Israel's current Guardian of the Walls campaign against Gaza-based terrorists has elicited calls for a decisive victory, which would then act as a serious deterrent to further rocket and incendiary balloon attacks on Israel.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

On the face of it, this makes sense. It's clear that deterrence should replace the policy of conflict management/containment which not only has failed, but has empowered Hamas.

As Israel comes under increasing pressure to implement yet another ceasefire, Hamas will agree to it – for now – having lost the war with substantial infrastructural damage, dead terrorists and civilian suffering, yet claiming victory.

As in previous wars, they will soon violate the ceasefire by relatively small provocations such as with the odd rocket and incendiary balloon attacks. Israel will then respond with a shrug and gesture of hitting an empty Hamas observation post.

In the Western way of thinking, the damage that Hamas and Gaza has suffered should act as a deterrent. However the concept of deterrence has a cultural component which seemingly has not been taken into much consideration.

Decades ago, al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden explained the Islamist way of thinking namely, "you love life, we love death," which suggests that the more Hamas suffers losses, the more they and their followers believe that they have triumphed.

This paradoxical situation necessitates a review of what victory and deterrence actually mean in the Hamas (and their fellow travellers) context. Part of their sense of triumph will be by reinforcing their victim status to a sympathetic international community as "humanitarian" aid starts pouring in from Arab and European countries. And so back to square one.

This does not mean that Israel must let up on displays of effective military prowess. On the contrary, Israel must demonstrate to observers, including adversaries like Iran and its allies, strategic partners like the Gulf states and regional allies such as Greece, that Israel is a formidable power that will not hesitate to act in its national sovereign interest.

However with the likes of Hamas, a decisive military victory must be a point of departure, not an end in itself. For a culture that glorifies death, martyrdom and populist spin, more needs to be done to achieve deterrence. Normal Western-type indicators of loss and a willingness to agree to genuine peace must go beyond being militarily overwhelmed. As previous conflicts have shown, these norms do not totally apply in conflicts with Hamas and other Islamist terror organizations.

The damage that Hamas and Gaza have suffered has therefore become its "red badge of courage," and will embolden it to be both victim and heroic martyr, claiming victory. This is not a recipe for deterrence but a recipe for planning the next conflict.

Israel should therefore make demands that circumvent Hamas spin, propaganda and the reframing of reality as a "victory."

The first demand would surely be that bombing Gaza and liquidating its leaders would not stop until Israel's dead and live citizens held captive are released. Hamas would lose a key bargaining chip and loss of face as morale in Israel would be boosted. Further appropriate demands and measures over and above military actions would follow.

In this way, deterrence based on cultural factors such as humiliation and helplessness could be more effective and curtail the emboldened confidence that Hamas portrays. For deterrence to be effective, it needs to be fine-tuned and address cultural factors, including Hamas delusions of grandeur, misplaced spin of martyrdom, and sense of victory.

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

The post What does deterrence actually mean? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

When World War I ended, world leaders were determined that this horrific event leaving countless families traumatized, would never be repeated. The Treaty of Versailles was meant to affirm that this destructive war would be the war to end all wars.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Accordingly in May 1920, Germany was compelled to not only disband its air force but strictly forbidden from having any air force whatsoever. Germany's signature was underpinned by inspections carried out by the IACC (Inter-Allied Control Commission.) Despite all these "guarantees" that Germany would comply, Germany immediately embarked on a process of deceit and deception. Gliding and flying clubs sprang up, training pilots mostly in secret.

Dutch airplane manufacturer Anthony Fokker circumvented sanctions and the terms of the Versailles restrictions by hiding airplanes in barns throughout the German countryside. Germany continued R&D on Fokker airplanes which should have been terminated/destroyed under the Versailles Treaty. Some airplane frames were used as decoys to satisfy IACC inspections. These inspectors mostly chased up redundant pre-war facilities and unsubstantiated rumors. In other words, the IACC "inspections" were deceptively reassuring but in practical terms, meaningless. Germany cheated plain and simple.

