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
Iran to Deny UN Inspectors Access to Nuclear Sites, Top Lawmaker Says, Amid Rising Pressure for New Deal
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi arrives on the opening day of the agency’s quarterly Board of Governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Nov. 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
Iran will not grant access to its nuclear facilities during next week’s visit by a delegation from the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), amid growing international pressure to reach a nuclear deal and avoid new sanctions, according to a top Iranian lawmaker.
On Monday, the head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s parliament, Ebrahim Azizi, confirmed that the visiting IAEA team will only be authorized to hold “technical and expert-level talks” with Iranian officials and experts.
“According to the laws passed by parliament, Iran will not let physical access to its nuclear facilities under any circumstances,” Azizi said in a press conference reported by Iranian state-run media.
“No inspector from the IAEA team or any other foreign organization will be allowed to be present at our country’s nuclear sites,” the Iranian lawmaker continued.
In June, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
At the time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attributed the decision to IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s alleged bias against Tehran and a recent resolution accusing Iran of failing to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog over alleged “undeclared nuclear activities.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi said in a post on X.
Grossi “directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” he continued.
During a press conference on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explained that next week’s visit by IAEA officials to Iran is intended to discuss the “method of interaction” with the agency.
“We are facing exceptional circumstances, as the facilities of a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] have been illegally attacked by two nuclear-armed regimes,” Baghaei said.
“Unfortunately, the IAEA did not remain impartial, failed to condemn the attacks, and instead issued a report that provided a kind of political ground for making excuses,” the Iranian diplomat continued.
In June, Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to stop the regime from building nuclear weapons. Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The UN nuclear watchdog’s upcoming visit comes as Iran faces growing international pressure to resume negotiations on its nuclear program.
Last month, Tehran made its first attempt at direct talks with European powers since Israel, with the support of the US, launched an airstrike campaign targeting the country’s nuclear facilities and ballistic-missile capabilities.
The United Kingdom, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have previously warned they would reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran if no new agreement is reached by the end of August.
The sanctions were originally lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which imposed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief.
Although the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under President Donald Trump’s first administration, Iran and the three European nations have continued to uphold the deal.
Under the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear accord, international sanctions could be reimposed on Iran through a “snapback” mechanism that would take about 30 days.
As for the United States, Iran has insisted that Washington must compensate Tehran for the losses incurred during the recent 12-day war with Israel to pave the way for renewed negotiations.
However, Araghchi made clear that a deal would remain off the table as long as Trump continued to demand that Iran commit to zero uranium enrichment.
RSS
US Sen. Cory Booker Refuses to Endorse Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Photo: Reuters / Rebecca Cook.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) declined to endorse New York Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani in his bid for New York City mayor, underscoring a simmering divide within the Democratic party over whether to embrace the anti-Israel politician.
Booker, a former presidential candidate known for his progressive rhetoric and background in community activism, has often walked a careful line when it comes to the party’s internal divisions. When asked last week by CNN reporter Manu Raju whether he would support Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist, Booker said, “I have learned a long time ago, to let New York politics be New York politics. We have enough challenges in New Jersey.”
Citing heated gubernatorial and legislative races, Booker said his energy will be devoted to his home state of New Jersey before adding, “New York City, I love you. You’re my neighbor. You’re about 10 miles from where I live. You guys figure out your elections. I’m going to be focused on mine.”
Booker’s response came after he dodged an initial question from Raju asking if the senator would support Mamdani, who won the New York City Democratic mayoral in June.
“So, you and I are going to have this conversation, and I’m going to say to you one day, I told you so,” Booker responded. “This is not a left-right issue. It really isn’t. It is an authoritarian, versus people who want pragmatic government that makes a difference in the lives of the American people. I’m one of these people that says the lines that divide us in America are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us.”
“Big corporations, people want to keep our eyes on the screen, want to pit us against each other and tell us how much we should hate each other,” he continued. “I’m sorry, the left-right lens is not the right lens to look at this right now. Right now, it is, can we get back to the pragmatic work of governing?”
