Consider the Golan Heights. Syria spent years shelling Israeli civilians from these strategic peaks before the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel seized the territory under Article 51's self-defense provisions. UN Resolution 242 subsequently called for withdrawal from "territories" occupied in the conflict, but its drafters deliberately omitted the word "all," preserving space for negotiated adjustments. This deliberate ambiguity reflected the drafters' recognition that it might necessitate border modifications.

Israel's 1981 annexation triggered predictable condemnation. The UN Security Council declared it null and void through Resolution 497. Then nothing happened. No sanctions materialized. Israel has governed the Golan for over fifty years. Syria, despite surviving a catastrophic civil war, has never attempted to reclaim it by force. This restraint reveals a fundamental truth about Middle Eastern deterrence psychology.

Arab regimes demonstrate extraordinary sensitivity to territorial loss while tolerating staggering human casualties. Western observers fixate on humanitarian suffering, but regional deterrence operates through land, not lives. Annexation creates what military theorists might call "territorial trauma": a psychological barrier so profound that even the most brutal dictatorships dare not test it. The message crystallizes into doctrine: wars carry permanent consequences.

International law rejects such reasoning. But law without enforcement becomes mere suggestion, and justice applied selectively becomes farce. The international system tolerates numerous territorial disputes and occupations, from Kashmir to Western Sahara. Historical precedents include the US acquisition of territory formerly held by Mexico (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848), as well as lands lost by Germany at the end of World War I by the Treaty of Versailles, and also after World War II. Other examples include Turkey's invasion of Cyprus (1974) and the US historical displacement of native American tribes. National borders have been altered on all five continents throughout recorded history.

These examples represent only a fraction of historical territorial changes. If there were a full list of victorious armies taking over terrain lost by the vanquished, all through recorded history, it would include hundreds of cases, more likely thousands. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan alone account for dozens of such takeovers. The British Empire, at its height, controlled approximately one-quarter of the world's land surface through colonial expansion. Viking conquests established settlements from Greenland to the Mediterranean.

Yet organizations such as the UN single out defensive acquisitions by Israel for unique condemnation. Unlike Turkey's invasion of Cyprus or other aggressive territorial seizures, the Golan represents a fundamentally different category: territory captured while repelling an attack, retained to prevent future aggression. The distinction matters. Defensive territorial retention serves deterrence; offensive expansion enables it.

The Golan remains essential for security rather than territorial gain. Its retention constitutes deterrence, not retribution. Israel faced a choice between respecting abstract legal principles that its enemies continually ignore and establishing concrete deterrence that protects its citizens. Strategic necessity, moral imperatives, and sovereignty concerns aligned to support retention.

Today's conflicts demand similar clarity. In Gaza, each restoration of Hamas rule reinforces regional perceptions that atrocities carry no lasting price. Temporary incursions followed by withdrawal teach adversaries that sovereignty remains inviolate regardless of provocation. In Lebanon, eighteen years of limited military operations have transformed Hezbollah from a militia to a quasi-state, accumulating arsenals that dwarf those of some European armies.

The strategic imperative emerges with clarity. Future Israeli campaigns must establish new facts through territorial consequences. This includes operational control over southern Lebanon's rocket-launching zones, as well as security buffers in Gaza that prevent tunnel construction and weapons smuggling. Additional security zones may be necessary wherever adversaries exploit territorial sanctity to launch attacks.

These measures require no ideological justification, only strategic calculation. States that initiate warfare forfeit claims to territorial integrity. Aggressors who lose offensive wars sacrifice bargaining positions. International law may protest, but precedent speaks louder than false principle.

The coming era demands that Israel internalize the Golan model as doctrine rather than exception. Not through imperial ambition but through defensive necessity. Not as collective punishment but as strategic prevention. The formula is straightforward: strike a sovereign nation, forfeit territorial sovereignty. Launch rockets from hospitals, lose control of the launch sites. Build terror tunnels under borders, surrender authority over those borders.

Regional stability emerges not from returning to failed arrangements but from establishing irreversible and strongly negative consequences. The Golan Heights stands as proof that territorial deterrence works precisely because it inflicts the one wound from which Middle Eastern regimes never recover: the permanent loss of land. In this equation, effective sovereignty supersedes paper sovereignty, strategic reality overrides legal fiction, and deterrence through territorial consequence becomes the foundation of lasting peace.

