He was described by Trump as a “young, attractive guy” with a “real shot at doing a good job.” The president went as far as to remove all sanctions on Syria “to give them a chance at greatness.” And he urged al-Sharaa to join the Abraham Accords with its neighbor and U.S. ally: Israel.

The president’s aspirations for Syria, however, could be overshadowed by al-Sharaa’s destructive plans toward his country’s Druze.

Shortly before meeting Trump, the former head of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a Sunni Islamist political and paramilitary group that was formed in 2017, unleashed his henchmen to target Druze villages across Syria’s south, across the border from Israel. Al-Sharaa loyalists butchered more than 100 Druze on the outskirts of Damascus. Eyewitness accounts and graphic videos described scenes of mass violence, abductions and rape cases. Hundreds were displaced, fleeing for their lives.

Deep underground in the headquarters of the Israel Defense Forces in central Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his security cabinet recognized the moment as both a moral imperative and a strategic opportunity to take action. In the face of a real prospect of genocide taking place right across the border, Israel decided to protect the vulnerable with Netanyahu declaring: “We will not allow the radical Islamic terror regime in Syria to harm the Druze,” sending the message that anyone who harms the Druze is picking a fight with Israel.

Israel has demonstrated its resolve to protect the Druze. In March, the IDF was tasked with preparing for a possible military intervention in the town of Jaramana, on the outskirts of Damascus, against the backdrop of a suspected al-Sharaa-directed attack. Reports suggested that Israel supplied the Syrian Druze with weapons and military equipment, and the IDF positioned itself to prepare for a possible military intervention. Israeli hospitals admitted dozens of casualties, and a cross-border delegation was invited to advance the prospect of work visas to Israel.

This came on top of Israel’s moves to deny al-Sharaa control of the military weapons kept by deposed Syrian leader Bashar Assad by targeting silos and bases, and moving to take hold of the Syrian Golan Heights, a strategically located highland overlooking Israel. Israel even sent planes to strike near al-Sharaa’s palace in Damascus—a sign to the Syrian ruler that he should rethink his approach toward the Druze.

Israel is one of the only countries in the world with a significant, thriving Druze community of some 150,000 members, who hold key positions in the IDF’s elite units, as well as in industry, academia and technology.

Brig. Gen. (ret.) Hasson Hasson, one of the Druze community’s influential leaders, has served in key combat roles in the IDF’s special operation units and was the military secretary to Israeli President Shimon Peres. “The Druze and the Jewish people have always had a special bond,” he says. “I am part of a proud family whose members across generations swore unwavering loyalty to the Israeli flag and for the defense of Israel. We fought in all of Israel’s wars, and the best of our youth fell in this war as well.”

Hasson estimates that the coup in Syria strengthened the Druzes’ ties with Israel. “We feel most comfortable with Israel,” he says. “We know Julani’s DNA; he’s a terrorist who’s now choosing a charm offensive to get his way. We see his massacre against the Alawites as well. Deepening the bond with Syria’s Druze is a smart policy for Israel.”

Hasson advocated giving more military and intelligence support to the Druze. Indeed, the prospect of a massacre against their fellow Druze in Syria has led to a clear demand for the Israeli government to intervene. In Netanyahu’s statement, he said Israel “acts out of deep commitment to our Druze brothers in Israel, who are bound with family ties and history to their Druze brothers in Syria.”

For Western leaders to flock to Damascus and invite al-Sharaa to European capitals is a clear interest-based move. They cannot cozy up to an Al-Qaeda veteran while at the same time claiming that their public shaming of Israel derives from a pure sense of justice without the stench of hypocrisy.

Trump could be presented with a historic opportunity coming from the Israelis. Had Israel not prevented al-Sharaa from massacring the Druze, it would not only have resulted in a tragedy but would have made it unpalatable for Trump to justify shaking hands with a mass murderer.

Israel, meanwhile, should be lauded for its commitment to the Middle East’s most vulnerable minorities as it, once again, stood as a bulwark of Western values in a region engulfed by intolerance and religious persecution.

The opinions and facts presented in this article are those of the author, and neither JNS nor its partners assume any responsibility for them.

(June 11, 2025 / JNS)

הפוסט Israeli protection of the Druze is key to Trump’s goals for Syria הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The astonishing success raises an inevitable question: Is this the same Israel that previously endured prolonged stagnation in Gaza? How does a nation that struggles to achieve its objectives in a small territory like Gaza manage to swiftly undermine the formidable Iranian threat and approach the completion of strategic goals in mere days?

In this paper, I will highlight the key differences between these two campaigns in terms of their management, exploring the reasons behind these disparities.

General Characteristics of the Campaigns

Combat Features

In Gaza, Israel’s declared goals are comprehensive: the total eradication of Hamas and the safe return of all hostages. Achieving these objectives requires ground maneuvers and, particularly challenging in Gaza, subterranean operations due to Hamas’s extensive tunnel infrastructure. Despite Gaza’s geographical proximity, this operation is extraordinarily painstaking. Hamas, as a guerrilla organization, utilizes civilian populations and hostages as human shields, blending among them. Such conditions necessitate extensive ground forces, as it is not merely about capturing a few strategic points or disabling specific enemy systems, but systematically clearing and securing every inch of territory.

The greatest complexity in Gaza is undoubtedly the hostage situation, significantly limiting maneuverability and speed. Yet, despite these complexities, from an early stage, Hamas no longer poses a direct existential threat to Israel’s home front. Primarily, IDF soldiers bear the brunt, allowing Israel relatively more breathing space, despite considerable costs.

Conversely, the Iranian campaign faces a distant but powerful state entity. However, its goals are more narrowly defined: eliminating specific threats. Currently, it is conducted solely from the air. The primary challenges here are intelligence and operational effectiveness, focused on neutralizing Iran’s capabilities and undermining regime stability. The risk to Israel’s civilian population, notably from ballistic missile threats, is far greater and potentially devastating, exacerbating economic paralysis. In this scenario, Israel has minimal room for extended operations.

Geopolitical Playing Fields

Every military campaign ideally concludes with effective diplomatic actions achieving strategic aims. Hamas and Iran, however, operate on vastly different geopolitical stages with distinct incentives to end hostilities. Hamas, as a sub-state entity, aims primarily to maintain control in Gaza. From early in the conflict, Hamas relies primarily on two cards: time and hostages. Ironically, although weaker than Iran, Hamas has less to lose. Time favors Hamas because prolonged fighting worsens hostage conditions and intensifies international pressure on Israel. Only losing control of Gaza would decisively break Hamas, a scenario only beginning to emerge.

Iran’s situation is fundamentally different. As a regional power (militarily, politically, and religiously), its position demands regional credibility. Each passing day of conflict severely damages Israeli interests, yet time also harms Iran significantly. Iran’s two core strategies – regional proxies and its nuclear program – hang in the balance. As the conflict progresses unfavorably, the regime risks losing vital assets, increasing the likelihood of internal and external opposition capitalizing on the chaos.

Campaign Management Features

Political Objectives: Declared, Measurable, and Controlled

Clearly defined, measurable war objectives from which the military and other bodies can derive secondary goals are critical to success. In Gaza, the objectives are defeating Hamas militarily and administratively and rescuing all hostages. Hostage recovery is clear and measurable, while defeating Hamas is important yet broadly defined. Precise criteria are needed: What defines Hamas’s defeat? Who will replace Hamas? What security conditions will prevail after Hamas falls?

Such questions help translate broad objectives into clearer, actionable goals. However, political leadership, as far as publicly known, hasn’t fully clarified these matters. Indeed, expecting detailed post-war planning might be overly ambitious initially. Nevertheless, clarifying operational targets over time is essential. The troubling reality, where Hamas monopolized humanitarian aid distribution for nearly 18 months, is an egregious oversight illustrating this point.

In contrast, Iran’s objectives: neutralizing its nuclear project, eliminating missile threats, and weakening regional proxies – are explicit. For years, neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capability appeared almost impossible. Compared to Iran’s military strength, Hamas seems minor. But from a strategic planning perspective, Iran’s campaign objectives are straightforward. Clearly defined, these allow easier synchronization across various operational domains, including air power, intelligence, cyber, and public perception campaigns, all executed remarkably effectively.

In terms of endgame clarity, the Iran scenario is far better defined. However, replacing Iran’s regime, though desirable, isn’t formally declared as a campaign objective. Such a goal is highly complex and should remain aspirational rather than central to success criteria.

War Management: Centralization Versus Decentralization

After defining objectives, execution and oversight begin. The Iranian campaign is overwhelmingly strategic. Targets like nuclear facilities, missile caches, and senior leadership figures directly relate to overarching objectives and are typically binary—achieved or not achieved. Decisions, such as the immediate elimination of senior Iranian military figures, likely require minimal bureaucratic clearance. However, deviations from predefined strategic targets demand top-level authorization. Attacking symbolic governance sites, economic targets like oil fields, or high-level political figures indicates substantial escalation or policy shifts.

Therefore, Iran’s campaign remains relatively straightforward for political oversight. In contrast, Gaza operations involve multiple maneuvering divisions, lengthy chains of command, and highly decentralized decision-making. Such complexity risks tactical failures, critical delays, and misinterpretations of objectives, exemplified by past hesitations regarding humanitarian aid management.

Initiative Versus Reactivity

Although not impulsively launched, the Gaza campaign is undeniably reactive. Israel did not choose initial conditions: large hostage numbers, hostility from the US administration, multi-front warfare, declining international legitimacy, and escalating global anti-Semitism. Netanyahu had to simultaneously manage hostages, northern threats, diplomatic hurdles, ammunition shortages, and domestic skepticism.

In contrast, the proactive nature of the Iranian operation fundamentally improved Israel’s position. Meticulously planned to coincide with Trump’s administration, unprecedented American cooperation emerged, including deception operations and large-scale joint strikes. US involvement significantly enhanced Israeli deterrence internationally. Domestically, political unity and public opinion strongly favor this proactive campaign. Meticulous preparation allows precise messaging control, reflected in Netanyahu’s well-planned public communications.

Conclusion

The Gaza and Iranian campaigns fundamentally differ regarding initial conditions, goals, strategies, and execution. Yet, the critical differentiator remains moral conviction. Historically, global support for Israel increased when perceived as a victim. However, true international and domestic support arises from conviction and decisive action. Those uncertain or hesitant inevitably find reality imposing itself upon them.

Israel’s current demonstration of strength in Iran underscores the necessity of clear planning, synchronized execution, and unwaveringly defined objectives for future campaigns.

הפוסט Iran versus Gaza: Two Wars, Two Worlds – On Strategy, Initiative, and Legitimacy הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The operation’s name, “Am Kelavi,” is not random. It embodies strength drawn from Jewish culture and identity. This name signifies a worldview that provides meaning and responsibility to everyone involved, including civilians on the home front, operational military units, and decision-makers in the Kirya and Jerusalem.

“Behold, the people shall rise up like a lion”: When the Lion Awakens

The lion (“lavi”) appears repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible as a symbol of calm confidence and genuine power. Jacob blesses Judah, referring to him as a “lion’s cub” who crouches confidently, challenging anyone to provoke him. Similarly, Isaiah uses the metaphor of a roaring lion to describe strength and decisiveness.

However, the verse inspiring the current operation against Iran is unique, as it originates from an external source rather than from within the Jewish nation. The words, “Behold, the people shall rise up like a lion and lift themselves like a lion,” were spoken by Balaam, the prophet originally hired to curse Israel but who ultimately blessed them. What special characteristic did Balaam recognize in the Jewish people? He identified the ability to awaken and rise powerfully precisely when needed.

A lion embodies tranquility when resting, yet does not hesitate to act decisively when challenged. Balaam’s message is clear: never underestimate this nation. Even in apparent rest, it possesses immense underlying strength. When necessary, it will rise and persist until victory is achieved and the mission is fully accomplished.

Today, too, we sometimes fail to recognize our internal strength. Internal disagreements can obscure our true nature, occasionally requiring external reminders like Balaam’s prophecy to reawaken our awareness. October 7 served precisely as such a wake-up call. Initially, we believed we lacked the strength to rise and prevail. Yet unfolding events clearly demonstrate our profound capability, rewriting the Middle East’s history. We truly embody the lion’s nature.

Depending Only on Ourselves

Another crucial aspect is emphasized by Rabbi Meir Simcha HaCohen of Dvinsk, known as the Meshech Chochmah, one of Eastern Europe’s greatest rabbis prior to the Holocaust. He highlights an additional attribute of the lion: independence.

He writes: “For behold, the people rise up like a lion… they receive no aid from other kingdoms, only from themselves, just as the lion never seeks external help.” In other words, just as the lion independently defends its pride, Israel must also independently secure itself without relying on foreign powers. This aligns closely with one of the fundamental principles of the Habithonistim (IDSF) movement: Israel’s security depends solely on itself.

Drawing Strength from Jewish Heritage

“Am Kelavi” (“Like a Lion”) compels us not merely to defend ourselves but to take initiative, assume clear responsibility, make decisive choices, and achieve victory. This responsibility extends beyond ourselves to future generations and the heritage from which we draw our strength. It signifies the courage required to face immense challenges, unwavering determination to accomplish our goals, and mental resilience under fire. This spirit guides us in battle and everyday life.

Selecting a biblical name for the operation provides a clear reminder: our strength is not merely in weaponry, intelligence, or technology. It also, and perhaps predominantly, resides in our human spirit. In this ongoing conflict and in every struggle against adversaries, the Israeli people remain committed to self-defense, firmly rooted in their heritage and just cause.

הפוסט Like a Lion: Not Just an Operation Name, but a Worldview הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Striking Alone, Three Times Over

In 1981, Israel made a fateful decision. Flying deep into hostile Iraqi airspace, it destroyed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear reactor, halting a looming atomic threat before it could explode. The world condemned the strike—but Israel had no choice. Again in 2007, Israel wiped out Syria’s secret nuclear site at al-Kibar, acting alone to prevent another catastrophe. Now, in 2025, Israel has struck deep inside Iran to dismantle the most advanced and dangerous nuclear program on Earth. Three times in half a century, Israel has taken on a task no one else would. It isn’t just the world’s nuclear janitor. It is the last line of defense against the unimaginable.

Warnings and Paralysis: The World Watched

For years, Israel was warned: a strike on Iran would ignite the region, crash economies, and unleash Hezbollah. Media outlets and foreign leaders forecast apocalyptic consequences. International conferences set ever-moving diplomatic conditions. The message was clear: Israel was too small, too isolated, and too late to act. Meanwhile, Iran pressed forward—enriching uranium, digging fortified bunkers, exporting missiles, and arming proxies from Gaza to Yemen. It moved with alarming efficiency toward nuclear breakout whilst the world, paralyzed by fear or apathy, did nothing. Only one nation prepared to act decisively.

Drawing the Red Line

The U.S. issued warnings of “serious consequences.” The IAEA published reports. The EU expressed “concern.” But no one enforced a red line. Israel did. Through intelligence, cyber sabotage, electronic warfare, and precise airstrikes, Israel hit Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—not out of bravado but necessity. Iran’s response was bluster, drones, and proxy skirmishes. The regional apocalypse never came. The strike proved what few dared to believe: bold action could deter chaos rather than cause it.

A Moral Reckoning

The uncomfortable truth? No one else was willing to stop Iran. Not the UN, not Europe, not Washington. Israel’s action wasn’t just strategic—it was moral. It exposed the impotence of international institutions that profess human rights while tolerating tyranny. It revealed a strategic decay in a world where fear of instability outweighs the will to confront evil. Israel acted while others debated. And as always, the cycle repeats: Israel strikes, the world criticizes, then quietly exhales in relief.

Behind the Scenes: The Myth of Isolation

Despite public silence, Israel was not truly alone. Gulf states offered quiet support. European capitals, though critical, now sleep more easily. In Washington, officials voice concern but admit privately: Israel did what others wouldn’t. It took the shot. The others blinked. Even in Germany, some voices spoke out. CDU leader Friedrich Merz said what many only think: Israel acted where others wouldn’t—and the world should be grateful. It’s a rare, public acknowledgment of the hard truth—that Israel did the dirty work others feared. That kind of clarity deserves recognition, not cynicism. This is the myth of Israeli isolation. True isolation is inaction—waiting for green lights that never come. Israel understands sovereign responsibility. When your nation stands between civilization and catastrophe, you don’t outsource defense. You act—decisively and unapologetically.

The Cost—and the Shift

There will be fallout. Iran will retaliate through proxies and cyberwarfare. The UN will condemn. Some allies will call for “restraint.” But a deeper shift has begun. Young Iranians will notice cracks in the regime’s armor. Sunni states will recalibrate. And Western leaders—despite their public handwringing—know this strike may have averted devastation. Israel once again did what no one else dared. It may be criticized now, but history will judge differently. The world will remember the airstrike, but quietly forget the courage and clarity it took to carry it out.

Redefining Deterrence

From Osirak to al-Kibar to Tehran, Israel has reshaped the balance of power through preemptive action. These strikes weren’t just military operations—they were strategic inflection points. While others hesitated, Israel acted. The global order is fracturing. Institutions fumble, alliances waver, and threats multiply. In this dangerous vacuum, Israel has redrawn the boundaries of deterrence: no nuclear program is beyond reach, no threat untouchable when a democracy is willing to stand alone. The world must decide: catch up—or continue to flinch in the face of danger. Because while Israel acts, the rest of the world waits. And waits. And waits.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Alone but Resolute: Why Israel Still Guards the Nuclear Threshold הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

In recent days, it seems every Israeli has repeatedly heard the name Fordow, the nuclear facility at Fordow, its underground location, its fortifications, its critical role in Iran’s nuclear program, and the seemingly insurmountable challenge Israel faces in striking it. Hundreds of journalists and experts from every conceivable field have appeared publicly to discuss Fordow and its associated challenges.

This situation reminds me of the past. When the COVID-19 pandemic first emerged in 2020, Israel initially struggled with conducting large-scale testing. At that time, a new word entered our lives: “swab.” I must admit, I had never encountered the term “swab” prior to that crisis. Suddenly, it became commonplace among all experts and self-proclaimed authorities. They talked endlessly about shortages and seemingly insurmountable logistical difficulties. Yet, quickly, solutions emerged. Much like thousands of journalists and commentators eagerly discussed the coronavirus back in 2020, today everyone seems eager to demonstrate expertise on Fordow, not just in Israel but globally.

It is important to state what might appear obvious. There are indeed intelligent individuals deeply knowledgeable about military and geopolitical affairs. There are seasoned military specialists and highly respected former officials. Yet, despite my genuine respect for their expertise, it is likely that they, too, lack sufficient up-to-date information to reliably inform the public. The expertise required here is neither simply military nor strategic; it is exceptionally specialized. Furthermore, the knowledge required is not historical. It must reflect the current moment, given the continuously evolving reality.

Just as with COVID-19, this is an unprecedented scenario. We cannot rely solely on past experiences to accurately predict future possibilities.

Fordow

I speak here with great humility, as I hope my colleagues will from now on. Regarding the Fordow site, I have indeed read extensively, but only from publicly available sources, as my colleagues have done. However, we must keep in mind that there are likely additional classified materials accessible to only a select few. We can hardly speculate about the contents of such information. Presumably, those responsible for the matter are searching for vulnerabilities, ways to neutralize the site with resources available to Israel without American assistance. It has been clear for some time, even before the extensive recent discussions, that American assistance in any attack, related or unrelated to Fordow, would enable a faster and more effective resolution of the Iranian challenge. However, Israel has certainly examined whether and how it could independently complete the task. On this matter, I share some reflections, not as definitive answers, but as considerations.

Absolute air superiority: Even without specialized expertise, it is apparent there is a significant difference between completing a mission under constant threat versus conducting operations when flexibility is significantly greater. Theoretically, there is no limitation on the number of Israeli attempts to strike Fordow. If the situation demanded an urgent, decisive strike (a quick, one-time operation), our current scenario is different. I recall the astonishing Israeli Air Force strike on the bunker where Nasrallah stayed in Lebanon, ultimately resulting in his death. Israel lacked a single bomb capable of penetrating all the layers of ground and defense to neutralize the occupants. Yet, this did not stop Israel. The solution involved dropping several bombs in a specific sequence, creating a cumulative effect that achieved the objective. Could a similar logical solution work in Iran? Undoubtedly, logistical challenges in Iran greatly surpass those encountered closer to home. But again, if no one is chasing us, why couldn’t the mission be accomplished over several stages, employing a combination of different means? The answer is I don’t know, but neither do most of the public commentators.

Could there be operational combinations involving aerial and ground elements, Israeli agents, or Iranian assets acting in ways I cannot guess or imagine? I don’t know. Only a handful of secret keepers truly know.

What precisely is inside Fordow? Would the Iranian nuclear program retain its significance if Fordow remained the only site intact at the conclusion of hostilities? Again, I do not know. While I have engaged with the Iranian nuclear issue at a strategic level, I am far from an expert on nuclear specifics and weaponization. True experts in this domain are exceedingly rare, and even fewer, if any, publicly know the realities inside Fordow.

Over the past eighteen months, Israel has demonstrated exceptional creativity, accomplishing missions universally deemed impossible by countless domestic and international experts. Tasks they said would exact unbearable costs with negligible odds of success. Thus far, most of these experts have been proven wrong. In the immortal words of Israeli poet Haim Hefer, “the Jewish mind invents patents.” Believe it.

Israel’s Achilles’ heel has never been courage or creativity. When tasked with seemingly impossible missions, we have astonished the entire world. Recent days have only reinforced this truth. If I had to bet, my money would always be on Israeli ingenuity. If a room filled with relevant experts is tasked with devising a solution, I am confident a solution will emerge. It might involve significant risks or depend on certain conditions maturing; I do not know. Let us all practice humility. Most commentators speaking confidently about Fordow had never even heard of the site before recent events and did not know how to correctly pronounce its name. In these historic days, the Israeli home front has only one responsibility: to support the IDF and political leadership to complete their mission fully. Even if it is difficult, takes time, and faces continuous skepticism. Always remember, even the most senior former official, if not present in the secure decision-making rooms today, is no longer fully updated. They can speculate, perhaps, but they do not truly know.

הפוסט The Swab and Fordow הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Leadership is the courage to act first, driven by unyielding conviction, forging a path through resistance and doubt before others recognize its necessity.

For 20 months, Israel has exemplified this principle, standing as the West’s resolute bastion against the forces of radical Islam—whether the Khomeinist ideology of Iran’s mullahs or the Muslim Brotherhood’s murderousness.

As the spearhead against Tehran’s axis of terror, Israel has fought not only on the battlefield but also against the radical ideas that have taken root in the West, threatening the very foundations of civilization. Israel has paid a steep price for this thankless endeavor, enduring relentless criticism, reprimands, and outright opposition from Western elites—diplomats, journalists, and intellectuals—who have often lacked the moral clarity to support this shared fight.

The West, lulled into complacency by decades of liberal peace since World War II, has developed a kind of autoimmune disease, forgetting that its freedoms were won through sacrifice and toil against totalitarian forces. While Israel dismantles Iran’s sprawling network of terror and prevents the mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons—a catastrophic threat to Israel, the West, and the world, given Iran’s advanced ballistic missile program—Western leaders have faltered.

French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at the G7 summit, urged Israel to halt its strikes, stating, “If the United States can achieve a ceasefire, that’s a very good thing.” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer echoed this sentiment, emphasizing de-escalation to avoid a broader conflict.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, while acknowledging Israel’s right to self-defense, joined the G7’s cautious statement that avoided explicitly endorsing Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. These calls for restraint ignored the existential necessity to take out Iran’s nuclear program, threatening the whole world.

Israel’s operation, codenamed “Rising Lion,” launched on June 13, 2025, targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leadership with unprecedented precision.

Despite US officials confirming no involvement in the unilateral strikes and urging Israel to avoid escalation, Israel pressed forward, absorbing global condemnation while demonstrating unwavering resolve. Its citizens, living under constant threat, pay the price for the whole world for confronting Iran, witnessing the collapse of civilian infrastructure, and living under the threat of missile barrages. The Israeli people remain steadfast, driven by the clarity of their mission to neutralize a global threat, with over 85% supporting the campaign to take out Iran’s nuclear program.

A regime on the brink of collapse

Now, as Iran’s regime teeters on the brink of collapse, the tables are turning. Millions are fleeing Tehran, and the mullahs, in desperation, resort to crude propaganda, recycling cheap fakes and footage from Israel’s strikes against the Houthis to falsely claim victories in Tel Aviv. Iran’s internet shutdowns and bans on WhatsApp reflect a regime in existential crisis, with reports indicating that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has delegated powers to the Revolutionary Guards Council, a sign of internal disarray.

Israel’s actions have created a tipping point, with the potential collapse of Iran’s regime rivaling the fall of the Soviet Union in geopolitical significance—a transformative moment that could reshape the global order.

This seismic shift has awakened global powers, who now rush to align with Israel’s success after believing that Israel’s mission is feasible.

Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Now that Israel is succeeding, everyone wants a seat at the table. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned that if Iran does not surrender, “the complete destruction of its nuclear program will be on the agenda,” acknowledging that while Israel has significantly weakened Iran’s infrastructure, “the Americans have the capacity” to finish the job.

The US has deployed B-2 bombers and other military assets to the region, signaling a shift in posture. Vice President JD Vance, in a June 16, 2025, statement, suggested that Trump “may decide” to take further action to end Iranian enrichment, noting that Iran could have pursued a civilian nuclear program without enrichment on its soil but refused.

President Trump, on Truth Social, demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” claiming, “We now have complete and absolute control of the skies over Iran,” and even threatened Khamenei directly, stating, “We know exactly where [he] is hiding… but we won’t take him out for now.” These statements reflect a growing global belief in the regime’s imminent collapse, catalyzing a self-fulfilling prophecy. As more nations see the possibility of Iran’s fall, they act to hasten it, eager to claim a stake in the victory and take credit for its success.

Israel’s leadership, rooted in moral clarity and perseverance, has led the West when its own leaders did not act. By acting first against an existential threat, Israel has not only safeguarded its own survival but also defended the free world from a regime that fuels global terrorism.

Israel has shown that it is willing to stand alone when necessary, leading the path with conviction, even when lambasted, and ultimately reshape the world for the better. As the Islamic regime in Tehran is in tatters, the West owes its de facto leader a debt of gratitude for doing the world’s work when its leaders wavered.

Posted originally in The Jerusalem Post (JPost)

הפוסט Israel is effectively the leader of the West הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Hamas’s release of Alexander, the only living American hostage in its custody, was not an act of altruism but a meticulously orchestrated move, coordinated with its patron, Qatar. Reports suggest Hamas may have secured assurances of increased humanitarian aid through Israel’s border crossings, a claim the Israeli government firmly denies. Even if true, this alone would not explain Hamas’s abrupt shift. The real prize lies in the broader geopolitical landscape, where Qatar, posing as a neutral mediator, exerts significant influence.

Qatar’s Art of “Trump Diplomacy”

Qatar has a documented history of shaping hostage negotiations to Hamas’s advantage, reportedly advising the group to delay concessions for better terms. For instance, during talks in 2023 and 2024, Qatari intermediaries allegedly disrupted agreements by promising Hamas more favorable outcomes (The New York Times, 2023). In Alexander’s case, Qatar likely advised Hamas that freeing a high-profile American would resonate with Trump, a leader known for his transactional approach and appetite for diplomatic wins. By delivering a foreign policy triumph, Qatar and Hamas aim to secure influence, bypassing Israel and positioning themselves as key partners in Trump’s pursuit of high-profile “peace” achievements.

Qatar has honed what might be called “Trump Diplomacy”—a strategy of flattery, financial incentives, and personal engagement that aligns with Trump’s preference for deal-making and loyalty. During Trump’s first term, Qatar spent $465,744 at Trump properties, raising concerns about violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officials from accepting foreign gifts without congressional approval (CREW, 2024). In April 2025, the Trump Organization signed a $5.5 billion deal with Qatari Diar, a state-backed real estate firm, to develop a Trump-branded golf resort in Simaisma, Qatar (Bloomberg, 2025). Most notably, Qatar’s royal family offered a $400 million Boeing 747-8, dubbed a “flying palace,” to serve as Air Force One, with the plane potentially transferring to Trump’s presidential library foundation post-tenure—a move critics view as a veiled personal gift (Reuters, 2025). Qatar’s ties extend to Trump’s inner circle; in 2018, the Qatari Investment Authority facilitated a bailout of a Manhattan property owned by Jared Kushner’s family, and in 2023, it supported a $623 million sale of the Park Lane Hotel involving Trump associate Steve Witkoff.

Trump’s Adaptive Foreign Policy

Trump’s foreign policy, often described as bold and instinctive, emphasizes high-impact gestures and visible outcomes. Committed to fostering peace and reducing conflicts, Trump’s strategies adapt to domestic political dynamics and the perspectives of his supporters. For example, in early 2025, he adopted a firm stance toward Iran, issuing strong warnings, but later softened his rhetoric to pursue negotiations after pushback from restraintist-isolationist MAGA figures like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who opposed escalation (Fox News, 2025).

Trump’s willingness to adjust course is evident when ambitious proposals meet practical challenges. His “Trump Gaza Plan,” announced in January 2025, proposed relocating parts of Gaza’s population to Jordan and Egypt by threatening to cut international aid—a plan abandoned after advisors warned of diplomatic and regional fallout (Reuters, 2025). Similarly, his proposal for broad tariffs, including a 25% levy on Chinese imports, was scaled back when advisors highlighted risks of inflation and supply chain disruptions (Bloomberg, 2025). His 2018 pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria was also reversed after Pentagon officials cautioned about a resurgent ISIS threat (CNN, 2019). These adjustments reflect Trump’s openness to pragmatic guidance, enthusiasm for innovative ideas, and skill as a marketer in prioritizing impactful presentations.

Qatar’s Strategic Influence and Trump’s Responsiveness

Qatar, adept at strategic branding, recognizes Trump’s preference for tangible results over intricate policy details. By facilitating Alexander’s release, Qatar delivers a concrete achievement, reinforcing Trump’s image as a consummate dealmaker. This move establishes a diplomatic channel that marginalizes Israel, positioning Qatar as a linchpin in Trump’s peace agenda. Qatar likely convinced Hamas that releasing Alexander—a tactical concession—was a long-term investment in Trump’s goodwill, aligning with Hamas’s softened messaging about releasing all hostages if the war ends, which portrays Israel as the intransigent party (Al Jazeera, 2025). If Trump, eager for swift successes, views Qatar as a reliable partner, he may encourage Israel to pause its campaign in Gaza, a prospect Israel firmly opposes.

Trump’s decision-making, far from rigid, is shaped by a diverse array of voices, as noted by former aides in Bob Woodward’s 2020 book Rage (Simon & Schuster, 2020). His intuitive, emotion-driven approach often prioritizes personal rapport, making him receptive to those who build trust and offer compelling narratives.

Middle East Tour and Regional Maneuvering

Following Trump’s Middle East tour, Qatar and Saudi Arabia leveraged their relationships with him, employing gestures of goodwill and substantial economic commitments. These nations, capitalizing on financial ties and personal rapport, shaped Trump’s perspective to align with their interests. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman persuaded Trump to freeze sanctions on Syria, presenting its new leader, Abu Mohammad al-Julani—a figure notorious for pirouetting between the latest jihadi fads, from al-Qaeda to leading the terrorist-designated Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)—as a “tough, handsome young guy” who charmed Trump into giving him a chance (Al Jazeera, 2025). Despite HTS’s history of extremist violence and its fighters’ chilling chants vowing to “march to Al-Aqsa” and spewing anti-Western rhetoric, Trump’s decision risks emboldening a regime with deep terrorist roots to rebuild unchecked. On Gaza, Trump, swayed by humanitarian concerns and vivid images of suffering, was convinced by MBS that Gaza’s civilians faced starvation. This led to intense American pressure, forcing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to lift a two-month aid blockade—a critical lever that had constrained Hamas’s ability to dominate Gaza’s population—despite unanimous cabinet opposition (Times of Israel, 2025). The blockade’s end undermined the Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF), a carefully designed initiative led by special envoy Steve Witkoff to deliver aid directly to Gaza’s civilians, bypassing Hamas’s practice of weaponizing aid to fuel its war machine and maintain iron-fisted control over the population. As Israel launched its latest campaign, Gideon’s Chariot, to dismantle Hamas, this decision to allow unrestricted aid risks empowering Hamas, potentially prolonging the conflict and ensuring its survival as Trump grows impatient with a drawn-out war.

