Connect with us

RSS

A ‘Long War’ Is Not the Answer to Israel’s Security Problem — and Could Lead to Destruction (PART TWO)

An Israeli soldier stands during a two-minute siren marking the annual Israeli Holocaust Remembrance Day, at an installation at the site of the Nova festival where party goers were killed and kidnapped during the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas terrorists from Gaza, in Reim, southern Israel, May 6, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad

To read part one of this article, click here.

There are those who exhibit a romantic nostalgia for the hardships suffered by the founders of the state in the War of Independence — back then, we stood alone, the few against many. But after the first ceasefire in the War of Independence, the young IDF was able to strengthen itself and stand in an equal and even better power position than the armies of Egypt and the forces from the north. Note, by the way, that the IDF was largely unable to repel the Jordanian army, which was well equipped and organized.

Although Israel won the war of liberation, it did not even approach the defeat of its enemies and the achievement of complete victory. Determination and faith are important in war but do not guarantee military achievements. Embrace the difficulties of the past if you wish, but don’t expect those difficulties to somehow ensure success.

Ideology is also involved in the attempt to change the security concept. The Israeli right wing does not believe in reaching an agreement with the Palestinians, and is not interested in a binational state. To avoid a resolution is necessarily to choose endless war. According to Minister Bezalel Smotritch, Israel needs a security concept that entails a continuous war against the Palestinians until they are defeated. To this ideological way of thinking, endless war is justified if it has the purpose of eliminating the Palestinian threat to Israel.

In the Iron Swords War, the political leadership defined a goal that is impossible according to Ben-Gurion’s security concept, and the IDF set out to achieve that goal without a plan, a time frame, or the proper means in place. The IDF embarked on the Iron Swords War without a clear vision of what it was trying to achieve militarily, how long it would take, and what means it had at its disposal. A military plan must be based on resources that you know you have. You must never plan on unspecified quantities of capabilities, equipment, and time that are not already available to you.

Hezbollah’s entry into the war, which will occur in the manner chosen by Nasrallah, illustrates the absurdity of the way the Iron Swords War is being conducted. The entire northern region has been evacuated and abandoned indefinitely because the IDF is invested in Gaza and cannot allocate the necessary resources to protect the north.

What will Israel’s strategic situation be if the war in Gaza ends with a hostage agreement but without the Hamas regime having been “deported to Tunis”? Hamas (and the rest of Israel’s enemies) will be jubilant in their victory at having both achieved the release of Palestinian prisoners and survived to tell the tale. Will the price paid by Gaza, and perhaps the prevention of Gaza’s rehabilitation as long as Hamas is in power, be enough to reposition Israel as a regional military power?

Is a new concept of security — one in which every external threat is to be fought by war until its elimination — really required? The elimination of Hamas has not yet been achieved, and Israel has been at war with it for 10 months. How much time, armament, and military equipment will it take to eliminate Hezbollah? And after Hezbollah, what will prevent the forces supported by Iran in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen from continuing to fight? What will their military elimination look like? And what will move Iran to partner up with Abraham Accords?

According to the new concept, it is not possible to rely on deterrence because it always fails. There is also no point in short wars that do not completely eliminate the enemy. But if the goal of war is complete victory, it is mandatory to build a force that can support such an effort. How many days of war should the warehouses be prepared for? Weeks, months, or years?

If it is to enter a new “long war” era, the IDF will have to prepare and equip forces for wars that last years. Will the Israeli economy be able to withstand this? Will it be able to support “the largest army in the Middle East” (like after the Yom Kippur War)? Will the society that carries the economy on its back and serves in the reserves tolerate this? Will Israel continue to be a center of attraction for investors under such an economic structure? Will Israel’s enemies mount another attack like October 7 or just wait for the fruits of the Ben-Gurion concept to collapse? Israel’s “miracle” can be destroyed from within. Israel may have a well-equipped army, but what will happen to the country that relies on it?

In order to avoid ending the discussion on a vague statement that the concept of a long war for total victory and complete elimination of the threat is impossible and unrealistic, we will examine what Israel can still do according to the old concept.

If the Iron Swords War had been conducted according to the security concept, the following strategy could, for the sake of illustration, have been devised in October:

The IDF will be satisfied with severely hitting Hamas, not the entire territory of the Gaza Strip, while creating a completely demilitarized area in the north of the Gaza Strip. That area will later become the basis for the establishment of an alternative government.
Israel will arrive early at an agreement to free the abductees. This will be at the heavy price of releasing murderers and will allow the survival of some Hamas leaders, but will also allow for the design of a new border area and an obstacle that provides security for the returning residents of the surrounding communities.
As a result of these measures, Israel will maintain international support and perhaps even become a partner in a regional coalition with Saudi Arabia.
The IDF will be left with enough potential to fight Hezbollah — so much so that war might be prevented and an arrangement might be made that allows the residents of the north to return home.

