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
Mike Huckabee Presents Credentials to Israel’s President, Begins Duties as US Ambassador
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee looks on during the day he visits the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest prayer site, in Jerusalem’s Old City, April 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
US Ambassador Mike Huckabee on Monday presented his credentials to Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Jerusalem, officially beginning his time as the Trump administration’s chief diplomatic representative in Israel.
Huckabee, a Baptist minister and the former governor of Arkansas, described the opportunity to become the official US ambassador to Israel as “an honor and incredible joy.”
“Over 50 years ago I came to Israel for the first time,” he said. “I was amazed to be standing in the land of the Bible. Now I come back as an old man, but with a sense of joy and awe that I am in the land that God said, ‘This is mine and these are my people.’ I came here because I believe that this not just geopolitical, because I also love to see it through the eyes of people who come here for the first time.”
During his remarks at the Israeli presidential residence, Huckabee warned that Iran seeks to destroy not only Israel but also the United States.
“It has always been their desire that Israel would be the opening act and then it would be America’s turn to face destruction,” Huckabee said. “Or, to put it another simple way, Israel is the appetizer, and the United States is the entrée.”
Huckabee’s comments came on the heels of the Trump administration’s second round of discussions with Iran over the weekend regarding the regime’s nuclear program. The Trump administration has stated that it aims to dismantle the Iranian program, sharing the view of other Western states that Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons. Tehran claims its nuclear activities are only for civilian energy use.
Huckabee lauded his new position as “divine” and vowed “to stand with the people of Israel for peace and prosperity.”
Herzog showered praise on Huckabee, calling the American official “a shining reflection of [US President Donald Trump’s] love, friendship, and support for the State of Israel.”
The newly minted ambassador arrived in Israel last week, visiting the Western Wall on Friday. Huckabee placed his hand on the holy Jewish site, lowered his head in prayer, and then inserted a slip of paper containing a prayer into the wall.
Huckabee said the prayer, which was delivered on behalf of Trump, read, “For peace in Israel.”
“What an honor it is for me to come on behalf of the president of the United States, President Donald Trump, and to present a prayer that he handwrote, gave to me last Thursday at the White House, with the instruction that my first act as ambassador would be to take his prayer — praying for the peace of Jerusalem — and to bring it to the wall, and to pray that there would in fact be, peace in the land,” Huckabee said.
The US Senate earlier this month voted to confirm Huckabee as the new ambassador to Israel, placing a strong pro-Israel conservative in the prominent position.
The Senate voted 53 to 46 in favor of Huckabee, with all Democrats except Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman voting against him. Every Republican voted to confirm Huckabee.
Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, has long been a stalwart ally of the Jewish state. He has repudiated the anti-Israel protests that erupted in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel and criticized former US President Joe Biden for sympathizing with anti-Israel protesters during his speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC). The incoming ambassador also lambasted the anti-Israel encampments at elite universities, stating that there should be “outrage” over the targeting and mistreatment of Jewish college students.
Huckabee has defended Israel’s right to build settlements in the West Bank, acknowledging the Jewish people’s ties to the land dating back to the ancient world. He has also vowed to refer to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria,” adopting terminology preferred by Israel.
“There is no such thing as the West Bank — it’s Judea and Samaria,” Huckabee has said, referring to the biblical names for the area. “There is no such thing as settlements — they’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There is no such thing as an occupation.”
During Huckabee’s 2008 US presidential campaign, he stated that “there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian,” and that land for a potential Palestinian state should be taken from other Arab states and not Israel.
The post Mike Huckabee Presents Credentials to Israel’s President, Begins Duties as US Ambassador first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Looks to Cut Another $1 Billion in Funding From Harvard University as School Builds War Chest
US President Donald Trump attends the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, April 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Leah Millis
The Trump administration may confiscate another $1 billion in federal funds previously appropriated to Harvard University over its allegedly breaching the confidentiality of negotiations on quelling campus antisemitism and reducing the institution’s left-wing bias, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.
The move would intensify what has become a fight over the future of elite higher education, against which conservatives have lodged a slew of criticisms for decades. Their moment to take action has now arrived with the second term of US President Donald Trump, which coincides with a precipitous drop in public support for academia caused by an explosion of pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses and the promotion of views which many Americans perceive as anti-meritocratic, anti-Western, and racist.
