RSS
A ‘Long War’ Is Not the Answer to Israel’s Security Problem — and Could Lead to Destruction (PART ONE)
An Israeli military convoy moves inside the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, as seen from Israel, June 17, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
The October 7 disaster shattered many beliefs and concepts in Israeli society, and the war Israel has been waging since that day differs from the wars of its past.
David Ben-Gurion and Ze’ev Jabotinsky believed that rounds of war in which the enemy is smashed against an “Iron Wall” would eventually cause the countries of the region to come to terms with Israel’s existence; this would in turn cause them to change their strategy and choose the path of peace, as did Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Jordan’s King Hussein. Ben-Gurion’s understanding that an end to the conflict cannot be forced, and that Israel cannot develop and advance in a state of continuous war, led him to the security concept that was in effect until October 7, 2023.
Israel’s security concept has to address a fundamental problem: that the country 1) exists within a hostile region that does not accept its existence, and 2) cannot maintain a large army on a daily basis while advancing economically and socially. The solution — until October 2023 — was to maintain a small regular army to address ongoing security challenges; try and postpone wars by deterring enemies from exercising resistance; and maintain a large and agile reserve army that is mobilized on the basis of intelligence alerts. Because the mobilization of the reserves stalls Israel’s economy, this security concept required that wars be short.
The first commandment of Israel’s security concept was that Israel would never be able to force an end to the conflict on its antagonists because it is simply too small relative to the collective Arab and Muslim world. This approach created the dynamic of cycles of short wars.
Israel was destined to mobilize for a significant clash once every few years, to beat the enemy in a short and powerful war, and thereby gain a few years of relative calm. Israel used these periods of calm, together with the assets it gained during the wars (time, territory, deterrence, strategic stability) to transform from a tiny young country into a regional military and economic power.
But the periods between the rounds of war — that is, the “routine” phase of the security concept — were never calm from a security point of view. In fact, since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, not a month has passed without a security incident in one of the conflict areas. Israel’s routine security situation is in fact a routine of limited conflict.
Throughout its short history, Israel has never been able to completely eliminate any of its enemies. Ten days after the end of the Six-Day War — Israel’s greatest victory, in which it achieved the total disintegration of the Egyptian army — Egypt renewed fire.
Israel’s strategic success in expelling the PLO from Lebanon following the Lebanon War did not eliminate Palestinian hostility from Lebanon, and it certainly did not prevent Hezbollah’s development and indeed acceleration of strength. Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, and the transition from Yasser Arafat to Abu Mazen, who changed his predecessor’s policy of support for terrorism, did not lead to the elimination of Palestinian terrorism. To this day, the IDF is required to carry out operations almost every night to fight Palestinian terrorism in Judea and Samaria.
Israel made good use of the routine periods and turned itself from a small, weak, resource-poor country into a regional power in every respect. Along with strengthening economically, Israel also strengthened militarily. It hit the enemy repeatedly, sometimes so severely that it caused them to weaken and change. But as expected, Israel has failed to force an end to the conflict on its enemies. As Ben-Gurion said, “We cannot have a final battle.”
It can be argued that if Israel is fated to go to war at intervals over and over again forever, then all the Sisyphean security activity during the routine periods is unnecessary — in other words, it fails to bring results, as war inevitably breaks out again anyway. But Israel’s ongoing defensive and offensive military effort makes it possible to postpone the next war and maintain a tolerable level of violence during the routine periods.
Why does Israel allow the other side to arm itself more than it can be expected to tolerate? Why not act before the other side is dangerously well-armed? The answer is clear. Israel uses the routine periods to build and develop. Overly frequent wars might make it more difficult for Israel’s enemies to strengthen, but they would foil the part of Israel’s strategy that depends on the periods of routine. The “addiction to peace” — as the Israeli desire to extend the routine periods is sometimes called by opponents of the Ben-Gurion security concept — is not a sign of the concept’s weakness, but a by-product of its implementation.
If Israel cannot force an end to the conflict on its enemies, and its enemies include those who wish to act against it with violence, what prevents those enemies from acting all the time and arming themselves without limit?
If Israel cannot keep its entire army mobilized and active and must be content with a small regular army, what prevents its enemies from attacking it every day that the army is not mobilized? Why hasn’t every day of Israel’s existence been an October 7?
This is where deterrence and early warning come into play.
