RSS
Israel Is Solely Responsible for Own Defense — But Must Work With Allies
The principle that Israel should “defend itself with its own forces” is fundamental to the Jewish State’s concept of national security.
Recently, doubts — sometimes tendentious — have been raised about this principle. In the opinion of the late former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, for instance, the deployment of American aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean and Red Seas shows that “Israel is not capable of defending itself alone.”
This is a hasty conclusion, because the carriers serve as second-line defense. There is no contradiction between the basic Israeli principle stated above and Israel’s comprehensive cooperation with the US, which has political, economic, and other benefits for both sides. American military aid constitutes 16% of the Israeli defense budget and about 2% of the general budget. It also entails Israeli access to the American security system, with its wide dimensions and possibilities.
Even if Israel were to significantly increase its own production of weapons, as it is obliged to do because of the constant threat of attack, it will continue to need supplies from foreign sources, mainly the US.
Israel does not have a blank check for this purpose, even though US security aid is anchored by Congressional decisions and serves the strategic, industrial, and economic interests of the US. The aid is vulnerable to political considerations in the form of reassessments or internal American political dynamics, such as the anti-Israel trend that is increasingly visible in some parts of the Democratic Party. Problems may also arise from the Republican side of the aisle due to the isolationist positions of Donald Trump.
Countries act according to their interests, and American interests sometimes conflict with Israeli interests. US security ties with Israel met American opposition in the the mid-20th century because of the need for Arab oil, but also because of the fear that America would end up having to fight for Israel.
Those fears evaporated after the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War, which opened the door to an ever-expanding military cooperation with the US. Since then, total US aid to Israel has increased to $3 billion a year — originally $1.8 billion in military aid and $1.2 billion in civilian aid, to be delivered partly in credit.
An important change was made by Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, when he announced that Israel would give up civilian aid and that the entire amount would be directed to security. Civilian foreign aid was unpopular in the eyes of American politicians who had difficulty justifying it at a time when their own constituents were struggling with economic problems. Since the Israeli economy was growing at the time, it was unnecessary in any case — certainly in comparison to security aid, which was seen by both the Americans and the Israelis as necessary and justified. It was agreed that the security aid would be a grant, not a loan, and that the full amount would be granted in advance. There has also been an American contractual commitment in place since 2008 that Israel will have military (i.e., weapons) superiority over all its enemies.
From time to time, the idea of a defense agreement between Israel and the US has been floated, but its critics see it, rightly, as a possible violation of Israel’s freedom of military action without adding much to the existing security arrangements. However, this does not disqualify regional or more extensive military engagements.
Calling Israel “America’s continental aircraft carrier” was an exaggeration, but the fact that Israel is the only democratic and stable country in the Middle East and that it has a developed technological, scientific, and military capacity have increased its value to the Americans in a security sense. The operational capability of the IDF in the current war will further strengthen this assessment.
The Israeli concept of security, designed by David Ben-Gurion, is based on several components — deterrence, defense, warning, and decisiveness — and the transfer of war to the enemy’s territory. Deterrence means the enemies of Israel will be deterred by Israel’s military and security power, and by the threat of the damage that power would cause if it were unleashed against them in full force.
On October 7, and in fact well before it, Israeli deterrence lost many of its components. This was the result, in part, of Israel’s refusal to act strongly against the terrorist attacks of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and its reliance instead on the economic benefits of a more tolerant approach.
“Defense” means the country’s borders will be protected by physical elements, such as civilian settlements and various obstacles, but mainly by the IDF. The “18 points” document drawn up by Ben-Gurion in 1953 strove to bridge Israel’s quantitative disparity in terms of population size and military might by prioritizing deterrence and deterrence actions. This approach derived from the insight that Israel cannot sustain long wars from an economic and human perspective and therefore must strive for decisive victory as quickly and overwhelmingly as possible.
Despite the emphasis on the principles of defense, Israel should not shy away from proactive actions that serve its basic goals. The premise is that Israel cannot lose any war, as such a failure — indeed even the image of such a failure — could lead to its destruction. Additional principles such as defensible borders were added to the theory of security.
And as for peace? As Ben-Gurion put it, “Peace is not a goal, and war is not a goal. The goal is the realization of Zionism, [and peace will come] when the Arabs also want peace.”