Earlier this month, the administration impounded $2.26 billion in Harvard’s federal funds over the institution’s refusal to agree to a wishlist of policy reforms that Republican lawmakers have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Contained in a letter the administration sent to Harvard interim president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — the policies called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implore Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
More cuts may be forthcoming, the Journal reported, due to the Trump administration’s fury over Garber’s decision to publicize the letter, which was intended to be a private discussion between it and Harvard. Administration officials were reportedly planning to treat the university “more leniently” than other schools from which it has already confiscated billions before the policy list was released.
Harvard, however, has denied that it ever agreed to keep its correspondence with the multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism confidential. Meanwhile, the Trump administration believes “the school aimed to fight the entire time” and that it must now respond with more punitive measures to demonstrate its resolve to see a conflict with Harvard through to the end.
The administration is already taking action against the school in other ways. On Friday, the Department of Education announced that it is investigating Harvard’s foreign contributors, citing as cause the university’s alleged numerous failures to provide annual disclosures of gifts exceeding $250,000 as is required by the Higher Education Act of 1965.
“As a recipient of federal funding, Harvard University must be transparent about its relations with foreign sources and governments. Unfortunately, our review indicated that Harvard has not been fully transparent or complete in its disclosures, which is both unacceptable and unlawful,” US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “This records request is the Trump administration’s first step to ensure that Harvard is not being manipulated by, or doing the bidding of, foreign entities, which includes actors who are hostile to the interests of the United States and American studies.”
She added, “We hope Harvard will respect its own motto and be truthful in its federal filings and foreign relationships.”
Harvard University has been cheered by progressives and criticized by conservatives over its refusal to enact the reforms proposed by the Trump administration.
Former US President Barack Obama lauded Garber for “rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom,” and former Harvard president Larry Summers, speaking to The Harvard Crimson, said that the school should spend down its $53.2 billion endowment fund to offset the federal government’s cuts.
Others, however, such as pro-Israel activist Shabbos Kestenbaum, expressed more opprobrious views of Harvard, accusing it of “fighting Trump harder than it ever fought antisemitism.” Christopher Rufo, a conservative author and resident scholar of the Manhattan Institute, said Trump “has every right to withhold funding” due to the university’s embrace of the DEI movement and holding of segregated graduation ceremonies.
Harvard’s so-called “resistance” is backed by its immense wealth, and the school has been drawing on its vast financial resources to build a war chest for withstanding Trump’s budget cuts since March, when it issued over $450 million in bonds as “part of ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” Another $750 million in bonds was offered to investors in April, according to The Harvard Crimson, a sale that is being managed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
A generous subsidy protects Harvard from paying exorbitant interest on the new debt, as investors can sell most bonds issued by educational institutions without being required to pay federal income tax. Other universities have resorted to borrowing as well, issuing what was reportedly a record $12.4 billion municipal bonds, some of which are taxable, during the first quarter of 2025. Among those which chose to take on debt are Northwestern University, which was defunded to the tune of $790 million on April 8. It issued $500 million in bonds in March. Princeton University, recently dispossessed of $210 in federal grants, is preparing an offering of $320 million, according to Forbes.
The strategy cannot be maintained indefinitely, Middle East expert and president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Asaf Romirowsky told The Algemeiner on Monday, noting that Harvard’s first bond offering fell short of its target by $15 million. He said that it is best, and cheaper, for Harvard, as well as other Ivy League institutions, to address the campus antisemitism crisis and “wokeness” on terms to which they and Trump can agree.
“Harvard and other elite colleges seem to feel that Trump is out to hurt them, but the fact of the matter is that they have refused to be introspective in assessing the quality of the product they produce,” Romirowsky explained. “It behooves everybody to find some kind of middle of the road if we are going to change and reform the institutions and give them time to clean themselves up.”