Israel’s enemies are usually deterred from starting a high-intensity war against it because Israel has proven that it is stronger than they are, and that a high-intensity war would hurt them more than they are willing to suffer. Deterrence keeps wars from starting and helps Israel maintain a tolerable level of violence during the routine periods. But deterrence is not supposed to, and should not be expected to, prevent war from ever breaking out. Nor is it meant to completely prevent any violence from ever occurring during the routine periods.
Israel tries to strengthen its deterrence capacity not to prevent war but to keep war away for as long as possible, on the understanding that war will eventually break out. At the same time, Israel invests a continuous effort in defense to make it difficult for the other side to cause it harm during the routine periods. Defense cannot, and clearly does not, prevent all violence.
Israel invests a great deal of effort in intelligence, the first purpose of which is to warn of the enemy’s intention to go to war. Because early warning might fail, Israel built a routine defense system designed to stop an attack in the event of such a failure.
Defense needs to respond to both threats from the borders and terrorism that occurs during the routine periods. This dual role — protection against low-intensity violence and an “insurance policy” in the event of a failure of early warning — can create confusion about the defense mission and even the scenario for which the defense is being prepared.
This seems to be what happened on October 7. The IDF failed to recognize the potential for a major Hamas raid on the Israeli villages and towns near Gaza. The IDF is prepared to prevent infiltration, not invasion. Whether the failure was in the IDF’s understanding of the intelligence or in the degree of protection afforded by the new barrier it built around Gaza, the IDF’s preparations did not take into account the possibility of a breach of the barrier or the potentially broad dimensions of such a raid. The IDF did not prepare for this scenario and did not prepare orders or routines for such a case. The Intelligence Division did not build a warning model to protect against such a move, and therefore did not provide warning. Weak preparation, and the failure to prepare a response in case of surprise, allowed Hamas to penetrate the border and carry out the October 7 attack, with all its catastrophic consequences.
But were there elements in the Hamas attack that Israel had no ability to defend against? Had Hamas discovered operative tools against which Israel could not prepare a defensive response? Did Hamas prepare in a way that Israeli intelligence could not discover?
The tragedy is that the answer to all these questions is no.
Has anyone in Israel ever believed that Hamas is interested in peace? Was anyone surprised to learn that Hamas still opposes Israel’s very existence and believes it should be violently resisted until it is destroyed? Did anyone in Israel think the IDF could deter Hamas to the point of forcing it to end the conflict — a principle that is contrary to the first commandment of the security concept?
The horrific harm inflicted on Israeli civilians on October 7, the taking of hundreds of captives, and the appearance of the loss of Israeli power caused Israel to go to war. The object of that war is to make clear that Hamas made a grievous mistake and to renew Israel’s strategic positioning in the arena. But did the magnitude of the blow inflicted on Israel suddenly make it more capable than it ever believed itself to be before the war? Did the catastrophic failure of Israel’s defense and early warning system paradoxically make Israel so strong that it can now force its enemies to end the conflict?
Did the atrocities committed by Hamas in its attack somehow make the IDF strong enough to eliminate the threat of Hamas from Gaza, bearing in mind that Israel has never been able to eliminate any of the threats that surround it? Did the terrible damage suffered by the surrounding communities make Israel’s economy and society so strong that Israel can suddenly conduct a long and intense war?
The shock and sense of rupture caused by October 7 led many to think that the Hamas attack had irreparably broken Israel’s security concept. Israel’s deterrence and early warning both failed, and Hamas was not deterred. Hence: it is no longer true that Israel cannot have a final battle. It is possible to go to war to eliminate Hamas once and for all — to wage a final war and achieve a complete victory.
We will try to formulate this alternative “October 8” concept of security. According to this view, Israel cannot ignore threats against it. It should act decisively and continuously towards the complete elimination of its enemies and their replacement with political elements that accept Israel’s national policies and goals. Thus, the goal of the war in Gaza should be the complete elimination of the military power of Hamas and the dissolution of its civilian rule in the Strip, until it can be ensured that it no longer poses a threat to the surrounding settlements.
Let’s ignore for the moment the endless consequences of this concept when applying it to Lebanon and the other arenas. Gaza is a limited geographical space with a topography that supports maneuvering. But even if it were possible to achieve complete victory in Gaza, what would it look like? Full and lasting Israeli control over the territory, à la Judea and Samaria?