The analysis above has examined the UN Charter's Article 2(4) and the International Court of Justice within their operational context. A pattern emerges whereby these legal frameworks are selectively enforced, with particular scrutiny applied to Israel's defensive actions while similar or more aggressive territorial changes elsewhere face minimal consequences.

Let us consider a hypothetical scenario: Canada attacks the US with no justification. At the end of the war, the US occupied Ontario. According to the international law framework discussed above, the US must withdraw immediately and leave its northern neighbor once again in full control of this province. From a pragmatic or utilitarian point of view, this would be counterproductive. It would restore Canada to its pre-war position, enabling it to potentially repeat such aggression. From the perspective of justice, this solution appears inadequate. It would impose no consequences upon the aggressor.

This contrasts sharply with domestic criminal law, where convicted offenders face consequences for their actions. The disconnect between how we treat individual criminal behavior and state-level aggression merits further consideration, particularly in cases like the Golan Heights, where defensive territorial retention serves both deterrent and protective functions.

The post Territorial deterrence: The Golan Heights as preventive justice appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The headlines painted a horrific picture. CNN's "... investigation into a deadly incident near an aid distribution site in southern Gaza on Sunday points to the Israeli military opening fire on crowds of Palestinians as they tried to make their way to the fenced enclosure to get food."

The UN's "... secretary-general has called for an independent investigation into the killing of Palestinians near an aid distribution center in Gaza on Sunday, amid disputed reports that Israeli forces had opened fire on people waiting to collect aid." The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported: "More than two dozen Palestinians killed as IDF fires on people it says left approved route to aid site."

Al Jazeera's coverage was particularly inflammatory: "Israel targets heads, chests of Gaza aid seekers in mass shooting." They continued: "'Deliberate massacre' in Gaza as starving Palestinians seek Israeli-US aid ... as thousands try to reach a food distribution site."

Alternative media outlets joined the chorus, with the Unz Review declaring: "Israel is fully integrating its Gaza 'food aid hubs' into the genocide... Israel has been caught once again in a lie. For a genocidal state, there are no red lines. No one should be surprised that Israel is using its bogus 'aid system' to lure Palestinians into a death trap."

The Guardian echoed similar themes: "Palestinians gunned down while trying to reach food aid site in Gaza, hospital says. Witnesses say Israeli forces opened fire on people near distribution point."

The global narrative seems set in stone: Israel may well be winning the military battle against Hamas, but when it comes to widespread public opinion, that country is hemorrhaging support at an alarming rate.

But here's where the story gets complicated, and where critical thinking becomes essential.

The logical impossibility

Consider the logical contradiction at the heart of these accusations. How can Israel simultaneously be starving Gazans while operating food distribution centers that allegedly serve as "death traps"? It is intellectually dishonest to maintain two mutually exclusive narratives: one, that the Jewish state is withholding food from the Palestinians, and two, that they have set up food distribution centers. The truth must lie elsewhere.

Let's examine historical precedent. Did the US and the other allies supply foodstuffs to Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II? Of course not. How about Ukraine and Russia at present? The idea is absurd. What about the North and the South in the US war of 1861? Never happened. In fact, it is nearly impossible to identify any other example of any nation providing food to its enemy during active war. Yet Israel and Hamas have been at war ever since that day of infamy, October 7, 2023. Why should it be demanded of Israel, and only Israel, to break this universal precedent?

The Hamas factor

Now, let's address the elephant in the room: Hamas has perfected the art of hiding behind civilian populations. They place weapons in hospitals, rocket launchers in schools. Their leaders meet in residential areas. They scatter booby traps throughout civilian neighborhoods. They orchestrate attacks using stones as cover for Molotov cocktails. They have pioneered suicide bombing as a tactical weapon.

Let's engage in a thought experiment. Stipulate, arguendo only, that all of these charges levelled against the Israeli military are correct. Picture this scene: hundreds of Palestinians thronging around an Israeli food distribution center. Is it even remotely plausible that there were no Hamas fighters embedded amongst them, ready to pounce on Israeli soldiers? If so, then those deaths could reasonably be characterized as self-defense on the part of the IDF.

The numbers don't lie

The numbers tell a sobering story. How many Israeli soldiers have been killed in the present Gaza war? The number is 420. This figure should give pause. Comparing the Israeli military with Hamas is to contrast a sledgehammer with a gnat. The former is considered by experts as the fourth most powerful army on the entire planet; Hamas is a relatively small militant organization. The high casualty rate reveals something crucial: the IDF is careful to minimize civilian casualties. They first drop leaflets in Gaza warning of impending operations. This practice is virtually unprecedented in modern warfare.