Trump’s Affinity for Personal Gestures

Trump’s responsiveness to personal gestures enhances Qatar’s influence, as his history shows a preference for leaders who offer recognition or concrete wins. In 2018, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s flattering letters prompted Trump to pursue high-profile summits, producing photo opportunities despite limited progress on denuclearization (BBC, 2019). Qatar’s strategic moves—including a $1.2 trillion investment pledge in U.S. infrastructure and energy sectors, announced in May 2025 to bolster Trump’s economic legacy, and Alexander’s release—represent a calculated effort to build favor (Financial Times, 2025). These gestures could shape Trump’s approach, potentially encouraging concessions that affect Israel’s strategic objectives.

Broader Implications: A Diplomatic Balancing Act

Qatar’s maneuvers, with Hamas as its proxy, demonstrate sophisticated geopolitical strategy. By securing Alexander’s release, Qatar enhances its diplomatic stature and creates leverage, potentially straining U.S.-Israel relations. Israel, resolute in its mission to neutralize Hamas, risks being cast as the obstacle to peace if it resists U.S. pressure to end the conflict prematurely. Meanwhile, Qatar and Hamas gain breathing room, preserving their influence and setting the stage for future tensions. This episode highlights the complexities of Trump’s adaptive leadership style, where personal connections and high-profile achievements can significantly influence U.S. policy, sometimes at the expense of long-term strategic priorities.

הפוסט Hamas’s Strategic Concession: A Calculated Gambit הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The EU executive will now launch a review to establish whether Israel has violated its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a broad-ranging pact that defines the trading and diplomatic relations between both sides.

The measure, planned in early May by Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp, was backed by 17 out of 27 EU-member states; specifically, Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

Among those who opposed the measure were Italy and Germany, which expressed their concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but did not vote in favor. Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, and Lithuania also moved against it, while Latvia remained neutral.

As reported by the Austrian TV channel Ö1, Austrian Foreign Minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger said his government supported the review, but opposed “suspending this agreement entirely,” stressing the importance of dialogue.

The UK has also been pressing Israel and recently suspended the free trade talks while announcing sanctions on some Israeli settlers in Judea and Samaria.

Israel’s response came soon after, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that Jerusalem had agreed over and over to the U.S. proposals for a ceasefire and to the release of the hostages, but Hamas refused every time. The ministry added that ignoring facts and solely criticizing Israel only encourages Hamas to avoid surrendering and carrying on the war.

The conditions indicated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war are just, precise, and clear: All hostages must be returned, Hamas must lay down weapons and be exiled, Gaza must be completely demilitarized and U.S. President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan must be implemented.

Therefore, why are some European leaders so reluctant to clearly and unequivocally call on Hamas to surrender and free all the hostages once and for all?

One reason could be the fear of internal unrest in countries with a strong Muslim presence, such as Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and Belgium. It is good to keep in mind that the so-called Palestinian cause is the most felt and shared at the level of the global ummah.

European cities have in fact been the scene of massive anti-Israel demonstrations since October 7, 2023, far more numerous than those that occurred during the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war. In many cases, protesters chanted slogans calling for the destruction of Israel and displayed Hamas and Hezbollah flags.

Furthermore, these demonstrations have also often found support from far-left groups, which have taken to the streets alongside Islamists and pro-Palestinians to exploit the situation.

The tension has been rising significantly in the last few weeks and, on May 22, Swedish MEP Alice Teodorescu Måwe, of the Christian Democrat Party (KD), was verbally and physically attacked by a pro-Palestinian Swede of Middle Eastern descent who works for a Swedish left-wing party in Brussels.

Teodorescu Måwe is well known for her pro-Israel views and, in October 2024, she suggested that the recognition of Israel’s right to exist should be a prerequisite for Swedish citizenship.

In April, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy was targeted by pro-Palestine protestors who left child-sized body bags outside of his home in London. The following month, the British minister for the Middle East, Hamish Falconer, was mobbed outside the Foreign Office by screaming pro-Palestine protesters who called him a “genocide supporter”.

In Italy, far-left and pro-Palestinian groups marched in the streets with placards showing the faces of ministers, MPs, and journalists and the words “Zionist agent”.

Moreover, the fear of hard-to-control Muslim riots such as the ones that occurred in the past in French banlieues is high among the European authorities, especially since the Muslim population in the Old Continent is quickly growing.

The demographics also condition the potential votes, and some left-wing European parties aim to gather the votes of Muslims, who are demographically more numerous than Jews. Therefore, these parties are willing to support the Palestinian cause.

For instance, the Italian left is supporting the referendum that will be held on June 8 and 9, suggesting a reduction from 10 to 5 years of the time of legal residence in Italy of a non-EU adult foreigner to request Italian citizenship. Once a citizen, he would be allowed to vote.

Last, but not least in order of importance, there is a huge issue that has to do with the contrast to Muslim Brotherhood-related Islamism, which fuels Hamas. As a matter of fact, the Gaza-based terrorist organization was born as the Palestinian branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

A recent confidential report, published by the French government, raised an alarm regarding the Muslim Brotherhood’s activity in the country due to the “subversive nature of the project,” as it aims to influence policymakers to erode secular values in favor of Islamic law. The report also discusses the Islamist attempt to influence EU policymakers regarding immigration laws and the Palestinian cause.

The Muslim Brotherhood (and its main supporter, Qatar), through the use of umbrella organizations, has infiltrated the EU on multiple levels, in politics, academia and, in some cases, individuals connected to the Movement’s ideology became interlocutors to the institutions on security and religious-related matters. This could be part of the reason why widespread anti-Israel sentiment is so widespread among those sectors of society.

Hamas, as part of this wider Islamist mechanism, did the same and developed a series of networks and connections in Europe that were exposed in detail by an Elnet report in October 2024.

Unlike ISIS or al-Qaeda, which are full-blown terrorist organizations, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas were enabled to operate and develop their networks on European soil. Hamas was able to do that despite being classified as a terrorist organization by the EU and a “no contact” policy preventing its officials from engaging with members of Hamas. How many police operations have there been in Europe against Hamas in comparison to those against ISIS or al-Qaeda?

Europe may not be ready to face a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas because, while ISIS bases its activity on the use of clandestine networks and cells, the first two have been able to root inside Europe through a process of multi-level infiltration and legitimization. Therefore, it is much more difficult for the authorities to intervene now.

The fear that the eradication of Hamas in Gaza may cause a new wave of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian terrorism in the Old Continent is high, and therefore, it’s easier to condemn Israel.

Published originally at the JNS on May 27th

הפוסט Why doesn’t the EU take a strong stance against Hamas? הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Velvet carpets, exquisite state dinners, Arabian horses and Cybertrucks motorcades – it is impossible to overstate the over-the-top display of opulence and luxury that flanks President Trump at every step of his trip to the region. As in his first term, Trump gave the Saudis and the Gulf states the honor of his inaugural overseas trip. In return, they lavished him with royal gestures, grandeur, and cash – securing eye-popping landmark contracts totaling potentially over $3 trillion.

This breathtaking extravaganza did little to gaslight a broad range of critics, though. Some on the left expressed concern about these deepening economic ties between the US and countries with a checkered human rights record, and raised eyebrows at the 747-plane offered as a gift by Qatar; some on the right reminded the President of the Saudis’ involvement in the 9/11 attacks and Doha’s less-than-ideal ties to terrorism. On the Israel front, however, many rushed to conclude that the President has snubbed Israel in favor of a love affair with some of its rogue neighbors, especially those who harbored Hamas’ leadership and harshly condemned Israel over the course of this war.

The truth, however, transcends all of these concerns. Trump executed an impressive acrobatic feat from his foreign policy playbook with flawless precision. His philosophy came to full display during this trip: strong economic ties, rather than diplomatic pleasantries, as a prescription for forging political and security alliances. Investing in Ukraine’s rare-earth minerals is therefore akin to investing in Saudi Arabia’s energy solutions, Qatar’s counter-drone capabilities, and the UAE’s AI data centers: both serve to entrench American presence and dominance in the region. For Trump, business removes barriers.

When Trump called the region to embrace “commerce, not chaos” and export “technology, not terrorism”, he appealed to this same sentiment: a region redefined by younger leaders who wish to leave past differences behind and develop significant economic powerhouses comfortably cushioned under the auspices of a strong American umbrella. Trump’s background as a real-estate mogul was particularly highlighted as he praised the “majestic skyscrapers”, called to “build cities together”, awed the Sheik Zayed Grand Mosque and even complimented the Qatari palace’s “perfect marble”.

Such utilitarian pragmatism, however, should be taken with a grain, rather a pile of salt in a region rife with ideological fault lines. If Trump expects the former HTS jihadist or the terror sponsors in Doha to somehow neglect their radical aspirations for the prospect of economic prosperity, then he’s in for an overly optimistic illusion that could undermine American interests. Iran has also opened its markets to the world following the Nuclear Deal in 2015, only to use the money for the nuclear program and the IRGC; and Qatar weaponizes its blood money for Hamas, ISIS, and radicalizing the American youth in prestigious universities. However, Trump shows no signs of ignoring these realities – on the contrary, he complements his optimism with waving a big stick.

This change of tune does not imply a change of tone: Trump is far from losing sight of his strategic geopolitical objectives; on the contrary, he doubled down on them. Regarding Iran, Israel’s foremost concern and a regime that poses a real threat to the US and global security – Trump did not disappoint. In his remarks in Riyadh, Trump mentioned Iran no less than 19 times, accusing it of funding “terror and death all over the world” and no less than the “most destructive force” in the region, focusing heavily on its part in wrecking Syria. His remarks triggered an angry response in Tehran.

Crucially, he underscored that the regime “cannot have a nuclear weapon”. Trump said as usual that he would be “happy to make a deal”, and hinted that such a deal could be coming soon, but paired the offer with an equally clear threat, warning that there is no time to wait. During his visit in 2022, then-President Biden simply demanded Iran to go back to its vague commitments under the problematic 2015 Nuclear Deal.

Regarding Gaza, a host of false reporting in the Arab media led some to believe that Trump will somehow throw Israel under the bus or force its hand into capitulating in Gaza or accept a Palestinian state. Yet the war was barely mentioned in the trip, to the point where pro-Palestinian advocates accused the President of forgetting Gaza and pushing it on to the sidelines of US diplomacy. While in Qatar, Hamas’ top sponsor, Trump reiterated his plan to take administrative control over Gaza, making it a “freedom zone”, and advanced his plan to relocate Gazans.

Finally, Trump called upon “all civilized people” to condemn October 7, demanded the release of all hostages, and conditioned Gaza’s bright future on stopping to “kidnap, torture, and target innocent men, women, and children for political ends” – there, in the heart of the Arab peninsula, in front of hundreds of Arab leaders.

Not only did Trump not turn his back on Israel, on the contrary – he used the occasion to advance his vision for the new regional security architecture, one that perfectly aligns with that of Israel: he urged Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords with Israel, forging an American-Arab-Israeli alliance that presents a unified front against Iran. He went a step further by extending the same offer to the once-jihadist Ahmed A-Sharaa, interim president of Syria, shocking the world by removing sanctions, and said he wants to “give them a chance at greatness” and that “it’s their time to shine” – while also urging him to normalize ties with Israel. This could be a bridge too far, but with Trump, surprises are an integral part of routine.

Inasmuch as the trip took place in the Middle East, Trump on his part kept his eye sharp on the far East – and his adversary in Beijing. Over the past decade, China has ramped up its investments in the region, taking advantage of an American disinterest and disengagement from a war-torn Middle East. In 2022, China’s total bilateral good trade volume with the region reached $368.4 billion, more than double than the US’s $144 billion. America cannot play second fiddle to China, and Trump is leaving the region with pockets full of cash and an avalanche of companies signing deals, much to Beijing’s dismay.

Trump articulates a purely pragmatic, common-sense mercantilism that aligns with his utilitarian worldview – embracing prescriptions that work, rejecting premises that fail, and giving a chance for money to speak.

His optimism and economic investment are far from being reminiscent of those of the European Union, in comparison. The EU has long embraced economic power and cultural allure as tenets of foreign policy, yet failed to deliver pragmatism, project military power, or sustain reliable economic infrastructure, with untold debt, painfully slow growth, and crippling regulations. Trump complemented his optimism with the clear commitment of a superpower, and an unprecedented $1 trillion defense budget.

Trump’s worldview is no big mystery, but this trip highlighted it in bright letters. He offered a “strong and steady hand” to the Saudi crown prince and spoke with American troops under the banner “peace through strength”. He exhibited American leadership against the backdrop of those who still believe he is based on isolationism. The President offered a golden tray of opportunity, dreaming of “the dawn of the bright new day that awaits for the people of the Middle East” and giving rogue regimes the chance to “shine”. But unlike appeasing leaders in the past who made promises of a “new Middle East”, Trump carries the cadence of command, and comes with demands.

This renewed American footprint in the region will alienate China, pull Arab countries to the US orbit, cement the unified front against Iran, and design the security architecture that Israel has been advocating for. If he succeeds in making good on his promise to deny Iran of nuclear weapons, cut a peace deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia with no significant perks to the Palestinians, and fundamentally change the security reality in Gaza, he will go down in history as the President who reshaped Israel’s strategic posture in the region. Time will tell.

This article was originally published in Jewish News Syndicate (jns).

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Why Trump’s Tour de Force Should Actually Bear Good News for Israel הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

In the Middle East of 2025, changes are unfolding at a dizzying and surprising pace. The recent visit by U.S. President Donald Trump to the region has reinforced the notion that previously unimaginable scenarios might soon become reality. Upon landing in Riyadh, Trump signed weapons and trade agreements worth trillions of dollars. But Trump did not stop there. On the sidelines of his visit, he made a significant diplomatic move by meeting with the controversial and intriguing regional actor, Syrian President Ahmad al-Shara (Abu Mohammad al-Julani). Trump also announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria, offering them an “opportunity for greatness.”

Has yesterday’s most wanted terrorist suddenly become a legitimate partner today?

The fact that al-Julani, who until recently had a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head, has now received public recognition through a meeting with Trump is nothing short of historic. This is the same al-Julani who joined the Iraqi mujahideen in 2003, inspired by the September 11 attacks, even stating previously, “Anyone in the Muslim or Arab world claiming they were not joyful on that day is lying.”

The Middle East stands at a historical crossroads, seemingly marching towards a new regional dawn. Yet, it appears as though the region is divided into two parallel realities:

In one reality, al-Julani is the leader of a jihadist faction that has become the dominant force shaping Syria’s new regime, aiming to establish an Islamic Caliphate. This new regime openly challenges Iran and Shia influence in the Middle East while gaining international legitimacy.

In the parallel reality, the United States and Iran are engaging diplomatically, negotiating over the Iranian nuclear program, with cautious support from Gulf states wary of direct conflict with Iran.

On the surface, this seems to be an unprecedented diplomatic move. However, beneath this façade, might Trump’s actions be part of a broader U.S. negotiation strategy with Iran? Is Trump leveraging al-Julani as pressure on Iran? Could this represent a calculated strategic signaling, not only regarding Syria’s future but also directed at Iran?

Trump may well be using this as a negotiating tactic, sending Tehran a clear message: “If you refuse cooperation, we will partner with your enemies.”

Through an indirect yet potent message, Trump is signaling the possibility of U.S. collaboration with Iran’s fiercest Sunni adversaries – specifically, Saudi Arabia-backed Syrian jihadist factions. In doing so, Trump underscores strengthening relations not only with al-Julani’s jihadist Syria but also with Iran’s significant regional rival, Saudi Arabia.

Trump’s Strategic Chessboard

Trump, known as a shrewd and tough businessman, employs an approach distinct from traditional diplomacy. Instead of endless dialogue and softening stances, Trump opts for a more forceful approach: forming strategic alliances with actors perceived as Iran’s most hostile adversaries – radical Sunni factions and Saudi Arabia.

This tactic aims to exert immense psychological and political pressure on Tehran by instilling fears of new alliances potentially encircling Iran. The ultimate goal is clear: forcing Iran back to the negotiating table under stringent conditions, opposite to Tehran’s longstanding tactic of “diplomatic attrition,” marked by delays, vague statements, and attempts to control international discourse.

“The Syrian Maneuver”

It is plausible that the “Syrian maneuver” is merely a tactical, temporary, yet focused tool. Its purpose is to alarm Iran by presenting a scenario in which its influence in Syria could be severed, compelling Tehran to accept American terms on the nuclear agreement.

For Trump, this move isn’t merely geopolitical, it is deeply psychological. He recognizes that Iran is especially sensitive to losing its leverage in the Sunni-Shia dynamic, particularly regarding Syria, which has been a critical axis for Iranian proxies and weapon transfers. Losing control of Syria might be perceived in Tehran as a genuine threat to its ongoing ability to rebuild its resistance axis.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to employ the leverage remaining in its arsenal: measured nuclear activities (enriching uranium at so-called civilian levels), maintaining centrifuges within its territory, and waiting for a potential administration change in the White House. Such a change would allow rapid resumption of military-grade uranium enrichment.

From Iran’s perspective, Trump’s actions represent a continual erosion of its regional influence. The collapse of Assad’s Syria has given rise to a new Sunni axis, encompassing al-Julani’s Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey – a “anti-Iranian-Shia alliance” placing Iran on the defensive.

The Houthis – Tehran’s Last Card?

In this intricate geopolitical landscape, the Houthis in Yemen remain one of Iran’s few remaining leverage points. The Houthis represent Iran’s only active proxy aggressively challenging American and Israeli interests in the region, demonstrated by attempts to disrupt Ben-Gurion International Airport operations through missile attacks.

Simultaneously, Iran is pursuing diplomatic strategies to maintain regional influence. Efforts to strengthen ties with Egypt and Bahrain, and renewed outreach toward Saudi Arabia, form part of a sophisticated strategy to counterbalance the growing Sunni axis. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s remarks confirm this: “Relations with Bahrain and Egypt have begun… We are actively working on this, and I hope it will materialize. Our ties with Egypt have never been broader.”

For years, Iran has sought Egypt as a counterbalance to Saudi dominance. Bahrain, with its Shiite majority ruled by a Sunni minority, holds strategic importance for Tehran. Iran views Bahrain effectively as a province and exploits internal tensions due to the sectarian divide. Rapprochement with Bahrain represents a subtle Iranian strategy aimed at weakening the Abraham Accords with Israel.

Ultimately, Iran finds itself under intensifying economic and geopolitical pressure, prepared for almost any step that would lead to sanction relief and the preservation of the Ayatollahs’ rule. In contrast, Trump continues to execute unexpected and unconventional moves as part of a sophisticated diplomatic pressure campaign. In a region where every chessboard movement sends signals and could alter the power balance, Trump strategically maneuvers while keeping the military option open – calculatedly wielding it as a tool to achieve his objectives regarding Iran.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט The Revolving Doors of the Middle East: How Trump is Cornering Iran הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

1. For decades, writing about the political activities of the entrenched elites in Israel has been a no-go zone. Drawing attention to the agenda of this group has been out of bounds. But gradually and unavoidably, it has become an accepted subject of public attention as a well-organized vocal minority has been systematically targeting the unity of Israeli society to destabilize and overthrow the legally elected government. This political and social assault has effectively become the eighth front in Israel’s existential war. We can no longer ignore the danger posed by this group. We must understand the strategy of the other side and defeat it. The approach of strategic defeatism dates back to World War I when the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Ilyitch Lenin (1870-1924), accepted the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which took the Russian Empire out of the war in March 1918. The terms were draconian, with Russia losing several major territories, including Ukraine and Finland, but accepting defeat made it possible to save the Russian Revolution. According to British historian John W. Wheeler-Bennett, “The battleground was that of social struggle, and therein frontiers mattered little in comparison with the fight of the proletarian versus the capitalist …. ‘He is no Socialist,’ wrote Lenin in an open letter to American workers, ‘who does not understand that the victory over the bourgeoisie may require losses of territory and defeats. He is no Socialist who will not sacrifice his fatherland for the triumph of the social revolution.’” In August 1915, Lenin wrote that those who want revolution must work for the defeat of their own country.  When he wrote, he hoped that the first uprising of the workers would break out in Imperial Germany, but it did not happen.  Nevertheless, the idea is clear: …. A “revolutionary struggle against the war” is an empty and meaningless exclamation… unless it means revolutionary action against one’s own government even in time of war.  One has only to think a little to understand this.  And revolutionary action in wartime against one’s own government undoubtedly and incontrovertibly means not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such defeat….1

   In early March 1918, Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart, the British consul in Moscow, first met with Lenin and recorded his personal impression:

   “…. In his creed of world-revolution Lenin was as unscrupulous and as uncompromising as a Jesuit, and in his code of political ethics the end to be obtained justified the employment of any weapon.  He gave me, — correctly as events proved—all the information for which I asked….

   Lockhart asked Lenin about the possible outcome of the Great War, because, at that moment, it appeared that the Imperial German Army had the advantage.  He then described Lenin’s reply:

   “Lenin smiled.  Like all your countrymen you are thinking in concrete military terms.  You ignore the psychological factor.  This war will be settled in the rear and not in the trenches.” 2

   Later, on October 10, 1918, Lenin wrote that it was necessary to “disorganize” the army: “Not a single great revolution has ever refrained from ‘disorganizing’ the army and cannot refrain from doing so …. The first commandment of every victorious revolution, as Marx and Engels repeatedly emphasized, was: Smash the old army, dissolve it and replace it by a new one.””3

   From Lenin’s reply to Bruce Lockhart, it is clear that in real time he understood the kind of war he was fighting and that it would be “settled in the rear [the home front] and not in the trenches.” Any reader of Carl von Clausewitz, On War, will remember that “this is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive.”

   Beyond the longer-term strategy of defeatism and seeing the battle-ground as one of social struggle, Lenin advocated the tactic of taking advantage of existing sources of discontent.  He wrote: “Our task is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to gather and turn to the best account every protest, however small.”  While the redemption of the hostages, kidnapped on October 7, has great merit inherently, the enemies of the lawfully elected government have used this method as a political weapon.

2. On Thursday, April 10, 2025, a group of nearly one thousand reserve pilots and air force staff published a petition calling for the immediate release of the Israeli hostages seized and held by Hamas, even at the price of ending the current war. This really means accepting national defeat. It was reported that sixty of the signatories were in active reserves, but most of the 1,000 were veterans, no longer in service; a small number were unidentified. The headline of this petition read: “A Call for the Return of all the Kidnapped Hostages, even at the at the Price of Ending the Hostilities!” …. “We, the team of fighters of the Air Force, in the reserves and retired, demand the return of the kidnapped [hostages] without delay …. End the fighting and return all the kidnapped [persons] – Now! Every day that goes by endangers their lives. Every extra moment of hesitation is a disgrace.” Illustration of the Reservists’ Petition [At the end of this article]: Before the publication of this petition, on Tuesday, April 8, the Jerusalem Post quoted the KAN news service, as follows: “Air Force Commander Major General Tomer Bar was most troubled by one paragraph in particular: ‘At this time the war serves mainly political interests and not security interests.  Continuing the war does not contribute to any of Israel’s stated war goals and will lead to the deaths of the hostages, IDF soldiers and innocent civilians.’” It was reported that Commander Tomer Bar objected to this defeatist message which accused the government of duplicity and bad faith.  Its subversive language dates back to the propaganda of the First World War, namely, that government policy makers are acting under false pretenses. The Times of Israel gave the background to the petition and the official response as follows: “After its publication, Commander Tomer Bar, along with IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, moved to dismiss the active reservists who signed the letter, with the IDF saying that it has no issue with reservists protesting any matter in their civilian lives, as [long as] they do it without using the name of the military or their role.”  Specifically, they objected to the use of the ‘Air Force Brand’ for political protest. On the same subject, Channel 12 independently reported that the reservists intended to publish their letter on Tuesday morning, April 8, before the hearing of the High Court of Justice on the efforts to fire [Ronen] Bar, head of Israel’s Secret Service [Shin Bet]. We must ask who really orchestrated this political initiative as well as others. Who drafted this letter?  And who paid for it? Despite the fact that the signatories of this letter claim to be retired Israel Air Force staff and reservists, its real purpose was to promote defeatism by undermining public trust in the government in time of war.  Furthermore, the petition of April 10 was not an isolated event. On April 14, the Jerusalem Post reported that 1790 graduates of the elite Talpiot intelligence program published a letter in support of the IAF reservists’ petition, and separately, 250 doctors in the reserves joined them. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s initial public reaction was to declare that the letter came from a noisy fringe group whose only aim is to topple the government. Nobel Laureate Professor Israel Aumann stated that this act will increase the price that Israel will have to pay for the hostages and Dr. Mordechai Kedar opined that this declaration of weakness is a gift to Israel’s enemies in the Arab world. The purpose of the Prime Minister’s pre-recorded address to the nation on Saturday night April 19 was to counter the effects of the reservists’ petition and to reiterate the government’s determination to achieve their strategic goals.
3. If we look back half a century, we may learn from the strategy and tactics which the North Vietnamese used in order to manipulate American public opinion and disrupt the American home front and the orderly conduct of foreign policy. Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon’s National Security Advisor, wrote an autobiographical account of this era, The Washington Years (Boston, 1979), in which he documented how an aggressive and forceful domestic campaign against the war destabilized the administration and undermined its ability to govern. Kissinger’s observations show that there are real parallels between the domestic disorder which was fomented during the Vietnam War and the turmoil on the home front in Israel. The following are several of Kissinger’s observations which may apply to our present situation: “My theme was constant, that the war had to be ended as an act of policy, not in response to demonstrations”“Our opposition came from those who wanted more rapid withdrawal, if not defeat, and this destroyed our bargaining position.  Our enemies would only benefit from our domestic collapse.” “We [American policy makers] acted as if the process of negotiations operated on its own inherent logic independent of the military balance –, indeed, that military pressures might jeopardize the negotiations by antagonizing our adversary or demonstrating bad faith. Nor surprisingly, a stalemate of nearly two years’ duration followed, during which our casualties equaled those we had endured when hostilities were unconstrained. Treating force and diplomacy as discrete phenomena caused our power to lack purpose and our negotiations to lack force.” On the evening of April 15, 1972, Anatoly Dobrynin, Ambassador of the Soviet Union, made a discrete visit to Kissinger’s home in order to discuss lending Soviet diplomatic support to American efforts to end the war.  Requesting Russian help, Kissinger said: “Anatol, for us it isn’t just an international problem; it has now become a major domestic problem.  We cannot permit our domestic structure to be constantly tormented by this country ten thousand miles away.  The war must now be brought to a conclusion, and we will do it either together with the other great powers or alone.” This conversation shows that Kissinger understood the cumulative effect of a systematic campaign of domestic defeatism.  It was demoralizing and dangerous. The similarities between the strategy of the North Vietnamese and that of Hamas should help us better understand the kind of war we are fighting. However, if policy makers in Israel ignore the reality of the Eighth Front, the outcome of the present war could be even more precarious.

   One of obstacles that Henry Kissinger had to overcome was that Hanoi even refused to discuss American proposals and it became necessary to get the negotiations moving. In the event, massive B-52 attacks on Hanoi, in April 1972, proved to be an effective catalyst.

   After devoting attention to Henry Kissinger’s lessons with regard to negotiating in general, one may reconstruct his views with regard to the petition of the reservists and the claim that accepting defeat would facilitate the immediate release of the Israeli hostages.  According to Kissinger, negotiations must be supported by vigorous military force.  In view of his reasoning and the lessons of his experience, it is unlikely that defeat and humiliation can bring about the return of all of our hostages.

4. Based on the open sources, we can make a reasonable guess as to the motives and the methods driving today’s political warfare in Israel. It cannot be ruled out that the real goals of the so-called “Resistance” are civil war, national defeat, and revolution. Although the Soviet Union has passed into history, certain political agitators in Israel, while claiming moral superiority in the name of “democracy,” –as they understand it, — have adopted Lenin’s legacy of political warfare.

Copy of IAF Reservists’ Petition Below:

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

This article was originally published in Jewish News Syndicate (jns).

הפוסט Israel’s Eighth Front: The Challenge of Domestic Defeatism הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The recent developments in the Middle East after Trump’s recent visit are of extreme concern, especially since the US President announced a titanic $1.2 trillion economic commitment with Doha and the will to accept a $400 million luxury aircraft to serve as a present, to serve as new Air Force One and then go to Trump’s personal use, raising major constitutional and ethical issues. Trump also spent words of great appreciation for Qatar, stating that the relations between the two nations are “stronger than ever” and that “America will protect Qatar”.

After the October 7^th massacre, Qatar has been presented and enrolled as the main mediator between Hamas and Israel. The new Trump administration strongly renewed the will to see Doha involved in the effort to achieve a “deal” on the end of the war in Gaza.

Unfortunately, very few are willing to acknowledge and publicly admit that Doha is not exactly an impartial mediator, but it is rather pursuing Hamas’ interest which, at this stage, means surviving the war and, eventually, remaining in control of Gaza as the next step.

Qatar has been sheltering the Hamas leadership for many years, and it still does, despite requests and insufficient pressure to have them expelled. The Qataris have been using Hamas as a tool for hegemonic objectives. As explained by Jennifer Teale, a Middle East analyst for the Israel Defense and Security Forum-IDSF:

“By backing Hamas, Qatar solidifies its standing among Arab and Muslim populations who view the group as a resistance movement and perpetuates its relevance on the global stage, enabling terrorist groups that destabilize the region and threaten Israeli security. Its ability to navigate its mediator role without exacerbating violence will indeed determine its future influence”.

Since 2007, sent over $1.8 billion into the Strip and, in 2021, Doha pledged $360 million of yearly support to Gaza, as reported by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Digging deeper into the issue, it is possible to highlight how Qatar has a very long history of supporting Islamist terrorism since the early 2000s, from the Chechens to Al-Qaeda in Syria.

For instance, Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, a Chechen terrorist leader who fought alongside the infamous Shamil Basayev, found refuge in Qatar in the year 2000. In Doha, Yandarbiyev tried to obtain economic aid to carry out the anti-Russian jihad in the North Caucasus. In October 2002, Yandarbiyev was indicated by Russian intelligence as one of the masterminds of the bloody terrorist attack at the Dubrovka theater in Moscow, thus ending up in the sights of the FSB.

Moscow was aware of the terrorist’s presence in Doha and repeatedly requested his extradition to Qatar, but to no avail.  On February 13^th, 2004, Yandarbiyev died when an explosive device blew up the SUV he was traveling in. The following day, the Qatari police arrested three Russian citizens working at their embassy and two of them were accused of being FSB agents. A Qatari court sentenced them to life imprisonment for the attack, but following a bitter diplomatic clash between Moscow and Doha the two were extradited to Russia and amnestied.

In 2003, the US Congress was alerted on several charities in Qatar supporting al-Qaeda. Since then, Qatar has been accused of not only providing refuge to terrorism financiers but also of directly funding terrorist groups. Around ten years later, in December 2014, U.S. Congressmen Peter Roskam and Brad Sherman requested that the U.S. place sanctions on Qatar and provide Congress with a full report on their financing ties to Hamas, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, sanctions were never applied.

It is worth remembering that during the year of the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership in Egypt, between 2012 and 2013, former Islamist president Mohamed Morsy, who was strongly supported by Qatar, made an alliance with the Iranian regime and provided support to Hamas.

In 2013, Qatar allowed the Taliban to open an office in Doha, with the support of the Obama administration which also tried to present the Muslim Brotherhood as a new Islamic democratic force in the Middle East ready to replace the secular regimes. When the Taliban retook power in 2021, the Taliban’s political leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was flown to Kandahar from Doha by the Qatari Air Force.

In 2017, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates embargoed Qatar. They also cut diplomatic ties and issued a trade embargo until Qatar complied with a list of demands, including shutting down Al-Jazeera and closing ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter had long been active in subversive activities in countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Syria, and Tunisia.

In February 2018, in an in-depth report for the UK government concerning the diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its Gulf neighboring nations, intelligence specialist Steven Merley highlighted Doha’s role in the financial support for jihadist groups in Syria such as the former Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch at the time) and the “Army of Conquest Coalition”.

Merley also indicated that Qatar had a history of either paying or helping facilitate ransom payments to Al-Nusra and ended the report with one clear recommendation: “The UK should exert maximum pressure on the Qatari government to cease any support to Islamist terror”.

However, Qatar’s support for Islamist terrorism seems to go beyond the Sunni world, as Doha’s money may have reached the Shia axis as well. Something that should not come as a surprise, considering the friendly relations that Doha maintains with the Iranian regime. In fact, in July 2020, a private security contractor who worked for the German security services revealed to the German weekly news outlet Die Zeit that Doha was financing Hezbollah. According to the story, the contractor came across an alleged weapons deal handled by a company in Qatar bound for Hezbollah. Specifically, the money flows came from several rich Qataris and exiled Lebanese people from Doha to Hezbollah. The donations were said to have been processed with the knowledge of influential government officials through a charity organization in Doha.