Booker’s refusal to endorse Mandani broader tensions within the Democratic party over the rising influence of its far-left, progressive wing, particularly among younger lawmakers who have been outspoken critics of US military aid to Israel. Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has drawn national attention for his calls to end what he describes as unconditional support for the Israeli government, a position that has attracted both praise from progressive activists and backlash from pro-Israel groups and establishment Democrats.
Booker, who has long positioned himself as a supporter of Israel while also advocating for Palestinian rights, has grown increasingly cautious in recent years about aligning with candidates whose positions might alienate key constituencies. Despite the growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic base, Booker has remained outspoken about the need to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza. Booker regularly wears a yellow ribbon pin on the lapel of his suit jacket as a sign of his support for the hostages.
Many observers have argued that the New York City mayoral race, though local, is a proxy battle for the future of the Democratic party, with some claiming that Mamdani’s blend of left-wing economic policies and anti-Zionism are reflective of the party’s increasingly progressive base.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblymember and proud democratic socialist, defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
A little-known politician before this year’s primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Mamdani has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani also defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”
RSS
Harvard President Denies Looming $500 Million Deal With Trump to Restore Federal Funding: Report
Harvard University President Alan Garber speaks during the 374th Commencement exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 29, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect via Brian Snyder
Harvard University President Alan Garber has told faculty that he will not settle the institution’s dispute with the Trump administration by shelling out $500 million, the Harvard Crimson reported on Monday, contradicting a New York Times article which claimed that the move is impending.
Rather, Harvard has resolve to continue on fighting the federal government in court, the Crimson said, even as it faces a $1 billion shortfall caused by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the confiscation of $3 billion in taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts previously awarded to the university. Amid this cash crunch Harvard has resorted to leveraging its immense wealth to borrow exorbitant sums of money.
In March it issued over $450 million in bonds as “part of an ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” It offered another $750 million in bonds to investors in April, a sale that is being managed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
According to the Crimson, Garber insists that the Times report is erroneous.
“In a conversation with one faculty member, [he] said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is ‘false’ and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials,” the Crimson said, noting that the Times believes its reporting is on the mark. “In any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the university is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable.”
Garber’s apparent assurances to faculty that the university will not concede to Trump for financial relief comes as it takes conciliatory steps that seem aimed at reversing an impression that it is doctrinally far left, as well as anti-Zionist. In July, it announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions and shuttered its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, transferring their staff to other sections of the university. These moves came after it “paused” a partnership in March with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. Some reports, according to the Crimson, suggest that Harvard may even found a “new conservative research institute” in any deal with the Trump administration.
Other Ivy League schools have made similar steps while resolving their funding disputes with the US federal government.
On Wednesday, Brown University announced that it agreed to pay $50 million and enact a series of reforms put forth by the Trump administration to settle claims involving alleged sex discrimination and antisemitism. The government is rewarding Brown’s propitiating by restoring access to $510 million in federal research grants and contracts it impounded.
Per the agreement, shared by university president Christina Paxson, Brown will provide women athletes locker rooms based on sex, not one’s self-chosen gender identity — a monumental concession by a university that is reputed as one of the most progressive in the country — and adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female,” as articulated in a January 2025 executive order issued by Trump. Additionally, Brown has agreed not to “perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
Regarding campus antisemitism, the agreement calls for Brown University to reduce anti-Jewish bias on campus by forging ties with local Jewish Day Schools, launching “renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations,” and boosting support for its Judaic Studies program. Brown must also conduct a “climate survey” of Jewish students to collect raw data of their campus experiences.
Only days ago, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secures the release of billions of dollars the Trump administration impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon commented on the resolution, saying it is a “seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, she added that Columbia has agreed to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and mission practicers, and DEI programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race.”
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon continued. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
As Harvard debates its future, it continues to be a theater of an unrelenting debate on the Israel-Hamas war and the US-Israel relationship. On Saturday, pro-Hamas protesters instigated their arrests by local law enforcement during an unauthorized demonstration at Harvard Square.
“At least three protesters were pushed to the ground and handcuffed by police officers,” the Harvard Crimson reported on Sunday. “Several protesters were seen pouring water on their eyes, which were red and apparently irritated by a chemical agent.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.