After 10 months of war, the IDF has occupied most of the Gaza Strip and destroyed countless buildings and terrorist and tunneling infrastructures. Hamas still exists and functions, though it is unable to launch significant military operations. But it is possible that the manner in which the IDF used its force was wrong.
Even if the IDF had acted differently, it is not clear how Hamas fighters can be eliminated when they withdraw and assimilate into the general population. How can every last Hamas fighter be eliminated when they are the ones who choose whether to fight or blend into the crowd? A similar logic applies to buildings and infrastructure. The IDF has shown no mercy to buildings and tunnels in Gaza. It has used an unprecedented quantity of aerial weapons and explosives on the ground, and the number of homes it has destroyed is enormous. Notwithstanding claims that the Americans withheld armaments from the IDF, they provided Israel with tens of thousands of bombs that it did not possess at the beginning of the war. Could yet more infrastructure have been destroyed?
Will anyone be surprised if, after the complete victory in Gaza is achieved and Hamas is defeated, there continues to be a threat of terrorism from Gaza, including the occasional rocket launch? Can this be prevented? And if not, what is the advantage of continuing the war without end?
The IDF has been at war at varying levels of intensity for 10 months now. The regular soldiers are fighting almost continuously, and the reserve forces are already in their third round of action. Is this not enough? Is there no limit to the hours the engine of the IDF machine can continue to function? And is there a correlation between the prolonging of the war in Gaza and the problematic strategic situation in the north?
Supporters of the alternative view claim that Ben-Gurion’s view no longer provides security. According to them, avoiding a complete victory stems first and foremost from weakness. But their new concept ignores the reality of the difficulty that would be involved in achieving either the means or the international support necessary to prosecute such a long war. When asked what Israel should do about the lack of armaments, their answer is often that Israel will simply have to achieve independence in the field. But how can a war be waged right now with armaments that we do not yet have? And can Israel really afford to ignore its need for American military and political assistance? Can Israel stand alone against all the threats that surround us, which are not only military but also political and economic? Can Israel survive without American support at the UN? Can it survive a global boycott?
Col. (res.) Gur Laish served as head of the campaign planning department in the Israel Air Force and as head of the security concept division at the National Security Council. He has a master’s degree in political science from the University of Haifa. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post A ‘Long War’ Is Not the Answer to Israel’s Security Problem — and Could Lead to Destruction (PART ONE) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Belgian Prime Minister Shows Solidarity With Jewish Community, Calls for Caution on Palestinian State Recognition

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever attends a press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured), at the Chancellery, in Berlin, Germany, Aug. 26, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Annegret Hilse
Amid rising antisemitism across Europe and increasing hostility toward Israel from several European governments, Prime Minister Bart De Wever expressed Belgium’s sympathy and respect for the Jewish community this week, honoring the millions of victims of the Holocaust.
During his trip to Berlin on Tuesday, De Wever visited the Holocaust Memorial and left a moving message in its guestbook.
“On behalf of the Belgian government and all people and communities living together in peace in Belgium, I express my deepest sympathy and my respect,” the Belgian leader wrote in a note in German.
“We will remember all the victims. I stand here humbly at this place of remembrance. The Jewish community will always have a home in Europe,” he continued.
Rabbi Menachem Margolin, chairman of the European Jewish Association (EJA), commended De Wever’s remarks and his support for the Jewish community, highlighting his leadership as a model.
“We sincerely thank Prime Minister De Wever for his moving message in Berlin. At a time when antisemitism is once again spreading across Europe, his clear and unwavering statement that the Jewish community will always have a home here is deeply important,” Margolin said in a statement.
“Such leadership not only honors the memory of the six million victims of the Holocaust but also strengthens the sense of security and belonging for Jews in Belgium and across the continent,” he continued.
“We also commend the Prime Minister’s principled leadership on Israel, where he consistently calls for security guarantees and a realistic path to peace. His voice carries moral weight in Europe, and we deeply appreciate it.”
During a visit to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, Belgian Prime Minister @Bart_DeWever left an important message in the guestbook. Written in German, his note expressed Belgium’s sympathy and respect for the Jewish community and commemorated the millions… pic.twitter.com/ZcuEfKCavi
— EJA – EIPA (@EJAssociation) August 26, 2025
During his visit to Berlin, De Wever met with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to discuss the recent push by several European countries to recognize a Palestinian state at next month’s UN General Assembly.
