One of the issues causing grave concern for the future of the GOP is the troubling rise of antisemitism within certain sectors of its constituency.

Antisemitism is often referred to as the world's "oldest hatred," a term used to describe hostility, discrimination, and prejudice against the Jewish people. This form of hatred is characterized by its persistence through history, adapting to different eras from ancient times through to the present day.

Pernicious and persistent

Persecution of the Jews/Israelites dates back to ancient times—from Pharaoh and the Romans -extending through the Spanish/Portuguese Inquisitions to the murderous pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, reaching a horrific climax across much of Europe during the Nazi era, with strong pro-Nazi sentiment pervading most of the Arab world. Indeed, one of the starkest instances of this was the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, who met with Hitler during the war and engaged in mobilizing support and resources of SS units in the Balkans. Throughout the post-WW-II years, the longstanding Jewish communities across the Middle East suffered harsh persecution (including lethal pogroms) in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq's infamous Farhud.

In the following decades, antisemitism generally fell into disrepute in much of the West—mainly due to the traumatic memories of the Holocaust, being repressed rather than eradicated. Thus, it still simmered just below the surface, occasionally erupting in attacks on synagogues and Jewish community centers across the US and elsewhere. Of course, in the USSR, large-scale suppression of Jews prevailed up until the early 1990s. Moreover, the enmity towards the fledgling Jewish state, founded in 1948, generated more anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist enmity, spurring ongoing efforts to destroy the UN-approved state, even enlisting Nazi scientists to help realize that goal.

Old ware in new wrapping?

But lately, there has been a new and disturbing surge in antisemitism, which seems to be conferring an aura of respectability on the hatred of Jews. Its roots are both perverse and paradoxical—emerging in the immediate wake of Jews suffering the most appalling atrocity since the Holocaust, with over 1200 murdered and massacred in a single day. However, instead of eliciting a wave of sympathy and identification with the victim of such unprovoked savagery, massive displays of support for the Islamist terrorist organization spread across North America and Western Europe. Thus, American University historian Pamela Nadell warns that we could be "witnessing  the 'high tide' of American antisemitism"  and cautions that "the explosion of vitriol post-October 7th is built on decades of rhetoric targeting Jews as settlers, colonialists, and racists—and is at the heart of conspiracy theories since the first century."

Arguably, most surprisingly, the specter of antisemitism has begun to stir in the sectors of the American Right and the Republican Party, which, up until recently, has generally been staunchly pro-Israel. One of the most prominent advocates of this noxious creed is the popular media figure Tucker Carlson, has been widely accused of creating a rift in the GOP and criticized for promoting antisemitic ideas. This controversy intensified after he interviewed openly antisemitic and white nationalist activist Nick Fuentes, a far-right figure known for Holocaust denial and admiration for Hitler, without challenging his core antisemitic views. Carlson berated Israel's allies, accusing "Christian Zionists" of suffering from a "brain virus" while stridently criticizing U.S. support for Israel. (For a stunning display of Carlson's ignorance, invective, and duplicity—see here.)

Understandably, this has created a significant schism within conservative circles.

The Carlson-Caucuses nexus

One of the more surprising sources for Carlson's toxic tirade has its origins in the distant Caucasus nation of Armenia and its influential diaspora organization in America, the American National Committee of Armenians (ANCA).

Thus, ANCA posted an incendiary interview in which Carlson's interlocutor (to his feigned shock)made the outrageous claim that "Israel sold weapons to Azerbaijan to carry out the ethnic cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh." After all, it is absurd to accuse Israel of animosity towards Christians, as it is perhaps the only Middle East population in which the Christian population has grown (fivefold since 1950), whereas across the Muslim countries, it has declined steeply. Moreover, Armenia is hardly beyond reproach in the complex history of Nagorno-Karabakh, being complicit in the massacre and expulsion of Azerbaijanis from the region in the early 1990s (see, for example, here).

Moreover, in early 2024, an affiliate of ANCA, aligning itself with South Africa's scandalous ICJ action against Israel, called for it to halt its military action in Gaza in a transparent effort to preserve Hamas and ensure its survival—a transparently hostile act against the Jewish state.

Additional fodder for Calson's venom was supplied by Alexander Galitsky, ANCA's Policy Director, who made the ludicrous assertion that somehow Baku's victory in Nagorno Karabakh heralded Israel's military response in Gaza, tweeting that it "was a template for Gaza. Bomb, blockade, starve & render the region uninhabitable…The world's silent complicity in Azerbaijan's ethnic cleansing of Artsakh [Nagono-Karabakh] was all the permission Israel needed to do the same to Gaza."

Ludicrous and libelous

This is an allegation so ridiculous that it defies belief. After all, even the poorly informed observer would know that, if anything, Gaza and Nagorno-Karabakh are diametric opposites. Indeed, in 2005, Israel had unilaterally transferred the entire Gaza Strip, without any quid pro quo, to Arab control, only to have it serve as a base for launching repeated attacks against its civilian population, a process which culminated in the brutal October 23 assaults that, proportionately, dwarfed the 9/11 attacks by a factor of 15. As I showed elsewhere, Israel's response was, comparatively, far more restrained than that of other leading Western democracies that suffered lesser assaults. So contrary to the drivel propagated by ANCA's Galitsky, that Israel took its cue from Azerbaijan's military action, the IDF's aim was to eradicate the murderous Islamist organization, while taking unprecedented precautions to minimize civilian casualties. Indeed, the civilian toll in Gaza was in fact exacerbated by two factors: The use of "civilian shields" by Hamas and Egypt's cynical refusal to allow Gazans to flee the fighting, as in virtually every other conflict around the globe.

Galitsky proceeded to unleash a further libelous harangue on Israel, echoing Carlson's earlier anti-Christian smear, misrepresenting an accidental shelling of a church in Gaza, claiming that the "heinous attack on Gaza's only Catholic Church wasn't a 'mistake'. Israel has routinely targeted Christians during its genocide in Gaza."

Curiously, neither ANCA nor Carlson seems to remember—certainly, never mentions—the systematic destruction of all the synagogues, burnt to the ground in Gaza when Israel handed over the Strip to the Palestinians.

Misplaced concern

Indeed, their supposed concern for Christians seems gravely misplaced, given their slaughter at the hands of Muslims in Nigeria, and their displacement from Bethlehem (once a Christian-majority city, now almost devoid of Christian presence under Palestinian rule). One can only assume that both ANCA and Calson must have missed a report in the Guardian headlined "Gaza Christians long for days before Hamas cancelled Christmas," reporting that any "festive celebrations and displays of crucifixes have become taboo."

ANCA's (via Galitsky) anti-Jewish animus is so pervasive that it extends beyond its feigned concern for Gaza's Christians, whose dire fate under Hamas never seemed to bother them until they could concoct some link to Israel. Indeed, according to the University of Notre Dame, the dwindling number of Gazan Christians was the result of the community being  "squeezed by the policies of Hamas" and its "insidious Islamization process.", declaring: "Christians in Gaza today are targeted on the basis of their religious faith."

Now, ANCA has joined in a wild accusation concerning a real estate dispute with a development company, over an agreement which the Patriarch of the Armenian Church in Jerusalem engaged in—presenting it as a case of "ethnic cleansing," and accusing Jews and the Israeli government of allegedly preparing "another future genocide." Thus, with unfettered and unfounded hyperbole, Galitsky tweeted: "Even outside Gaza, Israel threatens the Holy Land's Christian presence – seen in its ongoing assault on Jerusalem's Armenian Quarter."