The statistics are revealing. Regarding the average military, for every enemy soldier killed, no fewer than nine non-combatants perish. The Israeli ratio? Close to one to one. If Israel had wanted to flatten Gaza without the loss of a single soldier, it could easily have done just that.

The tragic reality is that in Gaza, the distinction between civilian and combatant has been deliberately blurred by Hamas. When armed militants hide among food lines, when "civilians" launch attacks during humanitarian operations, the IDF faces an impossible choice: absorb casualties or defend itself.

This brings us to the fundamental question: Is self-defense no longer a mitigating factor in world opinion? Sadly, it would seem not to be the case. At least not when Israel is concerned.

The impossible standard

The international community faces its own moral contradiction. It demands that Israel feed its enemies (something no other nation in history has been expected to do) while simultaneously condemning it for defending the very soldiers providing that aid. This double standard reveals more about global prejudices than it does about the complex realities on the ground in Gaza.

Until the world acknowledges that Hamas' strategy of embedding fighters within civilian populations makes such tragedies inevitable, these heartbreaking incidents will continue. The real question isn't whether Israel should provide humanitarian aid during wartime - it's whether the international community will ever hold Hamas accountable for weaponizing that aid.

The post Gaza food aid incident: Yet another modern blood libel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

There is an internal problem in Israel that must be faced. It is not as serious as the one concerning the reform of the Supreme Court of this nation. That one called forth mass protests, and God forbid!, threats from IDF officers not to do their duty.

To what am I referring? It is to the fact that the army draft will now include all men of a certain age, including members of the Chasidic community who have long been exempt from this obligation. When the country began in 1948, there were so few such folk that this was not such a serious problem, although it was still unjust to include some and not others. But as the size of this demographic grew, and with the advent of the war begun by Hamas with its atrocity of Oct. 7, 2023, more and more soldiers were needed, and more and more citizens began to resent this unequal treatment.

What to do about this difficult situation? I have several suggestions.

First, keep the draft and apply it to all otherwise legal candidates, certainly including the ultra-Orthodox. This will take the wind out of the sails of those who correctly see the unfairness of previous arrangements in this regard.

Second, allow people to buy their way out of military service. Allow a free enterprise marketplace that will enable draftees to arrange with each other the purchase and sale of required duty to the IDF.

Stipulate, arguendo, that the Haredim are truly far more passionate about avoiding service as soldiers than are others. This will enable them to disproportionately circumvent such a duty and stick to their Talmudic studies. The average Israeli unhappy with the previous system can hardly object since this option would be open to all. This is one of the benefits of the free enterprise system: it allows participants to register the degree of their desires with the coin of the realm.

Is this a hare-brained scheme? Well, maybe so, in the view of some. However, it has the benefit of actually being employed. It was utilized during the War Between the States in the US in the early 1860s and functioned reasonably well. The only difficulty with this scheme is that the Haredi are amongst the poorest part of the population in Israeli society. Very few young rabbis will be able to benefit from this policy.

Third, the Israeli government should award families for the number of children they bear. The ultra-Orthodox, on average, have larger families than the less religious. This, too, is a contribution to the viability of the country. Fair is fair. They should be rewarded for this positive input. It would be non-discriminatory since it would apply to all.

Needless to say, this would allow more Haredim to honorably escape military service.

I am an anarcho-capitalist libertarian. How do I come to be offering this sort of advice to the only civilized country in the Middle East? How can I reconcile this recommendation with my philosophical perspective? If truth be told, the best thing for Israel, in my view, would be to entirely disband its government. Then, private defense agencies would better take care of safety than this illegitimate institution. The modern-day equivalents of Irgun, Stern (Lehi), Hagenah, and Palmach would have long ago made sure that Iran had no nuclear capability. They would have pulverized Hamas in the present war and not lost over 400 precious Israeli soldiers with only, so far, partial success. These groups did pretty well in 1948; for all intents and purposes, they were the IDF at that time.

Even from a more moderate libertarian position, the perspective from which I wrote my 2021 book The Classical Liberal Case for Israel (co-authored with Alan G. Futerman), the military draft and child subsidies would be strictly prohibited. How, then, these suggestions of mine? This is due to the fact that I am also a social scientist and fascinated with addressing challenges such as this one.