In addition, Die Zeit also reported that Qatar offered the contractor €750,000 in exchange for maintaining silence about Qatar’s funding of Hezbollah; the offer was allegedly made through Qatar’s Ambassador to Belgium Abdulrahman bin Mohammed Sulaiman al-Khulaifi.

Moreover, Qatar is also a major exporter of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist ideology to the Muslim diaspora in the West, with a cascade of money to the numerous Islamic organizations and associations in Europe, as detailed in the book “Qatar Papers” by Chesnot and Malbrunot. This mechanism aims to expand and maintain hegemony over organized Islam in Europe to influence its internal policies towards Muslims and foreign policies.

It is essential to recall how the Qatari news platform, Al-Jazeera, has been promoting and spreading Hamas narratives and exclusive October 7 propaganda material that included Hamas senior military commanders during the planning of the massacre, a footage of Yahya Sinwar visiting terrorists on the ground, and al-Jazeera reporters visiting Hamas terrorists in the tunnels underneath Gaza.

As reported by MEMRI: “the editorial policy of Qatar’s Al-Jazeera Network is dictated by the Qatari regime in accordance with its interests, and that the network serves as a mouthpiece for Qatar’s ally and protégé, Hamas”.

Moreover, al-Jazeera also came under fire on several occasions for promoting anti-Semitic views, like in May 2019, when it launched a video branded as “Holocaust denial” on Arabic youth channel AJ+, which claimed that Jews exaggerated the scale of the genocide to help establish Israel.

Given that the above is only a very limited part of a much larger picture linking Qatar to Islamist extremism and terrorism, both in the Middle East and in Europe, it is difficult to justify the fact that Doha has never been sanctioned nor included in the blacklist of countries that support terrorism.

The fact that Qatar is a seemingly necessary ally for the United States and a major financier in the West, not only in academia but also in sports and politics, as demonstrated in Europe by Qatargate, implies that Qatar can continue to benefit from extreme tolerance. No one in the West has dared to go beyond a few warnings or reminders to Doha regarding its support for terrorism. As if that were not enough, Qatar has even become the major mediator of a conflict in which it is indirectly involved since saving Hamas is in Doha’s interest.

It is hard to believe that Washington is willing to even criticize Qatar, as the latest developments have shown. Doha is well aware of this and it is putting strong effort in trying to please Trump in every possible way, while at the same time it is pushing its own agenda, and it is no coincidence that Hamas is still standing.

The status elevation that the Trump administration is providing to Qatar, and consequently to the Muslim Brotherhood, puts at serious risk the safety and security of not just Israel, but the of the West as well, and the stability of the Middle East. It would therefore be important to be extremely cautious and verify Qatar’s activity because, regardless of the understanding the need for realpolitik, it is not possible to ignore these very problematic activities.

הפוסט Qatar’s support for terrorism and the West’s double standards הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Recent statements by retired Major General Yair Golan, head of the Democratic Party, have sparked significant controversy. In an interview with Israeli radio station Kan Bet, Golan accused Israel of “killing children as a hobby,” conducting “warfare against civilians,” and seeking the “uprooting of populations.” These remarks, seen as severe accusations against the State of Israel and the IDF, have resonated widely, particularly in Arab media and among Palestinian groups and anti-Israel propagandists.

Arab Media: “Internal Testimony of Crimes”

Outlets such as Al-Quds Al-Arabi prominently highlighted Golan’s remarks, referring to him as the “former deputy chief of staff of the occupation army,” emphasizing his senior military background and familiarity with Israeli operations. His comments were presented as internal admissions by a high-ranking Israeli official about crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. Arab commentators have described these statements as “incriminating evidence” and called for prosecuting senior Israeli political and military officials for “genocide and crimes against humanity.”

“In any case, Israelis (not just their government and army) ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people, particularly in Gaza, except for a few isolated voices,” one article stated. Additionally, the prominent Arab newspaper recalled Golan’s previous controversial statements: “It is worth mentioning that before retiring from the army ten years ago, Golan compared the occupation’s crimes in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 to events in the 1930s, openly alluding to Nazism.”

The Palestinian terrorist organization Mujahideen Movement stated that Golan’s comments constituted “incriminating evidence” that justifies severe international sanctions against Israel. “Golan’s statements once again confirm that the enemy government is responsible for continuing the brutal war in Gaza and for disrupting all mediation efforts. The reactions from various Zionist parties reveal the collective criminal and fascist mentality dominating the occupying entity, which rejects any criticism of its brutal crimes,” they said.

The Palestinian news agency “Quds,” affiliated with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, reported, “Yair Golan, the leader of the Democratic Party in the occupying state, sparked widespread anger among both the government and opposition.” They added that “his remarks follow a series of criticisms by former senior military officials regarding the army’s conduct in Gaza. Analysts interpret these critiques as part of an internal effort to rehabilitate the army’s image amid mounting international pressure and potential prosecution of Israel for war crimes.”

Al-Jazeera highlighted Golan’s statements, noting, “These declarations directly attribute responsibility to Netanyahu, placing him at the heart of accusations regarding committed atrocities.”

“The significance of these statements lies not only in their content but also in their appeal to international accountability, presenting a notable paradox,” Al-Jazeera commented. Ahmad Jabarin, described by Al-Jazeera as an “Israel expert,” added, “It is the Israeli government that calls for displacement and starvation. Whenever accused, it immediately labels such accusations antisemitic, despite these claims being based on actions it openly carries out and publicly acknowledges.”

Jabarin also suggested that such statements gain further significance due to the positions of countries like France, Britain, and Canada, along with recent U.S. actions, concluding, “All this points toward one reality: Israel must wash its hands of Palestinian blood.”

The governmental media office in Gaza responded by referencing “bloody massacres committed by the Israeli occupation army against defenseless civilians in Gaza,” linking these acts to Golan’s statements:

“These massacres align with unprecedented statements by a senior Israeli official, Yair Golan, former deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army, who explicitly admitted Israel ‘wages war against civilians,’ ‘kills children as a hobby,’ and aims for ‘population displacement.’ This represents a clear admission by the Israeli military establishment of ongoing genocide against our Palestinian people. We affirm that this criminal behavior, supported by incitement and hateful rhetoric, exposes the true nature of the occupation as a racist colonial regime openly engaged in organized terror.”

Consequences and Implications

The battle for public perception and Israel’s legitimacy remains a critical front in the Gaza conflict. Arab media reactions demonstrate how Golan’s statements provided fertile ground for constructing a misleading narrative about massacres and genocide. It is no coincidence that Hamas, hostile media, and anti-Israel rights organizations eagerly embraced these statements.

While Israel exerts considerable effort internationally to clarify that its military operations target terrorists rather than civilians, statements like Golan’s suggest systematic policies aimed at civilian deaths. Such claims are not only false but extremely harmful to Israel’s international reputation, potentially affecting political, diplomatic, and legal decisions on the global stage.

Comments of this nature severely undermine Israel’s public diplomacy efforts and reinforce Palestinian propaganda, which often contains antisemitic elements. Statements like Golan’s reinforce a victimhood narrative carefully cultivated by Palestinian propagandists. They see such remarks not merely as internal political critiques but as insider testimony that Israel systematically commits crimes against civilians.

Such statements further facilitate attempts to diplomatically isolate Israel, encourage boycotts, and amplify international pressure. Moreover, they can create divides between Israel and its global supporters, undermining Israel’s narrative and contradicting established facts: that the IDF targets terrorists, not civilians. Additionally, the IDF consistently undertakes extensive precautions, including issuing pre-attack warnings and investing considerable resources to minimize civilian casualties.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Reactions in Arab Media to Yair Golan’s Statements הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

“The nation of Qatar has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level…They have to end that funding, and its extremist ideology in terms of funding.”

At the time, Trump also tweeted his support for the diplomatic and economic blockade imposed on Qatar by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain: “During my recent trip to the Middle East, I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!”.

However, it is also essential to recall how Trump had suddenly changed his tone towards Doha shortly after, by offering to help the involved Gulf nations resolve their issues by inviting them to a White House meeting if necessary. Trump had also emphasized the importance of all countries in the region working together to prevent the financing of terrorist organizations, the promotion of extremist ideology, highlighting the importance of the US partnership with Qatar, as the nation is home to the Al-Udeid Air Base, the biggest US military facility in the Middle East,  as reported at the time by CNN.

On his second term, though, Trump’s position towards Qatar seems to have radically changed, since on May 14^th, the US President stated that the US “never had a relationship with Qatar as strong as it is now” and that Washington “is going to protect you”.

During his current visit to Doha, Trump announced a colossal $1.2 trillion economic commitment with Qatar that includes a $96 billion deal with Qatar Airways and over $38 billion in investments at the Al-Udeid Air Base.

Moreover, Qatar generated strong controversy by offering a $400 million luxury aircraft to serve as a new Air Force One and then go to Trump’s personal use, raising major constitutional, ethical, and even security concerns; especially, since Qatar has constantly been accused of ideologically infiltrating US universities through very generous donations, as the pro-Hamas demonstrations throughout campuses have shown. Since the early 1980s, Qatar has poured over $6.5 billion into US universities, earning the record of being the biggest Arab donor in the US education system. Indeed, the ideology backing the Palestinian terrorist organization became a tool in the hands of Doha to destabilize campuses.

While Trump is showing his great appreciation for the aircraft donated by Qatar, shortly before, in late April 2025, he issued an executive order requiring American colleges and universities to report all foreign funding, after concerns forwarded by Jewish groups that countries such as Qatar and Iran were promoting anti-Israel discourse on campus. An interesting double standard.

In addition, let’s not forget the Qatargate issue in Europe, which is far from being over. Qatar is notoriously behind the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology in the Old Continent, with a hegemonic mechanism over the Muslim diaspora through the control of Islamic centers and mosques, to influence European policies towards Muslims and foreign policy. All of this is extensively documented in the book “Qatar Papers” by French investigative journalists Chirstian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, where they exposed in detail flows of money.

Qatar is also Hamas’ main financial and political backer in the Middle East.  Since 2007, Qatar has pumped about $1.8 billion into the Strip, and in 2021, Doha pledged $360 million in annual support to Gaza, as reported by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Much of that money ended up in Hamas’s pockets.

By supporting Hamas, Qatar has sought to consolidate its hegemony in the Arab world and even in the West, where the Palestinian terrorist organization is often presented as a “resistance movement”. Furthermore, through the Doha-based television channel al-Jazeera, Qatar heavily contributed to spreading the pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood propaganda.

The story is not over, because Qatar has also supported the activity of other terrorist groups that destabilize the region and threaten Israeli security. For instance, in July 2020, a private contractor working for the German security services, Jason G., revealed to the German weekly Die Zeit that Doha was financing Hezbollah. As reported by the German newspaper, while in Doha, the contractor came across an alleged arms deal involving military equipment from Eastern Europe, handled through a company in Qatar, as well as financial flows from several wealthy Qataris and Lebanese exiles in Doha to Hezbollah. The donations were said to have been processed through a charity organization in Doha with the knowledge of influential government officials. According to Die Zeit, Qatar even offered the contractor €750,000 to keep quiet about Hezbollah’s funding through an offer made via Qatar’s ambassador to Belgium Abdulrahman bin Mohammed Sulaiman al-Khulaifi.

In February 2018, in a report for the British government into the diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its Gulf neighbors, intelligence specialist Steven Merley highlighted Doha’s role in financially supporting jihadist groups in Syria as well as paying or helping to facilitate ransom payments to terrorist groups such as former Jabhat al-Nusra, concluding the report with a clear recommendation: “The UK should put maximum pressure on the Qatari government to cease all support for Islamist terrorism”.

It is no secret that Qatar is one of the main supporters of Islamism and Islamist terrorism in the Middle East and the world, just like the Iranian regime. It is also well known that Qatar is the main supporter of Hamas and, for this reason, it should never have been involved in the role of mediation, given that Doha has in fact operated as the diplomatic arm of Hamas. It is in Doha in fact that the political leadership of Hamas continues to reside and be protected.

Trump’s unexpected pro-Qatar policy will only further encourage Doha’s commitment to expand its Islamist hegemony in the West. This is incoherent because the Trump-Qatar renewed relations is a given alert against the implications and call upon them to trust but verify.

הפוסט Business redemption: Trump turns Qatar from terror-state sponsor to “great friend” הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Over the past year, Hezbollah has faced a growing existential crisis, intensified by the targeted assassinations of senior figures including Fuad Shukr, Ibrahim Aqil, Jawad Tawil, and particularly Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and his successor, Hashem Safi al-Din. Once Iran’s most formidable proxy and a significant strategic actor in the Middle East, Hezbollah now contends with depleted leadership, military setbacks, and mounting international pressure. Does this signal genuine weakening within the Shiite terrorist organization?

According to Lebanese sources, Hezbollah is undertaking drastic measures to ensure its survival, notably relocating the families of hundreds of senior commanders to Latin America.

Lebanese journalist Ali Hamadeh recently disclosed in a video published on his X (formerly Twitter) account that the families of approximately 400 Hezbollah leaders have left Lebanon, finding refuge primarily in South American countries like Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, and Ecuador. Hamadeh explains this relocation is driven by the growing recognition that Hezbollah’s military capabilities are deteriorating, and the continued presence of these commanders’ families in Lebanon significantly increases their vulnerability to Israeli or international intelligence operations.

Hamadeh suggests this mass relocation indicates Hezbollah is preparing for an era of diminished direct military engagement in Lebanon, shifting instead towards increased political influence, economic operations, and organized criminal activities abroad.

Hezbollah in Latin America

Hezbollah has long maintained a prominent presence in Latin America. Since the early 1980s, the organization has cultivated extensive networks across the continent, driven by Iran’s aspiration to export its Islamic Revolution. Leveraging sizable Shiite Lebanese communities and the presence of weak or anti-Western governance, Hezbollah has effectively entrenched itself in various Latin American regions.

A significant hub of Hezbollah activity is the Tri-Border Area connecting Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, where the group operates elaborate networks involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. Under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela provided Hezbollah with favorable conditions to expand its influence, capitalizing on the substantial Lebanese community there.

Hezbollah’s activities are also notable in Brazil and Colombia. In 2023, Brazil thwarted a Hezbollah plot targeting its Jewish community. Additionally, Hezbollah was implicated in the devastating 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, prompting Argentina to officially designate the organization as a terrorist entity in 2019.

Strategic Implications of Relocation

If reports of Hezbollah leaders’ families relocating to South America are accurate, this strategic shift could significantly enhance Hezbollah’s continental influence. Establishing new local command structures and embedding deeper into criminal networks would enable the organization to preserve its global threat status, even as its direct military power in the Middle East diminishes.

For Iran, strengthening Hezbollah’s position in Latin America represents a strategic alternative following the collapse of the land corridor linking Tehran to Beirut through Iraq and Syria, a critical route disrupted by al-Julani’s takeover in Syria, which dismantled a primary achievement of former Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani.

This strategic pivot could enable Iran to rebuild Hezbollah, transforming it from a direct Middle Eastern military threat into a covert global actor, with Latin America as its new operational center.

These developments align with Iran’s ongoing efforts to reconstruct the fractured “Axis of Resistance” following Assad’s regime collapse, Nasrallah’s assassination, and the weakening of Hezbollah and Hamas due to targeted leadership eliminations. Iran seeks creative methods to rehabilitate its damaged proxy networks, including establishing new proxies like the “Islamic Resistance in Syria,” leveraging international criminal organizations, and promoting inter-proxy cooperation.

Threats to the United States

Hezbollah’s potential strengthening in Latin America poses serious security threats to both Israel and the United States. With the return of the Trump administration to the White House, renewed American attention to Latin America seems likely.

From a U.S. perspective, Hezbollah operatives migrating to South America pose security risks as well as structural immigration challenges. Countries like Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador, with porous borders and weak or corrupt governance, provide ideal conditions for smuggling, document forgery, and evasion of immigration controls.

There is a real possibility that Hezbollah operatives could infiltrate the U.S. via its southern border, using forged passports or alternative identities. Consequently, Hezbollah is viewed not only as a regional threat but as a systemic danger undermining U.S. border control, economic stability, and societal cohesion.

President Trump previously adopted a firm stance against Hezbollah, isolating the group economically and initiating global investigations into its financial networks. Given the potential infiltration of Hezbollah operatives into Latin America under civilian guises, the Trump administration might implement several strategic actions:

• Initiate cooperation with Latin American countries to extradite Hezbollah operatives through diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and international legal frameworks.
• Expand surveillance and disruption efforts led by U.S. Treasury, CIA, and FBI agencies.
• Enhance operational oversight and intelligence-gathering by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), reinforcing stringent immigration policies.

Furthermore, addressing Hezbollah as a hybrid entity combining organized crime and terrorism is essential. Efforts should integrate anti-illegal immigration measures with operations targeting organized crime and terrorism emanating from Middle Eastern groups operating through Latin American hubs.

Hezbollah exemplifies Iran’s global ambitions, and its activities across Latin America represent a strategic threat. A coordinated Israeli-American policy could strengthen intelligence cooperation between Jerusalem and Washington, undermine Hezbollah’s financial and logistical capacities, and heighten regional pressure on Iran.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Exile from Beirut: Is Hezbollah Weakening or Opening a New Front? הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Once Israel began its attacks on Gaza, ISIS sought to exploit the war by recruiting supporters worldwide to fight under the banner of Islam. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda, a rival organization vying with ISIS for primacy among global jihadist groups, also applauded Hamas’s offensive and used it to call on Muslims around the world to seize this “historic moment for global jihad” against the “infidels.” Al-Qaeda views Hamas’s attack as a “historic” turning point, revealing the weakness of the “Crusaders and Jews” and thus presenting an opportunity to strike. Despite being a radical Sunni Salafi group itself, Al-Qaeda differs from ISIS in that it maintains some ties with Shiite elements, such as Iran (reportedly, Al-Qaeda’s current leader, Saif al-Adl, resides in Tehran). In the past year, there have even been reports of a cooperation agreement between the Iranian-backed Houthi movement in Yemen and Al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen in Somalia, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, involving collaboration and the supply of weapons. From Al-Qaeda’s perspective, Hamas—acting as an Iranian proxy—managed to disrupt the normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia, a moderate Sunni Arab state and leader of the Sunni world.

Throughout the months of this war, both ISIS and Al-Qaeda have engaged in propaganda calling for attacks against Jews and Christians worldwide, focusing on Jewish and Israeli institutions such as synagogues, Jewish community centers, and embassies. These organizations maintain cells in various parts of the world and routinely disseminate extremist incitement online, increasing both the lethality of their activities and the threat posed by unaffiliated individuals who adopt their ideology.

This intensified activity by global jihadist organizations has accelerated the rise of “lone wolf” terrorists, who consume incitement materials, pledge allegiance to these groups, and set out to commit acts of violence. Over the past year, several such attacks have occurred in Western countries and also in Israel. Global jihadist influence has reached both the Palestinian Authority and within Israel, creating a support network fueled by severe jihadi incitement on social media and contributing to a surge in “lone wolf” attacks after the events of October 7. For example, a planned ISIS attack at Teddy Stadium in Jerusalem was thwarted a year ago; all members of the cell were terrorists from East Jerusalem.

In addition to this growing phenomenon of individual attackers, there are also organizations such as ISIS’s Khorasan Province, which has increased its activity over the past year. This branch has carried out deadly attacks—including the bombing at a Moscow concert hall—and attempted attacks that were foiled (such as a planned assault in Vienna during a concert by the well-known singer Taylor Swift).

Implications and Possible Courses of Action

1. Shared Threat to Israel and the West
   The most immediate consequence for Israel and the West is that Israel stands on the front line against radical Islam as part of the broader clash between Western civilization and radical Islam. Both Israel and Western nations are in the same boat, deemed enemies by the global jihad movement.
2. Complexity of Muslim Immigration
   A further necessity is recognizing the complexity surrounding Muslim immigration from the Middle East to Western nations. Mass Muslim immigration to Western countries has shown the risk that jihadist elements may infiltrate host societies. Many have established themselves in Western states, seeking to undermine them from within in the name of Islam. This dynamic affects not only the immigrants themselves but also their children—who become American or European citizens but can be drawn into radicalization. Grasping this complexity is crucial for Western nations to effectively address the security threats it poses.
3. Technological Tools and Social Media
   Global jihadist groups have always excelled at exploiting technology. Now that many of their supporters live in North America and Europe, they can readily adopt Western technological tools, complicating matters even further. Over the past decade and a half, these groups have extensively used social networks for propaganda and incitement, and with the advent of artificial intelligence, they have further refined their capabilities, utilizing various AI tools. Israel and Western nations must recognize that global jihadist organizations exploit their familiarity with Western culture and its vulnerabilities to tailor propaganda campaigns precisely. This reality requires fresh strategic thinking and close monitoring to counter jihadist propaganda and remove inciting content before it inspires a lone attacker.
4. Maintaining Technological Superiority
   Consequently, it is incumbent upon Israel and the West to maintain technological superiority: they must remain one step ahead of these organizations rather than lag behind. This includes strengthening oversight of social networks and open-source intelligence channels that daily transmit terror-promoting messages.
5. Financial Tracing
   Tracking the flow of funds that sustains these organizations is another vital step. Understanding jihadist networks’ financial channels can yield significant intelligence and deal an economic blow to terror groups. Western nations should intensify efforts to trace the funding sources for these groups, mindful that they increasingly employ modern techniques such as digital currencies. Technological superiority is likewise crucial here for thwarting this challenge.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Challenges Facing Global Jihad After October 7 הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Everyone agrees that a “conception” led to the disaster of October 7, yet without clearly defining this conception and understanding its roots, such consensus is meaningless. Public discourse and media often attribute the failure to terms like “disengagement” or “suitcases of money for Hamas,” but these are merely symptoms of a much deeper, flawed mindset that over time became broadly accepted among security institutions, political leadership, and Israeli society at large.

Outlining the “Conception”

The terror attack on October 7 did not occur in a vacuum. It resulted from a longstanding failure in Israel’s national security approach.

Since the onset of the Oslo Accords, and especially following the Gaza disengagement, a prevailing doctrine within Israel’s political and security establishments advocated containment rather than eradication of threats, hoping that economic improvement and easing restrictions on the enemy would suffice to restrain its aggression.

This approach had profound, long-term implications. It weakened Israeli deterrence, bolstered enemy confidence, and significantly eroded IDF capabilities, both logistically and operationally.

At the core of this conception was the idea that even temporary reoccupation of Gaza, or any enemy territory, was unthinkable. This view first emerged during the Oslo process and intensified after the Gaza disengagement. It became entrenched within the political-security establishment, leading Israel to avoid reasserting military control in Gaza, even at the price of tolerating an openly hostile terror regime committed to its destruction. Even when clear opportunities to topple Hamas presented themselves—during Operation Cast Lead (2008), Operation Protective Edge (2014), and other occasions—Israel consistently refrained from decisive action.

Instead of confronting Hamas, Israel adopted a strategy of containment. Although never officially codified, this approach functioned almost as oral tradition: managing threats indirectly, avoiding direct confrontation, applying measured pressure, and maintaining “acceptable” risk levels. Within this framework, economic measures aimed at improving Gaza’s living conditions—employment, goods transfers, and permits—were promoted, hoping these gestures would gradually moderate Hamas.

From American Containment to Israeli Containment

This flawed Israeli approach was not born in isolation. It derived from American containment strategy during the Cold War, aimed at halting communism’s global spread by systematically restraining Soviet influence through clear boundaries, managing risks, and supporting allied states, thus avoiding full-scale war. This strategy assumed a rational superpower like the Soviet Union would act within calculated strategic constraints, avoiding dangerous escalation—a reasonable assumption, eventually borne out.

Unlike the American scenario, Israel faces adversaries not driven solely by rational strategic interests. Hamas is a terror organization motivated by radical religious ideology. Even when governing, Hamas does not demonstrate responsible state-like behavior toward its populace. Against such an opponent, any concessions or operational leeway do not lead to moderation but are instead exploited to build strength for the next conflict.

How Israel Lost the North

Israel’s handling of Hezbollah after the 2006 Second Lebanon War exemplifies this containment misconception. Despite initially weakening the Lebanese terror organization’s capabilities, Israel refrained from decisive measures to prevent Hezbollah’s military resurgence. Consequently, Hezbollah built an extensive missile arsenal capable of striking all of Israel and developed offensive tunnels penetrating Israeli territory—discovered later in Operations “Northern Shield” (2018) and “Northern Arrows” (2024). Had Hezbollah used these tunnels simultaneously with Hamas’s October 7 attack, the consequences would have been catastrophic.

Iran identified this Israeli policy weakness and exploited it, strengthening its regional grip. Iran established sophisticated military bases in Syria, becoming hubs for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), while also supplying Hezbollah with advanced weaponry and military technology. Israel’s targeted and limited military actions failed to counteract this trend, allowing Iran to turn Syria and Lebanon into frontline threats against Israel.

Erosion of Deterrence and Military Power

Containment policy was coupled with a belief that large-scale military confrontations were increasingly unlikely, reducing the perceived need for a robust, ground-based military supported by significant reserve forces. This assumption profoundly influenced IDF force structure. Under the slogan “a small and smart army,” Israel decreased the size and strength of ground and reserve forces, reducing ammunition stockpiles and capacity for sustained military campaigns. Increasing reliance on technology and intelligence came at the expense of maintaining powerful, well-trained ground forces.

This ongoing erosion significantly weakened Israeli deterrence. Iran and its proxies—Hamas and Hezbollah—understood Israel was not seeking decisive victory and used the opportunity to build up capabilities in preparation for a broader confrontation.

Have We Truly Learned?

The necessary conclusion is that the conception was not merely an intelligence failure or a single strategic error. It emerged from a deep-rooted cultural and intellectual failure. Decision-makers and opinion leaders became comfortable with temporary quiet, rather than pursuing sustainable security. It is a culture of denial, preferring to postpone confrontations instead of striving for decisive victory.

Now that we’ve identified this conception, we must ask: Have we learned our lesson? It seems we haven’t fully. Voices once again claim Israel cannot decisively defeat, occupy, or hold strategic security zones. Astonishingly, some of the same think tanks previously promoting containment are now advocating transferring Gaza control to the Palestinian Authority—a corrupt, weak, and terror-supporting entity. Rather than seeking victory, they once again propose handing power to hostile actors actively working against Israel. What greater proof of ongoing conceptual blindness could there be?

To ensure the horrors of October 7 never recur, Israel must return to its foundational Zionist security doctrine: security built upon decisive victory, military strength, and an unwavering pursuit of triumph.

הפוסט Roots of the Conception: The Ideological Failure Behind the October 7 Massacre הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Despite the collapse of Iran’s Middle Eastern proxies, Tehran is continuing to expand its activities in Africa. From the very beginning of the Islamic Revolution, Iran viewed Africa as a high-priority arena, for a variety of reasons: Iran recognized an ideological connection between itself and many African countries in their resistance to the West, to the “colonialist Western occupier.” In addition, Iran has always sought to use Shiite communities around the world for its own purposes, and there is a large Lebanese Shiite community in Africa. Moreover, Africa’s geographical proximity to the Middle East has made it particularly appealing to the Iranians who sought to use it for their own needs and to strengthen Tehran’s proxies. Evidence of this is Iran’s extensive use of Sudan as a route for transferring weapons to Palestinian terrorist organizations in Gaza. Sudan has a long history of extensive ties with extremist terrorist organizations, including entities from Hezbollah and Hamas, which are proxies of Iran. Moreover, even now, Tehran continues to expand its ties with Sudan and sends Mohajer-6 UAVs to the Sudanese army. Just like Iran trained the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah on how to use and prepare drones- it is doing the same in Sudan. Iran strives to turn Sudan into an Iranian protectorate and reap political and security gains – strengthening the diplomatic relationship between the countries and establishing a port for Iranian use in the Port Sudan area.

Iran’s entrenchment in Sudan poses another threat to Israel and also to other countries in the region, such as Egypt, which borders Sudan. The Iranians are joining forces with elements linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and this is a red flag for Egypt. The regime of current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, threw members of the previous regime, including ousted President Mohamed Morsi, into prison – and now may have to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood resurgence – with Iranian encouragement. The Iranians, on their crusade, are trying to gain a foothold in several places simultaneously, as they work to renew relations with Egypt while concurrently strengthening their hold on their southern neighbor, Sudan. According to the Iranians, if the Egyptians agree to cooperate, the Iranians will gain two strategic goals, Egypt and Sudan, in order to attack Israel by various means – and if not – they will be able to exert pressure by threatening Egypt from Sudanese territory.

Iran is also basing itself in the Horn of Africa region, a highly strategic point, where it is trying to increase its hold, and influence the power of the Houthis in Yemen and the threat to the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb. Yemen and the Horn of Africa control the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, and is a major trade route between Europe and Asia. Bab-el-Mandeb is a maritime route responsible for the stability of oil supplies to Europe, the functioning of the Saudi Port of Jeddah and the Suez Canal, and Egypt’s economic stability.

In June 2024, the Houthis began promoting a strategic alliance with al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen in Somalia, an organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Such cooperation may increase tensions in the Red Sea area and strengthen Iran’s proxies in the region. The two terrorist organizations, despite religious-ideological differences (the Houthis are Shiites while al-Shabaab are Sunni-Salafi), are likely to strengthen each other, transfer advanced weapons between them, and cooperate in combating Israel and Western forces. The Houthis may provide Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) to al-Shabaab, including drones and armed missiles that would pose a significant threat to regional stability. In addition, al-Shabaab could directly target American forces stationed in Somalia using weapons already tested by the Houthis against American forces near Yemen.

Israel and other countries in the region should pay attention to what is happening in Africa, as Iran strives for regional hegemony by adding increasingly more tentacles that will strengthen the “Iranian octopus.”  Iranian efforts may result in Sudan, and later other countries in the region, becoming Iranian protectorates – while the ayatollah regime attempts to fool and distract the West.

הפוסט Is East Africa Becoming Iran’s Newest Playground? הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

A combination of recent events has influenced the mood and outlook of both Americans and Israelis.  Donald Trump won the election for President of the United States, and Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu and his government adopted a new strategy, using pre-emptive war as a form of national self-defense against regional aggressors and naming victory as a strategic goal. These developments are directly and indirectly related. The basic facts are known, but the environment of politics and ideas has changed. Factors such as public morale and self-image cannot be quantified but must be taken into account. How a country sees its place in the world determines a nation’s purpose and what it is capable of accomplishing. When a mood of national pride and purpose prevails over a mood of demoralization and defeatism, one may speak of a different reality.

This degradation of national purpose took place in the United States when former President Barak Obama rejected the traditional ideal of American exceptionalism and its long-standing roots in religious values.  In contrast, President-elect Donald Trump adopted the slogan, “Make America Great Again,” which embodies the idea of greatness and renewal.  The idea is should be familiar to us.  It comes from the Hebrew Bible, Lamentations (Lamentations 5: 21: “Renew our days as of old.”

When President Trump announced his choices for cabinet members, we heard a new melody which indicated that greatness and renewal had again become national goals.  By presenting this prospect in credible terms, the Trump administration changed the mood of the present for the majority of Americans. While some of the administration’s nominations were the subject of public controversy, they indicated the presence of a coherent program and the intention of implementing it.  It is noteworthy that some of the nominees for cabinet positions, without being prompted, publicly declared their support for Israel and condemned the use of political antisemitism in American life.  This shift in the consensus reflects a positive development.

Several months earlier, a significant event contributed to this shift in the national consensus. At the invitation of Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress on July 24, 2024. The Prime Minister used this extraordinary opportunity to speak directly to the American people (and the world) and vigorously defend Israel’s case. In fact, his audience enthusiastically embraced his message.

The world has changed and, more than ever, American legislators understand the dangers of terrorism.  A substantial number of Congressmen (and women) have served in the in the American armed services and know firsthand the ways of the Middle East.

After the Hamas attack on Israel of October 7, 2023, a global intifada broke out in which “pro-Palestinian” sympathizers aggressively dominated public spaces, especially university campuses.  These purportedly “spontaneous” demonstrators resulted in the open expression of anti-Israel hostility and antisemitism, intimidating and bullying Jewish students. Part of the problem was the intentional passivity and permissiveness of several university administrators.

Congressmen and women have the authority to consult their own sources of information and draw their own conclusions. In December 2023, the House Education Committee held hearings on antisemitism on the campus.  The Chair of the Committee was Virgina Foxx of North Carolina, and Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, a member of this committee, conducted a devastating interrogation.