Indeed, when it comes to defiling the Jews and their nation-state, no antisemitic slur is too low for the new Woke-Right and their ANCA partners in hate to stoop to. However, they would do well to recall, that over the millennia, the Jews have always prevailed over the purveyors of the world's oldest hate. Always.

The post INTO THE FRAY: Strange bedfellows in hate, from Carlson to the Caucasus appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

No room for rational debate

Indeed, in a recent Opinion piece, I warned that Israel was poised on a perilous slide into civil war. I wrote: "An irreconcilable rift is beginning to open up between rival segments of Israeli society, which no amount of unilateral goodwill can amicably bridge. The rupture is not one that can be bridged by rational reasoning or argument."

This mirrors my dour assessment in a previous piece I published, over two years ago, with the protests against the proposed judicial reforms raging through the streets of Israel: I asserted that  "the ongoing dispute, allegedly about a substantive difference of opinion is nothing but a façade, a stage prop in a visceral fight for control of the reins of power, in which there is no place for any rational debate."

In the interests of methodological rigor, I stipulated the tectonic fault lines, threatening to split the nation's societal fabric asunder, centered on the animosity toward Benjamin Netanyahu and the frustration that his obstinate hold on power engendered in his political adversaries, foiling their multiple endeavors to unseat him. Thus, although Israeli politics has always been characterized by fractious rivalries, the traditional Left-Right divisions have shifted slightly and been replaced by those between virulent anti-Netanyahu zealots and those who are not.

A shifting schism?

Note that while this in some measure coincides with the old Left-Right divisions, it differs somewhat from them in significant ways. Firstly, the anti-Netanyahu faction includes several factions that fall into the "Right" wing categories, such as those led by Avigdor Liberman, Naftali Bennett, and, at the time, Gideon Sa'ar. Secondly, the opposing faction includes not only explicitly pro-Netanyahu supporters but also anyone who is not overtly anti-Netanyahu, who are also classed by his obsessive antagonists as being among his supporters.

However, because of accepted semantic convention, I retained the use of "Left" to denote the anti-Netanyahu bloc, and of "Right" when referring to the opposing bloc.

With this methodological/semantic clarification in mind, we return to the current turmoil in Israel.  For what emerges unmistakably from recent events surrounding the conduct of the senior echelons of the distinctly "Left"-leaning legal establishment in both the judiciary and prosecution, as well as in several investigative arms in the police.

Lamentably, they have shown themselves – either directly or indirectly – willing to imperil the country's most vital interests, undermine its national security, jeopardize its economic wellbeing, risk the safety of its citizens, and sacrifice its most sacred values.

Having seemingly despaired of the possibility of defeating him at the polls, his adversaries have turned – more clumsily than not – to weaponising the legal system as a means of realizing their political goals.

When the prosecution strengthens the defense

Nothing illustrates this dire state of affairs more vividly than the farcical trial against Netanyahu currently underway, in which the defense's case is strengthened every time a prosecution witness takes the stand. Indeed, with its "flagship" accusation of corruption crumbling before the public's very eyes, with the judges – hardly ardent Bibi-philes – warning the prosecutors (before a single defense witness took the stand) that they had failed to make their case. However, despite the judges' specific recommendation that the bribery charges be dropped, the prosecution declined to do so.

Shorn of any tangible chance of securing a conviction for bribery, prosecution was left with two flimsy and somewhat ephemeral charges of "breach of trust", which numerous prominent American figures – including President Donald Trump and renowned jurist Alan Dershowitz – called to be dismissed.

Indeed, as proceedings progressed, the case appeared increasingly far-fetched and indictments ever-more maliciously concocted. Thus, earlier this month, dramatic new evidence, indicating prosecutorial malfeasance, emerged when a senior investigator in the Netanyahu case, Chief Superintendent Tzachi Havkin, informed the court that he would only testify truthfully about what transpired during the probe if the court granted him immunity from self-incrimination. Following the court's decision to grant his request – despite the prosecution's evident reluctance and even explicit prior attempt to prevent it – he laid out a litany of excesses and abuses by the police in its probe against the PM.

"Political prosecution on steroids…"

Indeed, the murky picture that emerged was so troubling that it prompted one prominent M.K. to describe the proceedings against Netanyahu as "malevolent political persecution on steroids."

Despite all the emerging evidence of blatant misconduct, the all-consuming animus in the legal establishment continued to manifest itself unabated in its prejudicial and unequal application of the law to suspects and defendants, depending on their perceived political affiliation – with those associated with Netanyahu receiving excessively harsh treatment (notably in connection with the far-fetched "Qatargate" allegations), while those associated with opposition to him were treated with far-reaching leniency and compassionate kid gloves.

This institutional bias carried itself to the recent events surrounding and allegations of IDF abuse of Hamas prisoners at the Sde Teiman facility, where perpetrators of the October 7^th massacre were incarcerated. The prosecution's proceedings against the IDF guards were accompanied by the release [i.e., leak] of a clearly "doctored" video, reportedly taken prior (!) to the arrival of the purported victim at the facility.

The phony video was seized on by Israel's detractors around the world as proof-positive of the Jewish state's inhumane treatment of Gazans in its custody – with nary a mention of the heinous deeds they had committed and of which they openly boasted. Indeed, the video generated a staggering 100 million views worldwide, resulting in dire diplomatic damage to Israel and its standing in the world, as well as increasing the international antisemitic sentiment, further endangering already harassed Jewish communities across the globe.

Hurried and hysterical responses

As the outcry escalated, appalling facts began to emerge. Thus, with Israel fighting a multi-front war, and increasingly beleaguered and isolated internationally, it turned out that it was none other than the head of IDF legal corps ( the Magistrate Advocate General or MAG), who was behind the media leak of the purportedly offensive video – along with several of her immediate subordinates, who were either involved in/aware of the affair.

It is difficult to diagnose the motivation behind these patently perverse actions other than the desire of the anti-Netanyahu establishment (including upper echelons in the military, the media, and legal elites) to discredit his conduct of the war, which the adversarial Biden administration sought to end. For this, they were willing to pay any price, including sullying Israel's name, risking its soldiers and the welfare of its then-held hostages, so long as they could harness their efforts to tarnish Netanyahu and his coalition.

However, as the flaws and the falsehoods that riddled the official account of the Sde Teiman began to surface, its architects were compelled into hurried and hysterical responses in a desperate attempt to cover their tracks. The result was an unbecoming process of submitting false affidavits to the Supreme Court,  concealing – even destroying – evidence, and finally – almost inconceivably – deporting the alleged victim back to Gaza, raising speculation that this was done to prevent him from testifying and exposing the part that the IDF legal apparatus played in this sordid affair.

Remorseless and obsessive malevolence

Indeed, the Sde Teiman affair has turned the legal establishment into a pathetic caricature of its former self – along with its media sycophants. Thus, as the cracks in the official narrative began to emerge, so did cracks in the ranks.  As the pressure mounted to expose the truth, the façade started to collapse. The first major element to buckle was MAG Tomer-Yerushalmi, now in detention, after two suicide attempts, and several efforts to dispose of/destroy evidence.

As the erosion of public trust accelerated – catalyzed by her blatantly biased and ill-conceived legal opinions – the flames began to lick the heels of Tomer-Yerushalmi's superior, the woefully incompetent and patently partisan Attorney-General, Gali Baharav-Miara, recently barred from any involvement in the investigation of the Sde Teiman affair.