At a joint press conference, De Wever stressed that recognizing a Palestine state is only meaningful under strict conditions, warning that doing so without such guarantees would be “pointless and even counterproductive.”
“Hamas must disappear completely, there must be a credible Palestinian Authority, an agreement must be reached on borders, and Israel must receive security guarantees. Without that, recognition makes no sense,” De Wever said.
In Belgium, De Wever’s more cautious approach to Palestinian statehood and support for Israel have fueled clashes within the government, with Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot threatening to block government initiatives if the coalition continues to hinder a firmer stance on Israel and the recognition of a Palestinian state.
“If there is no stronger tone within the government regarding the human rights violations committed by the Israeli government, or if no measures are taken in favor of recognizing Palestine, a major crisis is looming,” Prévot said during an interview with De Standaard.
RSS
Amid War, Olim-Owned Businesses in Jerusalem Thrive, Showcasing Resilience, Community Spirit

Olim gather at JFK Airport, ready to board a charter flight to Israel and begin their new lives in the Jewish state. Photo: The Algemeiner
JERUSALEM — Despite the strains of war and the obstacles of starting over in a new country, businesses in Jerusalem owned by Jewish immigrants are thriving — a testament to resilience, Zionist commitment, and the power of community.
New immigrants, or olim, who make aliyah to Israel face steep challenges even in times of peace, navigating strict regulations, endless permits, and financial hurdles, though the Israeli government offers some support and incentives to promote new businesses.
Aliyah refers to the process of Jews immigrating to Israel, and olim refers to those who make this journey.
In recent years, the road has become even more difficult for entrepreneurs, first with the economic disruption of COVID-19 and now amid the uncertainty of the war in Gaza.
For many olim, launching a business in Israel is about more than entrepreneurship — it’s a way to start a new life, serve their country, build a community, and make a meaningful impact.
Last week, 225 new olim arrived in Tel Aviv on the first charter aliyah flight since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Nefesh B’Nefesh (NBN) — a nonprofit that promotes and facilitates aliyah from the US and Canada — brought its 65th charter flight from New York, which The Algemeiner joined.
Founded in 2002, NBN helps olim become fully integrated members of Israeli society, simplifying the immigration process and providing essential resources and guidance.
In partnership with Israel’s Ministry of Aliyah and Integration, the Jewish Agency for Israel, Keren Kayemeth, and the Jewish National Fund, NBN has helped nearly 100,000 olim build thriving new lives in Israel.
Eager to start their next chapter in Israel, these immigrants bring fresh ideas, culinary creativity, and cultural richness, strengthening the country’s social fabric every day.
Originally from New Orleans, Louisiana, Diana Shapira brought her passion for baking and warm hospitality to Israel, turning her aliyah dream into a popular destination for both locals and tourists.
She and her husband created Infused JLM, located near Jerusalem’s Mahaneh Yehuda Market, blending American and Israeli culture and creating a space that brings people together.
“We want people to see that an oleh’s dream can happen,” Shapira told The Algemeiner. “Even without family and facing many challenges, starting a business in Israel is possible — especially when you have the support of the community.”
“Before we made aliyah, so many people told us it was a bad financial decision. But you have to push past the doubt and keep striving,” she continued.
Another olim-owned business located in Jerusalem, Power CoffeeWorks, has become a favorite destination for coffee enthusiasts across the city.
Owned by Stephanie and Brandon, who made aliyah from Cape Town, South Africa, in 2016 with their four children at the time (now seven), the couple has turned their venture into a hub for coffee lovers and a gathering place for the community.
“We made aliyah because we believed Israel was the best place to raise our children,” Stephanie told The Algemeiner. “Despite all the challenges along the way, it has been an incredible journey.”
Crave, another oleh-owned restaurant in Mahaneh Yehuda, has gained increasing attention with its strictly kosher gourmet street food, blending American, Mexican, and Asian flavors in a way that hasn’t been seen before.
American-born Yoni Van Leeuwen, who made aliyah more than 20 years ago with his wife and eight children, views food not just as a business, but as a way to bring cultures and communities together.
Following the Oct. 7 atrocities, the war in Gaza dealt a harsh blow to Israeli businesses, forcing many to cut hours, adapt operations, and manage shortages.
Yet these olim-owned establishments have shown resilience, proving that passion, creativity, and commitment to the Zionist dream can overcome even the toughest challenges.
Whether by serving comfort food, offering a safe space for neighbors, or organizing fundraisers for soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon, these business owners described a spirit of perseverance deeply rooted in Jewish history.