True, this solution does not describe a complete victory, and Hamas would continue to exist. But the conditions would have been created for the establishment of an alternative government, at least in the north of the Gaza Strip, in an area that would begin to recover while the southern part of the Strip remains in ruins. It is possible that the IDF would have had to engage in another round of war in the southern Gaza Strip, but that is Israel’s fate. That is the way it was, and that is the way it will continue to be. The Hamas regime would have probably crumbled in half-destroyed Gaza, and the situation in the southern Gaza Strip would have provided Israel with deterrence at least until the next round.

It could have been a short war, just another round, but one that allowed a return to normality that made it possible to restore and recover.

The last 10 months have made clear that great pain does not confer desired abilities that did not previously exist. Israel is an island nation based on a reserve army. A long war is not a solution to a security problem. It is not possible to achieve complete victory, but we may well achieve complete failure if we pursue victory for too long without considering the limitations on our power, economy, and society.

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 TWO) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Iran Rejects US Talks, Signals It May Block UN From Nuclear Sites as Trump Leaves Door Open to Future Bombings

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi addresses a special session of the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, June 20, 2025. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

Iran announced Friday that it will not engage in nuclear talks with the United States, rejecting a two-week deadline set by US President Donald Trump for renewed negotiations aimed at resolving the ongoing standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program.

In a televised speech, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned what he described as Washington’s “complicity in the Israeli regime’s war of aggression against Iran,” and slammed recent US military strikes as a betrayal of diplomacy and a blow to any prospects for dialogue.

“Americans want to negotiate and have sent messages several times, but we clearly said that as long as [the Israeli] aggression doesn’t stop, there’s no place for dialogue,” the top Iranian diplomat said in an address on state television.

“No agreement has been made on the restart of negotiations. There has not even been any talk of negotiations,” Araghchi continued. “The subject of negotiations is out of question at present.”

However, he reassured that Tehran remains committed to diplomacy, but the decision to resume negotiations with Washington must be carefully evaluated.

“It is still early to say that the conditions are right for negotiations,” Araghchi said.

Meanwhile, Trump said he would consider carrying out further strikes on Iran if US intelligence reveals new concerns about the country’s uranium enrichment program.

“Sure, without question, absolutely,” Trump said Friday during a press briefing when asked if a second wave of bombings was possible.

During his speech, he also addressed the recent American and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, acknowledging that the damage was significant but adding that the regime is still assessing its full extent.

For its part, US intelligence officials have reported that Tehran’s nuclear sites were “severely damaged” during the American airstrikes last weekend.

Araghchi’s comments came as he met on Friday with his counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas in Geneva — marking their first meeting since the Iran-Israel war began.

Europe is actively urging Iran to reengage in talks with the White House in an effort to avert any further escalation of tensions.

In a post on X, Araghchi also announced that Iran may reject any requests by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, to visit the country’s nuclear sites.

He said this latest decision was “a direct result of [IAEA Director-General, Rafael Grossi]’s regrettable role in obfuscating the fact that the Agency — a full decade ago — already closed all past issues.”

“Through this malign action, he directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA BoG [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” the Iranian top diplomas said in a post on X.

“In an astounding betrayal of his duties, Grossi has additionally failed to explicitly condemn such blatant violations of IAEA safeguards and its Statute,” Araghchi continued.

Iran’s critique of Grossi comes as the Iranian parliament voted this week to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”

“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi wrote in his post on X.

The post Iran Rejects US Talks, Signals It May Block UN From Nuclear Sites as Trump Leaves Door Open to Future Bombings first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Argentina to Try Iranian, Lebanese Suspects in Absentia Over 1994 AMIA Bombing in Historic Legal Shift

People hold images of the victims of the 1994 bombing attack on the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) community center, marking the 30th anniversary of the attack, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 18, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Irina Dambrauskas

A federal judge in Argentina has ordered the trial in absentia of ten Iranian and Lebanese nationals suspected of orchestrating the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

The ten suspects set to stand trial include former Iranian and Lebanese ministers and diplomats, all of whom are subject to international arrest warrants issued by Argentina for their alleged roles in the country’s deadliest terrorist attack, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300.