Accordingly, with the Left's remorseless and obsessive malevolence laid increasingly bare, the Right must recalibrate both its overall political conduct and its specific responses to Left-wing skullduggery. For as the Left's electoral base contracts, so its malice increases – even channeling it against their own when some might have the temerity to admit the errors of their way (like the vicious response of the Left-wing media to the recent court decision to bar the Attorney-General from taking any part in the Sde Teiman affair probe because of blatant conflict of interest– for example, see here.)

Time to "fight fire with fire"

Accordingly, for the Right, the time has come to "fight fire with fire". It is time to drop the assumption that the political divide in Israel is one of opinion, which can be bridged by rational argument and compromise. It is a visceral struggle for power, where few, if any, holds are barred. The niceties of political debate must be discarded.  It is time for a cataclysmic purge of the "plumbing" of the state.

It must mobilize its public and harness its anger to drive from their positions of (largely unelected power) those who prioritize partisan affiliation and personal animus over common-sense identification with the national interest.

This is the only effective way to fight the Left's once-vaunted "lords of land", now poised to morph into forlorn lemmings on their downward spiral to oblivion. It is time to nudge them over the brink.

The post INTO THE FRAY: From lords to lemmings – Israel's legal "elites on the brink appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"You forget can't forget October 7…That was genocide at the highest level…" in response to a question regarding Israel committing genocide in Gaza…" –President Donald Trump, –Forbes Breaking News, Sept. 20, 2025.

As if being caught up in a surreal time warp that whisks the onlooker back to the early 1930s, when the Jew was the perpetual culprit and the ubiquitous villain, responsible for all and any misfortune that befell humanity – from the iniquities of capitalism to the scourges of communism.

Global call to antisemitism

Today, the latest call to antisemitic arms centers on Israel's military campaign in Gaza, where Israel is being branded for committing genocide in its quest to eliminate the Nazi-like Islamo fascist terror organization Hamas and its affiliates.

Consequently, across the academic world, many Jewish students, collectively identified as an extension of Israel, have reportedly being harassed, excluded, or targeted with slurs, and their personal safety severely compromised. Likewise, Jewish faculty and administrative staff have been subjected to similar abuse and harassment. Moreover, protests against Israeli policy frequently find expression in antisemitic rhetoric – for example, invoking derogatory anti-Jewish tropes and stereotypes.

In the USA, this grievous behavior manifested itself in a myriad of hallowed institutions across the entire country, including prestigious campuses such as Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, Cornell, and Pennsylvania.

But why the latest manifestation of Jew-hatred is particularly outrageous and infuriating is not only because it is maliciously misleading, but because it is a total inversion of the truth.

The antithesis of "genocide"

Indeed, ever since its inception, Israel's behavior has been the very antithesis of genocidal. Not only have its groundbreaking achievements in science and technology served to enhance and save human lives across the globe (rather than to degrade and destroy them), but it has a long and proud tradition of dispatching humanitarian aid to disaster areas hit by earthquakes, floods, famine, and other life-threatening calamities. (For a brief synopsis of Israel's humanitarian efforts in recent decades – see here). Moreover, when engaging in warfare, typically imposed on it by its adversaries' aggression, the IDF has exercised significantly more care in avoiding and/or reducing civilian casualties than any other military- even to the extent of putting its own soldiers at risk. Indeed, West Point urban warfare expert, John Spencer, determined that "Israel has taken more measures to avoid needless civilian harm than virtually any other nation that's fought an urban war". Sadly, however,  it seems that even such unequivocal expert opinion cannot put paid to blatantly fabricated accusations of Israeli "genocide".

The missing element of "intent"

Indeed, further analysis of past legal proceedings regarding charges of "genocide" will underscore how ludicrous the endeavor to ascribe such crime to Israel is. According to a recent NYT piece,  "the only case in the court's  [the ICJ] 79-year existence in which its judges have determined that genocide definitively occurred", was in its decision regarding the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Indeed, in numerous other cases of mass killing – from Darfur, via Biafra, to the Yazidis, the ICJ refrained from designating the actions as "genocide".

Moreover, whatever the legal niceties, they cannot be allowed to mask the absurdity of the attempt to bring charges of "genocide" against Israel.

Significantly, central to establishing the charge of genocide is the matter of intent, which is crucial for making the case. Indeed, "genocidal intent" is the specific mental element (mens rea) required to classify an act as "genocide" under international law,   particularly as stipulated in the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, which comprises the generally accepted definition of "genocide". Perpetrators must be shown to have had the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a particular national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Indeed, "genocidal intent" necessitates a deliberate aim to eliminate the targeted group rather than to merely displace or harm its members.

Debunking "genocide":  Netanyahu at UN

In his recent address to the UN General Assembly, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu made short shrift of the accusations of genocide and starvation against his country. Compellingly, he demonstrated why it is impossible to equate genocide – and certainly genocidal intent –with Israeli actions on the ground – such as pleading with civilians to flee the fighting zones and facilitating far-reaching humanitarian supplies, including copious supplies of food. Caustically, he asked: "Would a country committing genocide plead with the civilian population it is supposedly targeting to get out of harm's way?"
As to the charges of forced starvation, he scoffed: "Israel is accused of deliberately starving the people of Gaza, when Israel is deliberately feeding the people of Gaza. Since the beginning of the war, Israel has let into Gaza more than 2,000,000 tons of food and aid… one ton of aid for every man, woman and child in Gaza; Nearly 3,000 calories per person, per day. Some starvation policy!"

A hijacked legacy?

But perhaps the most grotesque illustration of abuse of the term "genocide" relates to the man credited with coining the term itself, Raphael Lemkin, and an institute, which, allegedly, has hijacked his name for the purposes of propagating anti-Israel slander – in contradiction to the strong pro-Zionist views held by Lemkin himself – a multiple nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The situation has become so grave that recently, members of the Lemkin family and the European Jewish Association (EJA) engaged a firm of lawyers to petition Pennsylvania officials, including Governor Josh Shapiro, to review allegations of misappropriation of the late jurist's name by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention (LIGP) The Institute presents itself as a genocide-prevention think-tank, publishing frequent papers accusing Israel of genocide, which are seized upon anti-Israeli figures such as UN Rapporteur Francesca Albanese. (For some anti-Israel LIGP works-see here.)

Lemkin's relatives and the EJA argue that the organization never sought permission to use Raphael Lemkin's name and that the choice creates the false impression that its positions reflect his legacy.

Indeed, Lemkin's work – including coining the term "genocide" – focused on the archetypal instance of genocide – the Holocaust – while the Nazi genocide and the events in Gaza could be more different.

Truth turned on its head

On the one hand, the Nazis slaughtered their own unarmed citizens (and those of is neighbors), who had no a-priori intention of destroying the German state, merely because of their ethno-religious identity. On the other hand, Israel, after decades of intermittent attacks from Gaza by Hamas and its affiliates, was subjected to an unprovoked assault in which 1200-1400 of its citizens were murdered and mutilated, and which was widely supported by a clear  majority of Palestinian society both in Gaza and Judea-Samaria.

Netanyahu tersely summed up the almost obscene absurdity of the recriminations against Israel: "The truth has been turned on its head. Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews on the planet, this genocidal organization is given a pass".

So true. So sad.