RSS
Police in England Investigate Air Rifle Attack Against Jewish Teenager, Swastika Spray Painted at Rabbi’s Home

Friday night saw a string of swastika vandalism resulting in four reports, including from Rabbi Bentzion Alperowitz, a Chabad leader who discovered the Nazi symbol spray painted in black on his home’s white wall as he left for synagogue the next morning with his two young daughters. Photo: Screenshot
Multiple antisemitic incidents reported this past weekend targeted the Jewish community of Bournemouth in the southern region on the coast of the United Kingdom.
On Saturday afternoon, a driver stopped to harass and yell obscenities at two pedestrians before shooting one, a Jewish teenage boy, in the forehead with an air rifle and fleeing. The victim suffered swelling but has otherwise recovered.
“Detectives are leading the investigation to locate the occupants of the vehicle and to establish the full circumstances of the incident,” a spokesman for Dorset Police said. “The incident is being treated as a hate crime. Officers are engaging with the local community and carrying out patrols in the area. We would encourage anyone with information or concerns to please speak with an officer.”
Rabbi Alan Lewis, who leads the Bournemouth Hebrew Congregation, said that “the young man who was shot is a religious Jew who was wearing a skull cap. It was very obvious he was Jewish. Then several people living on Manor Road woke up to find that swastikas had been painted on their homes. The homes had a mezuzah outside, so it was obvious that Jewish people lived there.”
Friday night saw a string of swastika vandalism resulting in four reports, including from Rabbi Bentzion Alperowitz, a Chabad leader who discovered the Nazi symbol spray painted in black on his home’s white wall as he left for synagogue the next morning with his two young daughters.
“We will continue to live as proud Jews here in Bournemouth … I want to encourage everyone to do exactly the same,” Alperowitz said. “This is not the Bournemouth I know. Bournemouth is a kind, beautiful place and I feel this is still the truth for the vast majority of people here.”
Other members of the Jewish community came to assist the rabbi with removing the graffiti.
“[The] good news is that by the time you’re watching this video our wall will have been cleaned, thanks to some amazing people from the community, who came around to help clean it,” Alperowitz said.
Author Dov Forman wrote that “on Saturday morning, my friend Rabbi Benzion Alperowitz of Bournemouth Chabad walked outside to find a swastika on his home. Antisemitism is alive on our streets, yet it is too often excused and ignored. But it will not break us. We will continue to live proudly as Jews.”
Law enforcement has reportedly stepped up patrols in the town’s Jewish neighborhoods which include an estimated 2,000 people.
On Monday, the Community Security Trust (CST), an organization focused on monitoring antisemitic threats in the UK, released a statement saying that it was “appalled by a series of anti-Jewish hate crimes in Bournemouth over the weekend. These are abhorrent acts of racism that are deeply distressing for the Jewish community and should alarm everybody. We are supporting the local Jewish community and working with Dorset Police to assist their investigation. We urge anyone with information about these incidents to contact the police and CST.”
CST released a report of antisemitic incidents in the UK during 2024, finding 3,528 — the second highest ever — showing an 18-percent decrease from the all-time high of 4,296 in 2023.
Earlier this month, CST released a separate report noting the group recorded 1,521 antisemitic incidents in the UK from January to June of this year. It marks the second-highest total of incidents ever recorded by CST in the first six months of any year, following the first half of 2024 in which 2,019 antisemitic incidents were recorded in the aftermath of the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel.
“These hateful attacks on people and property in Bournemouth are extremely concerning. We have been informed that the police are investigating and hope that the perpetrators will be arrested and face the full force of the law,” Andrew Gilbert, vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said in a statement.
Maurice Michaels, who served as rabbi at Bournemouth Reform Synagogue, said that the community felt “very pressurized and anxious.” He added, “We’re getting terrified calls from people across the UK asking, ‘Is this really happening in Bournemouth?’ I’d never go out wearing my usual skull cap, I don’t show outward signs of being Jewish. I know community members who have even removed their mezuzah from their front door.”
Michaels described the antisemitic crimes as “a measure of what’s going on across the country, demonstrations where people cover their faces. They don’t want to be recognized because they know what they’re doing is wrong. We do the best we can to secure our safety. But when people attack our homes, when they shoot pellets — it gets to a point where it’s no longer a manageable situation. We’re frightened.”