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
Pro-Hamas Groups Planting Seeds of Domestic Terrorism in US, New Report Says
Pro-Hamas activists gather in Washington Square Park for a rally following a protest march held in response to an NYPD sweep of an anti-Israel encampment at New York University in Manhattan, May 3, 2024. Photo: Matthew Rodier/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Domestic terrorism may be the end game for the over 150 pro-Hamas groups operating on colleges campuses and elsewhere across the US to foster anti-Israel demonstrations, according to a new report by the Capital Research Center (CRC) think tank.
“The movement contains militant elements pushing it toward a wider, more severe campaign focused on property destruction and violence properly described as domestic terrorism,” researcher Ryan Mauro wrote in the report, titled “Marching Toward Violence: The Domestic Anti-Israeli Protest Movement,” which was published last week. “It demands the ‘dismantlement’ of America’s ‘colonialist,’ ‘imperialist,’ or ‘capitalist,’ system, often calling for the US to be abolished as a country.”
He continued, “These revolutionary goals are held by the two different factions of the anti-Israel extremist groups. The first faction combines Islamists, communists/Marxists, and anarchists. The second faction consists of groups with white supremacist/nationalist ideologies. They share Jew-hatred, anti-Americanism, and the goal of sparking a revolutionary uprising.”
The group that is most responsible for the anti-Israel protest movement is Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), according to the report.
Drawing on statements issued and actions taken by SJP and their collaborators, Mauro made the case that toolkits published by SJP herald Hamas for perpetrating mass casualties of civilians; SJP has endorsed Iran’s attacks on Israel as well as its stated intention to overturn the US-led world order; and other groups under its umbrella have called on followers to “Bring the Intifada Home.” Such activities, the report explained, accelerated after Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7, which pro-Hamas groups perceived as an inflection point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an opportunity. By flooding the internet and college campuses with agitprop and staging activities — protests or vandalisms — they hoped to manufacture a critical mass of youth support for their ideas, thus creating an army of revolutionaries willing to adopt Hamas’s aims as their own.
The result has been a series of the kinds of incidents seen in academia during fall semester.
Last month, when Jews around the world mourned on the anniversary of Oct. 7, a Harvard University student group called on pro-Hamas activists to “Bring the war home” and proceeded to vandalize a campus administrative building. The group members, who described themselves as “anonymous,” later said in a statement, “We are committed to bringing the war home and answering the call to open up a new front here in the belly of the beast.”
On the same day, the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) issued a similar statement, saying “now is the time to escalate,” adding, “Harvard’s insistence on funding slaughter only strengthens our moral imperative and commitment to our demands.”
More recently, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) student wrote a journal article which argued that violence is a legitimate method of effecting political change and, moreover, advancing the pro-Palestinian movement.
In September, during Columbia University’s convocation ceremony, Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a group which recently split due to racial tensions between Arabs and non-Arabs, distributed a pamphlet which called on students to join Hamas.
“This booklet is part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the thawabit and the Palestinian resistance movement overall by transmitting the words of the resistance directly,” said the manifesto, distributed by CUAD, an SJP spinoff, to incoming freshmen. “This material aims to build popular support for the Palestinian war of national liberation, a war which is waged through armed struggle.”
Other sections of it were explicitly Islamist, invoking the name of “Allah, the most gracious” and referring to Hamas as the “Islamic Resistance Movement.” Proclaiming, “Glory to Gaza that gave hope to the oppressed, that humiliated the ‘invincible’ Zionist army,” it said its purpose was to build an army of Muslims worldwide.
“Groups in the pro-terrorism, anti-Israel movement co-exist as our concentric circles of increasing malevolence,” Mauro said of the level of support for revolutionary violence on college campuses. “Groups in the outermost circle avoid risks as they recruit new protest members and seek to integrate as many political causes as possible under the anti-Israel umbrella … Some militants aspire to incorporate the campaign into a broader wear on law enforcement if not an insurgency.”
As The Algemeiner has previously reported, pro-Hamas activists have already demonstrated that they are willing to hurt people to achieve their goals.
