must shape their view of and link to Israel are, for the most part, self-serving entities the interests of which are well-funded. They have little – if any – real interest in Israel or in the Diaspora and under their guise of concern for human rights, morals, and ethics, lies little more than a superficiality of thought and a spiritual void.

It would also be a mistake to define the connection to Jerusalem and Jerusalem Day through the narrow prism of the flag march.

Whether you like it or not, whether you consider it a festive event or a problematic one, it is impossible to reduce thousands of years of deep Jewish connection to the city to an argument that boils down to will-they-or-won't-they march through the Damascus Gate. Not that this is not an important question, but to make it the core issue is ridiculous.

There are 364 days a year during which one can discuss the challenges Jerusalem faces. For one day a year, let us simply rejoice in the fact that we have been privileged to witness the manifestation of the biblical vision and experience the dream-come-true of so many who came before us.

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

The post Jerusalem is larger than the sum of its parts appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

When the trial of Nazi arch-criminal Adolf Eichmann started, his attorney, the German lawyer Robert Servatius, tried to question the authority of the Israeli court to try him, arguing that the trial involved Jews, and judgment would inherently be biased.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The judges gave their answer (and as we know, ruled as they did), but in the face of that audacious argument, and given the new fighting in Europe, we should remember that there events in which horror are an inseparable part of realizing what took place. War cannot be analyzed as a sterile phenomenon – it always entails death, suffering, and harm to the next generations. Emotional detachment from the difficult images does not make the person looking more objective. The opposite – it causes them to shut their eyes to a central, important aspect of the event.

The media is doing the right thing by constantly broadcasting small, personal stories about people in the heart of the storm. Last week, a young woman said in a radio interview that she waited for hours at a border crossing until she ran out of gas, and when they got back from the gas station had to get back in line. When they finally reached the border, she said, her partner was not allowed to cross, and she took her two small daughters into the unknown by herself, only to find that shops were empty and they had nothing to eat.

A British newspaper told the story about a Ukrainian soldier who saw Russian soldiers shoot his entire family. The terrible destruction of apartment buildings and city centers, the masses of elderly crowding into subway stations, the fate of hundreds of orphans – there are so many stories of people who until two weeks ago had homes and beds and routines, and whose world is now broken and whose future is unclear.

It's very important to understand the war, Putin's motivations, and its deep and long-term ramifications on the entire world. It's important to choose what steps to take with care, while safeguarding national interests and strategic alliances. The local debate about Israel's role and the limits to support, and even the question of how many refugees Israel can and should take in, and which ones – are all very well and good.

But amid all these strategic considerations and cold-blooded analyses, it's important to remember that we are talking about local and personal tragedies that don't become any smaller even when they involve millions of people. We cannot allow the large numbers to make us forget the little people. Russia's war in Ukraine represents not only the collapse of the view of peace in Europe, or threatening signals to the free world. The war is not merely a preview of the comeback of national battles or western respect for ethos and heroes; it is first and foremost a story of death and destruction for millions of Ukrainians. Stalin is usually credited with the saying that "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic." And the masses do indeed blunt the senses.

When we look at the reality and it horrifies or enrages us, it isn't some unprocessed voice of a more mature perception of the way things really are. Israel should consider its actions in accordance with its values and ethics, its needs and interests, but when we look at the war, we should do so with pity and try to ease the human suffering, so we don't turn people into statistics.

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

The post War is made up of millions of little stories appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

When Operation Guardian of the Walls began last May, I was on my way to a wedding at one of the lovely vineyards of Judea and Samaria. During the drive, we heard the siren that announced missiles were on their way to central Israel. If dear friends of the bride hadn't been in the car with me, I might have turned around and headed home. I realized we were facing another intifada, and I was sure that on my way back would take me through rock and Molotov cocktail-throwers, and masked hordes. In my heart, I had only one regret – that I had no weapon with which to deter them and defend myself.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The numbers show I'm not an exception. In an average year, some 10,000 requests for firearm licenses are filed with the Defense Ministry by private individuals, but last year, that number doubled, with almost 20,000 civilians applying for a firearm license. Approximately two-thirds of the applications were filed after Operation Guardian of the Walls, and a third in the month of June alone – right on the heels of the violent events of May. Last week, after the major riots in the Negev, there was a new wave of applications for firearm licenses.

The citizens of Israel are putting two and two together, seeing the helplessness and ineffectuality of the police, along with infuriating, false remarks that cite "violence by both sides." They see that the authorities in charge of public security can't cope, either ideologically or practically, with the wave of domestic vandalism and terrorism; residents of the mixed cities have been forced to watch their property bring burned and looted and their friends being beaten and murdered, while police dispatchers promise that "officers are on the way" and tell them "not to do anything." They have realized that if the police won't protect us, the government won't protect us, and the media is mostly trying to create false equivalence between the rioters and those who respond to the rioting – they are left to look out for themselves, their families, and their neighbors.

But this turning to personal weapons, however legitimate and understandable, is very bad news. It indicates that the basic contract between the government and its citizens – the contract under which citizens agree to give the state a monopoly on violence on the condition that it protect them and their rights – is being eaten away. If the only way of restoring quiet to the streets of mixed cities in times of rioting is not to call the police, but rather to organize armed civilian patrols to scare off the attackers, we have a problem. The people who patrol are saints and have probably saved lives, but this is not something to count on in the long term. A functioning country needs a functioning police force.

The jump in applications for firearms licenses only throws the issue into sharp relief: more and more citizens are feeling that at the moment of truth, there is no one who will protect them. If the police are meaningless and every civilian has a gun and can cock it and fire when needed, this is what's known as anarchy. This is the kind of thing whose beginning we can understand, but no one knows how they will end or who will pay the heaviest price.

I have no problem with the people who own guns. As I said, I might join them. But the trend itself should be keeping police officials and state leaders awake at night, because in the long term, public security is suffering strategic damage. If the government has one job – no matter what government is in power – it is precisely this. More than education and healthcare, more than passing a budget, more than preventing a fifth election, the government must work day and night to ensure that its citizens can sleep at night, even without a gun under the pillow.

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

The post Government should defend citizens, not arm them appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.