Britain nevertheless became concerned at Germany's apparent rearmament and scheduled a meeting with Germany in March 1935. Despite these concerns, prime minister Stanley Baldwin reassured Britons that they were secure. The meeting never took place as Hitler said he could not attend as he had a cold. Soon afterward, Germany announced it had rebuilt its army and air force boasting that both were superior to Britain's. Germany illegally reoccupied the Rhineland and tested its new air force by bombing Guernica in Spain, April 1937.

During those years an emerging scientist Wernher von Braun, would later join the SS, and oversee the development of the V-2 rocket designed to hit London, killing about 5000 civilians. He used thousands of slave laborers, about 20,000 of whom died under horrific conditions. Von Braun was both a scientist and SS officer admired by Hitler and Himmler. Science was the means linked to an evil end.

Like the earlier IACC in Germany, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 was intended to curtail Iran's determination to develop nuclear weapons. Its serious flaws were whitewashed by the signatories (ironically not signed by Iran) and like pre-World War II Germany, Iran embarked on a process of deception and deceit, insisting that its R&D was for peaceful purposes such as medical isotopes. Inspectors were barred from uranium enrichment sites the Iranians deemed out of bounds. Research facilities have been hidden and protected deep underground despite their purported "peaceful intentions."

Iran has also openly exceeded the amount of low enriched uranium as well as its purity level permitted under the JCPOA. Not dissimilar to its lethargy in the face of Germany's gross violations of the Versailles rearmament restrictions, Europe appears now to be more motivated by the prospect of lucrative deals with Iran than concern about the machinations and intent of this rogue nation. It turns a blind eye to the obviously malicious intentions of Iran that not only is determined to obtain a nuclear bomb, but also aggressively involved with terrorism in various parts of the world including Europe.

While von Braun joined the Nazi Party in 1937 aged 25, seven months after Germany bombed Guernica, and became an SS officer three years later, Iran's foremost nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps( IRGC) aged 21. Central to his career in the IRGC which has been designated a terrorist organization, Brig. General Fakhrizadeh was closely associated with overseeing the development of a nuclear device and was invited to observe the North Korean nuclear bomb test in 2013. Fakhrizadeh was a military man advancing nuclear physics for evil intent only.

His recent assassination elicited misplaced hypocritical outrage from the European Union's foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell, "forgetting" that he was primarily an IRGC Brig. General and not merely an "Iranian government official," as he asserted. British Foreign Secretary Raab condemned the assassination by stating "we stick to the rule of humanitarian international law which is very clear against targeting civilians." Brig. General Fakhridazeh's goal was the destruction of Israel and to threaten Europe, the Middle East and South America with its terror network. For him and his IRGC, it was little else.

Borrell and Raab's misguided outrage appeared more vociferous than reactions to Iran's deceit and openly provocative breaches of the JCPOA terms let alone its terrorist proxies around the world.

Raab is a Brexiteer and argued that there was too much corruption in the EU. Nevertheless, by referring to Brig. General Fakhrizadeh as a civilian, Raab indicates he is part of Europe's problem.

Borrell from Spain and Raab from the UK would do well to read up on their own national and European history and draw some obvious conclusions.

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

The post Is Europe ignoring its own history? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The synagogue shooting followed days after a knife-wielding Syrian tried to enter Berlin's Neue Synagogue. Elsewhere a brick was thrown at the head of a Hebrew-speaking woman. Two rabbis were also recently assaulted, exacerbating Germany's embarrassment.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Unfortunately, "more security" is not a policy but a Band-Aid measure. Paradoxically it reinforces the perception that Jews are peripheral to German society, which I have written about previously.

More security for synagogues, while essential, raises the question of whether Jews can really be part of mainstream Germany. More security means more of a fortress type of community defined by fear.