The perceptions formulated by Ben-Gurion did not pass the test of October 7 — not because they were incorrect, but because the leadership and the army did not follow them. The areas surrounding Gaza not only did not constitute an obstacle to aggression but had become an easy target for the attackers, who bypassed the physical obstacles with incredible ease. (This, by the way, was the lesson that should have been learned from the failure of the Bar-Lev line in the Yom Kippur War.) As for the army’s forces, they did exist, but were in the wrong place and lacked the necessary readiness. The “warning” — that is, reliable and constant monitoring of the enemy’s capabilities and provision of a strategic and tactical warning in real time about any movement — was probably the main failure of October 7.
The “decisiveness” value is more complex. In Israel’s circumstances, a temporary decisive win on the battlefield — as was achieved in the War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and the Yom Kippur War — does not prevent the enemy from renewing itself and intensifying further attempts at aggression. Nor can it bring about sustainable peace unless political and international conditions are also met.
Israel does enjoy a clear military advantage over its enemies in terms of the quality of its weapon systems, the size of its forces, its technology and its resources — but as the events of October 7 and the current situation with Hezbollah in Lebanon show, these advantages are not always expressed in absolute achievements on the battlefield, at least not in the immediate term.
In recent years, Israel’s security center of gravity has shifted from the Arab world to Iran — initially towards its proxies, but in an inevitable process towards Iran itself, as proved by Iran’s massive air attack on Israel in April. Israel’s military and political cooperation with the US played an important role in thwarting Iranian intentions on that day — not only in terms of the attack, but perhaps even more in the episodes that preceded it and without which Israel would not have been able to develop and perfect the means of defense and attack it currently has and will need against Iran in the future.
As Brigadier General (Res.) Eran Ortal put it: “The State of Israel will defend itself by itself, but while relying on a great ally.” Iran is a threat to American national security as well as Israeli, and the US intelligence assessment published in February of this year clearly states that the US must act with “vigilance and strategic wisdom” but without specifying the intention.
As far as Israel is concerned, the direct Iranian threat is extremely dangerous because it is a political-ideological entity whose stated and practical goal is the complete physical destruction of the State of Israel, and it is close to equipping itself with weapons of mass destruction that will be capable of accomplishing this.
Although the US says it will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, it does not take sufficient measures to convince Iran to stop its efforts. In other words, for Israel, Iran represents a concrete, gravely serious threat that requires consideration from all possible aspects, in terms of both diplomacy and security. “Defending itself with its own forces” is indeed the first line in Israel’s security, but cooperation with others, as much as possible, will complete it.
Zalman Shoval was Israel’s ambassador to the US (1990-1993 and 1998-2000) and an MK in the Rafi, National List, and Likud parties. He was a member of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee and the Joint Committee for the Defense Budget. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Israel Is Solely Responsible for Own Defense — But Must Work With Allies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Columbia University Newspaper Endorses Mamdani for New York City Mayor
Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS
Columbia University’s flagship newspaper, The Columbia Daily Spectator, has endorsed a far-left New York City mayoral candidate who has been accused of antisemitism and made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his political career.
The Spectator’s editorial board issued the endorsement of Zohran Mamdani, a representative in the New York State Assembly, in a rare moment of summer activity, as most of the university’s student body is on holiday. It comes as the university’s leadership is reportedly taking steps to deal with a surge of campus antisemitism that captured national attention and led the Trump administration to pull federal funding over the school’s alleged failure to combat the crisis.
“Our endorsements reflect the consensus opinion of the editorial board, but we recognize that voters may weigh these issues differently,” the paper said on Tuesday. “As Spectator‘s editorial board, we endorse Zohran Mamdani as our top choice for New York City Mayor. Currently ranked second in most polls, the New York State Assembly member and his campaign have resonated with New Yorkers who have been repeatedly disappointed by the current administration.”
It added, “The Democratic Socialist has grounded his campaign in bread-and-butter issues such as universal child care, free public transportation, and affordable housing, echoing Sen. Bernie Sanders’ brand of economic populism.”