The post Fabricating genocide? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A dangerously defective "alternative"

It is not my intention here to enumerate all the deadly detriments of the two-state principle and the myriad misfortunes the ill-conceived attempts to implement it have precipitated over the last four decades. I—and others—have done this repeatedly elsewhere, despite the derision and disregard of devout disciples of the Politically Correct—sadly, only to have our warnings borne out time and time again.

Fortunately, as the grave defects of the two-state notion become increasingly apparent, the search for alternatives has understandably become a priority. Yet, despite the urgency, caution and prudence are still very much called for.

For as appalling as the two-state notion is, this in no way implies that any proposal that is not the two-state idea is necessarily better than it. Indeed, some can be just as bad, if not worse—particularly in anything but the immediate short run.

Typical of such a well-intentioned, but dangerously defective "alternative" is what has come to be known as "The Emirates plan", involving granting self-rule, of yet to be specified scope, to the dominant clan heads in 7-8 urban centers in Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. "the West Bank) and Gaza. Indeed, having been skillfully promoted by its well-intentioned advocates, it was prominently featured in a recent WSJ article, which raised the possibility of it being initially implemented in the Hebron region.

Dangerous detriments: A catalogue

While for some, this approach might have some superficial appeal, closer scrutiny reveals numerous problems that must be satisfactorily addressed before it can be seriously—and responsibly—advanced as a practical policy alternative.

For example, what would be the length of the frontiers (the lines of contact) between sovereign Israel and the (semi)autonomous enclaves ("emirates")? Depending on their precise configuration, these wildly contorted frontiers could be anything up to 1000 kilometers long, making them almost impossible to demarcate and secure. However, if one cannot clearly demarcate and secure one's sovereign territory, this will inevitably undermine the very essence of that sovereignty itself.

Moreover, would the residents of the "emirates" be allowed to access Israel itself? Would they be permitted to visit Israeli beaches and shop in Israeli malls?

If so, how would their return to their "emirate" be ensured? If not, the "emirates will inevitably—and justifiably—be seen as increasingly overcrowded prisons. Indeed, while Israel may euphemistically refer to them as "emirates", most others will (correctly) call them (Arabesque) "Bantustans", the very epitome of Apartheid in South Africa, see here.

Moreover, what if the compliant "Emir" (clan head) is replaced (kinetically or otherwise) by some less pliant successor, who reneges on his predecessor's commitments—whether explicitly or otherwise? How would Israel respond to a new and antagonistic (semi) autonomous administration immediately adjacent to its major urban centers?

Dangerous detriments: A catalogue (cont.)

Furthermore, how would cross-border phenomena be handled and enforced? These would include issues such as untreated sewage flows, toxic industrial effluents, flows polluted by fertilizers and pesticides from agricultural irrigation, contamination of groundwater from unsealed garbage dumps, carcinogenic emissions from the widespread charcoal production, rabies control, vaccinations, control of infectious diseases, and so on and so forth.

Similarly, with regard to education, which it seems would be left to the auspices of the local "emirate" administration. Indeed, given the widely held consensus as to the need for deradicalization of Palestinian society, this raises the thorny question of who will formulate and approve the curricula for schools and educational institutions. Even more pertinent, who will ensure and enforce their implementation—and how would that be done?

After all, without an intrusive and coercive presence in the "emirates", there is no way for Israel to ensure adequate supervision of the education system, what is imparted to the students, and/or any effective control over the propagation of inciteful radicalization.

Indeed, without such far-reaching and intrusive authority, Israel will be incapable of adequately confronting any of the crucial issues raised above, while if Israel did in fact retain authority of this kind, it would inevitably drain any semblance of substantive self-rule or autonomy, by the so-called "emirates."

Contrived and misleading semantics

Indeed, apart from a contrived –and misleading—similarity in nomenclature, there is little similarity between the envisioned "emirates" of Palestine, on the one hand, and the genuine generic Emirates of the Arabian Gulf, on the other.

While there may indeed be some discernible traces of tribalism in Palestinian society, they seem hardly robust enough to comprise a foundation for far-reaching political structures—as shown by the dismal experience with the Village Unions, which was also based on existing clan structures, and resulted in resounding failure. Indeed, there seems to be a disturbing overlap between the failed Village Union idea and the equally flawed "emirates" proposal.

As noted, there is much that distinguishes the Gulf Emirates from the prospective "emirates" in "Palestine". Although the former are relatively small countries (with the entire UAE in the  114^th place in the global ranking of country size), they are not, like the latter, "microdot"-sized enclaves, at most dozens of kilometers in width, totally surrounded by the sovereign territory of another nation-state. Moreover, they are fully sovereign entities, with full control over their armed forces, internal governance, and resources, which afford them great affluence. It should be noted that much of the UAE's prosperity is due to a massive number of foreign workers, who make up 90%of the entire labor force. Clearly, neither of these elements—immense petro-riches, and a vast foreign labor pool—characterizes the envisaged "emirates" in "Palestine", making any inferences regarding the viability/stability of the latter, based on that of the former, entirely without foundation.

A political train wreck waiting to happen

But the most detrimental aspect of the "emirates" approach is that it concedes the acceptability of a permanent Arab-Palestinian presence west of the Jordan River, based on the potentially impermanent goodwill attributed to an incumbent chieftain in an increasingly anachronistic clan-based system—and his ongoing ability to maintain stability over an increasingly congested Muslim islet in a surrounding Jewish sea.

It is an approach that attempts to impart substantive content by means of semantic labels, and to restrict political rights (full sovereignty) on the basis of ethnic identity--the very epitome of apartheid.

Indeed, whatever its purported sociological rationale, it is an inevitable political train wreck waiting to happen. For Israel to adopt this approach as an alternative to the two-state solution would be unmitigated folly.

The Israeli leadership would do well to remember: Not everything that is not a two-state solution is necessarily better than the two-state notion. The "emirates" plan is—decidedly and disturbingly—a prime illustration of that dismal fact.

The post INTO THE FRAY: The "emirates" plan – A political train wreck in the making appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A recent and somewhat undiplomatic incident occurred that set the proverbial cat among the pigeons in the stately halls of government in Paris. It came in the form of an open letter in the Wall Street Journal written by Charles Kushner, US ambassador to France, expressing sharp criticism of the manner in which Emmanuel Macron has handled the burgeoning wave of antisemitism in the country.

Fueling antisemitism

Kushner, father of Donald Trump's son-in-law, warned that antisemitic incidents in France had "exploded since Hamas's barbaric assault on October 7, 2023" against the farms, villages and towns in southern Israel. Significantly, he suggested that Macron's government's criticism of Israel and his move toward recognizing a Palestinian state amid its war on Gaza had emboldened antisemitic sentiments. The US envoy warned that today, "many French Jews fear that history will repeat itself in Europe," and urged Macron to forge a "serious plan" to root out antisemitism.

The piece sparked considerable French ire and resulted in the ambassador being summoned to the Foreign Ministry for a dressing-down. However, not only did Kushner fail to comply, sending a lower-level official in his place, but he was given stout support from Washington, with the State Department spokesman doubling down on his criticisms: "We stand by his comments…Ambassador Kushner is our US government representative in France and is doing a great job advancing our national interests in that role."

Not unexpectedly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly condemned the intended initiative, warning: "Such a move rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became…A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launchpad to annihilate Israel — not to live in peace beside it." In a letter to Macron, Netanyahu charged that his call for a Palestinian state "pours fuel on this antisemitism fire"

Hamas's gleeful response

Another condemnation of the move, even more strident and arguably of greater international significance, came from US  Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who excoriated the decision in strong words on his X account. "The United States strongly rejects @EmmanuelMacron's plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the @UNgeneral assembly. This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th."