The post Solving the Haredi military draft challenge appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

That Israel would receive its hostages, finally, was all to the good. But this would be at the cost of hundreds, maybe thousands, of future Israeli hostages. The Jewish state may have won this war, but as is all too frequently the case, it would lose the peace.

But then another thought occurred to me. Israel is a first-world country. Hamas consists of a rag-tag bunch of hoodlums. Another thousand or two of them? The IDF could easily deal with them with the back of its hand. According to some analysts, this army is the fourth best and most powerful in the entire world. But one of the supposed top three couldn't dispatch Ukraine in several years. Another is replete with DEI and hasn't won a war since 1945 (sorry, Grenada just does not count.) Under Donald Trump, this is in the process of changing, but that is a fair assessment of this military under Obama and Biden.

Why, then, after about 15 months, couldn't this army completely obliterate Hamas, along with Hezbollah, Houthis, and their patron, Iran? There are several reasons. One, Biden exerted a powerful force on the IDF, continually compelling them to fight not with one hand behind their backs but with almost two. Second, they held Israeli hostages. Third, they used their people as shields, placing armament rocket launchers in schools, hospitals, and residential areas. Unlike other militaries, the IDF has compunctions about killing such people. They first employ leaflets!

Well, neither of these conditions now apply, or, at least, will soon disappear. An additional 2,000 or so Palestinian fighters will be of virtually no account.

What, then, was or will have been gained by this ceasefire deal? First, the gratefulness of Donald Trump. He has a long history of treating his friends well. This is a not unimportant consideration. He bragged that he would bring about an almost immediate cessation of the Middle East fighting, and, thanks to the cooperation of Bibi Netanyahu, it did indeed come to pass. (Biden tried to take credit for this situation, but this was dismissed as laughable by anyone with an IQ above room temperature).

Second, Iran. Yes, that country is far more of a threat to the safety and even survivability of the only civilized country in the Middle East than any other group at present. The way ahead is now clear. To entirely eliminate the nuclear capability of Persia must be placed at the very top of the Israeli to-do list. Certainly, with the help of the US, that task can easily be undertaken. Even without such aid, this will be a piece of cake – as long as the US no longer runs interference for the enemies of Israel, as was done by previous Democratic Administrations. Iran will soon rue the day that it unleashed its proxies against Israel. It will no longer be as happy a camper as it once was when its nuclear capabilities are annihilated.

Only in the fullness of time will we learn if this was a good deal for Israel, but at least, here, there are some grounds for hope.

As part of his plan, the President of the United States has proposed to relocate all of the Palestinians from Gaza. This is a program near and dear to the hearts of Israeli leaders such as Itamar Ben-Gvir (the former Minister of National Security who resigned in protest at this prisoner exchange) and Bezalel Yoel Smotrich (who serves as Minister of Finance). This is an initiative that even they, presumably, could only hope for. Both have been dismissed as "far right" Knesset members. I see them, instead, as fervent patriots with strong backbones.

As of the present date, this is only a thought. But if this is accomplished even partially, it will add serious weight to the case on behalf of this being a good deal for Israel, despite my initial misgivings.

If there is one thing that the Knesset has learned, or should have learned, from the recent imbroglio is the importance of having a domestic munitions industry. In that way, it will no longer be dependent upon fair weather friends such as preceded Mr. Trump. Alas, he will not be around forever. Even no hee has numerous domestic enemies baying at his heels. Who knows what the next US administration will be like? Congressional votes will occur in less than two years. Israel must make it one of its highest priorities to never again be so dependent upon others for military success.

The post Peace deal in the Middle East appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

What a way to start off the new year of 2025. Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a US citizen from Texas, drove his truck into a Bourbon Street crowd of revelers celebrating the arrival of January 1. He murdered ten innocent people and placed several dozen others in hospital; five of the latter perished from their injuries. Bourbon Street, for those unfamiliar with New Orleans geography, is similar to Times Square in New York City. Thousands of others looked on during this despicable incident, horrified. Happily, justice was done, and he was killed on the scene of his brutality in a shoot-out with the local constabulary.

Not too long ago, students from Tulane and Loyola Universities, also located in the Crescent City, held a demonstration. They did so on Freret Street, where both institutions of higher learning are located. They were protesting the supposed mistreatment of Palestinians by Israelis. These protests occurred in late April of 2024 and then again on Oct. 8 of the year just gone by, to earmark the events of Oct. 7, 2023. Yes, you got that right, they were celebrating the atrocity of this latter date.