Last year, in California, an elderly Jewish man was killed when an anti-Zionist professor employed by a local community college allegedly pushed him during an argument. At Cornell University in upstate New York, a student threatened to rape and kill Jewish female students and”“shoot up” the campus’ Hillel center. Violence, according to a report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), was most common at universities in the state of California, where anti-Zionist activists punched a Jewish student for filming him at a protest.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Pro-Hamas Groups Planting Seeds of Domestic Terrorism in US, New Report Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump’s Pick for US Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, Draws Ire Over Lawmaker’s Record on Antisemitism
US Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) speaks at a campaign rally for Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump in Henderson, Nevada, US, Oct. 31, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Blake
US President-elect Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that he plans to nominate Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) as his attorney general for the incoming administration, drawing attention to the lawmaker’s record on antisemitism, which has prompted criticism from prominent Jewish organizations.
Lawmakers from both major US political parties reacted with surprise and disbelief at the prospect of elevating Gaetz — a scandal-ridden figure with charges of sexual misconduct — to one of the most powerful positions in the federal government whose responsibilities include combating discrimination and hate crimes.
The divisive appointment faces dubious odds of succeeding in Senate confirmation, given Gaetz’s widespread unpopularity even among his Republican colleagues.
Gaetz resigned from Congress on Wednesday, reportedly days before the House Ethics Committee was set to release the findings of its investigation into the congressman’s sexual misconduct and drug use allegations.
Earlier this year, Gaetz objected to the Antisemitism Awareness Act, arguing that the widely accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism undermines the teaching that Jews are responsible for killing Jesus.
“The Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of this bill!” Gaetz wrote on X/Twitter. “The Bible is clear. There is no myth or controversy on this.”
The legislation ultimately passed the house in May by a 320-91 margin.
Gaetz has also condemned the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a “racist” organization after it called on Fox News to punish former host Tucker Carlson for spreading the controversial “Great Replacement Theory.” The theory, which is often promoted by white nationalists, posits that Jews are responsible for trafficking hordes of migrants into the United States for the purpose of replacing the white majority.
In 2018, Gaetz offered Chuck Johnson, a right-wing political activist and Holocaust denier, a ticket to the State of the Union. Though Gaetz initially denied knowledge of Johnson’s Holocaust denialism, he refused to rescind the activist’s invitation after it was brought to his attention by a staffer. Gaetz subsequently defended Johnson in an interview, lauding the right-wing provocateur as “polite.”
“He’s not a Holocaust denier, he’s not a white supremacist. Those are unfortunate characterizations of him, but I did not know he was as perhaps as infamous and controversial as he was when he came by to my office. … He was a polite and just entirely appropriate guest I thought,” Gaetz said in an interview to Fox Business.
In 2019, Gaetz hired a former Trump speechwriter who was canned from his position after his ties to a white nationalist conference became public. The speechwriter, Darren Beattie, spoke at the H.L. Mencken Club Conference, an event that drew famous white nationalists and antisemites such as Richard Spencer.
In 2018, the lawmaker peddled the conspiracy theory that Jewish billionaire George Soros paid migrants to join caravans headed to the United States. In 2023, Gaetz engaged in a fiery debate with American University Professor Pamela Nadell over whether criticism of Soros should be considered an antisemitic trope.
ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt took to X/Twitter to criticize Gaetz’s selection for attorney general.
“Rep. Matt Gaetz has a long history of trafficking in antisemitism — from explaining his vote against the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act by invoking the centuries-old trope that Jews killed Jesus to defending the Great Replacement Theory and inviting a Holocaust denier as his 2018 State of the Union guest. He should not be appointed to any high office, much less one overseeing the impartial execution of our nation’s laws,” Greenblatt wrote.
Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) slammed Gaetz’s nomination as a “reckless pick.” He added that “Gaetz has a better shot at having dinner with Queen Elizabeth II than being confirmed by the Senate.”
The American Jewish Committee (AJC) condemned Gaetz’s previous remarks as “disqualifying” and urged Trump to “reconsider” the nomination.
“Matt Gaetz’s history of problematic remarks — including perpetuating antisemitic conspiracy theories — should be disqualifying for anyone seeking to be America’s top law enforcement officer,” the AJC said.
Gaetz, a firebrand with strong ties to fringe elements of the Republican party, faces long odds in making it through the Senate’s confirmation process. While Gaetz’s combative nature has eroded his relationships with many of his fellow GOP colleagues, the lawmaker still has some influence, as evinced by his successful effort to oust then-Republican leader Kevin McCarthy from his position as Speaker of the House last year.