In his address, Netanyahu boldly called this war “a clash between barbarism and civilization,” and declared that the United States and Israel must stand together, because we have the same enemy.  He defiantly proclaimed, “We will win!”

According to Caroline Glick, the meeting with President Biden, the following day [July 25] ended in a bust–up.  The President warned the Prime Minister that “the time has come to end this war,” to which he replied, “Mr. President, we will end this war when we win it!”  Glick noted that the Prime Minister represents the majority of the Israeli public which support his position.

When speaking about greatness and renewal, we should remember another event which took place on the evening of the very same day.  House Speaker Mike Johnson led a delegation of Congressmen to Union Station in Washington, D.C., in a symbolic act of rededication and renewal.  In the quotation from his Xpost, Johnson reported that “Earlier today, pro-Hamas protesters took down the American flags at Union Station, burned them and raised Palestinian flags. Tonight, we righted their wrong. American flags are once again flying over Union Station. We will not let the terrorist mob win.”

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט America and Israel Choose Greatness and Renewal הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

While the last echoes of battle are dying in the fields of Ukraine, the shape of a new world order is beginning to emerge. The peace accord between Russia and Ukraine, with the determined mediation of President Trump not only spells the end of a bloody war, but also signals a dramatic shift in the balance of world powers. Behind the diplomatic move is a broad American strategy aiming to sever the connection between Russia and the Chinese-Iranian axis and the reinstitution of American supremacy. Israel may just find itself in an unprecedented strategic footing in the emerging new world order. However, it must not lose its bearings and should remember that the road to a promised future goes through its independence and ability to protect itself – by itself.

The victor – Russia

On a local level, the agreement is a clear victory for Russia, which is ending the war after having attained most of the war objectives it had set for itself: blocking the membership of Ukraine in NATO, the weakening of Ukraine, and the gaining of huge swaths of land in the south and east of Ukraine (Donbass) it captured at the onset of the war in 2022, that the peace agreement leaves in its hands – alongside the Crimean Peninsula, that Russia had annexed in 2014.

Even the objective that Putin seemingly failed to achieve – the replacement of the Ukrainian government with a Russian puppet government – seems to be within his reach, at least partially. There is a reasonable chance that this agreement will undermine Ukraine President Zalenski and lead to the rise of pro-Russian, or at the very least – elements tolerant of Russia – in Ukrainian politics.

However, on a geopolitical level and in a global point of view, this move has ramifications that are much more far-reaching and is part of a broader strategy of the new American administration. The main American interest behind the uncompromising negotiations the administration conducted is simple – and is in reality no about Ukraine.

Pulling Russia away from China and Iran tp promote regional peace

The determined manner in which Trump foisted the agreement on both countries attests to how resolute the US is to pull Russia away from China and dismantle the China-Russia-Iran axis. On part of the US, the worse side effect of the current war is that the sanctions imposed – justly – on Russia, had pushed it into the arms of China. On the general geo-strategic level, the partnering of Russia to China posed a real threat to the US’s global hegemony.

To draw Russia over to the West, Trump capitalized on both side’s weaknesses – both being fatigued from three years of war, Ukraine’s total dependence on military aid from the US to continue fighting the war, and Russia’s desire to protect its gains – to force them into an agreement. In return for the hefty diplomatic (territorial???) gains Trump is bestowing on Russia, the latter will reciprocate by choosing America’s side and pull away from China and Iran.

Over 200,000 people were killed in recent years in conflicts around the globe, as a result of the US’s withdrawal from areas under its control. Now it is moving to restore its status as a global super-power and is taking it upon itself to fashion a new world order that aims to prevent a third world war and promote peace over war and anarchy. Trump understands all too well that the US cannot affect this change from a position of weakness and that any aspiration to reconcile Russia and Ukraine must come only from a position of power.

Tight Russia-Iran relations hurt Israel

What does this entail is far as Israel is concerned?

Trump’s move may have positive ramifications on Israel’s national security – both on a global level of a shift of powers between west and east and regionally.

In the years prior to the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war in February 2022, Israel enjoyed collaborations with Russia in several critical areas. One of them was the security coordination mechanism between the two in Syria that allowed Israel to push back any attempt by Iran to gain a foothold in the country and Hezbollah to operate there, without friction with the Russian forces deployed in Syria. Thanks to these relations, Israeli had free rein to act against Iranian arms convoys and terror infrastructures, without risking any deterioration with its relations with Moscow.

Moreover, on the international stage Russia maintained a balanced attituded toward Israel and even refrained from voting against it in the UN’s anti-Israel resolutions. Even if it was nowhere near unconditional support of Israel, its position gave Israel a certain diplomatic shield in face of international criticism. In addition, the leaders of Israel and Russia had direct ongoing dialogue that contributed to mutual understanding and the assuaging of tensions around regional issues, while preserving Israeli critical national security interests.

However, since the outbreak of the Ukraine war, Russia’s attitude toward Israel has markedly changed. It had significantly tightened relations with Iran, whose status received a considerable upgrade as a military partner of Moscow. Iran supplies Russia with suicide drones and additional weapons, which Russia used in its war against Ukraine. In return, Russia supports Iran in international institutions and supplies Iran with advanced military technology. Moscow’s support of Tehran boosted Iran’s confidence, prompting it to take action against Israel.

In the diplomatic arena, Russia no longer takes a balanced stand on Israel as it did. Thus, for instance, on October 2023 it promoted a draft resolution in the UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, in which it refrained from condemning Hamas. This move reflected just how much Russia’s attitude had changed and the waning of its international support of Israel.

Israel can gain from Russia’s renewed presence in the region

In this context, the tightening of relations between Russia and the US could benefit Israel strategically. The less Russia is dependent on Iran – militarily and economically – the more its interests in collaborating with hostile elements to Israel are likely to wane. A renewed collaboration between Moscow and Washington could relax the tensions in the international arena and bring Russia back to its balanced stance toward Israel.

Moreover, it is even likely that Russia would renew its presence and involvement in the Middle East, under the auspices of the US. The creation of a Russian sphere of influence in the Allawi area of Syria could contain any radical Sunni element and thwart Turkey’s expansion aspirations by buffering between it and Lebanon and part of Syria.

US–Russian cooperation may even lead Russia to reverse its position against Israel in the UN Security Council, at least partially, whether actively or by abstaining from voting for resolutions against it. Hopefully, the US will demand that Russia – in return for handing them the victory over Ukraine – will act seriously toward the promotion of America’s interests, including the strengthening of Israel.

Beyond that, Trump’s rejection of Ukraine made it clear to European countries that they can no longer bank on America’s military protection, and that they will have to double their efforts to arm themselves so that they are prepared for every contingency – wither through Russia or otherwise. Europe has some of the world’s largest weapons industries, however, its countries may acquire arms, weapons and military technology from Israel’s defense industry, which would boost Israel’s economy and diplomatic status.

The key to realizing Trump’s vision is in Israel

Israel can benefit not only from Trump’s move with Russia and Ukraine, but also from the consequent world order that can be expected from this move. The new administration in America made it clear that it is determine to jettison any extra weight, like its unbeneficial relations with Ukraine, and shift its focus to more favorable sources such as Israel.

The reason that although the US is no longer interested in continuing arming Ukraine it sends large shipments of arms to Israel, is that Israel is not only a more attractive and profitable investment in Trump’s mind – but also a pivotal element in his overall strategy.

The new order Israel is generating in the Middle East stems among others from its weakening of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas and its protection of the Druze in Syria, which serves America’s interests without it having to put in the work itself, thus saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Hence, for every dollar the US invests in Israel, it yields hundreds of percent in profits. The obvious conclusion is that Israel must end the multi-arena conflicts in which it is currently engaged in a clear and decisive victory, thereby proving to the US that it is in its interests to continue its investment in Israel.

It seems that Trump realized that the State of Israel is key to the realization of his vision for the Middle East. The dramatic geopolitical changes that are taking shape under his leadership have the potential to make Israel a global key player, a “Singapore of the Middle East” – a state that serves as a main route for all global transport. The realization of this vision would award Israel not only with supervision and energy security, but also would seriously boost of its international status.

Israel will protect itself – by itself

And yet, America’s cold shoulder to Ukraine is a harsh reminder that if a nation cannot protect itself – no one will do so for it. For Israel the conclusion is clear – just like the Zionist movement understood in its inception over 100 years ago, the Jewish nation and the State of Israel must defend themselves by themselves.

What does this mean in practice?

This means that the State of Israel must reduce to the greatest possible extent any dependence it has on the foreign arms and energy supplies, and geopolitical security. It must develop a large-scale production line of armaments to ensure its independence and flexibility of not having inventories dictate its abilities. The IDF must regain its large scale, and reestablish itself as a powerful military that is ready for any contingency. At the same time, Israel must ensure it has a diversified and robust energy economy and it must reinvest in its agricultural sector to ensure its food security.

In tandem with reenforcing its independence in these areas, Israel must expand its collaborations with countries with common interests and become a regional and global player, while unwaveringly defending the Jewish people’s sovereignty over the Land of Israel. Israel must acquaint itself deeply with the motivations of every player in the regional geopolitical field, and identify which countries it can establish cooperations toward common causes, and which moves on that field can serve it and which must be blocked.

“It was only the audacity of the Jews that established the State of Israel”, famously said Israel’s founding father, David Ben Gurion. It is clear that still today, only the audacity of the Jews will ensure the lasting existence of the state, even as a pivotal player in a new world order.

הפוסט US Turning a Cold Shoulder to Ukraine Heralds a New World Order – With Israel as a Key Player הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The focus of Palestinian social media channels, which mostly favor Hamas, illustrates the cynical attitude of the organization and of its supporters: The Palestinian channels featured Israeli news photos of the Israeli hostages and added some snide comments that Abu Ubayda, the spokesman for the Hamas military wing, made at the beginning of the war:

“This is what Israel, when it used starvation as a weapon against the residents of Gaza, did to its own people who were held by Hamas… Israeli media publishes photos of a captive Israeli from before his imprisonment in Gaza and from the time of his release.”

Abu Ubayda said at the beginning of the war, “Your prisoners will live the way the residents of Gaza live, in the shadow of an imposed famine. They will eat like the Gazans and will drink when the Gazans drink.”

These hostage releases, taking place in the form of a Hamas production, turn the stomach of every Israeli viewer. Hamas considers that this is a show of force, promoting its brand among supporters at home and abroad and showing that it has survived the war and still rules Gaza. One of the themes that Hamas intends to convey in the horror show at each of the hostage releases is the humiliation of Israel and the “proof” of who the winner is. With each round of releases, Hamas builds its victory narrative and hangs more messages on the scenery.

The fifth round revived the regular practice of bringing the hostages on stage to be ridiculed and humiliated. But this time the hostages were subjected to “interviews,” answering questions in Hebrew. In addition, at the foot of the same stage, a large sign displayed the defiant message “Absolute Victory”; and above the stage, another sign displayed a mordant message to American President Donald Trump: “We are the day after.” That message leaves no doubt that Hamas intends to keep control of the Gaza Strip and opposes moving Palestinians away from it. Hamas addresses its message to three parties: Israel, the United States, and the Palestinian Authority. First, Hamas emphasizes that the Palestinians will certainly not migrate voluntarily; and second, it tells the Palestinian Authority emphatically who will control the Gaza Strip. And those messages also register among the residents of Gaza – including especially the upcoming generation. During preparations for the horror show, small Palestinian children were already being costumed as terrorists from the Hamas military wing. Children wearing the military wing’s headbands were hoisted onto their fathers’ shoulders in front of the abused Israeli hostages on stage. Hamas uses the grotesque festival surrounding the hostage releases as a way of indoctrinating the next generation and bequeathing a belligerent tradition. That generation is now learning from Hamas that the “Al-Aqsa Flood” is a historic milestone and that the every Gazan child will now dream of joining the military wing of Hamas.

Note that while Israeli hostages were being released, Ali Khamenei – Iran’s supreme leader – met with a Hamas delegation in Tehran. Khamenei told the Hamas delegation, led by Khalil al-Hayya: “You defeated America and the Zionist entity and prevented them from achieving their goals.

“In the minds of the Iranian people, the defense of Palestine and the support of its people are beyond question. For us the issue of Palestine is fundamental, and for us the victory of Palestine is inevitable.”

Just as Iran tries to disseminate slogans that are divorced from reality, Hamas is trying to raise echoes with a false equation: Hamas dressed the Israeli hostages in prison uniforms that bore their picture with the caption “I am a prison inmate under the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades” (the Hamas military wing). In that cynical equation, Hamas presents the Israeli hostages, innocent people who were kidnapped from their homes, as equivalent to terrorists who were captured and convicted after carrying out serious terror attacks.

Hamas hones its messages

Throughout the war, Hamas has tried to present false equations, likening the terrorists serving time in Israeli prisons to the Israeli hostages wasting away as captives in Gaza. However, having signed the agreement to return the hostages and respect the ceasefire, Hamas is now honing its messages and sharpening them with each round of releases in order to build up its power and its narrative as the “victor” and the Palestinian people’s “hero.” Hamas turns every hostage release into a grand show displaying its power and branding itself as the authority figure. These performances contribute to rebuilding trust among the residents of Gaza – an important consideration after Hamas was greatly criticized during the war.  Many Palestinians complained that with the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation, Hamas brought about a “renewed Nakba” for the Palestinians. Now Hamas is trying to change the conception – to repackage the new “Nakba” into a Hamas victory.

The weekly horror festival of Hamas

The messages from Hamas are groundwork for its vision of “the day after” – which resembles the run-up to October 7th: demonstrations of force by the military wing in Gaza, weapons brandished in the air, Hamas symbols as indications of rulership in the Gaza Strip, and denial of the Palestinian Authority’s influence. The message resoundingly emerging is that Hamas will agree neither to depart voluntarily nor even to relinquish power. On the contrary, Hamas will remain committed to the conflict and to its goal of destroying the State of Israel. Week after week, Hamas updates its “victory” narrative. Harrowing images from the weekly horror festival illustrate the murderous Hamas version of “the day after.” Hamas is showing us its plan for the future of Gaza and of the entire region – the Middle East reverting to October 6th. This once again emphasizes the need for the terrorist organization to be ousted.

After the horror show from Hamas, Israel is expected to send a delegation to Qatar to discuss the conclusion of the first phase of the deal. In light of the difficult displays, Israel is striving to find an appropriate response that will not violate the agreement. A harsh response is required, but Israel’s leverage is limited. One option is a delay in releasing Palestinian prisoners. Such a delay would put Hamas under the pressure of fear that the deal may be torpedoed. That fear would spread to Gaza’s residents – and from the status of the “hero” that promised to release prisoners, the terrorist organization would slip to the status of a group that is bringing the drums of war, and the IDF, back to Gaza. As for Israel – despite Hamas’ brutal use of the hostages, Israel should not upset the applecart. It should continue to advance to the second phase of the deal. After all the hostages are returned, Hamas must be completely eliminated and the ground must be prepared for the implementation of Trump’s plan in Gaza. October 7th taught us once again that Hamas should not remain our neighbor. Victory, including the overthrow of Hamas, is the order of the day and indeed the only option.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט The horror festival and the weekly message from Hamas הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The “hostage deals,” which are taking place as part of the ceasefire agreement with the terrorist organization Hamas, could have been conducted in a modest and discreet manner that would honor the released living and dead hostages, and their families. And perhaps, if you can even say such a thing, it would also cast Hamas in a slightly more “humane” light, at least to the blind eyes of target audiences in the Arab and international arenas, to whom Hamas directs its cynical and despicable propaganda displays. But when it comes to Hamas, even the hostage handover proceedings, which unfortunately also included a process of handing over the bodies of dead hostages last week, take place as a cynical and horrifying media “carnival” according to carefully planned and detailed rules of ceremony, reflecting the terrorist movement’s murderous ideology that boasts of its “achievements” and that seeks to glorify and praise the distorted values of what it calls “resistance.”

A media analysis of the living and dead hostage handover ceremonies in the Hamas-affiliated media outlets actually makes it possible to quite easily outline the guidelines of the ceremony’s set of rules as determined by Hamas’s “Ceremonies Committee” and according to which Hamas’s meticulous “handover ceremonies” are conducted – ceremonies that, despite ourselves, we have become addicted to and that flood us each time with mixed feelings of joy, immense pain, and copious rage and disgust.

The media “carnival” of the living and dead hostage handovers always begins with introductory coverage of the preliminary preparations for the handover ceremony to emphasize its importance and meticulous management. This is the point where Hamas’s film and documentation crew makes sure that no detail is overlooked – the location, the ceremony stage with the displays on it, including the ceremony’s key messages that appear in three languages: Arabic, English, and Hebrew (rife with spelling and wording errors). The messages and slogans Hamas uses are taken from the terrorist movement’s key messages of the “victory” narrative. The central horrifying message, which appeared on a giant poster on the ceremony stage, above the coffins of the late Shiri Bibas and her young children, Kfir and Ariel, and of Oded Lifshitz, was: “Murdered by the war criminal Netanyahu with fighter jet missiles.” A message in this spirit in Hebrew was also included in the announcement that was attached to each of the victims’ coffins along with their photo, the date of their abduction, and the date of their “murder” by the “occupation.” We all already know the horrifying truth: Shiri and her young children were brutally murdered in captivity, shortly after they were abducted. The vile murderers were not satisfied with cold-blooded murder; they also mutilated their bodies to match the bodies’ condition to the cause of death that would be presented almost a year later, during the dead hostage handover procession: “murdered by the occupation”.

Hamas also carefully selects the location of the “handover ceremonies.” They were intended to demonstrate both full control of strategic points in the Strip and to pay tribute to the legacy of the movement’s symbols, led by the architect of the murderous terrorist attack, Yahya Sinwar, whose compound near his home also served as a hostage handover location. An integral part of the ceremony is dedicated to exhibiting the presence of an armed parade, which includes dozens of masked terrorists, in full military attire. The militants scattered around the ceremony complex are documented taking pictures with the audience that comes to watch the ceremony, especially with the children and toddlers of Gaza, who are never absent from the ceremonies. They are documented and photographed next to their admired militants, wearing the military wing’s headband.

The presence of the numerous armed men at the ceremony serves Hamas for two ideological goals: First, to convey a clear and resounding message that Israel’s claims about the destruction of Hamas and disbanding its combat battalions are false, and that Hamas, with its military wing, is fully functional from a military aspect and is exercising complete sovereignty over the Gaza Strip. From Hamas’s perspective, this is “giving the finger” to anyone who thought that the long intensive war had defeated it militarily. Furthermore, Hamas is also ensuring that commanders in the military wing, who Israel announced had been eliminated, attend the ceremonies, to prove that this was a case of mistaken identity on Israel’s part. For example, at Keith Siegel’s release ceremony on February 1, 2025, Haitham Khawajari, commander of the Shati Battalion, was seen and documented walking among the militants present at the ceremony. The second goal, no less important from Hamas’s perspective, is to link its presence on the ground to its popularity and support among the Gazan people in order to gain additional legitimacy “points” in domestic and even Arab public opinion. But the militants have another significant role in the ceremony, and it is aimed at Israeli public opinion: Hamas wants to humiliate Israel and tarnish the IDF’s image as an invincible army. This is why the elaborate ceremony features armed men carrying IDF weapons, such as the Tavor, which was documented by one of the military wing members at the dead hostages handover ceremony last Thursday (and at Agam Berger’s handover ceremony to the Red Cross, a weapon was displayed that Hamas claims was taken from an IDF combat soldier). Gunmen from the “Shadow Unit,” which is responsible for transporting and securing the hostages, were also filmed making their rounds at the ceremony complex in Khan Younis, riding in a RAM truck that Hamas claims was taken from the “occupation” in a raid on the day of the October 7 murderous terrorist attack.

Hamas also made sure to document the presence of Gazan prisoners who were released in previous rounds and who were brought to the podium of honor at the dead hostages handover ceremony. Hamas considers the prisoners’ presence to be of great importance, since one of its key messages in the victory narrative is that the release of the prisoners was only possible thanks to the October 7 attack, Hamas’s steadfastness and refusal to yield to pressure in negotiations with Israel. This message also helps Hamas silence the voices of its domestic critics who believe that Hamas inflicted a catastrophe on the Gaza Strip.

Ironically and cynically, and most outrageously, Hamas’s show is primarily directed at the released hostages and, unfortunately, even at the dead ones. The production team ensures that each ceremony begins by documenting the transport of the hostages accompanied by armed men, wearing “hostage badges” and being brought to the ceremony stage where they are given signed release certificates in a folder with a photo, as well as “souvenirs and mementos” in a special package stamped with the symbol of Hamas’s military wing. Hamas’s ceremony guidelines also include strict requirements regarding the hostages’ appearance and clothing, ensuring that soldiers appear on the ceremony stage in military uniform. Even a bracelet in the colors of the Palestinian flag is worn by some of the hostages for photo purposes, as seen on Agam Berger’s wrist as she waved to the crowd. The strict staging instructions for the hostages continue on the ceremony stage as well. Before they leave the “stage of honor” and are handed over to the Red Cross representatives, the hostages are required to smile and wave to the camera and the Gazan audience, display their release certificates, and in some ceremonies, the hostages are instructed to deliver speeches that include messages of gratitude and appreciation to their captors for the “kind and compassionate treatment” and, of course, a message to the Israeli government that the only way to release the hostages is through Hamas’s cynical staged ceremonies. The handover of the hostages to the Red Cross effectively concludes the  painstaking ceremony, but this is also the preferred time for Hamas media to post summary videos on its multiple channels of the “impressive” handover ceremony, while concurrently, horrifyingly cynical videos are posted with a montage of “magical moments” of the hostages during their captivity, such as the video of Sasha Troufanov spending quality time with a fishing rod in the sea, and a video of Keith Siegel delivering a message and blessing to his captors, against the backdrop of the pastoral landscape of the Gaza beach.

We all saw the bitter truth about what the hostages are enduring in captivity, during the shocking ceremony in which Eli Sharabi, Ohad Ben Ami, and Or Levi were handed over. It was impossible to ignore their sunken eyes, pallor, and emaciated appearance as they made their way to the ceremony stage like walking skeletons, not before they had also “played their part,” as the lead actors in the worst play in town.

Hamas never stops claiming that it is interested in a comprehensive “all-for-all” hostage-prisoner exchange, but the compensation Hamas demands not only includes the release of prisoners, but “the whole nine yards” and implementation of the second phase of the agreement that is supposed to enable its survival. This is why Hamas consistently works to make the handover ceremonies unbearable for Israel, and it will probably not stop doing so without an Israeli move that forces it to. At first glance, it seems to us that the set, the extras, the stage, and the slogans are the same in every handover ceremony. But in every ceremony, Hamas reveals a new “surprise,” which constitutes a new level of evil cynicism and cruelty. This is exactly what we saw during the release of the hostages last Saturday, when, to our astonishment, the main photographer of the Al-Qassam Brigades approached Omer Shem-Tov and instructed him to kiss the heads of the armed terrorists who were standing next to him on the ceremony stage in order to immortalize the embarrassing and humiliating moment – one that would be leveraged shortly thereafter on all of Hamas and Co.’s media channels. Omer’s forced kiss is a “frog” that many Israelis may be willing to swallow. This is undoubtedly a moment that elicits revulsion, but in these moments our thoughts are more focused on the expectation that the hostages will be handed over to our forces and begin the journey home to Israeli territory. But anyone who thought the ceremony was over after the hostages were handed over to the Red Cross “puppets” was wrong. Hamas prepared another “surprise” that surpassed all its predecessors on the scale of evil and cruelty. A video documenting the hostages Guy Gilboa and Evyatar David, sitting in a vehicle that took them near the ceremony stage to watch, with teary eyes, their friends being released. The car door opened in front of the ceremony stage and Guy and Evyatar were asked in Hebrew by one of the car’s occupants: “How are you feeling now?” This signals to them to convey a message to the government and beg for their release and an end to the terrible suffering they are enduring in captivity. At the end of the poignant message, the camera captures the car door closing.

Hamas is undoubtedly very well aware of what the Israeli public’s weak points are, and it will continue to target its soft underbelly using the strong card it holds: the living and dead hostages. The question that arises and becomes more acute in the wake of these vile ceremonies is why is it even important to focus on Hamas’s release performances, watch, and even analyze them? Should this surprise any of us? Of course not. Will “Hamas Productions Ltd.” continue to stage these performances in Gaza and “perfect” them with displays of evil and cruelty? As long as they have live and dead hostages in their possesion, of course they will. It seems that the immense importance of this is to sear it into our consciousness. But not with the narratives that Hamas wants to impress upon us, but rather with what we knew and suppressed, or perhaps even refused to brand onto our consciousness as a leadership and as a nation, in the many years leading up to the murderous attack. If these horrific ceremonies are burned into our consciousness and shake our fading memory, whenever we tend to forget who the enemy we face is and how we should treat him if we want to live, it may be possible to say that Hamas’s production and directing crews and the handover ceremonies they produced with advance planning and premeditation did indeed contribute to shaping our consciousness and to the long process of our national correction. Let us hope.

By: Avishai Karo

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט “Hamas Productions Ltd.” הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The border wall

In his meeting with PM Benjamin Netanyahu on February 4, 2025, US President, Donald Trump declared a new initiative aiming for the voluntary relocation of the residents of the Gaza Strip into Egypt and Jordan. This was a reiteration of the written initiative that the White House publish immediately after Trump stepped into the Ovel Office on January 26, 2025. This statement constitutes the most important reference regarding this issue that has been made in years. While it is obvious that objections will be hurled at the initiative from many directions, it provides Israel with the legitimization to operate in ways it deems fit to encourage the exodus of the Arab population from Gaza.

The first proposal by an official body – in this case the British Mandate – to relocate the Arab population from the small piece of land allocated for a Jewish state was the Peel Commission headed by Lord Peel, appointed by the British government to investigate the cause of the riots among the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine in 1936-1939 (these were dubbed “the incidents” by the Jewish population, but there were those who, likely aiming to glorify the bloody riots, went so far as to call them “the Arab uprising” or even “the great Arab uprising”)

The Peel Commission understood that not much was left for a Jewish state in the way of territory from the British promise to assists in the foundation of a “national home” for the Jews. The northern territories from the Upper Galilee up to the Letani River were taken by the French and annexed to Lebanon; the Transjordan territory was cleaved from the Land of Israel in 1922 and declared an Emirate, over which the British appointed as ruler the Emir Abdallah. Later, this emirate became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. On top of that, the Peel Commission was suggesting the partitioning of what is left of the Land of Israel into two states: Jewish and Arab. The Commission thought it was only fair to give the Jews the small scrap of land that was promised to them cleared of its Arab population. As it is known, nothing came of the Peel Commission’s report.

The idea of relocating the Arab population from the western part of the Land of Israel was since raised more than once by various statesmen, however, it remained just that – a theoretical idea that failed to follow through with any real results, not even make waves at that. Even among the pre-state Jewish community there were those who raised the idea., among them the spiritual leader of the workers party Mapai, Berl Katzanelson, who championed the idea and wrote essays in its favor. Others advocated the encouragement of voluntary relocation of the Arab population, among the most notable of those was Dr. Abraham Sharon (Shevadron) – a philosopher who worked in the national library. However, the essays he offered failed to gain critical mass and that too, came to nothing.

Arab countries excelled in transfers

The accepted term for moving a population from one country to another – normally forcibly – is “transfer”. This word means transition. It had entered the international lexicon of diplomacy, especially following the population transfer between Turkey and Greece (and Bulgaria) and the exchange of populations between them in the early 20th century, following a bloody war.

History records even graver incidents of transfers – the deportation of the pro-Nazi German minorities from Czechoslovakia and Poland after World War 2; the deportation of entire Japanese communities from Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines also after WW2. These are but two examples of forcible transfers in modern history.

Arab countries, too, committed their fair share of transfers, excelling in this with the expulsion of minorities and forced deportations often accompanied by bloodshed. Egypt, for example, drove out the minorities in the country – Jews and Greeks in particular, and Iraq drove out most of its Jewish community, imprisoning and murdering under false accusations many of those who remained, as well as openly slaughtering the Assyrians who lived in the country.

Mass population migrations have also been known to occur throughout history, where immigrants sought better lives for themselves and their families in other countries. Millions of native Africans, Muslims from Arab countries, Turks and many more nationals immigrated to western Europe and made their home there. Millions have been illegally entering the US and Canada from Latin America. There are too many examples of population migrations or transfers in modern history to count and to mention in the present paper, but one important example demands mentioning: the migrations and expulsions of Jews, primarily those of the Nazi concentration camps following WW2 and the exodus of Jews from Arab countries – mostly on the backdrop of bloody hostilities against them – in various waves of immigration after the foundation of the State of Israel.

Gaza will not be Singapore

The relocation of populations from one place to another is not always a negative thing. Sometimes it can provide a positive – and an only – solution to a complex problem.

This is the kind of solution needed for the overpopulated Gaza Strip. This narrow piece of land, that lies over a small area holds some two million citizens. It is one of the most crowded areas in the world. The population lives in harsh poverty insofar as food, housing, education, healthcare and any other basic need. It is highly doubtful that the situation of the people in the Gaza Strip can be improved in conditions of peace, as it is militant, hostile to Israel, and sympathetic to Hamas and other anti-Israel terror organizations, allowing them free access and operation in its midst. Indeed, Hamas recruits its ranks from this population.

having this kind of brewing pressure cooker sitting on its border is a major security risk For Israel, or at the very least – a pestering nuisance, as this is a surefire way of perpetuating non-stop terror, violence and bloodshed. All of the usual proposals, parroted time after time by various sources in Israel and the international community, cannot fully address the ailments plaguing the Gaza Strip’s population. Those who believe otherwise are simply deluding themselves and others. In no uncertain terms – Gaza will never be a Singapore. The only recourse for the Strip is the reduction of its population as much as possible.

It is crucial to understand that the abovementioned is not in any way advocating a forcible transfer, but proposes allowing anyone in the Gaza Strip to voluntary relocate to another country where they may begin a new, better life. As forcible transfer is destined to fail not only on the backdrop of strong objection on part of the public in Israel, but also from the international community that would stonewall any such attempt.

Full absorption by Latin American countries

The aim of the voluntary immigration proposal is to encourage the outflow of residents from the Gaza Strip based on a previous plan drafted by former Prime Minister Eshkol Levi after the Six Day War. Eshkol was troubled by the sizable Arab population that had come under Israeli control in one fell swoop as result of that war. He tried to encourage them to immigrate in an orderly manner, promising proper absorption and conditions in Latin American countries for those who comply, as some of these countries expressed their willingness to take in the immigrants. This plan was only partially reported by the press and not everything that was done at the time was shared with the public.

In the days and years following the Six Day War, a public controversy raged on the prospects of achieving true peace with the Palestinians. The left and the peace bloc movement loved to throw around slogans in this vein like “Peace Now”, or “The measure of withdrawal is the measure of peace”. One of their favorites was “We’re here; They’re there”. The fact is that Israel’s Arab population is embedded in the general population and it is hard to come up with a solution for separating the two. Those who authored these slogans failed to explain how to attain a state of affairs of “here” and “there”. The answer is in Eshkol’s plan mentioned above.

The current proposal is for the enaction of that plan today, to incentivize any resident of the Gaza Strip to immigrate. This of course will have to be performed with the utmost consideration of the immigrant’s needs. Those who choose to remain in the Gazan quagmire are welcome to do so. Immigration will be a privilege – not mandatory. Nothing will be done coercively.

Those who buck at the idea should be asked what they think is more humanitarian – helping those who are interested to immigrate to find a better life or letting the bloodshed continue?

About the Author:
Dr. Moshe Yager served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 40 years and served as Israeli ambassador to Sweden and the Czech Republic.

The text is solely the author’s opinion and does not necessarily reflect the movement’s position.

הפוסט “We’re here; They’re there” – Voluntary Immigration of the Gaza Strip Residents הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The narrative that the root cause of the Middle East’s wars is Israel’s lack of acceptance of Palestinian freedom is a misconception. While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict garners significant attention, an objective analysis of the region’s history over the past century reveals that most wars in the Middle East are unrelated to the Palestinian issue. The data unequivocally shows that over 98% of war-related deaths in the region stem from conflicts that have nothing to do with neither Israel or the Palestinians.

Over the last 100 years, the Middle East has been plagued by numerous conflicts, yet only 5 of the 20 most significant wars in the region had any direct connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These five wars, which include the Arab-Israeli wars and the Intifadas, resulted in approximately 156,000 deaths—a tragic number, but a small fraction compared to the approximately 5.7 million deaths from wars in the region overall.

