RSS
How Can Israel Hold a Real Discussion on Values Promoted by National Security?
Thousands of Jews gather for a mass prayer for the hostages in Gaza at the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem, Jan. 10, 2024. Photo: Yaacov Cohen
Protecting a country from threats, or, in the case of Israel, ensuring its survival, is the organic and self-evident essence of national security. It is clear, for example, that the existence of the State of Israel in the Middle East for years to come depends on its ability to eradicate Hamas after the October 7 massacre.
But national security is also a way to promote the values of a state — especially in Israel, which bases its existence on the two values of being both Jewish and democratic. The values that national security promotes are determined by the elected political echelon and are expressed in guidelines (the “directive”) given to the security echelon.
These values, about which there is now much public debate, extend the remit of national security beyond protection from threats. Three cases of such public discussion arising from the Iron Swords War are the struggle over how to return the hostages from Gaza, the movement pushing for the re-establishment of settlements in the Gaza Strip, and the call to take advantage of the eradication of Hamas to advance Israel’s relations in the region and promote peace through the establishment of a Palestinian state.
This is essentially a debate over three values: Israel’s commitment to human life, the importance of a Jewish presence in the entire Biblical land of Israel, and the promotion of peace. These discussions are wrapped in seemingly security-related arguments: “The return of the hostages is a national security need because it confirms Israel’s political commitment to the personal security of its citizens”; “Only settlements in Gaza will ensure the presence of the IDF in a way that promotes Israel’s security”; and “the establishment of a Palestinian state is the key to ensuring Israel’s security over time.”
In practice, these statements express the beliefs of those who hold them, not a deep and professional national security analysis. Therefore, they are not of much use to national decision-makers as to what values to promote within the framework of national security. They express an empty and pointless debate that wraps fundamental beliefs in a non-systemic security argument and are therefore not relevant to the government’s decisions.
So how should we discuss the values national security should promote?
We need to separate the discussion into three levels:
Why? It is critical to clearly identify the value that is being promoted and determine how high it is in the hierarchy of values that the State of Israel, in the eyes of the believer, must promote. For example, belief in the supremacy of the value of human life over all other considerations reflects belief in the assertion that the hostages must be released at any cost. Belief in the connection between the people of Israel and the complete biblical Land of Israel reflects belief in the need to settle all parts of the Land of Israel. The desire to maintain a quiet, comfortable, advanced and Western life and to reduce the bloodshed reflects belief in the pursuit of peace through the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is difficult to hold debates on this level because it is in the domain of belief, not realistic decisions.
What? The various ways these beliefs can be promoted must be defined. For example, the supremacy of the value of human life in the context of the hostages can be expressed in a deal, in bold actions for their release within the framework of the “Entebbe doctrine,” or in avoiding deals that surrender to terrorism in the current round in order to eliminate the logic of the other side holding hostages in the next ones. The belief in a Jewish presence in the entire biblical Land of Israel can be expressed in the establishment of settlements, but also in the military possession of territory, the establishment of “Garinei Nahal” (small settlements populated by soldiers), forestry and agriculture, or the establishment of nature reserves. The pursuit of a peaceful life and the reduction of bloodshed can manifest in the pursuit of regional peace agreements, the establishment of a Palestinian state, a separation and seclusion policy, or the development of economic-civil relations. At this level, a substantive debate on the different alternatives can begin.
How? The practical methods of implementation of the different alternatives must be defined. For instance, a deep commitment to human life can be promoted in a combined form of local swap agreements and military operations. Control over land can be divided between areas where there is a distinct advantage to civilian settlements and areas where it is more logical to establish control in other ways. The pursuit of a peaceful life and the reduction of bloodshed, which requires partners on the other side, can be promoted through various lines of cooperation with them.
The segmentation of belief into the three levels of Why, What, and How is only the first step. The more essential need is to examine the broad considerations and decide if to promote these values in the first place. In this framework, several principles should be maintained:
Analysis of tensions and similarities among variables: The differences between the values, the various ways of realizing them, and the defensive requirements of national security must all be analyzed. To move forward toward a decision, these concepts must be mapped and prioritized. For example, some of the possible components of a hostage deal are in inherent tension with the need for national security to eradicate Hamas and prevent it as much as possible from restoring its military, political and civil power and status. The establishment of settlements in the Gaza Strip stands in tension with a realistic assessment of the severe international opposition there would inevitably be to such a move. The promotion of peace agreements with the Palestinians stands in tension with Israel’s operational need to protect against terrorist threats. But good decisions cannot be made based on partial statements. In order to enable good decisions to be made, these tensions and the connections between them must be mapped.