Additionally, German authorities have advised Jews to publicly hide their identities, avoiding wearing Star of David necklaces, affixing mezuzot inside doorposts, etc.

Jewish communities were recorded living along the Rhine nearly 2,000 years ago in relative harmony. As pagan Germanic tribes gradually adopted Christianity from the fifth to the eighth century, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories that encouraged violence and massacres ensued, especially in the 11th century. These theories, including accusations of well poisoning and causing the Black Death, became so entrenched in the folklore and national narrative that they even transcended the ideals of the Enlightenment that swept across Europe. Rational thought and scientific progress that were central to the Enlightenment did not change the deeply embedded anti-Semitic attitudes. The fact that Jews in Germany were exemplary citizens, later winning some 20% of Germany's Nobel prizes though less than 0.75% of its population, indicates that anti-Semitism was very deeply entrenched in the culture.

Initially, post-Holocaust Germany somewhat muted its overt anti-Semitism, but over the last two decades, anti-Semites became emboldened, with former taboos swept aside.

Germany's guilt about the Holocaust has been expressed in various ways, such as building synagogues, but Germany also projected its guilt onto Israel, which takes the traditional role of the Jew for today's Germany.

It is therefore puzzling that despite a minuscule Jewish population of about 100,000 in a country of 82 million, German government figures indicate that 40% of Germans espouse anti-Semitic attitudes, and the numbers continue to rise.

Management of anti-Semitism has never been effective. Measures such as more security and banning Nazi salutes do not change attitudes, which are the crux of the problem. New creative ways to ensure eradication need to be considered. "More security" needs to be the point of departure, not the destination.

What is needed are bold creative ways to set a new path that will change attitudes. Some initiatives that could be considered that reflect Germany's unique position in Jewish history:

1. German schools must introduce compulsory introductory courses explaining Jewish history and culture with special reference of contributions to Germany.
2. Hebrew, a classical language, should join the two other classical languages, Latin and Greek, offered at universities.
3. The basics of Jewish festivals should be explained. Some, like Tu B'shevat (the new year of the trees) resonate strongly with the current concern for saving the environment.
4. Churches need to teach children and adults that replacement theology in any form is not the Christian dogma of the present time. Churches must clarify without ambiguity that such theology has been the basis of pogroms, expulsions, conspiracy theories, and discrimination and has no place in today's Germany.
5. Schoolchildren need to learn that Jesus was a practicing Jew and the popular curse word "Jew" actually profanes Jesus, which is unchristian.
6. The history and development of Israel need to be taught with special reference to its legal, historical and moral foundations.
7. Community involvement including public participation at festivals such as Sukkot and Hanukah should be encouraged. Just days ago, I saw a police station in Australia with a big sign on the pavement: "Wishing you l'shanah tovah [a good new year] 5780 and well over the [Yom Kippur] fast!" Walking past two policewomen, they smiled and wished me a happy new year. Why not in Germany?

A bold initiative that goes beyond "more security" is urgently required if Germany wishes to seriously take the lead in reversing anti-Semitism in Europe. Jews also need to be cautious about not defining themselves in terms of anti-Semitism.

This would involve community and religious leaders, educators, anthropologists, sociologists, social psychologists, and others to formulate a workable roadmap that would finally reverse the ongoing trends. Instead of grim-faced German political leaders time and again expressing shame at the latest anti-Semitic assaults, let them express delight with Jews at a Shabbat dinner, dipping apples in honey for the new year, or enjoying a meal in a sukkah.

Thinking outside the box is now urgently required to stem the tide.

Would such initiatives take time? Yes. Are they doable? Yes. Is there political will to eradicate, not manage, anti-Semitism? Perhaps.

The post Overcoming German anti-Semitism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

This ignores the fact that Palestinian claims to the eastern portion of Jerusalem are at best spurious. Jerusalem was never a Palestinian capital, and when given the chance to establish a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital between 1948 and 1967, neither the Palestinians nor their Jordanian occupiers did so.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry responded that Canberra's announcement was "a step in the right direction."