The remaining conflicts, such as the Iran-Iraq War, the Syrian Civil War, and the Yemen Civil War, were driven by power struggles, sectarian divisions, and geopolitical rivalries, not the Palestinian cause. For example:

• Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988): This devastating war resulted in up to 1,000,000 deaths and was rooted in territorial disputes and ideological differences between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the Iranian government.

• Syrian Civil War (2011–present): With an estimated death toll of 500,000, this ongoing conflict involves a complex web of factions, including ISIS, Kurdish forces, and international powers like Russia and the U.S.

• Yemen Civil War (2015–present): Over 377,000 deaths have been attributed to this proxy war between Iran-backed Houthi rebels and a Saudi-led coalition.

These conflicts, among others, highlight the multifaceted nature of Middle Eastern wars, which are often fueled by internal divisions, external interventions, and competing ideologies rather than the Palestinian question.

Even within the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, the death tolls are overshadowed by the scale of other wars in the region.

A Fixation on the Palestinian Cause

Despite its relatively small human cost in the context of the region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict receives disproportionate attention. This focus stems from several factors:

1. Media Coverage: The conflict often involves Western powers, which amplifies its visibility in global media disproportionately to the ears actual size and importance.
2. Geopolitical Interests: The involvement of influential countries like the U.S. and EU creates a narrative of global importance.
3. Symbolism: For many in the Arab and Muslim worlds, the Palestinian cause symbolizes resistance to Western influence, even as internal divisions persist. For them, Israel remains a foreign bastion representing Western interests over a once-Muslim occupied land, rather than the homeland of the Jewish people. Therefore fixation on the Palestinians issue draws attention away from crimes that are committed inside the Arab world and unites Muslim populations around their authoritarian leader. The Palestinian narrative has therefore become a cudgle to use against Israel rather than a real pressing issue.

Would a Palestinian State End Middle Eastern Wars?

The evidence suggests otherwise. Even if a new Palestinian state were established, the underlying causes of regional conflicts—such as sectarian divides, power struggles, and external meddling—would remain. The wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and beyond would likely continue unabated, as they are rooted in issues far removed from the Palestinian question.

The myth that Israel’s actions regarding Palestinian freedom are the linchpin for peace in the Middle East ignores the facts. While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is impactful in geopolitical terms, it is neither the sole nor the primary driver of Middle Eastern instability, death, poverty and destruction. The broader challenges of governance, sectarianism, authoritarianism, radical Islamist ideologies and external interference are the main reasons that there is no “peace” in the Middle East.

Full Data

Syrian Civil War (2011–present)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 400,000 to 500,000

• Sides: Syrian government (Assad regime) vs. Free Syrian Army and other rebel groups, with involvement from ISIS, Kurdish forces, and foreign powers like Russia and the U.S

• Data: SOHR, UN Human Rights Office.

Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000

• Sides: Iran vs. Iraq

• Data: The Iran-Iraq War: Impact and Implications” by Efraim Karsh, Britannica

Yemen Civil War (2015–present)

• Estimated Deaths: Over 377,000 (including direct and indirect causes)

• Sides: Houthi rebels vs. Yemeni government, with involvement from Saudi-led coalition and Iran

• Data: UN Reports on Yemen Civil War Casualties​

Iraq War (2003–2011)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 151,000 to 600,000

• Sides: United States-led coalition vs. Iraq (Saddam Hussein’s regime)

Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 120,000

• Sides: Various factions, including Christian militias, Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and Muslim militias, with involvement from Syria and Israel

• Data: NY Times Report, AGBU Magazine

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (1948–present)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 97,000

• Sides: Israel vs. various Palestinian groups and neighboring Arab states

• Data: Combination of many sources: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tmiA5j9zGOXV4FeYRjA5usareSFf8P73/edit?pli=1&gid=1185783474#gid=1185783474

Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 300,000 to 1,500,000

• Sides: France vs. Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN)

• Data: Britannica

First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 500,000

• Sides: Sudanese government vs. Anyanya (Southern Sudanese rebels)

• Data: USHMM

Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 2,000,000

• Sides: Sudanese government vs. Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA)

• Data: PBS

Libyan Civil War (2011)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 30,000

• Sides: Muammar Gaddafi’s regime vs. rebel groups, with NATO involvement

• Data: SMH

Six-Day War (1967)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 20,000 (11,500 Egyptians, 6,094 Jordanians, 1,000 Syrians, 776 Israelis, 2,000 Iraq)

• Sides: Israel vs. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria

• Data: Britannica, Jewish National Library

Yom Kippur War (1973)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 19,000 (2500 Israelis, 15,000 Egyptians, 3,500 Syrians)

• Sides: Israel vs. Egypt and Syria

• Data: Jewish National Library

Suez Crisis (1956)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 3,000

• Sides: Egypt vs. Israel, United Kingdom, and France

• Data: Jewish National Library

First Intifada (1987–1993)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 1,250 (1,100 Palestinians, 162 Israelis)

• Sides: Palestinian protesters and militias vs. Israel

• Jewish National Library, Middle East Monitor

Second Intifada (2000–2005)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 3,200 (2,000 Palestinians, over 1,000 Israelis)

• Sides: Palestinian militants vs. Israel

• Data: Israeli Government

2006 Lebanon War

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 1,300

• Sides: Israel vs. Hezbollah (Lebanese militia)

• Data: HRW

Gulf War (1990–1991)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 20,000 to 35,000

• Sides: Iraq vs. Coalition forces (United States, Saudi Arabia, and others)

• Data: US Navy

Sinai Insurgency (2011–present)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 1,000 to 2,000

• Sides: Egypt vs. ISIS-affiliated groups

Iraq Insurgency and ISIS War (2014–2017)

• Estimated Deaths: Approximately 67,000

• Sides: ISIS vs. Iraqi government, Kurdish Peshmerga, and U.S.-led coalition

October War (2023)

• Estimated Deaths: An estimated 43,000 (23,500 terrorist, 17,000 others) Palestinians and 1840 Israeli’s (IDF and others)

• Sides: Israel vs. Hamas and allied Palestinian factions in Gaza

• Data: Warinisrael.org, IDF, OCHA . OCHA claims that over 51,700 Palestinians were killed. The Gaza Health Ministry identified 40,717 of those deaths. The IDF claims that 23,500 Terrorists were killed. The number of Palestinian deaths is anywhere between 23,500-50,000.

The text is solely the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the movement’s opinion.

הפוסט Debunking the Myth: As long as Israel does not accept Palestinians’ Right to Self Determination’, the wars in the Middle East will continue. הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Dearborn, a city with a predominantly Arab and Muslim population, recently made headlines when most of its residents voted for Trump. It has long been known as “America’s Jihad capital“. This Detroit suburb is infamous for its widespread support for the Palestinians and Iran’s proxy organizations, which are designated as terrorist groups by the United States. However, Dearborn has a twin city right next to it, just as extreme: Meet Dearborn Heights.

Dearborn Heights, a newer Detroit suburb, also has a significant Muslim population, primarily Shiite, which supports Iran and Hezbollah.

In July, Shiite ceremonies were held at the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights. During these events, local Islamic scholar Hussein Al-Nashed praised Iran and Hezbollah. Al-Nashed stated: “It is only with the Islamic Revolution that our lot has changed.” He went on to praise Ayatollah Khomeini, the architect of the revolution, saying, “(Khomeini) taught you dignity… and honored your religion (as a Shiite).” Al-Nashed further claimed that in America, there is no freedom of thought. “If I want to think for myself… and I say ‘you know what, Hezbollah is actually not bad, Hezbollah is a very good thing’, next thing I know, the FBI is at my doorstep. Is that freedom of thought?“

Al-Nashed argues that the problem lies with the United States itself, which opposes states and entities like Iran and Hezbollah. This is just one example of the rhetoric within Muslim communities that encourages resistance to democratic regimes in Western countries while supporting extremist, anti-Western Islamic elements like Iran and Hezbollah.

Hezbollah’s Stronghold in the U.S.

The situation is similar in Dearborn, its twin Jihad Capital. Here too, an agenda is being promoted that opposes the United States or any other Western entity for that matter, while glorifying extremist elements. In the case of the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, these are individuals who were directly responsible for harming American civilians and soldiers. In July, a large gathering commemorated the memory of Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a prominent Lebanese Shiite scholar, regarded as a spiritual leader of Hezbollah. His writings were instrumental in shaping the ideological foundations of the Lebanese terrorist organization.

Fadlallah issued a fatwa (religious decree) authorizing the suicide bombing of the multinational force barracks in Beirut in October 1983. That attack killed 241 American Marines, 58 French soldiers, and six civilians. Despite his pivotal role in authorizing this horrific attack by issuing the fatwa, Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah is now honored with memorials on American soil.

Annual memorial services for Fadlallah have been held since his death in 2010. These ceremonies are organized by a local charity associated with Hezbollah, known as Al-Mabarrat Charitable Organization. In 2006, Al-Mabarrat was accused of being part of a global fundraising infrastructure for Hezbollah, including operations in the United States and Canada.

Further evidence of Al-Mabarrat’s deep ties to Hezbollah lies in the fact that Fadlallah personally managed the organization until his death in 2010. Today, his son, Ja‘far Fadlallah, leads the charity and also serves as its “General Religious Supervisor.”

Dearborn and Dearborn Heights are majority-Muslim cities that promote a quiet jihad within America. Both cities have significant ties and deep connections to Iran and Hezbollah. Numerous charitable organizations in these communities have been advancing an anti-American, anti-Western agenda for many years.

President Donald Trump garnered significant support from Muslim voters, who were protesting President Biden’s administration’s backing of Israel during the war in Gaza.

Trump thus became the first Republican candidate since 2000 to win a majority of votes in Dearborn. It is no coincidence that the person scheduled to speak at Trump’s inauguration was the extremist Shiite imam, Husham al-Husseini, a Hezbollah supporter from the Karbala Shiite Islamic Center in Dearborn who holds strongly anti-Israel views. It should be noted that in the end, it was decided that in light of al-Husseini’s factional views and his support for the terrorist organization Hezbollah, he would not speak at Trump’s inauguration.

After Trump appointed a strongly pro-Israel cabinet, Muslims referred to it as a “cabinet that supports extreme Israel.”

These reactions reveal the interests of the Muslim community in the United States and its efforts to influence American policy in favor of Arab interests. The new administration must be attentive to the motives of Islamic entities, like those in America’s jihad capitals, whose goals conflict with American interests. This marks another phase in the process of silent jihad, as America’s two jihad capitals—strongholds of Iran and Hezbollah—lead a direct anti-American agenda.

This article was originally published in–ynetnews.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Twin Cities: Two Jihad Capitals in America הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Since its inception, the Zionist movement has striven to gain Arab understanding and acceptance of the idea of the Return to Zion: That Jews have legitimate claims to the Land of Israel, that they wish to establish a national home in cooperation with the Arabs, and that the Jews’ return to their homeland will greatly benefit the Arabs and bring them development, and progress.

The Arabs, who, as a result of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, gained several states, stretching from the borders of Iran to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, firmly and resolutely refused to listen to the Zionist claims and vehemently opposed any affirmation to any Zionist claim.

The Arabs also exhibited this strong and determined opposition to all Zionist compromise proposals and concessions, such as the various partition plans, which left the Zionists with a very small area of land compared to the Zionist demands regarding the National Home area, as presented at the Peace Conference held in Paris in 1919.

The Arabs did not even respond to any of these attempts at compromise. For them, it made no difference whether the Jewish state, if established, is large or small. They fundamentally opposed the notion of such a state being established at all. In various Zionist circles, especially among the “peace seekers”, the illusion prevailed that if the Zionist movement gave up some of its demands, it would elicit a desire for peace among the Arabs, as existed among the Jews.

From the beginning, the Arab governments or the Palestinian Arab leadership never intended to engage in negotiations or bargaining diplomacy. From the beginning, they pursued a policy of violence against the Jewish community in the Land of Israel. This was the case throughout the years of British Mandate rule and since the establishment of the State of Israel, and continues to this very day.

The intensity and sophistication of Arab violent resistance varied according to circumstances, but it has persisted until today. This resistance to Zionism reached its peak in the series of military campaigns in which the regular armies of Arab countries such as Egypt, Syria, and Jordan participated. In all of these military campaigns, the Arab armies suffered severe and humiliating defeats, but the IDF victories were not enough to cause the Arabs to surrender. Between the campaigns, the Arabs engaged in small-scale fighting, which we call terrorist acts. It is not easy to fight a war against terrorism, and it may also be impossible to achieve complete victory in such a war. This is a war that has been going on, in various forms, for many long years and it may continue for many more.

The Arabs were not satisfied solely with violent military combat against Israel, whether by regular armies or religiously inspired terrorist organizations. They have terrorized Israel in many other domains, provided they do everything possible to make life miserable for Israel and to weaken it. Many probably remember the period of the economic boycott against Israel, which was not very successful, but caused Israel considerable inconvenience and damage.

We are currently in the midst of a broad-scale political-social campaign, encompassing many countries and international organizations, aimed at boycotting anything Israeli, delegitimizing Israel, and creating a hostile international environment that legitimizes Israel’s destruction.

Recruiting the Diaspora for public diplomacy

Strong Arab propaganda, inspired by intense hatred and a heavy reliance on lies, aimed at harassing and weakening Israel, undermining its legitimacy in the world, and tarnishing its image, has accompanied the Zionist enterprise almost since its inception. This propaganda operates in tandem with all other Arab efforts: military violence, political and economic boycott, and any other means capable of harming Israel. Arab anti-Israel efforts are absolute.

It should be mentioned that the domestic crisis in Israel, with its accompanying hatred and uncivilized internal debates, lends a helping hand to Arab propaganda. What more could hostile Arab propaganda ask for than hate speech from a former Chief of the General Staff or other senior figures against their country?

This Arab propaganda has had periods of success and periods of failure, but it seems that it has never had such a successful time at Israel’s expense as since October 7th.

The incomprehensible paradox here is difficult to explain: Israel was the one that suffered a surprise attack by a terrorist organization who slaughtered about 1,200 people in the Gaza Envelope that day and perpetrated monstrous acts of cruelty; kidnapping about two hundred men and women, children and the elderly, the sick and the healthy – which in itself is considered a crime against humanity. How is it possible that Israel, who was surprised, beaten, and bruised, is being condemned from all sides, and not the murderers? How is it possible that the vast majority of the world’s countries did not condemn the murderers and did not even ensure that the Red Cross could visit the hostages? The UN and its agencies, including the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which has long since become an arm of Arab anti-Semitism, also did nothing to help rescue the hostages. And when the IDF began hitting Hamas, how come the masses took to the streets in various places around the world, in mass demonstrations against Israel and not against Hamas? And why did political leaders and the International Criminal Court in The Hague accuse Israel of genocide and not the Gazan terrorist organization?

There are explanations for this phenomenon, and for the alliance that has been formed between the large Arab communities around the world and various anti-Semitic circles, and between extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing circles. This is not a pleasant or easy situation, and it is difficult to deal with.

The savage Arab propaganda currently being waged in various forms against Israel has various advantages, but it is also possible to oppose it and try to weaken it. Israel has many allies that should be recruited and activated in a systematic and coordinated manner to weaken the power of that propaganda.

In places where there is a Jewish community, action should be taken to utilize the community, its institutions, and appropriate individuals from within it to coordinate counter-actions, in each place according to its conditions. Many places have friendship associations with Israel, Jewish professional associations such as doctors, lawyers, and the like. Many of these will join in counter-action. The major Jewish donors to universities and cultural institutions will definitely be eager to cooperate; after all, the clear anti-Semitic threat posed by the Arab movement against Israel endangers them as well.

Such actions, and many other similar ones, have also been taken in previous times of crisis, with varying degrees of success. There were successful precedents for this, especially during and after the Yom Kippur War. A system of organizations and aggressive public diplomacy campaigns against Arab propaganda must be reorganized. Its success depends on coordinated and vigorous organizational action. The natural entity to coordinate such actions is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Public Diplomacy Division, which has representative offices deployed in dozens of countries worldwide, and has also carried out such actions in the past. There is no point in entrusting this task to a special government public diplomacy ministry, headed by a minister who lacks any understanding of the subject.

Religious ruling recognizing Israel

On the surface, the picture is bleak. Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides and there is no end to the bloodshed in sight, despite its military achievements and victories, and its accomplishments in so many other areas as well.

Although Israel has signed peace agreements with its two neighbors – Egypt and Jordan – we should not delude ourselves again and not see these agreements for what they are not. Both are important agreements that are highly beneficial, in various domains and for all the signatory countries, but they all lack one clear thing – they do not bring true peace, as we, in israel, had hoped. It could be said that these peace agreements more closely resemble armistices than peace treaties. In any case, this is better than a state of war.

And yet, although it seems that true peace is unlikely in the foreseeable future, there is something worth trying. Maybe it will bear fruit.

Let us first explain that in Arab and Islamic countries, even those considered secular, religion and those holding senior religious positions are held in high regard. In these countries, senior religious figures and those with the authority to issue religious rulings (“muftis”) are treated with great respect. Such a legal ruling is called a “fatwa”, and the more esteemed the mufti who issues it is, the greater influence it has on public opinion. Such muftis are found in all Arab countries, and there have previously already been those who have issued fatwas that are relatively positive or sympathetic to Israel. The most important Muslim institution in the Arab world for such religious scholars is Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The religious rulings that are issued on various topics by the heads of this institution carry great weight.

Israel’s goal should be to obtain such a fatwa, which recognizes the Jews’ right to the Land of Israel and recognizes Israel as the land of the Jewish people.

Is this possible? It’s hard to know. The chances seem negligible, but we should attempt to develop dialogues with every Muslim religious scholar wherever such a connection can be made. This can undoubtedly be done; such connections have already been made in various places. This is not the place to detail how to try and develop such an operation, which must be conducted wisely, cautiously, and quietly. The chances may be very slim, but it is still worth trying. Without religious sanction for peace with Israel, the longed-for peace will not be achieved.

About the author:
Dr. Moshe Yager. He served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 40 years and held ambassadorial positions in Sweden and the Czech Republic.

The text is solely the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the movement’s opinion.

הפוסט War and Peace: The Arab Propaganda Assault Against Israel הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

After the stabbing attack in Tel Aviv, carried out by Moroccan terrorist and US green card holder Abd Al-Aziz Qadi, the Hamas terrorist organization and the Muslim Brotherhood movement were quick to praise him for his deed.

The Muslim Brotherhood said in its statement that “Abd Al-Aziz, an ‘American’ of ‘Moroccan’ origin, boarded a plane from America to the [Zionist] entity, and answered the call to support Palestine in however he could… He prepared a clean knife, with a clean hand and a heart full of faith, and killed four settlers before he died.”

Some hours after terrorist Abd Al-Aziz Qadi wounded five Israelis at Nahalat Binyamin neighborhood in Tel Aviv, a Moroccan citizen who was planning to carry out a terror attack against the Jewish community of Naples, Italy, was arrested in that city. Italian media announced that the suspect, who apparently belonged to ISIS, had distributed items of Islamist propaganda and support for the organization, and had voiced his intent to obtain a knife and carry out a stabbing attack. The mode of operations invites comparison to the terror attack in Tel Aviv, but there is no answer as to whether Qadi actually represented ISIS, another organization, or only himself.

Still, the terror attack in Tel Aviv and the attempted terror attack in Naples shed light on the activities of jihadist organizations in Morocco Terrorist organizations, with ISIS in the lead, have found a convenient operating base in Morocco. There, they cultivate new operatives who directly threaten the stability of the kingdom and of the European continent. Jihadist organizations recruit and train large numbers of followers online, exposing them to inciteful content. Some recruits are used as a fighting force in other African countries in the Sahel region. They join terrorist cells established by ISIS terrorists who returned, after the fall of ISIS in the Middle East, to Morocco. Thus, Morocco has become a cardinal source of recruitment for the radical jihadist organizations that threaten Europe and the Middle East.

Both Al-Qaeda and ISIS operate jihadist recruitment and training centers across Western Sahara and benefit from the protection of Algeria, Morocco’s neighbor and rival. Algeria, refusing to cooperate with Morocco on counterterrorism efforts, provides a safe haven for these organizations.

After ISIS’ defeat in the Middle East in 2019, many Moroccan jihadists returned to Morocco and focused their efforts on increasing ISIS’ power on the African continent. According to the Moroccan Central Bureau of Judicial Investigations, in the years since the founding of ISIS approximately 1,645 Moroccan terrorist operatives have joined various jihadist organizations in Iraq and Syria. Approximately 745 of them have died in suicide attacks or in battle. Most of them had joined and fought for ISIS. Of those who survived the fall of ISIS in the Middle East, approximately 270 terrorists returned to Morocco; and of them, 137 were brought to trial. In addition, roughly 288 women and 391 minors also came to ISIS combat areas to earn a livelihood.

The operatives’ activities in the Sahel region—a belt of countries stretching from Mali and Mauritania through Chad, Niger, and Sudan—include fighting against groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda and other African Islamist organizations. This conflict is part of a broader struggle for dominance among international jihadist movements, each vying to establish a global caliphate.

The Sahel countries suffer from the presence of various Jihadist organizations in their region, with Niger, Chad, and Mali battling Jihadist organizations that exploit the region’s lax border security and its arms trafficking networks. The Jihadist organizations are constantly carrying out murderous terror attacks, with an emphasis on harming Christian populations – whom they consider infidels. Despite Morocco’s offer to share intelligence to aid in the arrest of jihadists and the prevention of terror attacks in Europe and the United States, the flow of jihadists from its territory to Europe persists.

Morocco itself experienced a major terror attack from ISIS in December 2018, when two Scandinavian tourists, Louisa Vesterager Jespersen and Maren Ueland, were murdered in the Atlas Mountains. Their killers swore allegiance to ISIS while beheading the two women. That shocking event echoed strongly, as there had not been a major terror attack in Morocco since 2011, when 17 people were killed in an explosion at a restaurant in Marrakesh.

The Silent Junction: Morocco as a Crossroads for Jihadists

Many jihadists have taken advantage of Morocco’s geographical proximity to Europe in order to infiltrate European territory as immigrants or refugees and establish sleeper cells in Western European countries. This infiltration spurred wide-ranging cooperation between the counter-terrorism units of Spain and Morocco, which over the past ten years have dismantled dozens of terrorist cells in both countries.

Despite Spain and Morocco’s extensive efforts to eliminate terrorist elements within Morocco and prevent their infiltration into Europe, lone-wolf attackers—supporting ISIS and other jihadist groups—continue to emerge across Europe, many originating from North Africa. They are a burden further to the already existing difficulty of dealing with many citizens who find solace in Islamic radicalism and who feed on radical Islamist, anti-Western, and anti-Semitic content online.

At the same time, extremist movements remain active within Morocco, including the Muslim Brotherhood—which operates differently from ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Despite their differences, these groups all promote anti-Western and anti-Semitic discourse that encourages jihad. Morocco serves as a key transit hub for jihadist operatives. Some move into the Sahel region, now a major stronghold for global jihadist organizations, while others attempt to infiltrate Europe—either to carry out jihadist activities directly or to establish sleeper cells awaiting the right moment to act.

Morocco’s central location makes it a strategic point for jihadist organizations en route to Europe. While the kingdom itself is not considered a jihadist stronghold, its relative obscurity—due to the more active jihadi movements in the Middle East and East Africa—means it often receives less intelligence attention compared to other regions, such as Somalia and Mozambique in the east, or Libya to the north. As a result, Morocco’s location at the tip of the African continent provides a quiet path into Europe for jihadists.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט The Moroccan Connection: The Tel Aviv Stabbing Attack and the Moroccan Jihadist Organizations הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Re-defining the political divide in Israel as “Doves vs Hawks” rather than “Left vs Right” is a matter of far-reaching substantive significance, well beyond mere semantics.

“…[dissenting] intellectuals tend to be scorned and abused and vilified as “the Right”; Right-wing”—that all-purpose, nonsensical, infantile insult which is designed to shut down argument. There is nothing remotely right-wing about standing up for truth against lies, justice against injustice, freedom against those who would snuff out freedom

– Melanie Phillips Israeli TV (8th January 2011)

This insightful remark by the ever-incisive British-Israeli political pundit encapsulates much of the deep malaise that has, to a large degree, afflicted both the Israeli political system and civil society institutions with which it interacts—such as Israel legal system, the academe, and mainstream media.

The political divide in Israel

For decades, the rivalry over political power in Israel has focused principally on a divide between opposing political credos classified (or rather, misclassified) as “Left” and “Right” and the political parties allegedly affiliated with these divergent world views, perceived (or rather misperceived)  as being mutually exclusive.

This, however, is a dichotomy that is not only overly simplistic, but also misleading, inappropriate, and in the final analysis, deeply detrimental to the conduct of political life in the country.  Indeed, in Israel, it is a divide that is even more deceptive and distortive than elsewhere in the world, because here the real “watershed” between the so-called “Left” and “Right” is generally not determined by the usual socioeconomic criteria, but rather more by one’s leanings on defense and foreign policy.

Indeed, in Israel, the overriding factor in determining whether a person or party is designated “Left” or “Right” is their position on the Palestinian issue and their attitude to the prospects of territorial concessions precipitating peace. Thus, those advocating large-scale territorial withdrawals/political concessions to the Palestinian-Arabs are labeled “Left”, while those opposing them, are dubbed “Right”.

This frequently results in some absurdly bizarre political outcomes—on which I   elaborate later. For the present, however, it will suffice to point out that, paradoxically, an avowed free-market advocate, who avidly supports a policy of dovish concessions to the Palestinian-Arabs, would unequivocally be considered a “Leftist”. By contrast, a strong advocate of enhanced social welfare, who uncompromisingly opposes any significant concessions would be considered a “Right-winger”, even—gasp—an “extremist”.

The Bogus Litmus Test

Thus, in Israel, the discourse as to whether one is “Right-wing” or not, has little to do with one’s views on socioeconomics or domestic politics.

Accordingly, one’s positions on matters such as government intervention in the marketplace, social welfare, gay liaisons, abortion, tolerance of political dissent, cultural diversity, and freedom of worship, carry scant weight in establishing whether or not one is to be doomed to the dreaded “Right-wing” label.

Instead, the definitive litmus test of being “Right-wing” is all about one’s perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict, in general; and the Israeli-Palestinian one, in particular. This has become the definitive measure determining the perception of the “Left-Right” divide. If one supports a concessionary policy towards the Arabs, one is elevated to the exalted ranks of “enlightened Left”; if one opposes them, one is relegated to the “retrograde reactionary Right”.

To illustrate the point: Some time ago, the New York Times’s Ethan Bronner referred to a Jerusalem Post column I had written on the “social justice” protests then sweeping the streets of urban Israel (“Come to the carnival, comrade!”). In it, he referred to me as “a right-wing columnist“—apparently because I pointed out that building constraints in areas across the pre-1967 Green Line were contributing to the high cost of housing. Significantly—or is that, ironically?—this was something even the Rabin government—initiators of the Oslo debacle—recognized when, in contradiction to its electoral pledges, it launched extensive construction projects in “settlements” to bring prices down.

The fact that I also noted that social workers, police, doctors, and teachers were “scandalously” underpaid and should be better remunerated, or that avaricious oligopolistic cartels should be targeted and the excess profits cut, had no effect on the way I was categorized.

Tri-axial political realities; three-dimensional “political space”

One of the lamentable features of political life in Israel is that in designating what is “Left”, what is “Right” and what divides them, several unrelated factors have been “lumped” together, despite the fact there are no substantive links between them at all.

After all, there is no intrinsic reason why someone’s attitude on one issue (say, national security) should define, or be defined by, their position on any other issue (say economics or religion).

However, sadly, this is not the case in practice. Indeed, as a general rule, if someone is identified as a hardliner on security issues, they are more likely to be assumed to be religious rather than secular and a socio-economic conservative rather than a “social justice liberal”.

As mentioned previously this is a cognitive norm that is as distortive as it is deceptive—and its effects are both detrimental and dysfunctional.

In Israel, this detrimental dysfunctionality has ramifications far graver than for most other Western countries. After all, while in most of the Western world, the issues that constitute the routine political discourse have –at least until very recently, (with the war in Ukraine and the exacerbation of the immigration crisis)—had little tangible impact on the existential realities of daily life, in Israel, they frequently comprise matters of life and death.

Accordingly, rather than being conceived of as uni-dimensional, “political space” should be viewed as having three dimensions, defined by three independent axes:

(a)    A Hawk-Dove axis for security and foreign policy;

(b)   A Conservative-Liberal axis for socio-economic issues;

(c)    A Secular-Religious axis for faith-based issues.

Viewing “political space” in this manner allows for a far more comprehensive, nuanced—and accurate—classification of an individual’s political identity, than a simplistic, and frequently misleading, “Left-Right” dichotomy.

No political home for secular hawks

Indeed, this tri-axial representation allows one to conceive of a wide variety of differing complex political identities. Thus, one can envisage individuals with hardline hawkish views on security, who might be either secular or religious on the one hand; and free-marketeers or welfare-state advocates on the other. Conversely, the same clearly holds for those with concessionary dovish credos.

In this regard, Israel’s political history is replete with examples of religious politicians—even rabbis, including Orthodox rabbis—who illustrate how inapt the invalid, inaccurate, and inadequate the commonly held stereotypes of the “Left-Right” can be. For example, Michael Melchior, himself an orthodox rabbi, who served as a minister in the short-lived (1999-2001) Labor-led coalition under Ehud Barak, headed the distinctly dovish religious faction, Meimad. Indeed, Melchior’s far-reaching pacifistic views, as expressed in a 2012 interview, headlined “Islam is ready for peace with Israel”, have an almost unhinged ring to them in light of the October 7, 2023 atrocities and the incandescent hatred manifested towards Jews by the followers of Islam, with whom that Melchior engaged.

Similarly, Gilad Kariv, an ordained Reform rabbi, is a member of the far-Left “The Democrats” party formed by a merger of the former Labor party and the radical Left Meretz faction, again showing that there is not rigid nexus between religion and hardline security positions.

Accordingly, there is no inherent reason to assign either religious fervor or tightfisted fiscal frugality to anyone who opposes a policy of appeasement of Israel’s despotic foes.

However, although one might expect this to be almost self-evident, in Israeli political realities this is not at all the case.

Indeed, there has been no political faction that could genuinely serve as a stable political home for a non-observant hardliner, with a platform, endorsing what could be described as a doctrine of the non-observant liberal hawk.

After all, given Likud’s lurch leftward—notably since 2009 with Netanyahu’s acceptance (albeit under duress) of the possibility of Palestinian statehood–and its embrace of policies it previously vilified, it has been three decades—arguably since the demise of the Tsomet party, in the mid-90s—that there has been no political faction that could authentically serve as a political home of a non-observant hardliner, with a platform, endorsing what could be described as a doctrine of such secular liberal hawks.

Those who might be tempted to point to Avigdor Liberman or Naftali Bennett as a patron for such a party would do well to remember that their allegedly hardline views did little to prevent them from forging a political alliance, not only with radical non-Zionists, such as Nitzan Horowitz and Meirav Micheli but blatant the anti-Zionist Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, the Islamist United Arab List (Raam)

Substantive significance of semantics

This is a lacuna that has grave repercussions for the conduct of both domestic politics inside the country and for its foreign policy abroad.

For it has allowed opposition to political appeasement and territorial withdrawal to be painted—or rather tainted with—colors considered, rightly or wrongly, unpalatable to many within the political mainstream –inseparably entwined with elements they find objectionable in other spheres.

This has had a chilling effect on public debate on one of the most—arguably the most—crucial topics on the national agenda. Indeed, as Melanie Phillips pointed out (see introductory excerpt), in many influential circles, it is sufficient to brand your adversary “Right-wing” to “shut down argument” and dismiss whatever he/she has to say without any need to contend with the substantive merits of their contentions.

Accordingly, it is crucial to decouple the debate on issues of security and foreign policy, in general, and of territorial withdrawal, political concessions, and permanent frontiers, in particular, from other issues usually, but inappropriately, associated with them. This calls for the formulation of a political doctrine that combines a hardline stance on matters of defense and diplomacy with a domestic agenda that is liberal in terms of its socio-economic credo and secular (or at least non-observant) in faith-based realms.

For as we shall see, semantics do, indeed, have far-reaching substantive ramifications.

Reaching across the perceived political divide

The formulation and propagation of such a doctrine will provide those, who may have grave misgivings as to the prudence of the “Left’s” policies of appeasement,  a vehicle to identify openly with opposition to these policies—without being branded a religious zealot or a retrograde rightwing extremist, or any other “unseemly” epithet.