The French rejected the accusations, claiming that any suggestion that French plans to recognize a Palestinian state explained a rise in antisemitic violence was "erroneous" and "abject."

Proof to the contrary, however, soon appeared in the form of the glee with which the virulently antisemitic Hamas embraced the measure. Indeed, as if to expunge any doubt as to the prudence (or lack thereof) of the initiative came the warm commendation from the Islamist terror group, welcoming Macron's decision, and praising it as "a positive step in the right direction" while urging all countries of the world "to follow France's lead".

Atrocities in Algeria; iniquities in Indo-China

Of course, France is hardly in a position to claim any moral high ground on the issue of granting independence to territories under its control.

Thus, for example, the 1954-1962 Algerian War of Independence, during which France deployed around half a million counter-insurgency troops, who engaged in systematic torture of Algerians, summary executions, abductions and collective punishment, including forced relocation of about 2 million Algerians and the destruction of thousands of villages. The overall toll of Paris's attempt to stifle Algerian independence was 200-400,000 civilian deaths.

Indeed, prior to being elected president (2017), , Macron admitted that French actions in Algeria constituted a"crime against humanity", yet after his election, with the same brazen hypocrisy he displayed in his attitude toward the Jewish State, he refused point-blank to apologize for the atrocities perpetrated in Algeria, stating:  "It's [an apology] not relevant, and the word [forgive] would break all bonds."

A similar display of French colonial brutality manifested itself in Indo-China—today Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, particularly the First Indochina War (1946–1954). France's rule in this region was marked not just by gross colonial exploitation but also by severe repression and savage atrocities. Although reliable figures for the number of total civilian deaths are difficult to come by, due in no small measure to the desire of the French to conceal/minimize the true numbers—but there is little doubt they run into the hundreds of thousands, with some estimates as high as 800,000.

France's residual colonial reflex

Even today, France clings doggedly to its overseas possessions, such as its Pacific Islands territory of New Caledonia. It has employed a variety of "dodgy" measures to ensure Paris's hold over these remote islands—among other things, to retain control over their rich nickel deposits. These include marginalization of the indigenous, pro-independence Kanak population, New Caledonia's largest ethnic group, as well as impeding the strong demand for independence, by manipulating the demographic composition of the population and the results of referenda on the independence issue, as well as intimidation by means of a military presence.

By coercively strangling the desire for independence, France could well drive the Kanak population to desperate measures, which might well lead to the rekindling of the violence that took place over this issue in the 1980s.

So, in light of France's dismal colonial history across the globe, from North Africa through East Asia to Oceania, it is hardly in a position to pontificate to Israel over Gaza. Indeed, it has a feeble claim to any high moral ground—especially in light of the fact that its action may well fan the flames of antisemitism threatening to engulf France.

After all, as opposed to its own colonial action aimed at holding on to its territories abroad, Israel had already handed over Gaza for the self-rule of the local population, who, instead of seizing the opportunity to develop the enclave, used it as an opportunity to amass a deadly arsenal, and as a platform, from which to launch a lethal assault against the Jewish state.

The post INTO THE FRAY: Malevolent Macron has no claim to the moral high ground appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

…this concept [of multi-culturalism] has failed, and failed utterly—Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, 2010

Winds of change are finally beginning to blow in Europe.

With them, they carry potential implications not only for the European continent itself but for Israel and the wider Middle East—as well as for relations with Washington, particularly with the current Trump administration.

A stiffening of political will?

A clear indication of the stiffening of political will was reflected in a recent conference held in Vienna.

Under the auspices of former Austrian Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian, and with the participation of Members of European Parliament from Germany, Holland, and Belgium, as well as prominent guests of honor from across the continent—including France, Hungary and the UK, the conference focused on "Peace, Freedom, and Security."

Billed as "The Vienna Conference of European Patriots", it evinced the ominous banner, "Europe on the Brink – Between Self-Denial, Islamism, and Geopolitical Irrelevance", reflecting the sense of concern that prevailed at the event. Speakers warned that what once was celebrated as "multicultural open-mindedness" is increasingly proving to be myopic political naivety. Several speakers expressed alarm at what they perceived as an "urgent threat"—i.e., the looming spectre of a steadily creeping transformation of European social order into "Islamist authoritarianism". The overall sentiment was that the real threat menacing Europe today is not an external one, but more an internal one—eroding the very core of European society.

A threat to national cohesion

This perception dovetails well with the perturbing findings of a government-commissioned probe into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in France. The report warns that "The Muslim Brotherhood movement is a "threat to national cohesion" in France and action must be taken to stop the spread of "political Islamism."

Indeed, there was particular disapproval of France, which, it will be recalled, granted the Ayatollah Khomeini political asylum. It was here that he spent his last months in exile under the benign neglect of the French authorities, before returning triumphantly to Iran, where hordes of his devotees, inflamed by his corrosive credo, swept the radical Islamists to power, later to be "exported" globally.

Moreover, along with a considerable body of expert opinion, blame was also attributed, in large measure, to France for the turmoil in Libya and the overthrow of a then much chastened Gaddafi. Paris's rash haste in siding with the rebels precipitated the current chaos and subsequent flow of migrants into the EU. According to one 2020 study of events in Libya, "Paris soon became the most intransigent power in international efforts to foster negotiations between the Gadhafi regime and the leadership of the revolutionaries…The result of this policy is clearly visible: What has ensued is almost ten years of conflict and social distress.

Significantly, the failure of the current French administration, under Emmanuel Macron, to control the still ongoing tide of Muslim migrants and their overflow across the Channel into the UK has earned the ire of his British neighbors, even eliciting calls for his recent—and unduly ostentatious—state visit to be cancelled.

Flaccid France

Indeed, at the Vienna conference, Macron was taken severely to task for blunders at home and abroad.

Indeed, the French daily, Le Monde, recently outlined the pervasive domestic strife afflicting the country: "There is a rise in bankruptcies and restructuring plans, alongside calls for strikes at Air France, the national rail company …and within the civil service. Additionally, a new wave of unrest is spreading among farmers. [with] this unrest, stemming from economic difficulties and budgetary austerity measures".

Yet, with the home-front in turmoil, Macron chose to commit his foreign policy to what is increasingly becoming a forlorn anachronism–a Palestinian state—and one likely to place him in direct confrontation with an increasingly assertive and proactive Trump administration. Moreover, in view of the appalling atrocities of October 7, together with the overwhelming support they received from the Palestinian public, both in Gaza and the West Bank, this policy would be an unconscionable reward for blood-curdling terror. As such, it is not only practically unfeasible, but morally bankrupt as well.

In contrast to the censure of the flaccid EU policy, there was praise for both Israel and the Trump administration. Israel was lauded for conveying a clear message with its resolute military action and pinpoint intelligence that left the Iranian nuclear program largely in ruins. Likewise, President Trump was commended for launching his B-2 bunker-busting bombs and Tomahawk missile strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities in support of Israel's action, and for laying the foundation for a restructured Mid-East via the "Abraham Accords.