There may be doubt as to whether this really would be a step in the right direction, given that the direction may be down the road to hell, as often happened in the past.

In 1983, South Africa's apartheid government established a new tricameral parliamentary system that comprised separately elected mixed-race "coloured," Indian, and white houses of parliament into the legislature. Black South Africans were not included in this arrangement. In reality, this arrangement was a farce designed to "reform" apartheid or "separate development." Many saw this as "a step in the right direction." Of course, apartheid could not be reformed, only abolished, no matter how it was dressed up. It remained just that: apartheid.

While there is no connection between apartheid South Africa and Israel, whose Arab citizens enjoy full human and civil rights, the notion of "a step in the right direction" can be ill-conceived.

At the time, most opponents of apartheid maintained that the tricameral parliament was "a step in the right direction." From zero representation to limited representation in a separate parliament seemed a good idea. It was better than nothing, as many well-meaning people thought. Over 66% of white South Africans thus voted for this in the referendum. In fact, it brought about more violence and hastened the end of apartheid.

What people failed to see was that the tricameral system further alienated black South Africans. Further, hopes and expectations ran higher than what the reality could absorb. A lesson from history that revolutions sometimes occur when conditions and people's lives actually improve (such as in France and Russia) was lost on those with a linear view of the world.  Well-meaning decisions could in fact boomerang.

Australia's recognition of "West Jerusalem" may therefore not be a step in the right direction as it entrenches the idea of divided cities, such as Berlin and Belfast, that never worked in the past. In addition, it inappropriately imposes a solution rather than leaving the parties to decide the outcome themselves.

By linking recognition of Israel's capital to a Palestinian capital in the same city, Australia unwittingly endorsed a situation that could exacerbate violence. Surely Morrison would know that when "East Jerusalem" was under Arab control for 19 years, there was no freedom of worship for Jews, regardless whether they were Swedes, Swiss or South Africans, let alone Israelis. He would also surely know that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated that Jews "with their filthy feet" would not be allowed to worship on the Temple Mount. The PA and its supporters in the international community regularly deny any historical Jewish connection to Jerusalem – a denial that Australia, to its credit, consistently votes against. Morrison also knows the PA pays "martyrs" to kill Jews regardless of whether the victims live in east Jerusalem, west Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

No doubt, Morrison was trying to please everyone with "balance" but in fact formulated a poorly considered policy that similarly did nothing to diminish Arab violence even after the Oslo Agreement of 1993 – if anything, it actually increased. Oslo was also meant to be a step in the right direction, but resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands of Israelis through Arab terror.

By advocating a "West and East Jerusalem" (whatever that means) as future capitals of Israel and Palestine, Morrison overstepped his role and prejudged an issue that should have been left to the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate. On the other hand, his statements criticizing the U.N. mistreatment of Israel are courageous, maintaining that foreign policy should be based on moral clarity – a message that should be especially heeded by the EU countries. However, in this instance, Morrison would have better followed the American example that simply recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital while stipulating that recognition did not negate an eventual negotiated final outcome.

It is puzzling to understand what "a step in the right direction" actually means for Australia and whether prejudging a final settlement's negotiated possible outcome is wise. History shows that good intentions often result in unintended consequences.

The post A step in the right direction? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The German word "Heimat" loosely means the "homeland," but in fact encompasses more.

Heimat describes being part of a common national bond, of shared history, trust and nostalgia. It includes a sense of kinship, comfort and common purpose. It represents the physical, emotional and spiritual sanctuary of Germans regardless of status and is a feminine word that suggests nurturing, unlike "Vaterland," which implies masculine power.

Heimat, since Martin Luther, gave Germans a sense of belonging and identity with regard to region, dialect and country.

German Jews were often regarded as "Heimatlos" (homeless) and rootless – the wandering Jew as envisaged by church founder Augustine and reinforced by Luther.