A realistic assessment of the situation: These tensions and connections must be presented in a way that corresponds with a professional and realistic assessment of the strategic and practical situation. Statements like “We can thwart the senior terrorists we release after the deal is completed”; “The world will accept our view on the establishment of settlements in Gaza if we are determined enough”; or “The Palestinians will lose their desire for terrorism as a result of the dynamics of peace” express not a realistic assessment of the situation but the wishful thinking of the believers. They do not promote real discussion but instead constitute second and third lines of defense to help believers deal with the tensions between their desires and reality.
To make brave decisions and stick to them: Adapting a value and manifesting its expression in national security efforts is an inherent part of national conduct in every country and in Israel even more so. If, after a complex and deep discussion, the What and How of a value are identified and viable efforts are found to protect it, it is logical to accept the decision and stick to its implementation. A vague approach of “both this and that” may be convenient for the postponing of difficult decisions but causes lasting damage to national security. One can decide to resort to ambiguity on certain issues, but that decision must represent a conscious choice, not the avoidance of one.
Promoting values within the framework of national security, if done responsibly, will always create a mixture of policies. There are few cases where the right and realistic choice is to “go all the way.” Even in the case of issues that appear to be clear-cut, not “everything” is done. The State of Israel made a realistic choice not to do “everything” to capture, try, or execute the Nazi criminals, even though it had every moral justification to do so. Decisions on issues of value such as the release of the hostages, the establishment of settlements or the promotion of peace will always be a mixture of elements the decision-makers aim to achieve and elements they do not.
Know how to analyze when the reality has changed and an update is required: A dynamic strategic environment requires renewed examinations of the What and the How along the way. The state may have decided not to make certain moves in a certain situation, but a change in the circumstances might put those moves back on the table. For example, the eradication of Hamas leadership in Gaza and perhaps outside it as well could allow Israel to be more generous in negotiations on the release of the hostages; a change of administration in the US could allow a new discussion on the characteristics of the settlements; and the establishment of a new leadership in the Palestinian Authority after Abu Mazen could change the situation regarding the peace process. Discussions on the way fundamental values are realized within the framework of national security are, therefore, dynamic.
Flexibility and deniability: One of the greatest strategic problems facing the State of Israel is the fact that nearly everything is immediately broadcast openly by the media. Decision-makers must have maximum flexibility to make and implement their decisions. Unnecessary discussions in the media that bare every decision to the public damage deniability, which is an essential tool of national security. Most countries in the world – admittedly in democracies it is more difficult – use deniability to advance their national security. It cannot be that only the State of Israel is to be denied this tool because of the needs of media organizations, journalists and commentators. In the promotion of national values there must always be an element of deniability: tacit consent and turning a blind eye.
Knowing when to stop and change course: Some values will remain unrealizable. The decision makers will continue to hold them but will not be able to implement them. This is a healthy part of the democratic and strategic conduct of a country. Many Israelis, including decision-makers, wanted, for moral and historical reasons, to intervene in Syria a decade ago to stop the regime’s massacre of innocent civilians, including at distances close to the Israeli border. A realistic situational assessment of the meaning of such an intervention and the aid and rescue moves it would have entailed stopped Israel from going down that path except to provide local aid, mainly civilian and medical, for residents of the Golan Heights.
A substantive discussion about which values should be realized within the framework of national security during this war is important for the existence of the state. Rather than becoming a pointless series of skirmishes over beliefs, this discussion must be carried out in a professional and serious manner in accordance with the principles outlined above.
Col. (res.) Shai Shabtai is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and an expert in national security, strategic planning, and strategic communication. He is a strategist in the field of cyber security and a consultant to leading companies in Israel.
A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post How Can Israel Hold a Real Discussion on Values Promoted by National Security? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Students of Columbia University Affiliate School Petition Administration to Hire Pro-Hamas Professor
The “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” at Columbia University, located in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on April 25, 2024. Photo: Reuters Connect
Students of the Union Theological Seminary (UTS), an affiliate school of Columbia University, are pushing the institution to hire an academic who was just terminated for defending the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
Dr. Mohamed Abdou, a visiting professor in modern Arab studies who defended Hamas after the terrorist group slaughtered over 1,200 people and kidnapped about 250 others during its Oct. 7 onslaught, was reportedly relieved of his duties at Columbia University as of Sunday. Following Abdou’s firing, UTS students circulated a petition calling on the seminary to extend the anti-Israel academic an offer of employment.
“We condemn Columbia University’s efforts to stifle any mobilization around [the Palestinian] cause and its repressive, anti-Palestinian victimization of Dr. Abdou,” the petition reads.
“We ask the UTS administration to hire Dr. Abdou for the 2024-2025 academic year,” the petition continues.
During a US congressional hearing on campus antisemitism in April, Columbia President Minouche Shafik promised lawmakers that the university would terminate Abdou at the conclusion of the school year, citing his repeated public endorsements of violence against Israel and endorsement of terrorist groups.