A new European assertiveness

There are accumulating signs of a new political assertiveness and a growing appreciation of Israeli resolve to resist, and stare down what, until recently, seemed to be intimidating radical Islamist threats. With it, a grudging appreciation of Donald Trump may also be emerging, together with a budding acknowledgement of the efficacy of his tough stance on issues his predecessors eschewed. Hopefully, the recent Vienna conference is a sign that the edifice of Europe's socio-cultural heritage can still be salvaged.

The post INTO THE FRAY: Europe veers right towards Israel and Trump? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

 A war concluded, not resolved

In this regard, it should be clear to any sober observer that the current Iranian regime cannot ever agree to genuinely forgo its pursuit of nuclear weapons—even if it does so temporarily, in the short run, as a survival tactic. After all, for the last quarter century, it has been the flagship enterprise of the regime.

Accordingly, abandoning its nuclear ambitions now, under duress, will be indelible proof of error, failure, and worse, of weakness. Clearly, for a regime that rules solely on the basis of might, this is an unacceptable situation, tolerable only as a transitory deception.

Indeed, in a recent paper entitled The Israel–Iran War: Concluded but not Resolved, a well-known research institute cautioned: "…Iran is expected to portray the battle as a success, regardless of its military outcomes" and pondered "… whether Israel's gains can be preserved through diplomatic arrangements, or whether it will need to enforce them militarily."

Adding to this concern are numerous reports that the aerial bombardment of Tehran's nuclear installations may have been less devastating than originally thought—raising the specter of a resurgent Iranian nuclear program.

A tapestry of ethnicities

This is the reason that regime change must be a minimal imperative for Israel at the end of the hostilities—which are likely only to delay, not eradicate, the perils that precipitated the recent conflict.

It is because of this that, to ensure the permanent defanging of Iran, Israel must aspire to a goal beyond regime change. It must focus its efforts on inducing the disintegration of the country in its present configuration into several self-governing ethnic entities—principally non-Persian ones.

It is important to note that Iran's population is far from monolithic. To the contrary, it is a heterogeneous mixture of diverse ethnicities, almost equally divided between Persians (50-60%) and non-Persians. Thus, as a recent publication by the MEMRI research institute points out, the overall population comprises- among others - Kurds in the west, Baloch in the southeast, Ahwazi Arabs in the south, Azeris in the northwest, and Turkmen in the northeast. Other groups include the Lurs and the Lak people.

Conditions ripe for secession?

As the MEMRI document points out, there have been tensions between Tehran and the more remote ethnicities, who have suffered varying degrees of oppression for decades. Among their grievances are: Having no rights to speak their language, no political power, and often being targeted with violence by the central regime. All this enhances their motivation for resistance. Moreover, as they typically live in the border regions, this makes it easier for them to conduct contacts with neighboring countries and challenge Tehran's control. Harboring a sense of betrayal at the hands of both the Ayatollahs and the Shah, they have a deep distrust of central authority emanating from Tehran.

Clearly, these are conditions ripe not only for insurrection but for possible secession, particularly as the Iranian military has been significantly weakened.

This is something Israel—and hopefully the US—must seize on, employing covert subversive tactics, presumably by means of the Mossad, CIA, and perhaps other Western intelligence agencies.

Israel cannot rely solely on regime change to ensure its post-war security, for at least two reasons.

The first relates to what the successor regime might be, with no guarantee that it will be at all amicable towards the Jewish state, particularly given the widespread negative view of Israel prevailing in large segments of the Iranian public.

The second relates to the uncertainty of the fate of any successor regime, no matter how benign, and the possibility of it itself being overthrown by some other regime, which might well be far more malevolent than its deposed predecessor.

Accordingly, in order to address these unknowns, Israel must go beyond the goal of regime change. Instead, it must aspire for Iran to be dismantled into separate self-governing ethnic entities to ensure that, in the future, it will not become the grave menace that it was in the past.

Dr. Martin Sherman spent seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli defense establishment. He's the founder of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a member of the Habithonistim-Israel Defense & Security Forum (IDSF) research team, and a participant in the Israel Victory Project. 

The post INTO THE FRAY: Iran- State disintegration, not regime change appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Deserved disdain

Trump ridiculed Macron's assessment of the reasons for his abrupt departure. According to Macron, this was to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel, hinting that this would entail US pressure on Israel. Trump scornfully dismissed Macron's statement: "Publicity‑seeking President Emmanuel Macron of France mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit…to work on a 'cease fire' between Israel and Iran…Wrong!" and jeered: "Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong…"

The disdain evident in Trump's reaction has been well-earned by Macron due to dubious shenanigans over recent years, raising grave doubts regarding his intentions, competence, and motivation. Indeed, one historian, cited in the New York Times, dismissed him as "… neither consequential nor coherent."

In previous articles, I pointed to his shady dealings with Hezbollah affiliates and his veering away from mainstream Western foreign policy in an apparent attempt to find favor with a growing Muslim segment in the French electorate. Indeed, Macron has also been a leading figure in promoting an arms embargo against an embattled Israel, locked in a mortal, multi-front battle against the forces of Islamic terror. In an uncalled-for admonition, Macron had the brazen gall to accuse Israel of "sowing barbarism" in its struggle to repel the naked barbarism of its enemies.

Gallic gall

France has also been leading the push for a Palestinian state, and until recently, was supposed to co-chair a UN conference this month aimed at advancing the goal of Palestinian statehood. Not only would this profoundly undermine Israeli security, but, in the wake of the October 7^th massacre, it would have constituted a resounding reward for terror and barbarism. Indeed, the Trump administration strongly disapproved of the move, discouraging other governments from attending the conference and reportedly warning that any "anti-Israel actions" taken after the conference could be followed by diplomatic consequences from Washington.

Fortunately, the conference has been delayed due to Israel's preemptive strikes in Iran.

But the catalogue of Paris's ill-founded malevolence goes on to include the latest act of Gallic gall—the puerile decision to obstruct the view of some Israeli weapon systems at the country's pavilion at the Paris Air Show at Le Bourget by means of black boards. This comes in the wake of two earlier (illegal) attempts last year to preclude Israeli participation in high-profile French arms exhibitions (Eurosatry, and Euronaval). This latest move was aimed particularly at offensive systems which have been used with great effect around the world.

Money, not moral

sInformed sources suggested that the latest anti-Israeli obstructionist measures were not motivated by high-minded concern spurred by the alleged misuse of Israeli weapons but by purely commercial ones, designed to prevent Israel from displaying superior merchandise competing with French-produced systems. Indeed, the French military industry recently took a hit after French-manufactured Rafale jets were reportedly outperformed by Chinese J-10Cs in a recent Indian-Pakistani aerial engagement in Kashmir, which negatively impacted share prices of major French armaments corporations.

Paradoxically—and perhaps predictably—Israel radio reported that the latest French measure succeeded only in piquing the interest of potential purchasers.

Of course, when it comes to humanitarian concerns, France has little room to claim the moral high ground given its brutal record in its former colonies from Indo-China, through Oceania to Central and North-West Africa, where even today the post-independence governments are chafing at the bit to rid themselves of lingering French dominance and military presence.

Pathetic pandering

This leaves the troubling question as to what prompted this poorly timed display of animus by France. According to some sources, at least part of the answer may lie in a recent report, initiated by the French government, that warned that the rapidly growing Muslim influence is becoming a national threat. These sources suggest that by Paris's newly accentuated pro-Palestinian pivot, Macron is hoping not only to curry favor with, but also placate—this increasingly influential Islamic constituency.