In April, lead prosecutor Sebastián Basso — who took over the case after the 2015 murder of his predecessor, Alberto Nisman — requested that federal Judge Daniel Rafecas issue national and international arrest warrants for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over his alleged involvement in the attack.

This legal action marks a significant departure from Argentina’s previous stance in the case, under which the Iranian leader was regarded as having diplomatic immunity.

Since 2006, Argentine authorities have sought the arrest of eight Iranians — including former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who died in 2017 — yet more than three decades after the deadly bombing, all suspects remain still at large.

Thursday’s ruling marks the first time Argentina will try suspects in absentia, following a legal change in March that lifted the requirement for defendants to be physically present in court.

This latest legal move comes amid a renewed push for justice, with President Javier Milei vowing to hold those responsible for the attack accountable.

Among those accused of involvement in the terrorist attack are Ali Fallahijan, Iran’s intelligence and security minister from 1989 to 1997; Ali Akbar Velayati, former foreign minister; Mohsen Rezai, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps between 1993 and 1994; and Hadi Soleimanpour, former Iranian ambassador to Buenos Aires.

Also implicated are former Al Quds commander Ahmad Vahidi; Iranian diplomat Ahmad Reza Asghari; Mohsen Rabbani, the former cultural attaché at Iran’s embassy in Argentina; and Hezbollah operatives Salman Raouf Salman, Abdallah Salman, and Hussein Mounir Mouzannar.

According to Judge Rafecas, the defendants were declared in contempt of court years ago, remain fully informed of their legal standing, and have consistently disregarded multiple extradition requests.

He said that trying the suspects in absentia would give the courts a chance to “at least uncover the truth and piece together what happened.”

This latest decision acknowledges “the material impossibility of securing the defendants’ presence and the nature of the crime against humanity under investigation,” Rafecas said.

“It is essential to proceed … to prevent the perpetuation of impunity,” he continued.

Despite Argentina’s longstanding belief that Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah terrorist group carried out the devastating attack at Iran’s request, the 1994 bombing has never been claimed or officially solved.

Meanwhile, Tehran has consistently denied any involvement and has refused to arrest or extradite any suspects.

To this day, the decades-long investigation into the terror attack has been plagued by allegations of witness tampering, evidence manipulation, cover-ups, and annulled trials.

In 2006, former prosecutor Nisman formally charged Iran for orchestrating the attack and Hezbollah for carrying it out.

Nine years later, he accused former Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner — currently under house arrest on corruption charges — of attempting to cover up the crime and block efforts to extradite the suspects behind the AMIA atrocity in return for Iranian oil.

Nisman was killed later that year, and to this day, both his case and murder remain unresolved and under ongoing investigation.

The alleged cover-up was reportedly formalized through the memorandum of understanding signed in 2013 between Kirchner’s government and Iranian authorities, with the stated goal of cooperating to investigate the AMIA bombing.

Last year, Argentina’s second-highest court ruled that the 1994 attack in Buenos Aires was “organized, planned, financed, and executed under the direction of the authorities of the Islamic State of Iran, within the framework of Islamic Jihad.” The court also said that the bombing was carried out by Hezbollah terrorists responding to “a political and strategic design” by Iran.

The court additionally ruled that Iran was responsible for the 1992 truck bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people and injured 200 others.

Judges determined that the bombing of the Israeli Embassy was likely carried out in retaliation for then-President Carlos Menem’s cancellation of three agreements with Iran involving nuclear equipment and technology.

The post Argentina to Try Iranian, Lebanese Suspects in Absentia Over 1994 AMIA Bombing in Historic Legal Shift first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Jewish Civil Rights Scholar Urges US Congress to Respond to Antisemitism Crisis

Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law chairman Kenneth Marcus with Judiciary Committee chairman Congressman Jefferson Van Drew (R-NJ). Photo: Screenshot

Civil rights scholar Kenneth Marcus on Tuesday implored US lawmakers to recognize rising antisemitic violence as the civil rights crisis of this era and enact a robust policy response to it before the country is irreparably harmed.

Marcus, who is chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the George W. Bush administration’s Education Department, made the remarks during a US House hearing titled “Rising Threat: America’s Battle Against Antisemitic Terror.” Joined by other prominent Jewish civil rights activists, including Debra Cooper of the End Jew Hatred nonprofit, he stressed the urgency of what has become an unprecedented crisis.

“In 2025, Jewish Americans are under attack in our schools, places of work, health care settings, and on the streets of our major cities,” Marcus wrote in testimony shared with The Algemeiner. “In April, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence was set ablaze on the first night of Passover, targeted for being both Jewish and a vocal supporter of Israel. Here in DC, two Israeli Embassy staffers were brutally gunned down outside the Capital Jewish Museum by a man shouting, ‘Free Palestine.’”