During a Jan. 5 interview with Revolutionary Left Radio, Abdou heaped praise on Hamas, referring to the terrorist organization as a “resistance” and dismissed criticism of the terrorist organization as “white supremacy.” In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, many pro-Palestinian groups have similarly defended Hamas a a “resistance” group and referred to the Oct. 7 atrocities as “self-defense.”
On Jan. 16. the Columbia Middle East Institute tapped Abdou to serve as lead instructor for a course on “Decolonial-Queerness & Abolition.” According to the course description, students analyzed “Euro-American informed modernity animated by (neo)liberal-Enlightenment values (free will/humanity, secularism, racial capitalism)” and “contemporary conceptualizations of family, kinship, and friendship in Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities within the context of settler-colonial societies (as the U.S./Canada) as well as in postcolonial nations and regions (as Southwest Asia, Africa, and the Middle East) that arguably never underwent adequate decolonization.”
Abdou faced intense criticism after a student recorded and circulated a course lecture in which he denounced Israel as a “settler colonial” entity that was inspired by American-style beliefs on private property, gender, and sexuality.
Following Shafik’s congressional testimony, Abdou claimed that the Columbia president “lied” about his firing and accused her of “misrepresenting” his opinions. He reiterated his support for Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are backed by Iran.
Abdou’s public support for terrorism has caused a firestorm of controversy with Columbia students and alumni, calling into question the university’s commitment to fostering a tolerant and safe environment for Jewish and Israeli students.
Abdou indicated gratitude for the petition on X/Twitter, saying that he is “indebted for this generous initiative.” He called on his supporters to sign and spread the petition “as far [and] as wide as possible.”
The post Students of Columbia University Affiliate School Petition Administration to Hire Pro-Hamas Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Australian War Memorials Vandalized With Pro-Hamas Graffiti
A war memorial in Canberra was vandalized by anti-Israel graffiti. Photo: Screenshot
Multiple memorials near the Australian War Memorial have been defaced with anti-Israel graffiti as Australian policymakers grapple with how to manage a rise in antisemitism that has continued unabated since the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Located on Anzac Parade — named in honor of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) — near downtown Canberra, vandals spray-painted pro-Hamas messages onto sites dedicated to those who died fighting for Australia in war. The messages included “Free Palestine,” “Free Gaza,” “Blood on your hands,” and “From the river to the sea” — the last of which is a popular slogan among anti-Israel activists calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The Australian National Korean War Memorial, Australian Vietnam Forces National Memorial, and the Australian Army National Memorial were all targeted over the weekend, as well as a wall between the memorials along Anzac Parade.
The incidents sparked outcry among Australian lawmakers and members of the Jewish community. In parliament, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the vandalism as “criminal” and called for the perpetrators to “get exposed publicly as well for who they are. We know what they are — they’re unworthy of having any respect and any leniency as a result of their own actions.”
The Australian Jewish Association wrote on X/Twitter in response to the desecration of the war memorials, “The anti-Israel movement is one of the ugliest Australia has ever seen.”
Condemnation of the vandalism by Australia’s politicians was not universal, however. On the far left, Green Party Senator Jordan Steele-John refused to support a motion from a fellow lawmaker condemning the memorials’ desecration. “War memorials are not politically neutral spaces,” Steele-John argued to the Senate.
Adam Brandt – the leader of the Green Party who days after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel condemned “Israel’s occupation — declined to comment on whether vandalism is a legitimate form of protest.
Over 17,000 ANZAC soldiers fought in Korea and 60,000 in Vietnam. ANZAC forces also participated in the Gallipoli campaign of World War I.
Australia’s Senate has faced growing calls to recognize a Palestinian state. Recently, Fatima Payman — a newly elected senator and member of the majority Labour party — was suspended by Albanese after voting against the Labour Party’s official position when she supported a Green Party motion for Palestinian statehood.
Meanwhile, the city council of Sydney — one of Australia’s largest and wealthiest cities — last week passed a motion calling on lawmakers to review its investment portfolio to determine whether it is linked to companies which provide arms and other services to the state of Israel. Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore, who is not formally affiliated with any political party, backed the idea to move toward adopting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.
Such political steps have come amid a surge in antisemitic incidents across Australia.
In just the first seven and a half weeks after the Oct. 7 atrocities, antisemitic activity in Australia increased by a staggering 591 percent, according to a tally of incidents by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
In one notorious episode in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas onslaught, hundreds of pro-Hamas protesters gathered outside the Sydney Opera House chanting “gas the Jews,” “f—k the Jews,” and other epithets.
The explosion of hate also included violence such as a brutal attack on a Jewish man in a park in Sydney in late October.