It is indeed disheartening to witness French kowtowing to the same dark forces that barely a decade ago perpetrated acts of barbaric slaughter on the streets of Paris (Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan), preferring instead to sanction the very country, that more than any other, has acted to confront and contain the scourge menacing both nations.

Martin Sherman spent seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli defense establishment. He is the founder of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a member of the Habithonistim-Israel Defense & Security Forum (IDSF) research team, and a participant in the Israel Victory Project.

The post INTO THE FRAY: Emmanuel the Egregious appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel is on the brink of civil war. An irreconcilable rift is beginning to open up between rival segments of Israeli society, which no amount of unilateral goodwill can amicably bridge. The tectonic fault lines, threatening to split the nation's societal fabric asunder, center on Benjamin Netanyahu's tenacious hold on power, despite multiple attempts to pry it loose.

Weaponizing the legal system

Having seemingly despaired of the possibility of defeating him at the polls, his adversaries have turned—more clumsily than not—to weaponising the legal system as a means of realizing their political goals.

This precipitated the maladroitly concocted indictments against Netanyahu, in which. whenever a prosecution witness took the stand, his/her testimony ended up strengthening the defense!!! Indeed, after hearing the prosecution's case, the judges (even before the testimony of any defense witness), in a rare moment of judicial lucidity, warned the prosecutors that they had not made their case on the corruption charges against Netanyahu, and suggested they be dropped. The suggestion was obdurately ignored, apparently in the desperate hope that the defense witnesses would provide the proof that the prosecution witnesses failed to do. Go figure!

Thus, goaded by their incandescent anti-Bibi enmity, the people, who have done the most to erode public trust in the legal system in general and the judiciary in particular, are the jurists in general and the Justices in particular. Nothing could underscore this more than the recent High Court decision regarding the dismissal of Ronen Bar, the current head of Israel's Internal Security Service (ISS, widely known as the Shabak). Indeed, it was so patently absurd as to make it almost comical. As an unvarnished attempt to smother common sense with legalistic gobbledygook, it made a caricature of the judicial process.

Undisputed failure insufficient grounds for dismissal?

Arguably, the most ludicrous element in the verdict was the assertion that there was not "an adequate factual foundation" for the dismissal. This is an astounding claim, itself devoid of any "factual foundation". Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of anything more counterfactual. After all, what could comprise a more valid factual foundation for Bar's dismissal than his undisputed failure to give the alert over the impending Hamas assault on October 7^th, his equally abysmal failure to prepare for it and to respond to it adequately once it occurred? In fact, if the government is to be faulted over the Bar's removal, it should be over why it took so long to do so.

Likewise, the court's assertion that the PM could not be involved in the dismissal decision since he was in a position of a "conflict of interest"—because two associates of his were being investigated on flimsy charges of having illicit dealings with Qatar, makes little sense.  Unless, of course, the intention is to pave the way for disqualifying the PM from future decisions.  For, the clear significance of this verdict is that all it takes to preclude the PM from taking part in any future decisions, is to implicate some of his associates—even on the most implausible grounds—in a trumped-up investigation expressly designed for that very purpose.

The onset of dystopia?

Interestingly, the clear—and erroneous—implication of the court's ruling is that ongoing Shabak investigations come to a shuddering halt whenever the Director's term ends, and a successor is appointed. Otherwise, why would any successor be presumed to pursue suspicions of Qatar-related malfeasance less vigorously than the current Director? Indeed, given his past failures, why would the current Director be considered essential to the Qatar investigation—unless his overt anti-Netanyahu proclivities are deemed an overriding consideration??

Sadly, it appears that enmity towards Netanyahu has pushed his antagonists to the brink of insanity and, in some cases, arguably beyond. Likewise, it has propelled Israeli society to the brink of a dystopian reality, and in some cases, arguably beyond.

Thus, enraged and exasperated by Netanyahu's remarkable ability to withstand their continued and concerted efforts to remove him from office, his adversaries—including former PMs, defense ministers, IDF Chiefs-of-Staff, heads of intelligence services—have committed acts of unmistakable sedition and treason, openly urging members of the military not to serve—thereby conveying a message of national disarray and division, emboldening the country's enemies, bent on its destruction.

With regard to the onset of dystopia, it should be noted that what once was the socio-political divide between Left and Right in Israel has been largely replaced by a schism, separating the fervent anti-Bibi zealots from those who are not. Although these dividing lines are not identical, they do largely overlie and overlap each other. Accordingly, keeping this minor discrepancy in mind, I will, for the sake of semantic convenience, retain referring to the rivalrous factions as "Left" and "Right."

Rift unbridgeable by rational reasoning

With this methodological/linguistic caveat behind us, it is important to note that those on the "Right" generally seem unable to gauge the depth and intensity of the hostility and opprobrium their political rivals on the "Left" feel for them. Naively, those on the "Right" believe that what separates them from their countrymen on the "Left" is a difference of opinion (albeit profound) that, potentially, can be bridged (albeit with difficulty).

Sadly, this is not the case.

The rupture is not one that can be bridged by rational reasoning or argument—not even by bitter experience that unequivocally demonstrates how unfounded their positions are.   Indeed, to a large degree, many on the "Left" do not have an opinion as such, but rather an ambition, and to fulfill that ambition, they are willing to adopt any opinion—as well as its diametric opposite—so long as it can be used to malign their opponents on the "Right".

Thus, as the socio-political agenda of the "Left" gradually drifted further and further away from the harsh realities of the Middle East, its electoral constituency shrank accordingly. However, this was not something the "Left" found particularly perturbing. For as long as they controlled the judiciary (and to a lesser degree, the mainstream media), they still could determine much of the tenor of the socio-political realities prevailing in the country.

Understanding the "Left's" incandescent fury

This is the reason for the near apoplectic reaction to the attempted judicial reform in early 2023—particularly the system of appointing judges. For, this directly impacted the epicenter of the "Left's" power.  Thus, given its diminishing electoral appeal and the unlikely prospect of it ever regaining power via the ballot box, the "Left" responded with a combination of horror and fury that drove it to unprecedented extremes—including reinventing, even inverting, the use of language, which exposed its true beliefs regarding the imperatives of political life in Israel.

Accordingly, as soon as then-newly elected Justice Minister Yariv Levin presented his initiative to the public, they immediately branded it as a "Revolution", a term usually reserved for extra-parliamentary opposition to an incumbent government, not to policy proposals from such governments, particularly lawfully elected ones. Indeed, the use of the term seems to indicate that they believe that the "Left" is the truly ordained leader of the country, and the incumbent government is merely an impudent usurper, swept to unmerited positions of power by unworthy "plebs", otherwise known as "Bibists" (reminiscent of "Baboons"?)

Thus, in their eyes, the judicial reform is an insufferable challenge to the established order and to the true ruling class—hence a "revolution".

Borderline sedition

Furthermore, the reform's proposal, that decisions should be transferred from unelected, unaccountable forums to elected, accountable forums, makes the "Left's" accusation that the measure is somehow "undemocratic", manifestly ridiculous. After all, is palpably absurd to claim that a system, in which a narrow, unelected forum of around a dozen appointed officials, with no accountability to the public, has the ultimate authority on matters of vital national importance, is more democratic than one, in which that authority is vested in the hands of over 60 elected parliamentarians, regularly answerable to the public.