How far is this part of Freret Street located away from Bourbon Street? Not too far. It is about 5.7 miles. From this fact, it is safe to say that there were at least a few dozen students from these two universities in that crowd of thousands of people on Bourbon Street when this tragedy struck. Presumably, a few of these young people took place in the previous protests against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

Shamsud-Din Jabbar is not an actual Palestinian. He changed his name in support of his Islamic beliefs. We may readily infer that he is a bitter critic of Israel from that fact alone. In addition, he had an ISIS flag in the vehicle with which he murdered so many innocent people. One can only wonder why he chose the target of his murderous frenzy as he did: party goers celebrating the New Year on Bourbon Street. Yes, there might have been a few Jews in his target area, but they were hardly concentrated there. Why not, one wonders, did he not aim at Chabad, or Hillel, or any of a number of synagogues in New Orleans. Perhaps it is because, with good reason, they all have armed guards. But, then, there were police on Bourbon Street at that time.

One also naturally wonders, did those student protesters have any second thoughts about their own hatred of Israel? Do they now regret their previous support for the Palestinian cause, now that they have tasted, directly, if they were on Bourbon Street on January 1, 2025, or indirectly, if not, the sort of thing that Israel must endure regularly? And this goes for campus protests at Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Berkeley and numerous other such institutions.

Make no mistake about it. Happily, this was the first and only (so far) outbreak of Middle East-oriented terrorism to occur in New Orleans. But it takes place all too often in the only Jewish state on the planet. Imagine if this sort of thing occurred in American cities with the same regularity as in Israel (9-11, too, transpired only once). Would these student protestors, and their faculty mentors too, have at least a smidgen of appreciation for the plight of the Israelis under such circumstances? One can only hope so.

What has been the reaction of the leaders of the New Orleans community? One called this episode "unfathomable." Not so, not so. It is entirely "fathomable." It stems from hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general, albeit geographically misdirected in this instance. Another called for "peace." Peace, while Hamas still holds hostages? While they and their Hezbollah and Houthi colleagues are still lobbing missiles, rockets, and drones in the direction of Israel? While Iran remains a dire threat to Israel? I say, no justice, no peace. I say, let's give war a chance! Peace after these Middle Eastern terrorists surrender, not before.

The post What a way to start off the new year of 2025 appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The post Israel's enemies learn more from the stick than the carrot appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The post Biden is confused appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

From near and far, the call is going out: Watch out for aggressive, imperialist, colonist Israel. It is trying to take over the world, bit by bit, starting with an expansion in the Middle East. (I exaggerate here, but only by a little bit). They have already taken over Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. Now, the Jewish State is in the process of absorbing southern Lebanon, and, who knows, by the time they get finished, with all of that country to the north of them. Which country is next? Who knows. You can't tell with this steamroller of a country.

Who are the people warning not that the "British are coming" nor that the Russians are doing so, but ascribing this sort of world conquest to the Jews? According to Al-Jazeera: "Recent military escalations in Gaza and southern Lebanon, combined with provocative rhetoric from Israeli officials, suggest that the controversial idea of 'Greater Israel' is gaining traction among Israel's hard-right factions. Key figures in the Netanyahu government are framing neighboring states as mere 'entities,' hinting at shifting territorial ambitions. As far-right ideologies resurface, the implications for Israel and its neighbours become increasingly critical." (Speaking of "entities" which organizations refer to the Jewish state as the "Zionist entity?)

In the critical view of the Middle East Political and Economic Institute: "The recent picture of an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldier with a Greater Israel badge on the uniform provoked outrage in Arab countries (Middle East Monitor, 2024). The promised land of Israel, as described in the badge photo, includes regions from the Nile to the Euphrates, from Medina to Lebanon, including territories from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, entire Jordan, and Occupied Palestinian territories."

Warned "The Week": ""Is Lebanon part of Israel's promised territory?" asked Mark Fish in the piece [in the Jerusalem Post], published on 25 September, which coincided with Israel's assault on Lebanon and subsequent ground invasion. Fish suggested that the land promised to the 'children of Israel' in the Torah includes not only modern-day Israel, but the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey."