He continued, “Will Harvard survive? Of course, but it needs to reckon with the quality and caliber of its students and faculty, who are so ideologically disconnected from reality.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Trump Looks to Cut Another $1 Billion in Funding From Harvard University as School Builds War Chest first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran’s Top Diplomat to Visit China as Tehran Seeks to Strengthen Ties Amid US Tensions
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi attends a press conference following a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, April 18, 2025. Photo: Tatyana Makeyeva/Pool via REUTERS
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will visit China on Tuesday, ahead of a third round of nuclear talks with the United States in Oman this weekend, as both Tehran and Beijing seek to deepen their bilateral ties.
“It is natural that we will consult and brief China over the latest developments in Iran-US indirect talks,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday, adding that Araghchi’s trip also aims to further the implementation of agreements between Tehran and Beijing as their relations grow stronger.
According to Jack Burnham, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, DC-based think tank, both countries recognize the increasing value of their cooperation on the global stage.
“The growing ties between China and Iran signal a rising ‘Axis of Aggressors’ coordinating their efforts to undermine US and Israeli national security,” Burnham told The Algemeiner.
“Iran remains a key supplier of cheap crude for Chinese refineries, while Chinese firms with close ties to the Chinese military have been accused of offering support to the Houthis [an Iran-backed terrorist group based in Yemen] in their strikes against US and Israeli targets,” he continued.
Iran’s growing ties with China come at a time when both countries are facing escalating sanctions from Washington, particularly targeting Tehran’s oil industry, as part of US President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign aimed at cutting the country’s crude exports to zero and preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
“As the Trump administration seeks to increase pressure on Tehran to gain leverage in ongoing nuclear talks, China’s support for Iran may become a more significant aspect of the regime’s willingness to hold out — a key factor behind the US Treasury Department’s efforts to sanction Chinese refineries as negotiations continue,” Burnham told The Algemeiner.
In an interview with the Russian state news agency RT, Araghchi said that close collaboration with Moscow and Beijing is “a necessity” for Tehran, given the current international climate.
“We have started trilateral talks with Russia and China on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program for some time now,” the Iranian top diplomat said. “We are ready to continue these talks and expand them to other issues.”
“Iran, China, and Russia – in a coordinated move – can take effective steps towards international peace,” he continued.
Tehran became a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a Eurasian security and political group, in 2023 and also joined the BRICS group in 2024 — a bloc of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa that positions itself as an alternative to economic institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
In 2021, Iran and China signed a comprehensive 25-year strategic agreement covering energy, security, infrastructure, and communications, which ceded almost all of Tehran’s natural and mineral resources, infrastructure, and markets to Beijing in exchange for security guarantees against the West.
The latest example of their growing military cooperation was their joint naval drills earlier this year, called the Maritime Security Belt 2025, in Iranian territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman, located in the northern Indian Ocean.
As part of Tuesday’s visit to Beijing, a high-ranking judicial delegation will join Iran’s top diplomat to the Chinese capital.
Iranian Judiciary Chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei will attend the 20th summit of the chairs of supreme courts from the nine member countries of the SCO. The conference will focus on strengthening legal cooperation to combat terrorism, organized crime, trafficking, and cybercrime.
The high-level trip comes ahead of a third round of nuclear talks with Washington in Oman this Saturday, following Tehran’s previous consultations with Russia.
After Saturday’s second round of nuclear negotiations in Rome, Araghchi announced that an expert-level track would begin in the coming days to finalize the details of a potential agreement.
“Relatively positive atmosphere in Rome has enabled progress on principles and objectives of a possible deal,” Araghchi wrote in a post on X.
“We made clear how many in Iran believe that the JCPOA [a now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal that imposed limits on the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief] is no longer good enough for us. To them, what is left from that deal are ‘lessons learned,’” he continued.
“For now, optimism may be warranted but only with a great deal of caution.”
Iran has previously rejected halting its uranium enrichment program, insisting that the country’s right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable, despite Washington’s threats of military actions, additional sanctions, and tariffs if an agreement is not reached to curb Tehran’s nuclear activities.
Last week, US special envoy Steve Witkoff said that any deal with Iran must require the complete dismantling of its “nuclear enrichment and weaponization program” — reversing his earlier comments, in which he indicated that the White House would allow Tehran to enrich uranium to a 3.67 percent threshold for a “civil nuclear program.”
The post Iran’s Top Diplomat to Visit China as Tehran Seeks to Strengthen Ties Amid US Tensions first appeared on Algemeiner.com.