Accordingly, the Bibi-phobic "Left" have created a dystopian-like reality in Israel, where, just as in Orwellian Newspeak, language is manipulated and distorted to serve political purposes. Thus, words take on meaning antithetically opposite to their commonly used sense. In Orwell's 1984 dystopia, "war" was "peace"; "freedom" was "slavery" and so on.  In the emerging Israeli dystopia, "dictatorship" is "democracy"; "revolution" is "elected government policy"; "entitlement" is "patriotism"; and "sedition" is "loyalty".

Indeed, it is a sense of entitlement, not of patriotism, that drives the anti-Bibi "Left".  It reflects a selective loyalty to Israel, in which borderline sedition, purposefully undermining the nation's security, economy and international standing, is preferable to accepting the victory of political rivals.

Time to gird our loins

There is a popular belief that, in Israel, civil war is not possible because a war requires two opposing sides to participate in it, and the "Right' will always refrain from a fratricidal conflict against fellow-Jews—as was the case when Menachem Begin restrained his followers from the responding to the lethal sinking of the Altalena off the coast of Tel Aviv by forces under the left-leaning David Ben Gurion.Sadly, today this belief has been overtaken by events and is no longer valid. The gravity of the Bibi-phobic "Left's" actions is such that it can no longer be condoned. Action against them must be taken, lest the very bedrock on which the nation is founded be irreparably eroded. Indeed, it is clear that today, the "Left" is determined to prevent the government from making any significant decisions in the future—by means of torturously concocted quasi-legal impediments.  No amount of rational reasoning will be of any avail. A confrontation is both unavoidable and imperative. A line must be drawn in the sand. It must be made indelibly clear to the anti-Bibi "Left" that there are limits to political rivalry, which cannot be breached. Sedition in the guise of political dissent will not be brooked, and the State apparatus will be mobilized to confront, contain, and counteract any such instances.

Such confrontation cannot, and must not, be delayed. Leniency today will only compound the problem—and the peril—tomorrow.

Sadly, the time to gird our loins is now!

Dr. Martin Sherman spent seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli defense establishment. He's the founder of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a member of the Habithonistim-Israel Defense & Security Forum (IDSF) research team, and a participant in the Israel Victory Project.

The post INTO THE FRAY: Israel on the cusp of civil war? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Two recent media reports underscored the emerging international stature of the Caucasian republic of Azerbaijan and its ties to Israel.

The first related to the growing involvement of Azerbaijan's State Oil Company (SOCAR)  in Israel's energy sector, entailing SOCAR's first drilling operations outside of Azerbaijan.

The second related to a visit by senior Trump envoy Steve Witkoff in Azerbaijan. This took place after endorsement by both PM Netanyahu and a group of prominent rabbis. The rabbis, including the founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, urged including Azerbaijan in the Abraham Accords framework and for the bolstering of a trilateral alliance between Washington, Jerusalem, and Baku.

Significantly, some months ago, the value of such an axis was raised in a previous column of mine, and recognition of its merits, then enumerated, appears to be growing.

Background: Truth is stranger than fiction?

Arguably, one of the most fundamental traits of international relations is its inherent uncertainty. Indeed, it is a field where today's truth is often stranger than yesterday's fiction.

To illustrate the point, consider anyone, in the early 1980s, suggesting that:

• Within less than a decade-and-half, the mighty USSR would disintegrate;
• The Warsaw Pact, once a formidable alliance confronting NATO, would crumble, with some of its members even joining the ranks erstwhile foes as part of NATO;
  Then-impoverished nations, such as China and India, would become industrial and commercial powerhouses, with the former beginning to challenge America's global economic hegemony;
• There would be a massive shift of industry and commerce to Asia from the West.

Undoubtedly, any such far-sighted prophet would have been dismissed as totally out of touch with reality – if not as borderline deranged.

But that is precisely what transpired, with the world today far closer to the predictions of some outcast eccentric than that of the adherents of the then-prevailing conventional wisdom.

Burgeoning bilateral bonds

Interestingly, the breakup of the USSR gave rise to another unpredicted event of far-reaching strategic impact. This involves a burgeoning strategic axis between former Soviet republic, Azerbaijan and Israel, which for decades was locked in bitter hostility with the USSR.

The relationship between Azerbaijan and Israel began in 1992, soon after Azerbaijan attained independence from the USSR, when the two countries set up diplomatic ties. The relations continued to strengthen, and in March 2023, Baku opened its embassy in Israel, formalizing three decades of diplomatic ties between the countries.

Since the 1990s, Azerbaijan has played a considerable role in bolstering Israel's security and enhancing its access to energy. Baku reportedly supplies up to 60% of Israel's gasoline consumption. Additionally, both countries maintain strong cooperation in defense, intelligence, and trade.

During the 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict, Azerbaijan was reportedly the only Muslim-majority country supporting Israel. Despite pressure from other Islamic nations, the Azerbaijani leadership maintained its strategic partnership with the Jewish state. Indeed, after the October 7 attacks, Azerbaijan citizens gathered around the Israeli Embassy in Baku, expressing support and sympathy with flowers and memorial candles.

Azerbaijan and the Jews: Warm external and benign internal relations

Azerbaijan's warm relations with the Jewish state are mirrored in a generally benign relationship with its Jewish community in the country. Israel's Ambassador to Baku recently remarked: "Jews in Azerbaijan have lived in harmony and tolerance with the rest of society for centuries." Indeed, at a recent special session of US Congress, the rabbi of Baku's Sephardic community declared that "Jews in Azerbaijan have never encountered anti-Semitism. The government considers any threat to Jews as a threat to national stability". He went on to emphasize that in Azerbaijan, Jews can walk the streets freely, displaying their Jewishness without fear.

Just prior to the murderous October 7^th attack, an article, based on an earlier interview with Israel's ambassador, noted that Azerbaijan is home to the largest Jewish community in the Muslim-majority world, and a bastion of safety for Jews, with hardly any sign of antisemitism. As opposed to numerous other countries--even in the West--there is no need for security details at synagogues and Jewish schools.

Augmenting the Abraham Accords

In light of the foregoing analysis, it is hardly surprising that a growing number of voices are calling for widening the framework of the Abraham Accords to include Azerbaijan. Indeed, it is not easy to identify any persuasive argument to oppose such a proposal.

After all, as a recent Forbes article observed: "The Abraham Accords, the normalization of relations between Israel and several majority Muslim states, [were] the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of Donald J. Trump's first administration. As his second term takes off, the president has made it clear that his administration will seek an expansion of this groundbreaking framework."It continues: "One Muslim-majority country that already has a longstanding partnership with Israel and is an obvious candidate to join the Accords framework is Azerbaijan ".

In similar vein, an Atlantic Council piece urged adjoining Azerbaijan to the Abraham Accords, even proposing holding an Abraham Accords summit in Baku.

It concludes, stating: "Should the United States take the same approach as Israel and deepen its diplomatic, economic, and security ties with Azerbaijan, it may reap similar geopolitical rewards."

Of course, should such an initiative bear fruit, it would comprise a daunting—even ominous development for Iran, a menacing common adversary not only for the US, Azerbaijan, Israel, but also for other members of the Abraham Accords—especially in the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula.

Archetypal positive-sum game

In recent decades, it is fair to state that Israel's foreign policy has—to be charitable—been often defective. But when it comes to the decision to initiate and cultivate the relationship with Azerbaijan, Israel's policy makers must be commended for laudable foresight and the formulation of what is emerging as an archetypal positive sum game for all involved.

The post INTO THE FRAY: Azerbaijan - Augmenting the Abraham Accords appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.