He continued, “This violence is not occurring a vacuum. It is the product of a dangerous convergence of anti-Zionist extremism, support for designated foreign terrorist groups such as Hamas, and institutional complacency across key sectors of American life.”

Marcus went on to note that there is a subversive component to rising antisemitism, fueled by foreign agents who aim to mainstream antisemitism and therefore degrade American support for Israel to achieve their own foreign policy objectives.

“One significant and often overlooked driver of this radicalization is foreign influence,” he continued. “For years, hostile regimes, including Qatar and China, have funneled billions of dollars into American schools, often in the darkness, and frequently used to promote anti-Israel narratives and to marginalize or vilify Jews.”

Marcus’ testimony comes amid a spike in anti-Jewish violence.

Just last month, two Israeli diplomats, Yaron Lischinsky, 30, and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, 26 — a couple about to become engaged — were murdered as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum for young professionals and diplomatic staff hosted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Elias Rodriguez, a 31-year-old left-wing and anti-Israel activist from Chicago, was later charged in US federal court with murdering the embassy aides. According to witnesses and federal agents, he chanted, “Free, Free Palestine” — a war cry that has been a staple of the pro-Hamas movement.

An affidavit filed by federal authorities in support of the criminal complaint charging Rodriguez revealed that he also said at the scene of the shooting, “I did it for Palestine; I did it for Gaza.”

Less than two weeks later, an assailant firebombed a pro-Israel rally with Molotov cocktails and a “makeshift” flamethrower in Boulder, Colorado, injuring 15 people ranging in age from 25 to 88. Egyptian national Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, was charged with attempted murder and a slate of other crimes. Prosecutors say he yelled “Free Palestine” during the attack. The suspect also told investigators that he wanted to “kill all Zionist people,” according to court documents.

In Boston last week, anti-Israel activists targeted Israeli consulate staff by distributing a threatening flyer which included their pictures and names. One of the targeted officials, Consul General Benjamin Sharoni, issued a statement, saying that the flyer “is bullying, it is an intimidation, and a call to hostile action.” Meanwhile, the New England office of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said “it is deeply troubling in the current climate, where anti-Israel incitement has directly led to the brutal murder of two Israeli embassy staff members.”

As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the American Jewish community has been battered by antisemitic hate incidents throughout the country, forcing law enforcement to stay hot on the trails of those who perpetrate them amid a wave of recent outrages.

Last Tuesday, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland announced that it charged Florida native Jackson Traylor, 26, with sending baleful antisemitic messages which alluded to Nazism and the Holocaust. If convicted of the crimes, he could spend up to two years in federal prison.

“Go burn in an oven like your ancestors,” Traylor allegedly texted his victim. “Burn in a god damn oven … Stupid Jew … Hey, Jew, been a while since we spoke. Let me burn you alive like your ancestors Hail Hitler.”

Earlier this month, an antisemitic letter threatening violence was mailed to a resident of the Highland Park suburb in Chicago. So severe were its contents that the FBI and the Illinois Terrorism and Intelligence Center were called to the scene to establish that there was no imminent danger, according to local news outlets. Later, the local government shuttered all religious institutions as a precautionary measure.

In New York City, where antisemitic hate crimes have been increasing year over year and leading the nation in the statistical category, an elderly man struck a Jewish woman with his cane after shouting “Stupid b—tch. Go back to your country” — as reported by the New York Post. He became even more animated after the helpless woman, who was alone on a subway platform, began recording the encounter with her smartphone. The New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) Crimestoppers division has asked the public to come forward if they recognize the man, whose visage was captured in crystal clear screenshots pulled from footage of the attack.

Another antisemitic incident motivated by anti-Zionism occurred in San Francisco, where an assailant identified by law enforcement as Juan Diaz-Rivas and others allegedly beat up a Jewish victim in the middle of the night. Diaz-Rivas and his friends approached the victim while shouting “F—ck the Jews, Free Palestine,” according to local prosecutors.

Marcus said on Tuesday that Congress must act to make a difference.

“Congress should consider additional measures to address this crisis,” he said. “Congress should, for example, require that courts and agencies consider whether an institution has stated its compliance with applicable federal laws and executive orders, including especially President [Donald] Trump’s Executive Order 13899 when determining whether their responses to anti-Semitism constitute ‘deliberate indifference’ to discrimination and harassment under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post Jewish Civil Rights Scholar Urges US Congress to Respond to Antisemitism Crisis first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News