The paper’s choice of Mamdani prompted a slew of responses on social media. A native of Uganda born to parents from India, one of whom is an Oscar nominated filmmaker, Mamdani has refused to recognize the Jewish state of Israel, advocated adoption of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, and suggested that New York City — home to the world’s largest Jewish community outside of Israel — will divest from the country if he is elected.
Earlier this month, he refused to distance himself from the phrase “globalize the intifada,” a slogan that is believed to have inspired a wave of anti-Jewish violence which culminated in the murder of two young Israeli diplomats outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC in May. The Democratic mayoral candidate went as far as comparing the phrase to the motivations behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, prompting a rebuke from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
“I think what’s difficult is that the very word has been used by the Holocaust Museum when translating the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising into Arabic, because it’s a word that means struggle,” Mamdani said on the Bulwark podcast. “And as a Muslim man who grew up post-9/11, I’m too familiar in the way in which Arabic words can be twisted, can be distorted, can be used to justify any kind of meaning.”
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was an effort by Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland to fight back as they were set to be deported to concentration camps and killed during the Holocaust. In contrast, the slogan “globalize the intifada” references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels known as intifadas, or uprisings.
On another occasion, years before he emerged as a candidate for mayor, Mamdani appeared to threaten that a “third intifada” was forthcoming.
Following the Spectator’s declaration of support for his campaign, Columbia University professor Shai Davidai charged that the paper had violated laws which prevent nonprofit entities, such as the Spectator, from entering the fray of electoral politics.
“The Columbia Spectator has just breached its non-profit status by endorsing a political candidate,” Davidai said. “Please join me in filing a formal complaint with the IRS against the Spectator Publishing Company. It’s time to make our colleges a partisan-free space for education.”
Elisha Baker, who studies Middle East History at Columbia University, said in a statement shared with The Algemeiner and other outlets that the Spectator is essentially throwing its support behind a surge of antisemitic violence called for by anti-Zionists of Mamdani’s mold.
“Zohran Mamdani is a threat to Jews in NYC and Americans everywhere. He marches with the antisemitic and anti-American mob,” Baker said. “A vote for Mamdani is a vote for antisemitism and continued pro-terror chaos on our streets. Especially since the tragic attacks in DC and Boulder, a vote for Mamdani is nothing short of a vote for Jews to stay inside.”
New York City will ultimately determine the merit of the case against the mayoral candidate, who would be the favorite to win the November general election if he prevails over his Democratic opponents, including former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, during Tuesday’s primary.
During the campaign, Cuomo criticized Mamdani’s links to the anti-Zionist movement.
“Yesterday when Zohran Mamdani was asked a direct question about what he thought of the phrase ‘globalize the intifada,’ he dismissed it as ‘language’ ‘that is subject to interpretation,’ Cuomo said in a statement earlier this month. “That is not only wrong – it is dangerous. At a time when we are seeing antisemitism on the rise and in fact witnessing once again violence against Jews resulting in their deaths in Washington DC or their burning in Denver – we know all too well that words matter. They fuel hate. They fuel murder. As the US Holocaust Museum so aptly said, all leaders or those running for office must condemn the use of this battle cry. There are no two sides here.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Columbia University Newspaper Endorses Mamdani for New York City Mayor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Calls for UN to Condemn Attacks on Aid Workers, Collaborate Amid Mass ‘Disinformation’
Palestinians collect aid supplies from the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, June 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has called on the United Nations to publicly condemn the killing of aid workers in Gaza and to collaborate in order to provide relief to the enclave’s population, accusing the UN of perpetuating a “vast disinformation campaign” aimed at tarnishing the US- and Israel-backed foundation’s image.
In a letter sent to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Monday, GHF executive chairman Rev. Johnnie Moore defended the foundation’s efforts to distribute aid to the civilians of Gaza, the Palestinian enclave that has been ruled by the Hamas terrorist group for nearly two decades.
“Nearly 40 million meals have been distributed in our first month of operations from our Secure Distribution Sites,” Moore wrote, adding that the program has successfully distributed emergency aid to Palestinians in “desperate need” despite constantly operating “under grave threat.”
Moore also criticized the UN, saying that the GHF has “shared our data and our logistical approach” with the global body in hopes of forging a collaboration effort between the two entities. He lamented that the UN has “neither partnered with GHF nor even acknowledged our operational successes.”