I have news for these worriers. There is a tried and true method for stopping the supposedly expansionist Israelis right in their tracks. Stop bombing them. Stop sending missiles in their direction. Ditto for drones. No more suicide bombers. No repeat of October 7, 2023, a day that will live in infamy forever. No more tunnels out from which spring terrorists at Israel's throat. No more targeting of El Al. Stop attacking them in any other way. Then and only then will Israel cease and desist from its supposed maniacal attempt to ingest more and more real estate.

Proof of the pudding? Israel has been in quite a few wars since 1948. All of them have been defensive. The Hebrew state has not started any one of them. They have all been in reaction to threats or incursions from its many neighbors. At the end of them, yes, Israel found itself occupying what was previously enemy territory. It was supposed to have supinely given up these gains and returned them to the violators of the (very temporary previous) peace? Not a bit of it. If you start a war with this country, get used to the idea one, you will lose, and two, the IDF will end up occupying what was beforehand your territory. You don't like losing terrain? Good, fine. Keep your mitts off of this country.

The Sinai Peninsula is a blatant counterexample to the thesis I am herein putting forth. Israel, with a little help from France and Great Britain, engaged in a war with Egypt in 1956 and 1967 due to Egyptian aggression. Whose fault was that little contretemps? Egypt's, of course. At the end of the hostilities, the IDF controlled this bit of desert. If it had remained in the hands of the victor of these wars, Greater Israel would have been far bigger than it is now. However, justice was not served. Eisenhower compelled the Jews to leave. He later regretted this, calling it one of his biggest mistakes. Amen to that! (So close, but no cigar!) However, perhaps this can still serve a beneficial purpose. Egypt is now at peace with Israel. Should this ever change, and that country once again threaten Israel, and the future resembles the past in this regard, the territory of that country will be significantly reduced, in behalf of a Much Greater Israel. This time, under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, I am willing to bet Israel will not give up any similarly conquered territory.

There is a price for attacking Israel. Your holdings are likely to be turned into rubble (take a peek at Gaza, nowadays and compare it with what existed before October 7). If not, you will likely lose some serious real estate (note what happened to the Golan Heights).

Yes, there is a lesson to be learned in all of this. Better to be a friend of Israel's than an enemy. The goal of this country is not to expand. It is to turn the entire Middle East into a local Hong Kong, where technology, productivity, peace, free enterprise bring about prosperity for all concerned.

The post There is a price for attacking Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Thomas Friedman has written a plethora of articles on the Israeli situation. He has been logically consistent: the most civilized country in the Middle East should rely on others, not itself, for its own defense. The IDF should employ the carrot, not the stick. That country should engage in diplomacy, not warfare. Most importantly, Israel should not focus all that much on its present situation, but, instead, should invest more resources, time, and energy in coming up with a long-term plan for what will occur when hostilities cease.

His latest contribution to this debate, "Why Everything Is Suddenly Spiraling for Israel," consists of more of the same. Stuff and nonsense. Even the word "spiraling" is problematic. Yes, things from the Israel side are "spiraling." Everything is always and forever "spiraling." Friedman's career is "spiraling," as is the stature of his employer, the New York Times. I am spiraling. You are spiraling. But, in what direction are we, they, "spiraling?" That is the key question. Hard on the heels of the explosions of pagers and walkie-talkies, are things spiraling upward or downward for Israel? This Grey Lady columnist says in the latter direction. I say in the former.

Finally, finally, the only democracy in the Middle East has seriously rapped the knuckles of its enemy to the north. The Hezbollah is in more disarray, thanks to the explosions of these handheld devices of theirs, and also, finally, finally, some serious bombing of their military capacity than ever before, at least in recent history. But instead of congratulating Israel for these initiatives, our author is condemning the only Jewish state on the planet. What Israel should do now is pummel them a bit more, quite a bit more, and then invade and wipe out this viper's nest. And, if, at the end of hostilities, Israel occupies quite a bit of Lebanon, so be it. Let that territory go the way of the Golan Heights. Do not allow the Eisenhower of the day to compel them to leave as this former president did for the Sinai Peninsula.

Friedman mentions the "unfolding of an Iranian grand strategy to slowly destroy the Jewish state, weaken America's Arab allies, and undermine US influence in the region – while deterring Israel from ever attacking Iran's nuclear facilities – by using Iranian proxies to bleed Israel to death." No, no, no, the reason Israel has not done to Iranian nuclear facilities what it previously did to those in Iraq is rather due to people like Friedman himself, who has been forever urging caution on Israel, demanding that the US administration curtail weapons shipments to that country, second-guessing them, engaging in Monday morning quarterbacking. If there is one legitimate criticism of Israel, apart from not fighting back more vociferously, it is that it did not develop a weapons industry of its own and instead relied upon fair-weather friends (and bitter enemies, too) such as in the Democratic Party in the US.