To quote Phillips once again “There is nothing remotely right-wing about standing up for truth against lies, justice against injustice, freedom against those who would snuff out freedom.”

Thus, to break away from the old stereotypes and existing stigmas that have plagued Israeli politics for decades, the formulation of a doctrine of the “liberal hawk” is an urgent imperative. It is a doctrine that would provide the hitherto reticent with both the substance and the symbolism that would allow them to publically embrace an uncompromising approach to security matters, without having to relinquish their self-image of “enlightened” liberals or preclude them from continued affiliation with their long-held socio-economic beliefs.

It is, arguably, the only way to reach across the prevailing political divide, and rally political support, beyond the current array of the “Right-wing” parties, to oppose injudicious concessionary initiatives that gravely imperil the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Hawks vs Doves: The real distinction

It is crucial that one thing be made unequivocally clear:

The divide between Doves and Hawks in Israel is not that the one desires peace while the other advocates war. Both Israeli Hawks and Doves desire peace (or at least, wish to avert war). The fundamental divide between them is this: The Doves believe that adversaries can be coaxed into making peace by means of a concessionary policy of compromise and goodwill gestures. By contrast, the Hawks believe that adversaries must be deterred from making war by adopting an uncompromisingly resolute policy of rejecting any appeasement or concessions, which might embolden them to attack.

Accordingly, the divide is not over the desired outcome i.e., what to achieve, but over the preferred process i.e., how to achieve it.

There is historical precedent to support both schools of thought in different contexts. However for Israel, given its geo-political location in the Middle East, the crucial—indeed existential— question is this: Which is the appropriate approach for it to adopt as its national policy?

Perversely, although it is perhaps the most divisive issue among Israelis,  it is the one, on which there should be no dispute at all, whether one subscribes to a vision of an ultra-Orthodox religious state governed by ancient “Halachic” laws; or a post-Zionist secular “state of all its citizens”, governed by the laws of liberal democracy.

For one thing should be beyond dispute. Situated as it is, in an area dominated by forces of political tyranny and Islamist theocracy, who reject its very right to exist, Israel will remain neither Jewish nor democratic, from within—unless it is secure against the dangers from without. And an indispensable precondition for such security against outside threat is defensible borders—and defensible at a bearable economic cost.

Rebranding the Right; restructuring the divide

Clearly then, there is nothing “illiberal” in rejection of a policy of perilous withdrawal and concessions. To the contrary—such rejection is the sine qua non for sustaining any hope for a durable liberal reality in the country.

Accordingly, the supreme challenge confronting anti-appeasement intellectuals today is to rebrand the “Right”; and restructure the dominant divide in Israeli politics from “Left vs Right” to “Doves vs Hawks”– whatever their socio-economic proclivities, their cultural preferences, or spiritual credos.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Israel’s urgent imperative: A doctrine of the Liberal Hawk הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

With these outrageous images, Hamas may have helped Israel convince world leaders to have its back to remove Hamas’ terrorist regime from power in the Gaza Strip.

The gruesome PR spectacles produced by Hamas during the release of Israeli hostages have been offering the world a glimpse into the core elements of the Gaza conflict. The true nature of what is often described as a mere territorial dispute, or careless and pointless warfare, is now being exposed as a deep-seated clash between civilizations.

Hamas’ propaganda machine thus resurfaced the central role of information, image, and symbolism in communicating this clash and highlighted how it stretches far beyond the sandy, dusty battlefield. In a way, it also inadvertently helped Israel make its case in its demand to end the war with nothing short of a clear, victorious result.

Over the past fortnight, Hamas released several batches of Israeli hostages in exchange for the release from Israeli prisons of notorious terrorists as part of its commitment to the deal mediated by the United States. Evidently, the terror group was not going to acknowledge loss, concede a compromise, and quietly hand out hostages.

That would be uncharacteristic of insurgent strongmen in an honor-bound Arab culture, heavily reliant on commanding and coercing the respect and awe of their public. Surrounded by destruction and debris, Hamas militants thus chose to stage a carefully-branded victory parade, oblivious to the extent of irony involved – at least, in Western eyes.

As opposed to the ritual in November 2023 – the first hostage deal, when terrorists wearing uniforms simply handed out hostages to the Red Cross, Hamas leveraged the release this time to produce a meticulously-planned show of force. The hostages were forced to become the main actors in the epicenter of a PR spectacle designated to muscle up Hamas’ regained control in Gaza.

Petrified Israeli young women and elderly were forced to march through a stampede of jeering Gaza residents, paraded like trophies. Hamas constructed a stage and invited journalists. It handed the hostages self-proclaimed “release kits” and certificates that it proudly signed and stamped with the Red Cross as a sign of confirmation of its authority toward its people in Gaza.

The frenzied crowd that mobbed the hostages witnessed how Hamas prevents them from accessing their “property” – and Israeli, the most valuable “prize” possible – all while half-enjoying the attention and the respect they commanded.

Hamas then instructed the hostages to wave and smile to the crowd, as captured in one video featuring instructions by a Hamas cameraman signaled to hostage Agam Berger. Other female soldiers kidnapped on October 7 victoriously waved to the crowd as well, in a courageous way that commanded the awe of the Israeli public.

Effectively, Hamas transposed the asset that these hostages constituted for it. It cynically used them as bargaining chips to obtain concessions from Israel. When Israel agreed, their asset converted into being used as props in Hamas’ propaganda machine.

The sensationalized way in which Hamas chose to release these hostages dials back to a fundamental principle of terrorism – intimidate, spread the message, and impose policy through fear. The lesson by Brazilian guerilla combatant and radical author Carlos Marighella to carry out “armed propaganda,” or heinous acts that would shock and awe public opinion, was not lost on Hamas. It recognizes the power of propaganda to accomplish its goals and does not hesitate to use international media attention to do just that.

Backstage banners

For this reason, it chose to send a message to international viewers by printing out backstage banners in both Arabic and English – one for their home front, one for outsiders. Broadcasted to millions of viewers, the banners denounced “criminal Zionism” and praising “Palestinian freedom fighters”. All of these resonate well with some of the young progressive protesters who cheered Hamas up on college campuses and view it as part of the so-called coalition of the oppressed.

Had anyone doubted Hamas’ true objective, they evaporated with these images. Its determination not to end the so-called occupation but to annihilate Israel and replace it with a Palestinian state that it controls, a vision shared by almost all surveyed Palestinians, was presented in broad daylight for all to see.

In that, Hamas took a page out of the playbook of the Soviet communist regime, the Nazi party, the Iranian mullahs, and the Russian government, who place a high premium on appearances and propaganda. Russian state media featured President Putin shaking hands with released Ukrainian child hostages, who were forced to thank him for allegedly salvaging them from their families.

ISIS handpicked the infamous orange jumpers worn by its slain victims to reflect revenge over the way they see the treatment of Islamist terrorists in the Guantanamo Bay prison. The Nazis invested heavily in propaganda through caricatures, movies, and symbolism and swayed the public by staging heavily-budgeted light spectacles with lit torches in Nuremberg.

Much like it did in the October 7 massacre, when it cruelly livestreamed its slain victims and used everything from go-pro body cameras to drones, Hamas has proven its recognition of the value in mass media. Gone are the days of home-recorded footage showing the abducted Nahshon Waxman (1994) or Gilad Shalit (2009) speaking to the camera. Hamas now invests in blockbuster-level quality video productions showing hostages in cages or militants targeting IDF soldiers, competing for the top spot with their jihadist counterparts at ISIS and the PIJ.

The live coverage by the media, the excitement ramped up in public squares in Israel, and the inflow of pundits and posts only encouraged Hamas to invest more in this diabolical abuse of victims. Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher scorned journalists who inadvertently gave a platform to the IRA’s intimidation campaign, telling them not to cover it and “starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

Granted, today’s hyperstimulated media environment makes it much more complicated to ignore such events, but Thatcher’s lesson does invite us to rethink our attitude to information during war. For example, the avalanche of narratives and claims posing as journalistic reporting during the Gaza war were put to the test by these images, in a way that Hamas did not necessarily intend.

Viewers and readers are repeatedly told to believe that the people of Gaza reject Hamas and unilaterally suffer from Israel’s military actions – in a way that cannot be reconciled with the images of the masses mobbing the hostages and actively participating in their humiliation.

The Gazan population that was alleged to be starving showed up wearing top-to-toe fashion outfits, filming the hostages with fully-charged phones in a way that would make the people of Yemen or South Sudan jealous. One could only wonder how claims over a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza, propelled by no other than the United Nations’ Secretary General, reconcile with the HD cameras and HR microphones that documented the hostages’ release, the printing shop that produced the back stage, or the luxurious Chevrolet that brought them to the pickup point.

Propaganda as a viable dimension of war did serve Hamas for intimidation, and certainly scored political points among the Gazans public, yet it is also not unthinkable that Hamas outdid its own success. These over-the-top productions could have done Israel’s job in explaining the true humanitarian situation in Gaza, by raising doubts on the common wisdom surrounding the claims on deliberate starvation and genocide.

These images served Israel better than any chart in debunking these accusations, especially as it committed to allowing hundreds more trucks per day – so far exceeding 1 million tons of aid flowing into Gaza.

Public opinion may have been swayed in Gaza and among Hamas sympathizers abroad, but these images also obtained the opposite result than what Hamas had hoped for. Leaders, commentators, and leading journals widely condemned and rejected this circus. This may help Israel make its case to resume the war after the cease-fire is over.

If there is any lesson learned by the October 7 massacre, it is that such a grave and present threat cannot be left to metastasize unchecked in the Gaza Strip, and needs to be duly removed from power before it can carry out another atrocity. With these outrageous images, Hamas may have helped Israel convince world leaders to have its back to do just that.

This article was originally published on the Jerusalem Post.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Hamas’s hostage circus exposes the hypocrisy of Gaza’s victim narrative – opinion הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

As long as Gaza exists in its current format, Israel will not have security, and the drums of war will continue to beat – on all fronts. The opportunity given to Israel must be exploited.

President Donald Trump’s latest announcement, demanding the release of all hostages by Saturday at 12:00, or the ceasefire will be canceled and “all hell is going to break out”, is a test not only for Hamas, but mainly for Israel’s leadership. This statement brings the Israeli cabinet back to square one, making it possible for it to reexamine the war management strategy, and even the goals of the war .

Since October 7, two main strategies have been voiced: One, defeating Hamas and only then returning the hostages. As part of this strategy, Israel had to resort to various offensive methods; massive bombing of Gaza, stopping humanitarian aid, and evacuating the population. The second, the return of the hostages and only then the surrender of Hamas. As part of this strategy, Israel should have gone for an “all for all” deal, and then destroy the enemy .

Now, with a reset of the historical clock, the Israeli government must reexamine all the cards, including the possibility of first cutting off the head of the Iranian snake by attacking its nuclear program .

In doing so, the Israeli government must establish a fundamental fact as a starting point, and that is that Gaza is the root of the conflict. If all of Israel’s other enemies cause harm to Israel, then Gaza (and Iran) are the real evil. Evil incarnate. Gaza is no longer a side front in Israel’s struggle. Gaza is a hotbed of terrorism, which is being used against Israel in various ways: dividing the people as a primary strategy, causing instability, carrying out terrorist attacks, causing economic harm, and an ongoing effort to delegitimize the State of Israel in the international arena .

A fundamental solution to the problem in Gaza will have a decisive impact on Israel’s security, as Gaza is the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even among the Israeli right, the claim is sometimes voiced that “there is no solution for Gaza”. Precisely for this reason, resetting the Gaza arena will have a positive impact on the entire regional picture .

A solution in Gaza is not just a local issue – it will also directly affect Judea and Samaria, and allow for constructive solutions to be implemented to the hotbeds of terrorism there. Over the years, the State of Israel has been engaged in putting out fires – operation after operation, round after round – but none of this has changed the strategic balance, leaving the enemy standing on its feet, waiting for the next opportunity. Despite the scale of the current destruction in Gaza, there is a danger that nothing has changed at the strategic level.

Therefore, the central question is whether Israel will choose to completely destroy the enemy, or will it be content with another round with Hamas still standing afterward, growing stronger and waiting for the next blow .

Beyond the security implications, Israel’s decision on how to act in Gaza will also directly affect its relations with the Trump administration. Trump, who demonstrated unprecedented support for Israel during his previous term, and since he reentered the White House, expects Israel to stand behind his aggressive and pro-Israeli policy. If it becomes clear that Israel is unwilling to do what is necessary to ensure its security, he may respond accordingly .

In conclusion, as long as Gaza exists in its current format, Israel will not have security, and the drums of war will continue to beat – on all fronts. The opportunity given to Israel with Trump’s ultimatum must be exploited, and the face of the Middle East must be changed in a way that will bring certainty, peace, and security to Israel .

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט A New Opportunity: Victory in Gaza is Way More Than a Local Problem הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The current political echelon in Israel is perceived as trying to shirk its responsibility for the events of October 7th. There is a lot of truth in this. The “congratulations” that government officials bestowed upon the resigning IDF Chief of the General Staff, along the lines of “well done, we salute him”, without mentioning in the same breath the great shame and humility that should encompass their every move during this period – are shameful. But the discussion around this issue is not on point.

There is a tendency to divide responsibility for the events of October 7, and also for what happened afterwards – the successes and failures – into military and political domains. But the truth is that the mutual influence the two ecehlons have on each other is too great to separate. The dichotomous separation is the real shirking of responsibility.

Who is responsible for the misconception?

There are too many causes to count for what led to the October 7th misconception. The intelligence responsibility of the Military Intelligence Directorate and the other intelligence agencies is clear and undisputed. But what caused this intelligence failure is the lack of a true critical culture. The responsibility of the IDF, and of the intelligence community in general, is to examine the veracity of their perceptions, which ultimately lead to the intelligence assessments that reach the political echelon. It’s enough to listen to Brigadier General (res.) Itay Baron, who was previously Head of the Research and Analysis Division at the Military Intelligence Directorate and who returned to the position after October 7, to understand that this is not the situation within the army: “If we have such information, and the information is of high quality, then it has greatly strengthened this culture of ‘we know because it’s impossible that we don’t'”^[1]. The professional assumption that it is possible to know and understand reality accurately, is what lies at the heart of the failure.

After the Yom Kippur War, the Audits Department, also known as Ipcha Mistabra (Aramaic for “The Devil’s Advocate”) was established at the Military Intelligence Directorate. This department’s role is to challenge the Military Intelligence Directorate and its concepts before they even reach the political echelon. But even this tool, and other tools such as red teams (teams whose job is to think through the enemy’s eyes), have proven ineffective in the face of a culture of arrogance, as evidenced by the IDF’s decision to expand the Audits Department and its authorities after the events of October 7 in light of its failure.

But intelligence responsibility does not stop with the IDF or other intelligence agencies. The political echelon has the responsibility to cast professional doubt on intelligence assessments. The political echelon has the authority and responsibility to demand additional expert opinions, and to place common sense into the mix of considerations. The professional echelons, on the other hand, have the responsibility to provide politicians with any information that may be relevant in order to enable them to make the right decisions, and they should present this information when it is processed from a professional aspect only and not from an ideological aspect.

Who is responsible for meeting the goals?

The political echelon must not only cast doubt on intelligence assessments, but also on everything that comes out of the military: strategic goals and plans of action to achieve these goals must also be put to the test. Statements made during this period by government ministers, accusing the army of trying to evade meeting clear goals, are nothing short of negligence. The political echelon has the duty to define clear goals according to which the military can plan its programs and mode of operation.

Let’s take, for example, the second goal of the Swords of Iron War, as defined by the political echelon: eliminating Hamas’ rule in the Gaza Strip. It’s enough to read a little news to understand that this is not the situation in the Gaza Strip, even at a stage when a hostage deal is already taking place. The claim made by government members is that the military echelon fears control over the civilian population and is trying to avoid it, and as a result, Hamas is still the most powerful entity in Gaza. The failure of the uncontrolled humanitarian aid entering Gaza, and not taking the appropriate political steps to verify who is distributing the food in Gaza, are being blamed by the political echelon on the fact that “the army chiefs are not aggressive enough”, and are therefore demanding their resignation, hence their congratulations to the outgoing IDF Chief of the General Staff.

Who benefits from the current situation?

The truth is that it is the responsibility of the political echelon to audit the progress in achieving the goals it has set. And it has a host of other options to promote this, if the army does not succeed. So where is the gap?

1. In the current system structure, the political echelon does not have the professional tools to question what the military says. There is no civil body capable of giving the government alternative plans or additional intelligence assessments. Choosing from among different alternatives is a basic principle in proper decision-making processes, and it cannot exist in such a reality.
2. The definition of the term “national security” varies in its scope and content. Some include social domains due to the fact that they also indirectly affect national security, and some narrow the definition to purely security domains. But there is no denying that national security includes more than dealing with military threats. It is standard to view national security as also encompassing diplomatic, political, and economic issues, which have a direct and clear impact on national security. However, despite the complexity of the issue, the person considered to be the “national evaluator” is the Head of the Military Intelligence Directorate, even though his considerations are limited to military ones. The monopoly of knowledge that exists in professional bodies pertaining to intelligence, planning, and more is not all that prevents the political echelon from casting doubt and choosing between alternatives, but also minimizes the engagement in national security to the military stratum alone. Even if political steps are taken, they are done so in isolation from military ones, and this is clearly evident in the current situation in the Gaza Strip, where the military actions have not provided leverage for significant political steps that would replace Hamas’ rule.
3. There is not enough synchronization between the various security and intelligence agencies. The structure of the Israeli defense establishment is complicated and dispersed. There are intelligence agencies in the IDF, the Israel Security Agency, and the Mossad. There are planning bodies in the Ministry of Defense and the IDF. There are research bodies in the IDF, the Foreign Ministry, and more. However, there is no effective body in Israel that will synchronize these bodies, and more importantly, there is no synchronization between the professional echelon and the political echelon that is responsible for making decisions. The person entrusted with this synchronization is the National Security Council, which has suffered from a lack of efficiency and real authority since its establishment. The separation in the day-to-day work between the profession and the decision-making has been the basis, for many years, for the deficiencies in the defense establishment’s work. Any cooperation is coincidental, circumstantial, and not the result of a well-oiled, efficient system.
4. There is an entire stratum, the one between the major goals set by the government (if any) and the military operational plans, which remains a void. The goals of the war, as they were defined, are somewhat amorphous. Cuasing the collapse of Hamas’ military and governmental capabilities is a major goal, the military aspect of which is only one step in achieving it. Although a decisive military victory is indeed a prerequisite for replacing the civil rule, history shows that even after a military defeat, a rapid move must be made to capture the sphere of civilian life without leaving a vacuum. This issue was not properly defined, and this vacuum left Hamas as the most powerful ruling entity in the Gaza Strip.

   It is easy to attribute this failure to the raid method adopted by the IDF since March 2024, but this method stems from the lack of clarity of the war’s goals, of a lack of control over these goals, and of course of the absence of the political component of these goals. Without the political component, the military step can never achieve the ultimate goal.

5. Convenience. The disconnect between the echelons is convenient for everyone. It’s convenient for the government to have someone to blame, and it’s convenient for the army to set facts on the ground. The government can pride itself on setting goals for the war, even though they are partial, vague, and not enough efforts are made to achieve them. On the other hand, the army can take pride in military achievements, even if these correspond to its goals and not the goals set by the political echelon.

Convenience, in these situations, is the opposite of responsibility. The relationship between the military and political echelons has been structured in a crooked manner since the days of David Ben Gurion. The structure of the security system is inefficient, does not facilitate synchronization between bodies, grants a monopoly of knowledge and opinion to the professional ranks over policymakers, and above all, creates a culture of shirking responsibility. The IDF Chief of the General Staff and the Head of Southern Command did well to fulfill their responsibility, and the government would do well if at some point it also assumed its responsibility. However, responsibility is not a personal matter. Resignation is not the solution to the real problem, just as one or another appointment is not the solution. The real responsibility lies in leaving the defense establishment’s comfort zone, which is to dismantle the structure of the system and reassemble it.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

^[1] From an article in N12 – https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/036814c74a0e1910/Article-ab8e98f4a763391026.htm “Former senior officialhttps://www.mako.co.il/news-military/036814c74a0e1910/Article-ab8e98f4a763391026.htm warns: “October 7 may happen to us again“

הפוסט So, who is responsible for national security? הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

A New World Order. These grand words take on a new meaning these days, with President Donald Trump stepping into office for his second term.

Having driven a spoke in Tehran’s wheels as well as those of its vassals to an unprecedented level – complemented by the fall of the Assad regime in Syria – Israel has left the Shi’ite axis all but paralyzed. Were it the US’s current administration’s wish to topple the Ayatullah regime, it could deliver a coup de grace in the form of a quick, targeted air strike to crush the skull of the Iranian snake, and in the same breath, take care of the Shi’ite militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen.

Time to conclude the tale of Iran’s nuclear program

This rare and favorable window of opportunity represents a historic moment in which a coalition of the West, Israel, and moderate Sunni states, led by the US can and must bring a decisive end to the Iranian threat. However, one of the largest obstacles on the US’s way to green-lighting an overseas campaign is the public opinion on its streets.

The American public is weary and wary at any prospect of an overseas war, especially in light of the accumulative high death toll of the wars and engagements in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the staggering resources they drained. However, in this instance, the US would not actually be forced to initiate war – but to end it. The Israeli blitz airstrikes left a devastated Iranian air force, shattered many of the Republic’s strategic assets and delivered a crippling blow to its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Ayatullah reign is now more exposed than ever.

Hence, all that is required is a swift targeted move – a devastating airstrike on Iran’s nuclear sites, missile sites and military facilities, delivered by strategic bombers, without the need for boots on the ground, similarly to Israel’s attack last October. A campaign of mere days could bring the Shi’ite axis to its knees, and change the political map and balance of powers in the entire Middle East.

That same coalition should also launch a campaign against the reign of Houthi terror in Yemen, in collaboration with Saudia Arabia and the country’s internal opposition forces. The Houthis, as a proxy of Iran, have made themselves into an all-global nuisance with their disruptive attacks on international trade vessels in the Red Sea. If the US indeed does decide to exercise its full military might – it will have effected dramatic changes in that area within a very short period of time.

The attack against Iran is not only advisable – it is a sine qua non. Because Iran understands that it had lost significant assets such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria, it will in all likelihood try to compensate and attempt by all means at hand to break out to a nuclear weapon. If the West cherishes its survival – it behooves it to prevent this at all costs.

Trump understands: the key to peace is might

The election of Trump to the presidency could not have come at a better time for Israel.

Over the past years, , the US has been gradually paring down its presence and involvement in the Middle East, leaving a vacuum into which Russia and China were all too happy to step. As a result of America’s wanning status in the region, an increasing number of countries are aligning themselves with the East. China, the main trade partner of the KSA and Iran, had already brokered an agreement between the two. China’s trade agreements in the Middle East have ballooned to seven times the current volume of the US’s – after it had cut its trade activity and reduced its dependance on Arab oil. The one thing the US can offer Middle East countries in order to reinstate its status as a dominant player in the region is military might.

Trump understands this all too well. He knows that peace and stability can come about only in the presence of military might and not appeasement. The mere fact that even before taking up residence in the White House, Trump declared  that he was interested in making Canada the 51st state of the US, and that he is interested in taking over Greenland and the Panama Canal, indicate that he views the United States as a super power that bears the task of reshaping the global map – and has no qualms about using the necessary force to make America great again.

An opportunity for new world order

Israel is quite literally handing the Middle East to the US on a silver platter.  After pulling the rug of hegemony in the Shi’ite axis from under Tehran’s feet and incapacitating its allies, the US can now step into the frame and reestablish its dominance on the chessboard with a move that would entail minimal effort, restoring its deterrence against the Chinese-Iranian-Russian syndicate.

Admittedly, it would be unwise of the US to ignite a direct military confrontation with the China-Russia sisterhood in the eastern theater. On the other hand – the weakest link in the chain, i.e. Iran, can be flicked off the gameboard almost effortlessly, thereby creating a strong deterrent for US’s adversaries in the region, and bulwarking the Middle East from China’s overtures.

This tactic would pave the road to broad regional peace accords, from Saudia to Indonesia, churning a tailwind for positive moves in the Middle East such as the formation of a moderate Sunni coalition with Israel in partnership with UAE and KSA.

Such a coalition, alongside Israel, moderate Sunni powerful countries and the West led by the US, coupled with normalization with the rest of the Sunni world, can stem the spread of the radical Shi’ite axis, including Turkey, Qatar, Afghanistan, and terror organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaida. The western coalition would prevent the Shi’ite axis from toppling the governments in countries such as Egypt and Jordan and seizing control thereof, and can form a new balance of power in the Middle East region.

This moderate alliance can potentially attract unaligned countries, such as Lebanon, which is controlled at present by Iran through Hezbollah; Iraq, which is partially controlled by Iran, and Libia, Egypt and Saudia. Taking Tehran out of the equation will leave the US alone at the top of the Middle East totem pole, which will in turn bring the unaligned countries – and perhaps more – to choose to align themselves with the moderate coalition, and perhaps even in a year or two, Lebanon will come around and sign – under the influence of Saudia – a peace accord with Israel.

Israel is the key

In a new regional alliance that would deepen and grow stronger with time, Israel would play a central role. Israel is the key that connects West to East, and is the crossroads in which new trade routes can be charted to provide land and maritime trade routes among India, the UAE, KSA and Israel. Israel has already set in place a network of mega-harbors, each under different supervision (The Sinai, Indian, European and Israeli) in preparation for this eventuality, with the aim of creating a global interest in using that network for trade and shipping activity. Making Israel into a global Singapore – a world trade center – is well within the country’s reach.

With new trade routes, regional peace and commercial cooperation with Saudia and other countries in the Middle East, coupled with the security and diplomatic support on part of the US, Israel would be able, for the first time in its history, to do what it has to do in order to ensure the future existence of the State for generations.

Fundamental dictate: maintaining sovereignty

After dealing with the Shi’ite axis and signing regional peace and normalization agreements, Israel will be required to present to the US administration a definitive resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, that must include the crucial elements that will ensure the long-lasting security of Israel.

Such a plan must include Israel’s sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and most of the C areas in Judia and Samaria, cleared of Palestinian presence that might compromise the Jewish demographic hegemony in the State of Israel. It should outline a definitive solution of the conflict, such that does not allow for a Palestinian state and surely removes any possibility for the rule of terror organizations such as is the situation currently with Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Fatah.

This is an opportunity to snuff out the Oslo Accords, dismantle the Palestinian Authority – a body that is in effect governed by a murderous terror organization that is actively pushing for the global delegitimization of Israel – and adopt an alternative model, to mention a few are: cantonization; emirate-style decentralized “Hamula” (family) government; a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation, or a Palestinian autonomy in the Sinai Peninsula under Egyptian supervision. The IDSF HaBithonistim movement has presented to the Israeli governments various blueprints for this end. The choice of each specific model would depend on shifting circumstances. For example, a future scenario of the collapse of the Jordanian regime would push toward a Jordanian-Palestinian solution, whereas a willingness on part of Egyptian President el-Sisi to play an instrumental role in the stabilization of the Middle East would allow for a Palestinian autonomy in northern Sinai and Gaza.

The common ground for all these prospective solutions is the governing principle that the Zionist claim to the right of the Jewish people to the State of Israel and sovereignty thereof are non-negotiable. Cementing Israel’s right over the State of Israel is crucial spiritually and for its security – both aspects indivisibly interlinked. Israel cannot be completely secure without the spiritual conviction in the justness of this cause, and there is no understanding the security of cities in the heart of Israel without acknowledging the importance of settlements in Judia and Samaria.

Learning the lessons of October 7

A new plan to resolve the conflict would be different than that ideated by President Trump in his previous term. Trump’s Peace for Prosperity demanded painful concessions on part of Israel. But the October 7 attack made it clear that there is no room for such concessions. Any new plan must acknowledge Israel’s overall responsibility for the security of the entire area of the State of Israel. In the past round, Israel abstained from exercising sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and C areas, at Trum’s behest. Today, the public in Israel is more than ever ready for this step, that would anchor the eastern border belt as an integral part of the land of Israel, similarly to the southern and northern envelope areas. Trump’s current presidency is a historic opportunity to right this wrong and proclaim Israeli sovereignty – even unilaterally – in the territories over which the US acknowledges Israel’s right.

At the same time, Israel must present an exhaustive long-term plan for Gaza and Judia and Samaria. After learning the hard way over the past twenty years that the terror and Gaza cannot be eliminated solely with air strikes, precise as they may be, it is now clear that the Gaza Strip must have the presence of Israeli security forces – this is a unnegotiable condition if Israel wishes to see the objectives of the Gaza War materialize, among others affording Israel the freedom of immediate action in the event that terror – in any form whatsoever – lifts its head once again in the Gaza Strip.

It also must be acknowledged that a threat of territorial losses is a strong deterrent for organizations such as Hamas, since the loss of lives – even in the tens of thousands – and destruction have no meaning to the proponents of such ideologies. To ensure a long-lasting deterrence in the Gaza Strip, a portion of its territory must remain under Israel’s control. One such possibility that would gain wide support among Israeli public, is a militarized security zone along the parameter of Gaza under the control of Israel. These swaths of land can be used for cultivating agriculture by the communities that were the victims of the Hamas October 7 attack and breath life where Hamas has strewn death. This not only makes sense in terms of Israel’s security – it brings with it the much-needed historic justice.

Optimism is not enough

Trump’s reelection is a rare historic opportunity for Israel. With the support of a strong, realistic leader that had proven himself a true friend to the Jewish people, can the picture of the Middle East be radically changed, from which both Israel and the US can gain considerable – and crucial – advantages.

In order to ensure this historic opportunity is not missed, Israel must do two things. The first – enhance the cooperation with the US in a joint aim of eliminating the Iranian nuclear program.

The second is the formulation of a clear and definite long-term solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict that cements Israel’s security and diplomatic status in the Middle East region, and has zero tolerance for any approach that does not acknowledge Israel’s inalienable right over the land of Israel and its uncompromising right to maintain the security of the State and its citizens, ensuring the Trump administration’s full support of this aim.

Will Trump move the first piece on the board and launch an attack against Iran? Trump is a well-seasoned business mogul, who is very adept at identifying opportunities. However, at the end of the day, it is up to him and Israel to put forth proof of intent. In light of what is known about his previous term in the Oval Office, his recent appointments, and his guiding world views, it is likely that he will give Israel his security and diplomatic support and spearhead an attack on Iran.

One way or another, the IDSF HaBithonistim movement leads a steady clear line:

Israel’s national security leans on the State’s national ethos, the justness of the cause and its ability to protect its own security by itself with defensible borders and the understanding that the long-term security and the prosperity of Israel lies only in Israe’s hands.

This understanding must first and foremost stem from a common faith in the justness of Israel’s path, remembering the truth that has been at the foundation of Zionism since its inception – that if Israel does not take care of itself, no one else will.

Not even Donald Trump.

הפוסט Trump’s Second Presidency: A Critical Opportunity on a Silver Platter הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Days away from President-Elect Trump’s inauguration, a clear foreign policy vision is shaping around who used to be considered as a supposed isolationist-in-chief. In spite of his clear domestic priorities on the economy and mass migration, Trump wisely realized what his predecessor and ideological forebear, President Reagan, did: keeping the American people safe means maintaining a “margin of safety” for America. This, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of Peace Through Strength: muscling up American effort abroad to keep peace at home.

There is no greater arena where this margin has been gradually waning than the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea axis, that I would dare to refer to as CRIN. As Trump is calling out China for its malicious trade practices and grave danger to the US national security; vowing to end the Russian invasion to Ukraine; and threatening to take military control over the Panama Canal and Greenland “for national security purposes”, as he did during this week’s press conference. Trump is certainly not signaling he is only introspective as 2025 begins.

Yet one weak link is standing out in this axis, an opportunity to make good on Trump’s pledge to “stop the chaos” in the Middle East that ensued the Hamas horrific October 7 attacks on Israel: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran with its nuclear weapons program has become the number one destabilizing force in the Middle East, rendering Trump’s much-sought-after stability and prosperity so elusive. Its Leader Ali Khamenei is committed to destroy Israel, a major US ally, openly marking it in his crosshairs as a “cancerous tumor that needs to be removed”. Khamenei envisions bringing Israel’s unceremonious end while destabilizing the Sunni regimes in the Arab countries that neighbor Iran, uniting the Middle East under his rule. And he laid out a multi-billion-dollar plan to do just that.