“Our work has continued with normal operations amidst an expanding regional conflict, and also a vast disinformation campaign which has sought to stop us from feeding people from the moment we started,” Moore continued. “We regret that your own office has been a victim of this disinformation campaign which has only threatened to further harm the Gazan people.”
The GHF was created because Hamas routinely steals humanitarian aid, leaving civilians facing severe shortages. Documents released by the Israeli military earlier this month showed that Hamas operatives violently took control of approximately 25 percent of incoming aid shipments, which they then resold to civilians at inflated prices.
The GHF operates independently from UN-backed mechanisms, which Hamas has sought to reinstate, arguing that these frameworks are more neutral. Israeli and American officials have rejected those calls, saying Hamas previously exploited UN-run systems to siphon aid for its war effort. The UN has denied those allegations while expressing concerns that the GHF’s approach forces civilians to risk their safety by traveling long distances across active conflict zones to reach food distribution points.
Since the GHF launched operations in late May, there have been reports of Palestinians being shot near distribution sites. In specific cases, Israel has acknowledged targeting what it believed to be armed Hamas operatives using civilians as cover.
In his letter, Moore also criticized the UN for staying “absolutely silent in the wake of a targeted killing of GHF personnel nearly two weeks ago.”
“Their murder was not only a violation of international law, it was an affront to the very principles the UN purports to defend,” the GHF chairman added. He called on the UN to “publicly condemn the targeting of humanitarian workers in Gaza, and to denounce the obstruction of aid by Hamas and other armed factions.”
Moore’s letter came about two weeks after the GHF said that, on the night of June 11, several of its aid workers were killed when Hamas gunmen attacked a bus transporting local staffers.
The group said the vehicle was targeted as it carried more than 20 workers to a distribution site near the city of Khan Younis. In a statement Thursday, GHF said that at least people people were killed and several more were injured.
The bus attack followed days of threats from Hamas directed at the foundation and its workers.
According to Moore, the UN can help the humanitarian crisis in Gaza by working directly with GHD to help distribute aid “at scale” to needy civilians while bypassing “intermediaries.”
“The only credible response to food insecurity is food delivery. Anything less is a deferral of responsibility. We are ready to work with other humanitarian providers to deliver food straight to the Palestinian people and restore order to a system plagued by desperation and disorder,” Moore wrote.
The post Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Calls for UN to Condemn Attacks on Aid Workers, Collaborate Amid Mass ‘Disinformation’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Netanyahu Declares Historic Win, Says Israel Removed Iran’s Nuclear Threat in 12-Day War
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference, in Jerusalem, May 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun/Pool
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that Israel in its 12 days of war with Iran had removed the threat of nuclear annihilation and was determined to thwart any attempt by Tehran to revive its program.
“We have removed two immediate existential threats to us – the threat of nuclear annihilation and the threat of annihilation by 20,000 ballistic missiles,” he said in video remarks issued by his office.
“If anyone in Iran tries to revive this project, we will work with the same determination and strength to thwart any such attempt. I repeat, Iran will not have nuclear weapons.”
Netanyahu called it a historic victory that would stand for generations.
He said Israel never had a better friend in the White House than President Donald Trump, whose US military had dropped massive bunker-buster bombs on Iran’s underground nuclear sites in an attack over the weekend.
“Our friend President Trump has rallied to our side in an unprecedented way. Under his direction, the United States military destroyed the underground enrichment site at Fordow,” Netanyahu said.
He spoke hours after Trump directed stinging criticism at Israel over the scale of strikes Trump said had violated a truce with Iran negotiated by Washington, Israel‘s closest ally.
Netanyahu said Israel‘s work was unfinished. He cited the war against Iran’s ally Hamas in Gaza, where 50 hostages remain in captivity since the Palestinian terrorist group carried out a surprise attack on October 7, 2023.
About 20 are believed to be alive.
“We must complete the campaign against the Iranian axis, defeat Hamas, and bring about the release of all the hostages, both living and dead,” he said.
The post Netanyahu Declares Historic Win, Says Israel Removed Iran’s Nuclear Threat in 12-Day War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.