Friedman taxes Israel for having "resurrected their judicial coup attempt to crush the Israeli Supreme Court." Crush? Yes, indeed. The Likud party is valiantly attempting to convert their judicial system into one that is more closely aligned with that of the United States. In my country, when a Supreme Court judge retires or passes away, other divisions of government (the executive, congress) choose his replacement. In Israel, when this occurs, the other judges make this determination. Thus, the philosophical tenor of the Israeli Supreme Court never changes. Voters have no say in its makeup, even indirectly, as in the US. For those who favor democracy, this incestuous system should indeed be "crushed."

Friedman is particularly incensed that Israel is not "planning an exit strategy." Did the Allies spend much time doing any such thing in the midst of World War II? Not to my recollection. And no supporter of this side of that conflagration ever criticized them for his lacuna. Well, then, why "waste time" reforming a totalitarian Supreme Court during wartime? The latter is crucial in the conduct of defense of the country, the former is simply not. First, let us conquer the enemy. What to do then will depend intimately, in any case, on how that episode ends.

Then, there is the constant refrain that the "Political interests of the prime minister and the messianic ideological interests of his coalition" are to blame. His coalition partners are urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take a firmer stand and ignore public opinion and the views of the "Arab street," which is all to the good. As for this prime ministers political interests, this is a disgraceful calumny. No jury of his peers would ever place this war hero in prison. If Friedman et al. are so worried about this, why do they not urge a pardon for him so that he cannot take this possible jailing into account? That would obviate the scurrilous and unjustified claim that "Bibi has prioritized his personal political security over Israel's national security." I now claim, with equal justification, that Friedman is in the pay of Iran, following their orders to annihilate Israel (I don't for a moment believe that; this is only a reduction).

The solution offered by this scholar is a "ring of peace" to be comprised of "the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia" and presumably other Arab countries. This is truly a weak reed. Yes, the Donald Trump Abraham Accords was a good step in the direction of making peace with neighboring nations, but to rely on them for the very survival of the country is ludicrous. Should the US rely on Canada and Mexico for its defense or on its own armed might?

I must give credit where credit is due: Friedman does indeed mention the "ultimatums" continually imposed upon Israel by the US. But he favors these and wishes for more of them. Is this the sort of interaction to be utilized by one ally upon another? Is Israel an out-of-control teenager in need of discipline, or is it a sovereign nation? To ask this is to answer it from the perspective of this quarter.

Friedman objects to Bibi "playing footsie" with Trump. Why ever should he not? When Netanyahu addressed the US Congress, he received many standing ovations, mostly from Republicans. Many of the Democrats were too busy with other important obligations to even attend. That is, many of them are part of the BDS movement. Meanwhile, Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, was instrumental in the promotion of the Abraham Accords, and is a true friend of Israel. It is a shonda that so many Jews vote the way they do.

Friedman takes strong exception to "Israel's settler occupation over Palestinians in the West Bank," which is being done "increasingly violently." First of all, there is no "West Bank." Rather, there is Judea and Samaria. Secondly, these territories properly belong to the Jews, not the present occupants. Third, who started the violence? Which group engaged in pogroms against the other? This author ought to read up a bit on the history of that area.

Friedman properly castigates past Israeli practice of "Clear, leave, come back, clear again the same place, leave again, come back and clear again." This is sometimes known as "mowing the lawn." But this time, matters are very different. This time, thanks to the prime minister of Israel, they are determined to end these incursions, these rockets, these suicide bombings, once and for all. This time, Israel wishes to conquer its enemies, not administer slaps on the wrist, hoping for peace. And Friedman's reaction? I will let the reader answer that one.

Friedman properly bewails, "Four young Israeli soldiers killed … battling Hamas in Gaza." But why are so many members of the IDF dying? It is, to a great degree, because the Israeli military takes herculean steps to safeguard the lives of Palestinian civilians. It is a difficult task when Hamas places rocket and drone launchers in the midst of hospitals, Mosques, schools, and residential areas. No military in the entire history of warfare does more to reduce enemy collateral damage, and none gets blamed more for so doing.