Yet now, as Israel is methodically toppling the Iranian domino stones, Khamenei’s vision and aggression are backfiring. That represents an unprecedented opportunity to take a limited, pre-emptive military action against the Iranian nuclear danger, taking it off the table for good – with a relatively low cost. One of the very first decisions the newly-elected President will have to make is how to finally bring stability to the Middle East, and the key lies not in Gaza, but in Tehran.

The nuclear gun on the table

There are two main reasons why this crossroads represents a viable opportunity to take action against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

First, Iran is more dangerous than ever before. Iran has been fast-tracking its nuclear weapons program over the course of Biden’s presidency with little international scrutiny. According to the recent report by the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Iran is a mere nod away from acquiring a sufficient amount of weapon-grade enriched uranium for a dozen nuclear devices. The only thing standing in its way is a green light by Khamenei and his cronies – and the Middle East and the world will face red alert.

Secondly, however, is that Iran is less ominous and more vulnerable than it is ready to admit. Its regional proxy strategy to checkmate Israel has gone on a downward spiral since the horrific October 7 atrocities. Its protégés Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen – all suffered heavy blows by Israel’s military efforts. Meanwhile, Assad fled Syria, leaving it at the mercy of HTS’ jihadists. This frontal defense has collapsed, and can no longer protect the Iranian homeland.

That, while Israel’s first-ever retaliation on Iranian soil in October reportedly eliminated much of Tehran’s much-dreaded air defense systems. It highlighted Tehran’s cluelessness in thwarting attacks on its well-protected, most-valued strategic assets.

Finally, even as Tehran was determined to avenge Israel for the series of humiliating blows it was inflicted by, it failed. In both April and October, Iran launched hundreds of missiles and attack drones, only to be mostly derailed by Israel’s tip-of-the-spear air defense and F-35 squadrons. That, on top of regional cooperation under MEAD (Middle East Air Defense) by stealthily supportive Arab countries, that shared critical intelligence, under the auspices of the United States Military’s Central Command.

Removing the Iranian cloud, gaining regional cooperation

The real tie-breaking Iranian gun on the table is the one with nuclear bullets. Especially now, as the Assad regime fell, Iran might conclude it has no other choice to secure its regime but to break out to a bomb, to compensate for its perceived weakness after all the blows it has suffered.

Trump, much like Reagan, despises the idea of nuclear proliferation. His continuous alerts again a possible Russian use of nukes against Ukraine and his graphic, somber descriptions of the terrible human tragedy that might ensue teaches that he considers global security much more ominous than the way he is usually described.

Removing the Iranian shady cloud over the Middle East will also obtain large-scale regional shifts: Saudi Arabia, and many other pragmatic countries in the Arab world, preferred to sit on the sidelines at best, or alienate themselves from the United States and warm up relations with Iran at worst. Iran’s threats on their sovereignty were well received, and short of any meaningful support from Washington, they preferred to equip themselves with an insurance policy, and side with the regional bully. Without this threat, the path for Israeli-Arab normalization and for long-term stability in the Middle East will be wide-open.

On the global level, this heavy blow to Iran will also significantly weaken its superpower patrons, Russia and China. Those continue to support Iran, whether its Russia’s continued purchasing of military equipment like drones and missiles that fuel the war in Ukraine, or China’s circumvention of American sanctions in buying massive amounts of oil barrels from the Ayatollahs, saving the Iranian petro-state from economic collapse.

Only inches away from clinching nuclear weapons, Iran does not stop threatening the US and its allies. Especially since October 7, Israel and the world have learned the hard way that their enemies should be taken at their word. Should not be taken lightly. The disastrous results of allowing Iran to nuclearize cannot be overstressed.

Trump is now facing a golden opportunity to take the Iranian gun off the table, and deny Khamenei of his radical vision. The new reality in the Middle East renders limited pre-emptive military action – no boots on the ground – much more realistic. This option used to be considered risking regional war, yet the Iranian gates of hell have already broken on the region, and backfired. Iran’s newfound weakness invites American leadership, not against the regime – but against its capabilities to threaten the region and the world.

Recently Trump declared he was looking to establish “long-lasting peace” in the region. Now it is his time to greenlight the strike that will close the Iranian nuclear program and open the door for this very peace. Weakened proxies and air defenses, a readier-than-ever region, and gains that clearly trump the cost. Checkmate.

The article was originally published on the Jerusalem Post

הפוסט Trump’s Golden Opportunity to Checkmate Iran and Stabilize the Middle East הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

In September 2024, the Swedish authorities accused Iran of responsibility for thousands of text messages sent to residents of Sweden in 2023 and calling to avenge a Quran burning that had occurred in the kingdom. According to official Swedish sources, members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had penetrated the Swedish text messaging system in a cyber attack and sent approximately 15,000 text messages in Swedish regarding the Quran burning. The Iranian embassy in Sweden characterized the accusation as “baseless” and as fabricated to “poison” relations between Tehran and Stockholm. For his part, the operational chief of Sweden’s security services (Säpo), Fredrik Hallström, said that the text messages were intended “to paint the picture of Sweden as an Islamophobic country” and “to create division in Swedish society,”

As early as August 2023, Swedish media reported that many people across Sweden had received text messages in Swedish calling for vengeance against those who burned the Quran. According to senior Swedish prosecutor Mats Ljungqvist, the messages were sent by a group that calls itself the Anzu Team. The messages’ content, as broadcast on Sweden’s SVT television network, said that “Those who desecrated the Quran must have their work covered in ashes” and called the Swedes “demons.” The public demonstrations that included Quran burning were covered by freedom of expression as protected under the Swedish constitution and therefore permitted by the police. However, those demonstrations did touch off a storm in the Middle East and brought threats from various sources, including Muslim states, against Sweden and against its citizens.

The storm surrounding the Quran burning began after Rasmus Paludan, a right-wing extremist with Danish and Swedish roots, set fire to a Quran outside the Turkish embassy in Stockholm in January 2023, and outside the Turkish embassy in Copenhagen later during the same month. Paludan’s actions were copied by others such as Salwan Momika, an Iraqi refugee in Sweden who had prior connections with Christian militias in Iraq. Momika, demonstrating outside a Stockholm mosque in June 2023 during the Muslim holiday of Id al-Adha holiday, began setting a Quran afire.

As a result, several Arab countries — including the UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia — summoned Swedish diplomatic representatives for reprimands. Iraq went so far as to break off relations with Sweden after a second Quran burning included setting the Iraqi flag on fire as well. In an additional response, crowds of Shiites torched the Swedish embassy in Baghdad. In Iran, the US flag was burned opposite the Swedish embassy and Sweden was warned that it would “suffer consequences.” A spokesperson of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nasser Kanaani, summoned the Swedish ambassador for a reprimand and announced: “We strongly condemn the repeated desecration of the Holy Quran … in Sweden, and we hold the Swedish government fully responsible” for events that are “inciting the feelings of Muslims around the world” and for the consequences.

Further to the Iranian reprimand, the Hezbollah organization — a very close proxy of Iran’s — held a demonstration against Sweden in Beirut, in which it brandished a picture of the assassinated commander of the Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani. In Malmö, Sweden’s third-largest city and home to a large Muslim population, many confrontations broke out as a result of the Quran burning. Many immigrants living in the city’s Rosengård neighborhood threw stones and torched tens of autos in an extremely violent riot. The Quran burnings frightened leaders in Western and Northern Europe. Following the events, the Swedish Prime Minister even added that “We are currently in the most serious security situation since the Second World War,”

In light of the unrest generated by those demonstrations, plus the rage among the Muslim immigrants throughout Sweden, Iran decided to “retaliate” in Sweden by the same method that it has long used against its opponents: intensifying the schisms in the local society. That tactic takes the spreading of the Iranian revolution several steps onward, not only by instigating terror attacks but also by enlarging Iran’s sphere of influence and creating social chaos. First, Iran infiltrates the country’s local Shiite community, if one exists, and then it proceeds into other population sectors or radical elements that can destabilize the country’s government, Iran’s hope being to intensify societal tensions in the case of a western state or to topple the regime in the case of a Mideast state such as Iraq. Spreading disinformation is an established Iranian method of operations in Israel, but now Iran is trying to employ it in countries across the ocean such as the USA, and in European countries such as Sweden.

The Iranians are not only advancing as the main opponent in their rival countries but also advancing against their enemies, or representative offices of their enemies, in third countries — including Israeli missions abroad. Thus, for example, last May the Swedish internal security agency accused Iran of employing criminal organizations in Sweden to attack Israeli or Jewish targets in Swedish territory. Security sources in Sweden confirmed an announcement from the Mossad that the Ayatollahs’ regime was using criminal gangs in European countries, including Sweden and Belgium, to attack Israeli and Jewish targets.

In fact, Iran was behind three unsuccessful attacks against Israeli targets in Sweden and Belgium between January and May 2024. On January 31, a hand grenade was thrown at the Israeli embassy in Stockholm. The grenade did not explode. On May 16, shots were fired at the embassy in Stockholm. Subsequently, on May 24, two grenades were thrown at the Israeli embassy in Brussels. Investigation of the incidents revealed that Iran was behind the attacks, having enlisted criminal organizations that, at the same time, were at odds with one another. It appears that even in its relations with criminal organizations, Iran applies a method based on the dynamics between the parties in order to exploit the advantage of one organization over the other or to exploit the rivalry.

The use of criminal organizations for terrorism coincides with Iran’s policy of trying to promote terrorist activity against its enemies without leaving traces of its own involvement. The Iranians fund and direct criminal organizations around Europe just as they fund and direct Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Houthis of Yemen, and others. Iran avoids leaving its national fingerprints, in order to minimize political and legal repercussions that could lead to international sanctions against Tehran.

One of those Swedish criminal organizations is Foxtrot, considered the country’s largest criminal network. Its members have been responsible for many murders and for extensive drug trafficking. The organization’s boss is Rawa Majid, a Swedish citizen of Kurdish origin who is wanted by Interpol and who, on instructions from Iran, instigates attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets in Europe. However, a number of young people arrested following the shooting attack at the Israeli embassy in Stockholm were Iranian by background and were connected with the Rumba criminal gang, which is led by Ismail Abdo, a former associate of Majid’s at Foxtrot who is now his greatest rival.

The Ayatollahs’ regime directly threatens Sweden’s national security. Iran spies against Sweden’s industries, research institutes, and universities. Last June a strategic agreement was exposed that enables the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to exploit cooperation between Iranian and Swedish universities in order to advance Iran’s military programs.

That agreement, which until then was unknown to the Swedish authorities, permits the Revolutionary Guards to exploit academic cooperation between Swedish universities and their Iranian counterparts in order to acquire technological knowledge in fields such as UAVs, artificial intelligence, and advanced electronics. There are at least eight Swedish universities with ties to Iranian universities. The agreement threatens the national security not only of Sweden but also of all the other NATO countries. Sweden joined the transatlantic alliance in March 2023, after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who for a time had vetoed its membership in the wake of Quran burning and anti-Turkish demonstrations in Stockholm, withdrew his objection. A strategic agreement of this kind serves the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, accentuating the threat of espionage and the infiltration of foreign forces into a NATO country.

Still, the main target of Iranian espionage is the Iranian opposition groups in Sweden. Like other European countries, Sweden has become a base of operations where Iranian agents plan their espionage and their attacks. One example involves Asadollah Asadi, an Iranian diplomat whom a Belgian court sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for terrorism. Asadi, who was third secretary at the Iranian embassy in Austria, was arrested by German security forces on a Bavarian highway in 2018, mere days after passing explosives to two Iranians in Belgium. The explosives were intended for an attack on members of the Mojahedin-e-Khalq organization — opponents of the Iranian regime — at a rally in Paris where then US Vice President Mike Pence was also in attendance. Although Asadi was posted to Austria and his crime was planned for France, interrogation and confiscated materials showed he was closely connected to Iranian agents in Sweden. The German police confiscated a notebook in which Asadi had recorded 289 sites, in 11 European countries, where he met Iranian agents. Among those countries was Sweden. This proved that the Iranians had active agents there — a fact further emphasized in December 2019 when an Iraqi citizen living in Sweden was convicted of spying for Iran against Iranian exiles who were Swedish residents. In May 2023 Asadi was released in a prisoner swap between Iran and Belgium, in return for Olivier Vandecasteele, a humanitarian worker whom Iran had arrested in 2022.

Europe and the international community must take note of Iran’s behavior, which threatens not only the countries of the Middle East but also those countries of the West that maintain diplomatic ties with Iran. Because of Iran’s extensive network extending into many of the world’s nations, Tehran can enlist local extremist elements or even, if it wishes, local criminal gangs as in the case of Sweden. With its subversion, Iran attempts to deepen the crises and conflicts in many countries, to widen societal rifts in order to topple governments, and to fragment nations. The widening of rifts and disagreements contributes to Iran’s efforts at weakening the West and strengthening its claim that western democracy is fundamentally flawed. The flourishing of local criminal organizations, alongside disinformation campaigns that poison the public discourse, could bring anarchy to the western nations and crumble them from within while the Muslim world grows stronger — with Iran seeing itself as the spearhead leading the Shiite alliance toward a Shiite Islamic hegemony.

The Iranians rule no tactics out. They use various organizations, but in similar methods: exacerbating societal rifts and disagreements, exploiting local groups to advance Iranian interests, using cyber tools to increase Iranian influence, and more. What Iran is doing in Israel, it also does in the western countries. Sweden is a single case among many in which Iran is waging dangerous subversion throughout the West. The Scandinavian countries, and the West in general, must understand that in the face of the Iranian threat, they share an interest with Israel. For a long time now, Iran has been threatening more than just the Middle East. Its subversion has made it a threat to security everywhere in the West.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Iran’s subversive activity in Sweden הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

On November 5th, during a press conference at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the UN special rapporteur, Francesca Albanese once again accused Israel of the usual, which means genocide in Gaza, apartheid, atrocities, tortures, occupation, mass arrests and even of executing Palestinian children.

After citing the view of one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, regarding the role of financial power in cultural hegemony, she accused the pro-Israel lobbies, quoted as “very vocal, virulent and aggressive”, of pressuring governments to boycott her.

One of the journalists attending the press conference asked her for clarifications, if she really thought that meetings and events were cancelled “because of the pro-Israel groups pressure”.

Albanese replied that she could not tell what the causes behind the withdrawal of the invitations and meetings were and added: “I only know, I mean, I base myself on facts. It happened after pro-Israel groups and pro-Israel individuals started to accuse me of the usual and I won’t repeat the accusations because they are extremely defamatory…”.

She then accused Israel of taking “the land of historical Palestine as it has been doing ever since, even before its existence”.

When asked by one of the reporters if she believed in the right of Israel to exist, Albanese dodged the question by saying:

“Israel does exist, Israel is a recognized member of the UN. Besides this, there is no such thing in international law as the right of a State to exist…It’s not up to us”.

Albanese provided a colorful example saying that “Italy exists, but if tomorrow Italy and France merged and formed “Itafrance”, fine” and she then brought the issue back to “the right of the Palestinians to exist”.

It is worth recalling that on October 14^th 2024, Francesca Albanese, found herself at the center of a media storm after a series of aggressive anti-Israel posts, published in the previous days on her social media accounts, where she compared Israel to Nazi Germany, sparking outrage from several Jewish organizations, including the World Jewish Congress (WJC), which called for her immediate dismissal from the United Nations.

Appointed in May 2022 as special rapporteur, Albanese has used anti-Semitic stereotypes and legitimized support for terrorism in her criticism of Israel. In addition to regularly portraying Israelis as Nazis and reiterating that “Hamas has the right to resist,” since October 7^th , 2023, Albanese has systematically downplayed the atrocities committed by Palestinian terrorists by denying that the pogrom targeted Jews as such and it was rather a consequence of Israel’s aggressions.

Alleged problematic financial issues

Moving to the recent financial controversies, Article 3 of the Special Procedures Code of Conduct expressly forbids Albanese from accepting remuneration from any governmental or nongovernmental source for activities carried out in pursuit of the mandate. In June 2024, UN Watch called for an investigation into Albanese for “illegally requesting payments for work performed in her official UN capacity” over alleged payments for speaking events and honorarium for a fake lecture; specifically, by circumventing this prohibition, by requesting that, in exchange for her lectures, payments by external groups be made to her research assistant.

The following month, the UN launched an investigation into allegations that Albanese illegally accepted funding from the Australian Friends of Palestine Association (AFOPA) and other pro-Pal groups to fund an estimated $20,000 trip to Australia and New Zealand, in which she lobbied a major pension fund to divest from Israel.  Those groups initially stated that they “sponsored” and “supported” her trip, violating the UN’s rules forbidding remuneration from non-governmental sources.

Albanese denied that AFOPA sponsored her trip, claiming that it was funded by the UN. However, the complaint argues that the UN lacks any legal basis to fund trips by its experts beyond their area of investigation.

On July 12^th 2024, the UN Human Rights Office told JNS that the global body paid for the trip. However, these trips did not appear in the mandated UN special procedures annual report because “it was not a designated ‘country visit’ per se.”

“Only official country visits aimed at assessing the human-rights situation in that country itself, and that are followed by a country visit report to the Human Rights Council, are included in this list,” the UNHRO added.

Ideological issues and problematic statements

Going beyond Albanese’s financial controversies, her extreme ideological positions are obvious, and it is not by coincidence that in July 2024 the US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, called for Albanese’s removal from the international body:

“There is no place for antisemitism from UN-affiliated officials tasked with promoting human rights. While the United States has never supported Francesca Albanese’s mandate, it is clear she is not fit for this or any position at the UN.”

The statement was posted on X in reaction to Albanese’s post comparing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler.

United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Michele Taylor tweeted: “Special rapporteurs should be striving to improve human rights challenges, not employing dehumanizing rhetoric.”

The French representative to the UN called for her immediate dismissal and a thorough investigation into the influences to which she was potentially subjected, arguing that Albanese: “By comparing the defensive operations of Israel – at war for its own survival after the pogroms of 7 October – to the expansion of the Third Reich and the Holocaust, she has crossed a new red line. Her violently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements, which have been spreading for years, seriously damage the credibility of our international organizations.”

The German representative, for his part, said that Albanese’s remarks were “a disgrace” and that it was “appalling” that the Special Rapporteur appeared to “justify the horrific terrorist attacks and ‘deny their anti-Semitic nature’.”

Albanese is the first special rapporteur to be condemned by Germany and France for anti-Semitism. Indeed, she replied that “the US, Germany and France are clearly involved and supporting what Israel is doing”.

Before her 2022 UN appointment, Albanese had said that Israel was “keeping captive millions of civilians,”; she organized a panel on “Israel Apartheid,” she campaigned for an arms embargo against Israel and argued that the “Jewish lobby” was in full control of the United States.

After the outbreak of war in the Middle East, Albanese went so far as to deny that the Hamas massacre of October 7th was anti-Semitic: “the worst anti-Semitic massacre of the century? No, Mr. President. The victims of 7/10 were killed not because of their Judaism, but in response to Israel’s oppression.”

These comments prompted the International Legal Forum, a body of more than 4,000 lawyers, to address a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, in February to be the first to call for Albanese’s resignation.

Nevertheless, Albanese continued her anti-Semitic propaganda, voicing her support on X for a post published by human rights official Craig Mokhiber in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was compared to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler: “That’s exactly what I think.”

In November 2023, in a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra, Australia, Albanese said that Israel cannot claim the right of “self-defense” under international law because Gaza is a territory which it occupies. The statement caused the immediate reaction of the Director of Touro Institute of Human Rights and the Holocaust, Anne Bayefsky, who slammed Albanese’s comments, saying they go “hand-in-hand with all her other legally indefensible claims” regarding the conflict.

In August 2024 Albanese once again denied Israel’s right to self-defense citing the West Bank “occupation” and the “unlawful use of force” in one of her tweets. On another occasion, she even admitted that her personal views on the Palestinian issue could compromise her objectivity.

In addition, Francesca Albanese also omitted the fact that her husband, Massimiliano Calì, worked as an economic advisor for the Palestinian Authority and authored a report entitled “The economic costs of Israeli occupation for the Palestinian occupied territories”.

Why didn’t the UNHRC properly scrutinize her background before hiring her?

Albanese’s anti-Israel propaganda in Italy

While maintaining her position as UN special rapporteur, Albanese was busy spreading anti-Israel propaganda on the Italian media.

On September 11^th 2024, Francesca Albanese was hosted on Alessandro Di Battista’s YouTube channel where she once again accused Israel of “genocide”, of dropping the equivalent of “5 nuclear bombs” in Gaza and claimed that the destruction caused by Israel on Gaza is greater than the one occurred during World War 2, citing Japan and Germany.

Di Battista, on his behalf, stated that Israeli settlers are “fundamentalists who believe that only the creation of a Great Israel can bring to the return of the Messiah” and defined them as “the new Ku Klux Klan…because they behave in the exact same way”.  On this occasion, Albanese once again denied that Hamas slaughtered Israeli children and perpetrated mass rapes, stating that they were “fabricated”.  This is just part of the 58-minute-long video where other concerning statements were made by the two.

Di Battista is well known within the Italian pro-Pal area. A former 5 Star Movement MP, he was exposed on several occasions by the Italian press for being close to Mohammad Hannoun, the Genoa-based Palestinian architect who was recently sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for being a member of Hamas and for collecting and sending funds to the Palestinian terrorist organization. According to the United States, Hannoun has solicited funding for Hamas with senior Hamas officials and sent at least $4 million to Hamas over a 10-year period. Di Battista also traveled with Hannoun to Lebanon, taking part in the architect’s “humanitarian” activity, and spent time in Iran in 2020.

Francesca Albanese has also been invited several times to the Italian TV show “Piazza Pulita” on the LA7 channel where she called for “immediate sanctions against Israel” and she accused Israel of not being a democracy because of the “mistreatment of minorities” and of ruling the West Bank through a “military dictatorship”.

In May 2023, Albanese was interviewed by the HRCM MA director of the already cited Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, for the Peacekeeping International Day, where she once again attacked the “Israeli military presence in the occupied territories aimed at protecting the colonial presence”.

In January 2024, Albanese’s husband used his Facebook account to publicly accuse the Italian Democratic Party of silencing a “sacrosanct debate on the extermination Israel is committing in Palestine, to continue protecting the egregious violations of international law of a criminal state”.

In March 2024, Albanese stated that “the Italian government should sanction Israel” and in May of the same year she gave a long interview to the Italian Communist newspaper “Il Manifesto”, where she once again attacked the Jewish state claiming that “Israel did not want to stop its Gaza operations and accept a truce because it was afraid to see what it had done there”. Among other things, she also accused Israel of immediately striking places of Palestinian identity: churches, mosques, cultural centers, universities, instead of military targets.

UN at its lowest in history

All this can be classified as the activity of a propagandist, a militant, and very far from the necessary impartiality and moderation of a special rapporteur. Overall, the extensive work provided by UN Watch will further compromise Albanese’s position as rapporteur and the UN for having appointed her regardless of her views and propaganda activity.

It is also worth pointing out that Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) had invited Francesca Albanese to Capitol Hill to brief congressional staff at the end of October 2024, but later canceled the event.

One cannot help but wonder how the situation got to this point. UNRWA working as a front for Hamas in Gaza; the UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres, lamenting the elimination of Hamas terrorist and Nukhba commander Mohammad Abu Ittiwi, cited as “UNRWA colleague”; the UNIFIL-Hezbollah scandal and, last but not least, Albanese’s appointment as special rapporteur regardless of her propaganda and networking and activity. This is indeed the darkest time for the UN since its formation in 1945, after World War 2.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Francesca Albanese is at it again and laments “persecution” הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Following the Syrian rebels’ takeover of Damascus and approximately 70% of the country’s territory, rebel leader Abu Muhammad al-Julani is striving to establish a new regime in Syria to replace that of Bashar al-Assad’s. The fragile situation in Syria has become a source of deep concern for many nations — including Israel, the United States, Russia, and Turkey, all of which are closely monitoring developments. The primary fear is that these recent changes may lead to a power vacuum in Syria, providing jihadist organizations with fertile ground.

Over the past two weeks, al-Julani has sought to convey a message of moderation to the West, presenting himself in what could be described as a “softer version” in order to improve the image of his group, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). However, his jihadist fighters project a far more uncompromising stance.

This week, jihadist rebels released a video on social media declaring that after victory in Damascus and the rest of Syria, they will “liberate and conquer Jerusalem and its Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.”

The rebels’ bold statements follow the United Kingdom’s announcement that it is reconsidering its designation of HTS as a banned organization, and word from the U.S. government that it may be ceasing to list HTS as a terrorist organizations.

These responses from the U.S. and the U.K. exemplify typical Western naivety in the face of the new situation in Syria. It appears the West has again failed to learn from history, as previously in its dealings with Osama bin Laden, with al-Qaeda, and with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In contrast, al-Julani seems to have learned from the mistakes of major jihadists who came before him, such as bin Laden of al-Qaeda and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS. Al-Julani represents a more modern and sophisticated version of these figures, learning from history and trying not to repeat their errors. Knowing his Islamist roots, could the West truly be so naïve?

A quintessential example of this western perspective can be found in the American intelligence assessments. According to U.S. intelligence, Jabhat al-Nusra, the predecessor of HTS, underwent significant transformation, distancing itself from ties with ISIS and becoming independent from al-Qaeda. Furthermore, American intelligence asserts that al-Julani is energetically working to improve HTS’s image and purging the organization of its more extreme elements.

The American opinion notwithstanding, al-Julani’s actions should be assessed from outside the typical Western perspective. One example of how different the facts are is his visit to the great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. His triumphant arrival and worship there send his followers a clear message about his and his jihadist fighters’ agenda:

The conquest of Damascus, and worship in the Umayyad Mosque alongside the mausoleum of Salah ad-Din, who was one of Islam’s most renowned military leaders, speaks for itself. It is a symbol with an obvious meaning — true not to how al-Julani seeks to display himself in the western media, but to what his fighters proclaim.

Given the West’s misguided outlook, the Syrian case may turn out to replicate the scenario of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban group promised to adopt a more moderate policy. once it had captured Kabul, in 2021, but in practice, it imposed severe restrictions on women and strictly enforced Sharia law in all aspects of governance.

Moreover, ISIS has a presence in Syria as it had in Afghanistan — a lower-profile presence now for that jihadist organization, but a presence nonetheless. Despite its frictions with HTS and other factions, ISIS could exploit another such power vacuum to expand its foothold in Syria. In fact, this week ISIS reported executing 54 of Assad’s soldiers whom it captured as they attempted to flee Syria.

Thus a power vacuum in Syria could lead to the emergence of a “new Afghanistan” on Israel’s border—a scenario that may afford ISIS a resurgence like the one that followed the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, after which ISIS–Khorasan Province became the group’s most lethal branch.

Such a scenario could intensify competition between ISIS and other jihadist factions and particularly against HTS, which is poised to form the foundation of Syria’s new government. Even more dangerously, a government with roots in a jihadist movement would rule Syria in accordance with jihadist ideology and policies.

It is worth noting that HTS also expressed support for the October 7 attacks. If it consolidates itself and achieves dominance across the border from Israel, it will dramatically increase the Syrian threat and heighten the likelihood of a similar attack — an assault like that of October 7, but this time targeting Israeli communities in the Golan Heights.

The article was originally published in Makor Rishon

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Is Syria the New Afghanistan? הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

As we count the days until the inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump, we should devote careful thought to Israel’s future relations with the new administration and to attaining Israel’s long-standing strategic objectives.

The president-elect describes his personal approach, as follows: “In my life, there are two things I’ve found I’m very good at: overcoming obstacles and motivating good people to do their best work. One of the challenges ahead is how to use those skills as successfully in the service of others as I’ve done, up to now, on my own behalf.” Trump made this statement in 1977, in his best-seller, The Art of the Deal. At the end of 2024, it is clear that he has remained consistent throughout his election campaign and in his choice of nominees for the new cabinet.

Furthermore, as far as Israel is concerned, we must recall President Trump’s past accomplishments. He kept his promise and moved the American embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and sponsored the Abraham Accords. As a leader and entrepreneur, he is accustomed to thinking big, on a large and ambitious scale. For example, his vision includes the rebuilding of American industry, the exploration of space and space travel.

What does this mean for the Jewish State and its strategic needs? According to the fifteenth-century Florentine political thinker, Niccolò Machiavelli, one should ask powerful men for big things, because it is just as easy for them to grant large requests as small ones.

An episode in our history proves this point, namely, the meeting on March 18, 1948 between President Harry S. Truman and Dr. Chaim Weizmann. President Truman’s grandson, Clifton Truman Daniel, tells the story, as follows: “…. On May 14, 1948, President Harry S. Truman made one of the most momentous decisions of his presidency: recognizing the new state of Israel just minutes after its founding. My grandfather is justly celebrated for providing the legitimacy this nascent democracy required to survive, but his WWI buddy and former business partner, Eddie Jacobson, deserves credit, as well. This installment of ‘First Family Stories’ is dedicated to a friendship that changed the world.”

It is well known that President Truman overcame both the opposition of Secretary of State George Marshall and the long-standing hostility of the American foreign policy establishment. Over the years, such attitudes have persisted. Most recently, the Obama/Biden foreign policy, while nominally positive toward Israel, has been ambivalent and, on occasion, downright nasty.

A recent example was President Biden’s arm twisting of

Israel to end the Hamas war by accepting a ceasefire and a compromise, which drew a false equivalence between a terrorist aggressor that had launched a war against a legitimate state and an American ally.

On July 24, 2024, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress at the invitation of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson of Louisiana. On the following day [July 25], the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Biden ended in a bust up. The President warned Netanyahu that “the time has come to end this war,” to which he replied, “Mr. President, we will end this war when we win it!”

From a historical perspective, this type of episode was not an isolated occurrence. American policy makers have frequently misunderstood the ways of our region and, consequently, have made costly mistakes that have harmed their own interests as well as those of Israel.

II.

The careful study of our past, particularly the Israeli decision-making process before the Six-Day War, provides valuable insights for the present and the future. The late Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto (1926-2015) was Chief of Planning and Operational Requirements of the Israel Airforce (IAF) prior to the Six-Day War (1967) and a well-informed insider. Several years before the Six-Day War, he visited France, which supplied Israel with Mirage jet fighters. On one of his visits, his colleagues discreetly informed him that the French government planned to end its special relationship with Israel. Subsequently, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol authorized Tsiddon-Chatto to negotiate Israel’s first purchase of an American light attack aircraft, the A4 Skyhawk, manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. Furthermore, it was Tsiddon-Chatto who discovered the American spy-ship, USS Liberty, standing still in the Mediterranean off Sinai during the Six-Day War.

As a military strategist, Tsiddon-Chatto made several basic observations: 1) America failed to distinguish between its friends and its enemies; 2) America refused to let Israel win a war; 3) When writing about pro-active defense and the decision in June 1967 to preempt the war, he emphasized the crucial importance of the dimension of time.

While the circumstances have changed over the past decades, Tsiddon-Chatto’s description of Israel’s situation is timely, as for example, President Biden’s forceful demand of July 25, 2024, that Prime Minister Netanyahu accept a ceasefire in Gaza instead of a decisive victory.

His statements have been gently edited as follows:

…. Since the ‘Czech arms deal’ of 1955, and the Soviet position [of] consolidation in the ME following the Eisenhower / Dulles handling [of] the Anglo-French in the Suez Crisis of 56/7, there was no question in the ME who is on the US and who on the Soviet side. The US seemed to be the only ones oblivious of reality, thus unwittingly reinforcing Soviet penetration in the ME. Moreover, the US, which related to Israel as if it were a millstone on its neck until the Six Day War … [The Americans] “discovered” only as a result of this war that Israel is the major regional power, unconditionally pro-US, and an inexhaustible source of intelligence on Soviet assets, captured in large numbers and handed over. [Author’s bold].

Tsiddon-Chatto had a basic complaint regarding American policy toward Israel, namely, that the U.S. consistently prevented Israel from achieving a decisive victory on the battlefield in order “to placate Arabia which, as it proves since 9/11, is implacable…. It should make sense to see the US picture of Vietnam and [the] ME as just two interacting sectors of the Cold War. There is abundant evidence to prove this, and that the US has, and probably is to this day, misunderstanding the Arab manipulative ways.”

Writing in general terms about the task of the strategist, Yoash describes his methodology and then emphasizes the dimension of time as the most important factor in the decision to preempt a war:

Planning must relate to all possible scenarios. The plan … must respond to the scenarios [which have] the highest probability of materializing, while assuring a response to the most pessimistic scenarios.