The post Trump’s Pick for US Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, Draws Ire Over Lawmaker’s Record on Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Swiss Museum Compensates Jewish Heirs of Nazi Looted Painting for Pissarro Artwork
A partial view of Camille Pissarro’s “La Maison Rondest, l’Hermitage, Pontoise” (1875). Photo: Provided by the Kunstmuseum Basel
A museum in Basel, Switzerland, said on Thursday it will compensate the heirs of the late German-Jewish textile entrepreneur Richard Semmel for a Camille Pissarro painting he was forced to sell due to Nazi persecution.
Kunstmuseum Basel said that, together with Semmel’s heirs, they decided upon the compensation payment as a “just and fair solution” regarding Pissarro’s “La Maison Rondest, l’Hermitage, Pontoise” (1875). The painting will remain a part of the museum’s permanent collection in its main building and will be displayed alongside a sign that explains the origins and history of the artwork. The exact amount of the compensation payment was not revealed.
“The Kunstmuseum is delighted to be able to retain the work in its collection and the heirs are satisfied with the solution,” the museum stated in a press release.
The Pissarro artwork was donated to the museum in early 2021. It was part of the collection of the late Dr. Klaus von Berlepsch and was set to appear as a loan in an exhibition at the museum about the famed artist. However, even before the exhibition opened, von Berlepsch decided to donate the work to the Kunstmuseum Basel. The museum and von Berlepsch were both unaware of the painting’s provenance at the time of the donation. The Swiss institution researched the painting’s provenance only after it joined the museum’s collection and “prior ownership by the Jewish entrepreneur Richard Semmel was quickly revealed,” the museum said.
Semmel owned a Berlin-based linens manufacturing company called Arthur Samulon, which he led as sole shareholder starting in 1919. In June 1933, Semmel he and his wife emigrated to the Netherlands, which was not yet under Nazi occupation. The couple had no children. Semmel himself said that he left Germany not only due to “racial” persecution by the Nazis, but also because he was accused of having ties to the Social Democratic party.
He managed to transport a large portion of his art collection of more than 100 works to the Netherlands and the Pissarro painting was sold at auction in Amsterdam in June 1933. In October of that same year, it was displayed at a gallery in Basel, where it was quickly sold to the collector Walther Hanhart. Around 1974, Hanhart passed the painting on to his daughter, who was married to von Berlepsch.
Proceeds from the sale of his art were used by Semmel to mitigate financial difficulties his linens company faced in Berlin and was also spent on salaries, debt repayments, and taxes. The Kunstmuseum Basel explained that the National Socialist Factory Cell Organization, which was a worker’s union controlled by the Nazi Party, ordered that despite a decrease in orders from Semmel’s company, no employees could be dismissed, so Semmel was forced to continue paying them and keeping the business afloat from abroad.
“From the point of view of Semmel’s heirs, the sales [of his art] were a direct consequence of Richard Semmel’s persecution, regardless of where they took place, and thus represent a loss of assets due to Nazi persecution,” according to the Kunstmuseum Basel. “Richard Semmel could not remain in Germany or could do so only at great risk to his life. He used the proceeds from the sale of his paintings to try to keep the linens business in Berlin operational. The art sale proceeds therefore flowed into the German Reich.”
“Semmel thus fought for economic control of his companies in Germany while on the run and outside the Nazis’ immediate sphere of influence, albeit in vain and most likely with no chance of success to begin with. For this reason, the Kunstmuseum and the Kunstkommission [Art Commission] agree that the heirs’ claim to the work is justified.”
In June 1939, Semmel and his wife fled again but this time to New York via Chile. They lived in the US in poverty and with poor health. After his wife’s death in 1945, Semmel was taken care of by an acquaintance from Berlin, Grete Gross née Eisenstaedt (1887-1958). As thanks, he appointed her as his sole heir. When she died in 1958, her daughter Ilse Kauffmann became Semmel’s heir. Kauffmann is now deceased and her two daughters will receive the compensation payment from the Kunstmuseum Basel.
The Swiss institution said several museums have also determined that Semmel was forced to sell his art collection due to Nazi persecution. Some have restituted arworks to Semmel’s heirs — such as The National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia — and others have paid his heirs compensation for the artwork, including a Dutch museum in 2021. Kunstmuseum said that privately, there have been “numerous” out-of-court settlements with Semmel’s heirs about artwork that he formerly owned.
In 2022, a landscape painting by Claude Monet was auctioned by Christie’s for $25.5 million and portions of the sale were divided between Semmel’s heirs and a French family who are the painting’s current owners.
The post Swiss Museum Compensates Jewish Heirs of Nazi Looted Painting for Pissarro Artwork first appeared on Algemeiner.com.