Then, there is his continual support for a "two-state solution." What about applying this to a "two-state solution" for Nazi Germany? Why shouldn't they have had a state of their own after World War II? Couldn't we trust them to behave better after they were conquered and presumably learned their lesson? The Hamas constitution calls for the death of all Jews. They are very popular among the Gazans. These are the very people who will comprise that second state. Hey, I know where we should have located that second Nazi state. Right near wherever it is that Friedman lives. I have another idea. Do you want a two-state solution between the river and the sea? Fine. Let us have two different Jewish states. One for the leftie, pinko socialists, who love the Supreme Court just as it is, and one for sensible Israelis. My prediction: the former will end up like East Germany and North Korea, the other like West Germany and South Korea. Unless that is, the woke Israeli country comes to its senses.

In conclusion, no truer words were ever written that these by Friedman: "The Jewish state of Israel is in grave, grave danger today." And the fault? A too timid IDF (due to a totally warranted fear of supposed allies pulling the rug from under its feet), as well as the undermining of justice by this author himself, and the lack of a domestic munitions industry in Israel.

The post The Thomas Friedman spiral appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

From all quarters, we hear this constant refrain: If Benjamin Netanyahu were not afraid of a prison term, he would make immediate peace with Hamas and the other enemies of Israel. He is only prolonging the present war, the longest one his country has ever been in, by the way, in order to ward off a jail sentence.

For example, states Haaretz, eloquently, "Trying to keep his butt out of jail…"

According to Ron Unz, "So he recognized that once his retaliatory war ended and peace was reestablished, he would almost certainly be driven from office; and with numerous serious corruption charges hanging over his head, he would probably end his life in a prison cell."

In the view of the American Prospect, "Bibi's Mideast Solution: Unending War. It puts Israel in greater peril, but it may just keep him in power –and out of the clink."

Claims Reddit, "Netanyahu is a self-serving crook dragging out the war to stay in power so he can avoid jail time."

The Democracy Labs offers this gem, "What's behind Netanyahu's war? Follow his criminal indictments!"

This is not mere nonsense. It is nonsense on stilts. This claim is dead from the neck up. How long can he possibly prolong the war? Another few months? A year? Far more likely it will end, hopefully with a full victory, even sooner than that. What good would it do him to stay out of prison for just that short period of a time, and tick off his many enemies by so doing? Even if he were inclined in this direction, this is a no brainer. The sheer mathematics of the situation simply do not compute.

Do those who are launching this scurrilous, nasty, insulting, scandalous, scandalous, outrageous, defamatory, vicious, unwarranted attack upon him have even a shred of evidence to support their claim? To ask this is to answer it: of course not. In football, you are not allowed to "pile on." In this realm of human existence, all bets are off.

What is Netanyahu accused of, anyway? He has been indicted for breach of trust, accepting bribes, and fraud. Even if he were found guilty of all such charges, it is beyond belief that a jury of his peers would sentence him to the hoosegow.

Where is it written, by the way, that the supposed fear of imprisonment encourages him to take a harsher line against Hamas? Why is it a presumed given that his so-called fear of being a jailbird inclines him in the direction of insisting upon completely conquering Israel's brutal, genocidal enemies? Perhaps it is moving him in the direction of a softer approach. Who is to say it is not the case that if he did not have this (unproven) fear, he would escalate far more strongly? Perhaps he would use his nuclear arsenal not against Hamas, or Lebanon, they are too close, but with regard to Iran, the Houthis and some even further afield. The point is, these critics of the Prime Minister of Israel do not have a logical or empirical leg to stand upon.

But let us stipulate, arguendo, the case made by the critics. Israel would be better off if ceased fire and sued for peace right away. Then they would their hostages freed forthwith, in return for guaranteed safety for the perpetrators of Oct. 7, pretty much emptying Israeli prisoners of all Palestinian prisoners, and thus rendering it far more likely a repeat, several repeats of that horrid day, and the end of his country.

If that is indeed the view of these many critics, and it is more than passing difficult to attribute to them anything else, why, then, do they not issue in advance a pardon for Benjamin Netanyahu? Then, presumably, he would do their bidding. There is precedent for this sort of thing: Ford pardoned Nixon. Surely, the Israeli legal system would be able to emulate the US in this regard. The fact that none of these critics ever made any such offer indicates that they themselves do not really believe the truth of these unfounded charges.

The post Is Netanyahu prolonging the war? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.