The dimension of time is a matter of decisive importance. If the threat increases and becomes more acute with time, it means that the danger grows every day, and it is possible that there will be a time when our weakness will compel us to take the initiative to the point of a preemptive strike, even if the preparations for war have not been completed. (Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, Be-Yom, be-Lail be-Arafel [By Day, By Night, through Haze and Fog] (Jerusalem: Keterpress, 1995, in Hebrew): 306.

Tsiddon-Chatto describes the public mood in Israel at the end of May 1967, during the days prior to the outbreak of the Six-Day War. The Egyptian army was waiting on Israel’s border and the civilian reserves had been mobilized. This state of affairs could not be maintained for too long and paralyzed Israel’s economy. Thus, the dimension of time became the key variable in the equation: “… Were the Arab Coalition to open hostilities first, using their much superior air forces in the way we foresaw, the State of Israel would have ceased to exist….”

It is not well known that, at this critical moment, the U.S. vigorously opposed a pre-emptive strike. (See [Meir] Amit’s report of his meeting of May 25, 1967, with [John] Hadden, the CIA man in Israel. (Rosh be-Rosh (Head On), [Or Yehuda: Hed Arzi, 1999, Hebrew]: 235).

Meir Amit, Director of the Mossad, gives the real backstory of this episode. He wrote that a “tough conversation” took place at midnight in his home. [Also present were Efraim Halevy, a senior member of the Mossad, and Brigadier General David Carmon, Deputy Chief of Military Intelligence.] There was shouting, and even shots of whisky did not calm the tense atmosphere. Amit tried hard to convince Hadden that the situation was really critical and that Israel would have to act as soon as possible. But Hadden threatened that if Israel pre-empted the war, America would send forces to fight on the Egyptian side. He held the firm conviction that we had to wait and warned: “Don’t create a situation in which we will be forced to go against you.”

Meir Amit describes how his urgent mission to Washington ultimately resulted in the decision of the government to pre-empt the war:

On the morning of May 29, we gathered [as we did] every day in the office of Eshkol to discuss the ongoing situation. Abba Eban participated at this meeting; as well as the Director of the Prime Minister’s Office, Dr. Yaakov Herzog; the Head of Military Intelligence, General Aharon Yariv; and I. All of us had the feeling that things had gone too far, and it was necessary to do something to break the stalemate in which we were stuck. During this discussion, the head of military intelligence proposed that the head of the Mossad go to Washington immediately in order to bring us a reliable picture of what is going on.

‘Meir,’ Areleh [Aharon Yariv] said: ‘You are a member of the household there. Dick Helms, Head of the CIA is a personal friend of yours. In an informal chat, you will be able to hear directly from him what is really happening.’ (Amit, 237).

When he arrived in Washington, Amit discovered that his professional colleagues were understanding and well disposed. Meeting with Richard Helms, he learned that his assessment of the facts coincided with those of the CIA. Helms arranged an appointment for Meir Amit with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara who grasped the situation immediately and made an important recommendation.

During this meeting, McNamara received two phone calls from President Johnson, asking to be updated on these talks. At a certain point, Amit asked the Secretary of Defense for advice:

‘What should I do now? Wait here a day of two?’

‘He cut me short with a brief sentence, “Go home, your place is there now.”’

Amit learned that America had no intention to help and concluded that time was against Israel. He recommended that Israel open hostilities immediately. (Amit, 241).

Amit added a most important fact — that precisely during the time he was in Washington, it became known that President Johnson received a message from former President Eisenhower reminding him that the Americans had a moral obligation to Israel which was given at the time of its withdrawal from Sinai in 1957. The Americans had undertaken to preserve the demilitarization of the Sinai Peninsula and to assure freedom of navigation through the Straits of Eilat. (Amit, 242).

III.

As we look forward, it is possible to make several cautious predictions based upon past history and recent experience. We can return to the stated preferences of President-Elect Donald Trump and take note of his choices. Frequently, there is a link between domestic and foreign policy. Therefore, we may try to understand the outlook and policy goals of the new administration, and, at the same time, consider some recent changes in Israel’s defense policy.

As he has proclaimed, Donald Trump’s big idea is to “Make America Great Again.” Interestingly, his model has been the promising economic reform program of Javier Milei, President of Argentina. One of Milei’s innovations was to launch a Ministry of Deregulation, an idea which Trump adopted enthusiastically. His new approach embodies the rejection of the hard-left policies of the Obama/Biden administrations. Among his policies are: achieving American energy independence; rebuilding American industry; ending unrestricted immigration; and fighting rampant crime. It is a matter of record that Trump plans to end the Obama/Biden policy toward Iran, which had been consistently lenient and uncritical. It would be reasonable to expect that the new administration would continue some of the policies in our region and expand the framework of the Abraham Accords.

After the Hamas invasion and atrocities of October 7, 2023 and the war which followed, it is clear that Israel will have to be prepared to defend itself on its own and invest in its armaments industry. The entire situation has been transformed by the fact that war has been forced on Israel as an unavoidable policy option, that is, “diplomacy by other means.” This implies a change of approach. Israel must defend itself proactively, as was the case with the recent initiatives in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran. Of course, the possibility should not be ruled out that the United States could change its policy and help Israel decisively win this war (in which America has a vital interest).

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Israel and the Second Trump Presidency: The Long Perspective הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

Yesterday, the Syrian state founded in 1946 ceased to exist. This is the downfall not only of the Assad regime but of the state of Syria as a political framework that can impose order and structure. In this connection, it must be noted that the collapse of Syria, and of its Assad regime, is part of the same regional upheaval that began in 2010 and that has, in fact, not yet ended.

Since 2010, the Middle East has undergone a transformation out of the modern era where the region was organized under the “logic” of states as political frameworks. It has reverted to the pre-modern era of a different “logic” where the region is defined by communities, ethnic groups, transnational structures, and borderless ideologies.

With the developments in Syria, the Middle East is currently continuing a sort of backslide into the pre-nationalist, pre-modern era. In a way, this can be seen as a kind of revenge by the East against the West. The East is breaking away from the foundations of modernism and nationalism that the Europe of the late 19th century and early 20th century forced on it.

But the breakaway and the reversion to pre-nationalism are far from enough for the Middle East. Accompanying the breakaway process, it must be noted, is a quiet, creeping conquest of Western Europe by the pre-modern East through various agents — primarily through immigrant groups who never abandoned the ideological beliefs that they brought from the East and who are undermining the foundations of the modern, European-style order.

It may be said in general that the Middle East now speaks in a neo-olden language of politics and culture — one that is new in that it overrides its previous, European-made nationalist-modernist predecessor but is old in that it connects to the foundations of pre-modern political culture. The message is very difficult to define in simplistic terms of the positive and the negative.

From this standpoint, it must be granted that in the Middle East’s internal power struggle, the Shiite “Axis of Resistance” has suffered a critical blow. To that extent, Israel can claim a significant victory in this year’s battle against that axis’s representatives and proxies. But on the other hand, the collapse of Syria, and of the Assad regime, contains the seeds of a new Mideast reality full of dangers and complexities.

This reality has two immediate implications. The first concerns the situation in Syria, which is no longer Syria as we once knew it. At this stage, it is difficult to define the emerging new entity, which is evolving into a mix of sectarian power centers (Kurds, Druze, Alawites), transnational jihadist power hubs driven by an anti-Israel worldview no less than an anti-regime one, and the presence of actors like Turkey, whose transnational agenda is not far removed from that of Iran.

Practically speaking, the entire system of arrangements on the ground — as worked out between Israel and Syria after the war of 1973 and based on the logic of arrangements between states — is thus called into question and is little protected from those sources of power that do not at all think in terms of the “borders” that characterize a state. Consequently Israel must define red lines of its own befitting the situation, and strive especially to set up an iron wall preventing the “little jihad” against the Assad regime from turning into the “great jihad” against Israel.

But the second immediate ramification, which is even more significant, has to do with Iran — which has lost its Shiite axis, or at least two elements of it (Hamas and Hezbollah). Iran is at a strategic crossroads. It may be pushed into crossing the nuclear threshold in a sort of tit for tat, even before the US president-elect enters office. That move would leave little sand in the hourglass for an Israeli reaction against the prospect of an “Iranian Auschwitz.”

From that standpoint, Israel may possibly be said in general terms to be entering the third stage of its current war in the Middle East. The first stage was the illusory stage between May 2021 (Operation Guardian of the Walls) and October 7, 2023. The second stage proceeded intensively from October 7, 2023, into December 2024. But now Israel is entering the third stage of the war. In the shadow of a changing Mideast reality, Israel faces both veteran players — such as Iran, where the systems of ideology are eroding; and Turkey, which is turning from a shadowy enemy into a much more significant threat — and other players who are newcomers as Israel’s neighbors to the north.

But it is impossible to conclude without one important remark regarding Israel’s domestic arena. The currents of the Middle East have not bypassed Israel. Israel is part of the enormous process that the Middle East has experienced since 2010. In recent years it has also begun to budge away from its clearly state-centered foundations toward definitions of identity based on tribes and communities (haredi, secular, religious Zionist, Arab, and more) who, in their way, are battling for power.

The statehood concept championed by Ben-Gurion, which relied on elements such as the centralization of governmental power, the establishment of a politically neutral civil service, defined rules of governance, and respect for political authority, is undergoing significant erosion. This process is approaching a state akin to an undeclared civil war. So Israel must not only re-establish and rebuild the boundaries between itself and its obvious external enemies, but must also establish the political and cultural boundary between itself and the Middle East in order not to descend to the same condition in which the Middle East as a whole is thickly stewing.

This article was originally published in  Makor Rishon

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Assad Regime Fell: Israel is Heading Toward a Third Campaign? הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The situation in Syria over the past decade has been characterized by significant regional and international interventions, which have played decisive roles in shaping the current map. The “Arab Spring”, which began in late 2010, initially promised democratic reforms across the Middle East, but met with fierce opposition in Syria. There, the Assad regime, with the support of Iran, Russia, and Shiite proxies, managed to maintain its power despite widespread resistance and a significant number of casualties.

Iran’s involvement in Syria has been presented as a defense strategy against extremist groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, which Tehran views as direct threats to its national security. This intervention was part of a broader regional strategy by Iran, often described as its own “war on terror.” The stabilization of the Assad regime, which depends to a large extent on Iranian and Russian support, has come at a considerable cost, both in human and economic terms. However, this stability was fragile, dependent on the continued presence and support of these foreign powers.

Recent regional developments have further complicated the situation in Syria. Russia’s military focus has changed significantly due to its involvement in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which has reduced its ability to maintain the same level of involvement in Syria. At the same time, Hezbollah, a decisive Iranian proxy actor, suffered significant losses due to Israeli military operations during 2024. These factors weakened the basic pillars of Assad’s stability, creating a vacuum that rebel groups in Syria were quick to exploit.

The resumption of rebel activity, especially in the ‘Idlib’ province, highlights the fragility of the current stability in Syria. The rapid collapse of the Syrian army in response to these attacks highlights the ongoing vulnerabilities in the regime’s military infrastructure. This instability has inevitably led to increased Iranian and Russian involvement, as they seek to re-establish their influence and restore a semblance of control.

The geopolitical competition between Iran and Turkey further complicates the situation in Syria. The two countries have pursued different strategies, often finding themselves on opposite sides of the conflict. While Iran has focused on supporting the Assad regime, Turkey has conducted a number of military operations in northern Syria, ostensibly to combat cross-border terrorism, but has in fact established a Turkish zone of influence. This competition has the potential to escalate tensions, especially when both countries seek to expand their spheres of influence at the expense of the other.

Despite the establishment of the Astana peace process in 2017, which was intended to manage the conflict in Syria, the reality on the ground indicates that it was mainly used to demarcate areas of control between Iran, Russia, and Turkey, and not to foster a comprehensive peace. As the Assad regime gradually gained territorial control, Iran’s influence increased, while Turkey established its presence in the north. This distribution of influence underscores the complexity of achieving lasting stability in Syria, Especially in light of the weakening of the “chief groomsmen”, Russia and Iran’s proxies.

The current situation in Syria presents a complex set of opportunities and risks for Israel and for the entire Middle East. While various factions, especially Iran and its proxies, are refocusing their efforts on the internal conflicts in Syria, there is a temporary decline in their attention to Israel. This shift in focus gives Israel strategic breathing space in the short term. However, this reality entails significant risks, especially the potential for instability on the Syrian Golan border, which could expand into the Israeli Golan Heights. This instability could escalate regional tensions and drag the Middle East into a broader conflict.

Historically, the borders of the Middle East were determined after World War I through the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided control between France and Britain and granted political sovereignty to various tribal leaders. This division has created countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, which are characterized by ethnic and religious diversity with little common ground between different groups. This situation has led to deep hostility, especially among Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Druze, Christians, and others, exacerbated by strategic interests in the region’s oil resources.

The gradual erosion of the Sykes-Picot Agreement over the past decade has intensified the search for a new regional order, manifested in violent clashes and episodes of genocide such as those perpetrated by ISIS, for example. The involvement of world powers such as the United States and Russia has led to temporary stability, but in some ways has further complicated the situation. It is worth noting that stability in Syria during the Trump administration has occurred through coordination with Russia, suggesting that future interventions may work similarly.

The critical question is whether such international interventions can provide long-term stability in the region. The ongoing negative energies and hostility among the peoples of the region indicate that a local response, even if coordinated between major powers such as Russia and the United States, may not achieve sustainable stability. Instead, it is likely that these interventions will only be able to offer temporary relief without addressing the underlying tensions.

From an Israeli perspective, the most urgent concern is Jordan’s stability. Unlike other neighboring countries, Jordan remains relatively affected by the “Arab Spring” or the so-called “Islamic Winter.” However, the current regional dynamics pose significant challenges to Jordan’s stability, which some analysts say is precarious. The potential for chaos in Jordan is a realistic scenario for which Israel must prepare. This includes a strategic reassessment of the IDF’s position along the Jordan Valley, emphasizing the need for a strong and flexible security infrastructure on Israel’s longest border with a neighboring country.

In conclusion, while the internal conflict in Syria offers a temporary reduction in direct threats to Israel, it simultaneously poses significant risks to regional instability. The historical context of arbitrarily established borders and ongoing ethnic and religious hostility underscores the complexity of achieving lasting stability in the Middle East. For Israel, Jordan’s stability is becoming a critical concern, requiring comprehensive security measures and a proactive defense strategy. Future international interventions, while potentially beneficial in the short term, are unlikely to resolve deep regional tensions, underscoring the need for a multi-layered and long-term approach to regional stability.

This article was originally published on Ynetnews

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Back to the “Islamic Winter” הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The Gaza war has been raging in a number of arenas, and accordingly has a number of objectives. On the southern front, reportedly, the objectives are the elimination of Hamas as the governing militia in the Gaza strip, the return home of all of the Israeli hostages from Gaza with no exception, and ensuring that no army of terror could resurface and take control of Gaza again. On the northern front, the objective is to deliver a devastating blow to Hezbollah, ensuring that it no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel. However, there is another, less reported front, that does not make headlines like its counterparts but in effect, it holds sway on all the above and more – the global theater.

Israel’s broad strategy extends far beyond the borders of Lebanon and Gaza. The overall objective is the dismantling of the Iranian-Shi’ite axis as the controlling element of much of the Middle East. Local processes such as ceasefires and the separation of fronts, alongside the imminent administration change in the US, offer a valuable opportunity to drive change such that will not only decide the outcome of the current war but has the potential to reshape the entire  balance of power in the Middle East.

As proven in the present conflict, with documented findings of the IDF in hundreds of “civilian” homes – local Hezbollah sympathizers who allow the terror organization to take advantage of their homes and premises to conceal weapons and missiles.

Israel has achieved everything. Almost.  Overview of the agreement terms

To better understand whether the ceasefire with Hezbollah is beneficial to Israel, we should first review its terms. Admittedly, it is all too easy to spot some loopholes, but it did hand Israel a few  extremely important achievements.

The first is the divorce between the war in Gaza and the conflict with Hezbollah. This separation has significant ramifications for Hezbollah and Hamas. At the time, Nasrallah proclaimed the Hezbollah’s mission was to come to the aid of their Palestinian brethren and made a commitment to continue the fighting on Israel’s northern border until the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. Yet we see how Hezbollah has gone back on its promises, which in its own perception is a terrible humiliation.  This was a debilitating blow to Hamas, which has now been left to its own devices.

An additional achievement produced by the agreement is the demilitarization of southern Lebanon. If properly enforce, this clause will make it very hard for Hezbollah to rebuild its force on the border with Israel.

The third and perhaps the most significant achievement, is that Israel gains complete freedom of action in Lebanon which allows it to act against Hezbollah the moment it threatens Israel. This teaches the heads of Hezbollah that the moment they raise their heads – it will come rolling off. It could be said that Israel had achieved everything it wanted. Nearly. The problem with the agreement though is that it fails to chart a DMZ along the Lebanese border with Israel. In its current form, the agreement allows the population that lives near that border to return to their homes – some of which are located  just hundreds of yards from Israel. The problem is that as proven in the present conflict, with documented findings of the IDF in hundreds of “civilian” homes – many of these people are either Hezbollah terrorists or local Hezbollah sympathizers who allow the terror organization to take advantage of their homes and premises to conceal weapons and missiles. Once they return to their villages, Israeli intelligence will have a difficult time discerning which of them is an innocent civilian and which is a terrorist.

There is no doubt that this state of affairs will pose a challenge for Israel when coming to identify irregular activities  and stanch terror activity on the border. Nonetheless, there are three points to consider: Firstly, every negotiation by default entails concessions by all stakeholders, and perhaps this is a bitter pill that Israel has no choice but to swallow. The other point is that even if the population of south Lebanon does return to its villages on the border, Israel now has more tools and experience, and a stronger drive to eradicate terror. Thirdly, this is an interim agreement, meaning that Israel still has a chance to change it. The 60-day period set for the withdrawal and with the eminent entrance of the Trump administration into office, there is a fair chance that Israel could insist on creating a crucial DMZ along the border.

At the bottom line, on paper it appears that for the most part, the agreement is favorable for Israel – but of course, the soundness of these conditions will have to stand the test of enforcement. The US and France are involved in the agreement but at the end of the day, it is up to Israel and its security forces to prove the agreement productive. In the wake of October 7, the decision-making levels in Israel politics and military have come to understand that the international peacekeeping forces cannot be relied upon in light of their staggering failure to enforce Security Council resolution 1701 that was to keep Lebanon south of the Litani River clean of Hezbollah. Israel has no choice but to take its own security fully in its own hands by any means necessary and impress upon Hezbollah that it is willing to jump right back in the fray if so pushed.

Upon in light of their staggering failure to enforce Security Council resolution 1701 that was to keep Lebanon south of the Litani River clean of Hezbollah.

Why now? The timing of the signing in security and diplomatic terms

The signing of the ceasefire agreement had not materialized out of thin air. The timing was carefully selected with various security and diplomatic considerations. In terms of Israel’s security, the objectives set for the war in the northern border, i.e. the paralyzing of Hezbollah, was achieved to a large measure. Israel had catapulted the terror organization twenty years back in terms of its military prowess, and brought it to a state in which it is no longer a strategic threat on Israel. Admittedly, one can always claim that there was a lot more that Israel could have done to strike an even harsher blow against Hezbollah. Which is not wrong. However, insofar as the military objectives, they were realized for the most part, and the signing of the agreement marked the appropriate point in time to cease the IDSF HaBithonistim  activity in Lebanon.

Diplomatically speaking, it would seem that the timing of the ceasefire is opportune as well. Israel needs the support of the international community to legitimize its actions and to receive weapons and ammunition. The ceasefire agreement allows Israel to improve its position with the UN Security Council and in turn improve its diplomatic relations with the international community.

An additional diplomatic consideration that plays an important part in the timing of the ceasefire agreement is the forthcoming change of administrations in the United States – similarly to the last months of the Obama administration, the support of the US administration in Israel is ebbing. The timing of the agreement allows us to ride out the relations with the current Biden administration and prepare to forge relations with the incoming Trump administration.

Beyond all the above mentioned, the timing carries a critical operational advantage. Israel’s decision to take its foot off the pedal in the north means that it can focus militarily and strategically in its next two crucial objectives: bringing down Hamas and the overturning of the Shi’ite axis.

As per the first objective, a ceasefire up north allows Israel to shift its ground forces back into Gaza and return to high intensity fighting and thus increase the chances of crushing Hamas and returning the hostages. As for the second objective of overturning the Shi’ite axis – more will be detailed below.

The systemic solution is not in Lebanon: the global importance of the agreement

In the Middle East, there are three main forces vying for control of the region – the Shi’ite-Iranian axis, the radical Sunni axis, and the moderate Western-Sunni axis. In recent years, the Shiite axis led by Iran and its proxies was able to gain the upper hand to become the dominant force in the region. However, various processes that have unfolded over the past year have sent this dominance into decline, and if the US plays the right policy cards, the region just may witness the breakdown of the radical Shi’ite machine.

As the Shi’ite axis is yielding to pressure, the radical Sunni axis is coming into the center of the stage, led by Turkey together with extreme Suni terror organizations the likes of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood movement. The axis will prove to be no less pernicious than its Shi’ite counterpart if it grows stronger and will pose no less a threat to Israel and the West, and thus merits a red flag as well. Case in point is the recent events in Syria that led to the toppling of the Assad regime. The rebel forces were able to prevail among others thanks to a weakened Hezbollah, proving yet again the interconnectivity of events in the Middle East. For the moment, the fall of the historically hostile Assad regime may be taken as a favorable development for Israel, it is yet to be determined what kind of regime will step into the vacuum and what – if any – kind of threat it might pose to Israel. This means that Israel must not take its eyes of the radical Sunni axis that could be the biggest winner from the fall of the Shi’ite axis and might be no less evil-intentioned toward Israel.

Therefore, the State of Israel must keep a close eye both on the Shi’ite and Sunni axes while at the same time  act toward solidifying the third axis – the moderate West-Sunni axis. For that end, Israel needs to form a coalition with the US, western countries and Sunni countries such as Saudia Arabia, UAE, Indonesia, Malesia and Pakistan. Such a coalition, if strong enough, may even draw other countries to join forces, such as Lebanon and even Iraq. In tandem with this effort, Israel must strive to forge normalization agreements with moderate Sunni countries in the Middle East that will perhaps lead to regional and global peace agreements.

One way or another, Israel must condition any move in the Middle East on a combined offensive against Iran. Once the head of the snake is removed – all the rest will fall into place.

Forward looking: the day after the ceasefire

The ceasefire with Hezbollah is for a 60-day term – but in terms of Middle East security, this is ample time for things to change. There is no way to predict if indeed the ceasefire will be implemented verbatim, or what will transpire once the term is out; Hezbollah may very well breach the agreement, forcing Israel back into battle, and equally possible is that the agreement may lead to a permanent settlement that allows Israel to begin rehabilitating the north and return the evacuated citizens to their homes.

The IDSF HaBithonistim movement wishes to see a rehabilitated and healing north. This is a complex process, but with smart resource allocation and oversight, this part of Israel can very soon be on track to recovery. Once this is underway, we can then turn to the next task at hand – the increase of the Jewish population in the north. The IDSF HaBithonistim sees this as a national imperative of top priority. A two-fold increase would make it clear to our enemies that they cannot push us back from our own borders, as well as contribute to the settlement of the land in agency of Israel’s security doctrine.

In order to realize these objectives, IDSF HaBithonistim has been engaging with policy-makers and is founding educational and pre-military programs designed to strengthen the settlements within Israel’s borders. These days the movement is in the midst of developing the “Ha’Tkuma” pre-military preparatory program that will operate in the Gaza border communities. In the future more of such programs will be founded in the north of Israel.

For many, rebuilding and resettling the communities in the ravaged north seems like a distant goal, but we are getting closer – and the ceasefire agreement is the first step in this direction. Despite some of the agreement’s downsides and the concessions Israel is required to make, it is important to understand that the State of Israel is now facing a historic opportunity to realize all of its aspirations. If we take advantage of this opportunity skillfully, we can change our security reality for generations to come and even stabilize the balance of power throughout the Middle East.

הפוסט “Analyzing Lebanon Not Within the General Context Is a Big Mistake” – The Broad Implications of a Ceasefire on Israel’s Northern Border הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The trial of the Knave of Hearts scene in “Alice in Wonderland” oddly mirrors the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) unprecedented ruling against Israel. The court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Defense Gallant for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Had proper due process been put in place, surely this outcome would not be reminiscent of the Queen of Spades’ immortal dictum: “Sentence first – verdict afterwards.”

It would not be far-reaching to describe this ruling as initiated and abated by politically-appointed judges and prosecutor with a long anti-Israeli track record. They somehow wish to be believed that this warrant is the result of an evidence-based fair process, rather than reverse engineering a PR decision. They seek to arrest individuals over whom they have no legal jurisdiction, over crimes in a non-existent country invented for the sake of protocol, while ignoring any evidence that runs contrary to the tunnel vision. This is a pre-determined ruling that was backfilled with arguments.

Israel, a country that has thus far provided its enemy in Gaza with over 1 million metric tons of aid during wartime, is now accused of committing “starvation”. The humanitarian aid operation it orchestrated in cooperation with UNRWA – even while its school textbooks teem with anti-Semitic caricatures and many of its employees are on Hamas’ payroll – is described as war crimes. 2 billion dollars were donated by worldwide contributors to provide every Gazan with over 3,400 calories per day. All of that, after having suffered October 7 – the deadliest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust, and as 101 Israeli hostages are still unlawfully held in Gaza.

No real evidence has ever been provided for well-recorded starvation cases in Gaza – only smoke and mirrors. UN agencies largely rely on bogus data provided by Hamas, whitewashed as the “Gaza Health Ministry”. The “Ministry” provides the bricks that construct the anti-Israeli edifice, claiming that over 43 thousand Palestinians were killed. No real effort was carried out to validate the authenticity of that data, nor verify how many of those killed were militants. That, in stark contrast to skepticism over other types of disinformation, from Russia’s Sputnik News to ISIS’ Amaq.

During the war, millions of Palestinians were ordered by the IDF to get out of war zones and into safe zones, as Israeli tanks safeguarded them from Hamas sniper fire, fearing evacuation could help Israel defeat it. Gaza’s population continues to grow at an estimate 2% annual rate. This would be a particularly bizarre and inefficient way to carry out a genocide.

It was also the lack of relevant process, not merely evidence, that rattled Jerusalem. Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the ICC, nor does it have jurisdiction in countries with an independent judicial system, as per the principle of complementarity. Only in cases such as Yugoslav strongman Milošević’s war crimes, where local courts are “unwilling and unable” to prosecute, can the ICC move on to intervene.

The opposite party to the ruling would be “Palestine”, which was admitted to the ICC in 2015, in stark violation of the Palestinian Authority’s Oslo Accords with Israel. Since the court cannot discuss unrecognized territories, it agreed to define one for the sake of protocol in 2021. Hungarian Judge Péter Kovács issued a dissenting opinion, criticizing the court for its lack of proper legal basis. Yet the ICC continued to paint the dartboard after the dart hit.

Much like the USSR’s sham trials, the ICC also reflects a deeper and alarming insight into a once-respected international institution. It seems that the media’s limelight rather than real criteria determines its outreach. There is simply no other way to characterize how Gaza’s relatively negligent and unreliable number of fatalities gets much of the attention, while objectively severe war theaters such as the war in Yemen (400 thousand killed and starved and 16 million at the brink of starvation) or the war in South Sudan (7.7 million projected to face acute food insecurity) get practically none. No other way to explain how 156 resolutions passed against Israel at the UN General Assembly since 2015, with Russia far second at 24 and none passed against Qatar or Venezuela.

In the words of prosecutor Khan’s predecessor at the ICC, Luis Moreno Ocampo: “Everyone knows starvation happened” in Gaza, while falling short of providing evidence. This “everyone knows” attitude determined the court’s proceedings, not evidence.

Legal acrobatics and confirmation bias only help making Israel’s case against the ICC, creating personally-customized law, rather than international law. This is why the ICC’s override managed to set off alarms not just in Jerusalem, but in Washington, and for a good reason. Both President Biden and President Elect Trump strongly condemned this move. They are fully aware that allowing a precedent on Israel would be allowing it on the United States as well. It has been scorched before: in 2020, the Trump administration laid sanctions on ICC officials following the court’s decision to launch a probe into American servicemen in Afghanistan. The court then backed down and “deprioritized” the US case. Then in 2022, during the Biden administration’s tenure, the ICC resumed its investigation. If Israel’s gold standard of 1:1.2 military to civilian ratio is considered “genocide”, now imagine how could the ICC describe the US’ record in Afghanistan.

There is a simple way out of this imbroglio: degrade and defund the ICC. Like any institution, the ICC is only as strong as its legitimacy and its funding. European countries who wish to keep their sovereignty would be wise to pull out funding and opt out of the ICC. Rather than announcing they will respect the ruling, they should be leading the opposition to it. They may gloat over seeing Israel in the hot seat, and may look up to the ICC with awe and reverence, but they could well be next. A real international setting to prosecute war criminals should be set, rather than a kangaroo court. The credibility that the ICC has been selling was exposed as window dressing. Now European countries should stop buying it.

הפוסט The ICC has been selling credibility. Now it’s time to stop buying it. הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.

The fall of the Assad regime should signal to Israel that, amidst the chaotic sequence of events, it must uphold two critical interests. The first is to destroy the capabilities of the Shiite Ring of Fire. The second is to avoid being trapped in a Sunni Ring of Fire.

The Shiite Ring of Fire was first breached with the downfall of Hezbollah and Hamas. Breaches continued with an Israeli strike that stripped Iran of its air defense capabilities, and with the rapid collapse of the Assad regime — a development echoing across the Middle East. This is not merely the fall of a regime that was hostile to Israel and was part of Iran’s Sunni Ring of Fire. It is also a psychological game-changer that could reinvigorate the Iranian rebels.

In an effort to fortify itself, Iran is accelerating the development of its nuclear weapons. A report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the U.S. indicates that Iran has speeded up its uranium enrichment so that it will potentially be able to manufacture 12 nuclear bombs.

Russia, too, has a stake in Iran’s nuclear progress, raising concerns that Russian technologies could be transferred to Iran to shorten the time required to manufacture a nuclear bomb and strengthen the resistance from the Axis of Evil.

In the face of Iran’s rush toward nuclear armaments, Israel is counting the days until Trump enters the White House. The question is how many days we have left in our quiver before Iran achieves a bomb that could, Heaven forbid, once more reverse the region’s momentum.

Therefore Israel must act immediately to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and, along with it, the remnants of the Ring of Fire that Iran has constructed around Israel.

The second interest that Israel must uphold is rooted in an ancient Machiavellian principle that says every change begets another change.

It is already evident that Iran’s decline paves the way for Turkey’s rise. Erdoğan is lurking around the corner in hopes that Israel will mount the attack and that the Iranian regime will falter. He would then seize the opportunity he has been awaiting and attempt to position himself as the region’s Islamic power.

Whether actively encouraged or passively approved by Turkey, the offensive from Syrian rebels under Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was made possible by Turkish financial and military support. It not only benefits Erdoğan strategically by advancing his regional hegemony, but also benefits him tactically by weakening the Shiite axis, pushing the Kurds away from Turkey’s borders, and returning Syrian refugees who have been burdening Turkey’s economy.

Israel’s understanding of its own future interests on the battlefield against the Turks must therefore prompt it to strike inside Syria now. During the current war Erdoğan, an extreme jihadist who seeks Israel’s destruction, has taken every step to label Israel as an enemy and display his practical intent to harm it. In July, for instance, he spoke of invading Israel the way he invaded Karabakh and Libya: “Just like we entered Karabakh and the way we entered Libya, maybe we’ll do the same thing. …We have to be strong.”

Unlike Iran, Erdoğan possesses a modern, well-equipped military. This includes twice as many enlisted troops as Israel, approximately 10% more fighter jets, nearly twice as many tanks, four times as many warships, and more than twice the number of submarines (!).

Although Israel holds military superiority over Turkey in quite a few aspects, one of the challenges in confronting Turkey could lie in a preemptive Israeli strike because Turkey is a NATO member. Under the NATO framework, an attack on one member state is considered tantamount to attack on them all.

In conclusion, it is a necessity — and an obligation — for Israel to complete the destruction of the Shiite Ring of Fire. At the same time, its operations in Syria against Erdoğan-aligned rebels must be subject to a calculated assessment of Israel’s future interests in a possible war against Turkey as well as to a resolute decision that the Shiite Ring of Fire must not be replaced by a Sunni equivalent.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement

הפוסט Israel Must Not Replace a Shiite Ring of Fire with a Sunni Ring of Fire הופיע לראשונה ב-IDSF.