Pro-Hamas sentiment has also led to vandalism. Last month, the US consulate in Sydney was vandalized and defaced by an unidentified man carrying a sledgehammer who smashed the windows and graffitied inverted red triangles on the building. The inverted red triangle has become a common symbol at pro-Hamas rallies. The Palestinian terrorist group, which rules Gaza, has used inverted red triangles in its propaganda videos to indicate Israeli targets about to be attacked. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “the red triangle is now used to represent Hamas itself and glorify its use of violence.”
The post Australian War Memorials Vandalized With Pro-Hamas Graffiti first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Rabbi Tory Candidate Berated Outside British Mosque, Called a ‘Snake’ and ‘Child Killer’
Illustrative: A pro-Hamas march in London, United Kingdom, Feb. 17, 2024. Photo: Chrissa Giannakoudi via Reuters Connect
A rabbi and Tory parliamentary candidate in England was berated with accusations of “smiling like a snake” and supporting the murder of children during a recent visit to a mosque in Greater Manchester, which has become a hub of antisemitic activity since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel.
Rabbi Arnold Saunders, the Conservative candidate for the heavily Jewish seat of Bury South, was invited last week to Bilal Mosque, located in the town of Prestwich, by its elders. During his visit, however, a member of the mosque began aggressively shouting at the elderly rabbi, who uses a cane, according to video circulated on X /Twitter.
“You are a snake”
WATCH the threatening way Rabbi Arnie Saunders was treated when he was invited to the Bilal Mosque in Prestwich, Manchester in his role as the Conservative candidate for Bury South by the mosque elders. That he was allowed to be abused, intimidated and have his… pic.twitter.com/X4PZTsteLq
— NW Friends of Israel (@NorthWestFOI) June 30, 2024
In the video, the enraged worshiper can be seen demanding that Saunders “condemn the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] in the strongest terms” for its military campaign targeting Hamas in Gaza.
“Don’t come to the house of Allah and try to engage with us when we know that what when you’re in your own places you’re saying that it is good that they are killing children,” the man continued.
“He’s happy that children are dying. Ask him to go,” he told mosque officials. “We don’t want to engage with these people.”
Muslim worshipers berate Rabbi Arnold Saunders outside of a mosque in Greater Manchester, England. Photo: Screenshot
“You come here and smile like a snake,” the protestor screamed at the rabbi as he stood up to leave.
Saunders attempted multiple times to respond to the man’s accusations but was repeatedly cut off. According to the video, other members of the mosque watching the exchange did not attempt to defend the rabbi.
British Jewish organizations quickly condemned the abuse of Saunders.
“We are disgusted by the abusive treatment of Rabbi Arnold Saunders … the footage clearly shows the rabbi was being targeted in this fashion due to his religion,” the UK’s main Jewish organization, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said in a statement. “We urge all who care about the health of our democracy to call out this bigotry.”
The Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester & Region (JRC) similarly lambasted the treatment of Saunders.
“Rabbi Saunders is a much respected communal figure and we unequivocally condemn his treatment in this video. It is unquestionably antisemitic and we expect action to be taken,” the organization posted to social media. “The fact he has been attacked emphasizes how individuals are importing the tragic conflict taking place in Israel and Gaza onto the streets of the UK.”
North West Friends of Israel, an organization supporting Jews in the northwestern UK condemned the scene as well.
“That he was allowed to be abused, intimidated and have his personal space invaded is disgraceful and shocking,” the group said. “He must have feared for his safety. By contrast two of the mosque elders were recently invited to the Jewish Community of Manchester Bury South Hustings and treated with nothing but courtesy and respect.”
Saunders’ opponent for the British parliamentary seat in Bury South, Labour lawmaker Christian Wakeford, wished the rabbi his best. “Despite political disagreements, Rabbi Saunders and I have always had an excellent relationship and I hope he is OK following this incident.”
Recently, Manchester has evolved into somewhat of a hub for antisemitic and anti-Israel activity following the Hamas terrorist attacks of Oct. 7.
Earlier this year, two Israeli survivors of the Oct. 7 atrocities were detained and subjected to discrimination while being processed at Manchester Airport. According to the JRC, the two individuals, who were traveling to the UK to discuss narrowly escaping the Hamas onslaught, were singled out upon presenting their Israeli passports and explaining why they were there. British Border Force officers allegedly forced the Israelis to submit to two hours of “detention and interrogation,” as well as abusive comments.
More recently, a world map on the wall of Manchester’s Airport was removed by airport authorities after they were notified by the organization UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) that the Jewish state was crossed out and instead labeled “Palestine.”
“While we are very grateful to Manchester Airport for its swift action, we are concerned that people are unable to walk past a map that mentions ‘ISRAEL’ without deleting its name,” ULKFI said of the incident. “This shows an extremely worrying attitude to the world’s only Jewish state.”
The post Rabbi Tory Candidate Berated Outside British Mosque, Called a ‘Snake’ and ‘Child Killer’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.