Challenging this exclusion, Jewish educationist Kurt Tucholsky envisaged a concept of the Heimat that depicted a genuine and persistent love of the German organic space. Nonetheless, Jews, no matter how assimilated or even converted, simply did not belong.

During the Nazi era, the concept of Heimat was also defined as "blood and soil," thereby excluding any "foreigners" from this sense of belonging. The Nazis went to great lengths to detach Jews and Judaism from German history and instead promote a dejudaised Heimat consisting of a Christian national ethos that explicitly rejected Jews. As historian Alon Confino observes in "A World without Jews," Germans were determined to reshape their new identity, devoid of Judeo-Christian roots. Instead, Germans embraced an identity in which Heimat morphed into a new form of Christian-German nationalism becoming an independent entity in itself.

Most Christian clergymen in Nazi Germany embraced this idea, rationalizing that just as Luther revolted against Catholicism, so the church had to despatch of Judaism and Jews.  The 1935 Nuremberg Laws precipitated the depersonalization and dehumanization reinforcing the Heimatlos agenda that culminated in the mass destruction of Europe's Jews.

After the war, the concept of Heimat was put on the back burner.

In the early 1990s, a reunited Germany invited Jews from the former Soviet Union to immigrate to Germany. Yet, only in 2003 – a full 58 years after the fall of Nazi Germany, was Judaism raised to a legal par with Catholicism and the Lutheran Church.

The term Heimat has also made a comeback to denote something positive, namely, multicultural inclusiveness. The Alternative for Germany party uses the slogan "Unser Land, unsere Heimat" (Our country, our homeland) as a rallying cry for nationalistic cohesiveness.

Climbing on the populist bandwagon, Chancellor Merkel's government introduced a Heimatministerium (Homeland Ministry) that raised some eyebrows.

There is, however, a significant sense of paradox.

Despite the Heimat's promotion of national cohesiveness as an ideal, Merkel appointed Dr. Felix Klein to check growing anti-Semitism in Germany, which, she says, is shameful and embarrassing. Anti-Semitism does not fit in with the modern idea of Heimat.

The government has recently agreed to increase funding for security in Jewish institutions. Synagogues, schools, and kindergartens have armed guards to prevent attacks in both Germany and other European countries. Jews have also been advised by the Central Council for Jews in Germany not to wear kippot in public. Police have also advised the Jewish community not to display its logo on mail, while mezuzot should be affixed on the inside of door frames, away from the public's view.

In other words, Germany's desire to protect its Jewish citizens casts them apart from mainstream Germans. This is not what the new Heimat is meant to be.

When I asked a passerby in the street for directions to a particular synagogue, she chuckled and said, "Keep going straight till you see police cars and guards."

Recently, a visiting Jewish professor was assaulted by an Arab German shouting, "No Jews in Germany!"

The solution to the problem of protecting Jews has in itself created another problem that is incompatible with the idea of Heimat.

The irony is that the word "Hebrew" means "from the other side, the other," which is how Jews are seen in the Heimat.

While security is essential, Klein must surely realize that more security is a band-aid measure. Indeed, the highly visible guards are a social version of wearing a Star of David. Moreover, education that focusses on the Holocaust will not solve the problem.

With Germany the leading country of Europe, the stakes are high. Sadly, Jews know what they are fighting against, but not what they are fighting for. The phenomenon of Jews joining the extremist AfD is indicative of a confused, misguided community.

A complete overhaul of school education that includes the 4,000-year-old history of the Jewish people, the millennia-old Judeo-Christian symbiosis in German history and the role of the churches to this day, is essential to making postwar and post-unification Germany the Heimat it wishes to be.

With Germany becoming increasingly polarized by difficulties integrating Muslim asylum seekers, left- and right-wing extremism and a weakened federal government, the Jewish community may well wonder "what Heimat?" as they observe more armed guards in front of their institutions.

The post Can German Jews be part of the Heimat? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.