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
Prominent Palestinian Writer Dismisses Victims of Fatal DC Shooting as ‘Genocide Cheerleaders’
Palestinian American writer and activist Susan Abulhawa. Photo: Screenshot
Prominent Palestinian-American writer Susan Abulhawa has seemingly justified the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, DC, on Wednesday night, dismissing the victims as “genocidal cheerleaders,” warning that “no Zionist should be safe,” and suggesting without evidence that the shooting may have been a “false flag” operation.
“Natural logic: when governments fail to hold Israel accountable for an actual holocaust being committed before our very eyes, no genocidal Zionist should be safe anywhere in the world,” Abulhawa posted on X/Twitter on Thursday, the day after the shooting. “What Mr. Rodriguez did should come as no surprise. In fact, I’m surprised it has not happened sooner. Human beings with a conscience literally cannot bear to witness such evil day and day out being inflicted upon the bodies, minds, and futures of an utterly defenseless people, by such a hateful, racist, colonial state.”
Natural logic: when governments fail to hold Israel accountable for an actual holocaust being committed before our very eyes, no genocidal Zionist should be safe anywhere in the world. What Mr. Rodriguez did should come as no surprise. In fact, I’m surprised it has not happened…
— susan abulhawa | سوزان ابو الهوى (@susanabulhawa) May 22, 2025
Elias Rodriguez, a 30-year-old left-wing and anti-Israel activist from Chicago, was charged on Thursday in US federal court with two counts of first-degree murder. He is accused of fatally shooting Yaron Lischinsky, 30, and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, 26, a young couple about to become engaged to be married, as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum for young professionals and diplomatic staff hosted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in the US capital.
An affidavit filed by US federal authorities in support of the criminal complaint charging Rodriguez revealed that he said at the scene of the shooting, “I did it for Palestine; I did it for Gaza.” He also chanted “Free Palestine, Free Palestine” after being taken into custody, according to video of the incident.
In the aftermath of the shooting, many anti-Israel activists rushed to defend the antisemitic attack as justifiable “resistance,” arguing that Lischinsky and Milgrim deserved to be murdered because they support Israel, which they falsely claim has been perpetrating a genocide in Gaza while waging a military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
“Now we’re supposed to feel bad for two genocide cheerleaders after watching these colonizer baby killers slaughter people by the hundreds every day for two years,” Abulhawa posted to X/Twitter on Thursday. “I’ve seen the inside of too many children’s skulls to give a crap about the human garbage who get off on mass murder.”
Abulhawa then seemingly suggested, without any evidence, that either Israel or the Jewish community was actually behind the shooting to make the public focus on the surge of antisemitism — a surge that she claimed was a lie despite copious documentation providing a historic spike in antisemitic incidents.
“It wouldn’t surprise me if it was a false flag to focus on manufactured antisemitism instead of the actual holocaust being committed by Jewish supremacists,” she wrote.
Now we’re supposed to feel bad for two genocide cheerleaders after watching these colonizer baby killers slaughter people by the hundreds every day for two years. I’ve seen the inside of too many children’s skulls to give a crap about the human garbage who get off on mass murder.…
— susan abulhawa | سوزان ابو الهوى (@susanabulhawa) May 22, 2025
The author later added, “Once you understand that Zionism and Nazism are two sides of the same coin, the world we live in will make a lot more sense.” She then peddled antisemitic tropes, accusing Israel, the only Jewish state in the world, of possessing “worldwide tentacles” and controlling international governments.
Abulhawa proceeded to compare Wednesday night’s shooting to a Jewish person killing a member of the Nazi party as retaliation for the Holocaust. She declared the terrorist act as legitimate “resistance” to fight the so-called “genocide” occurring in Gaza.
“A person (Jewish) killed a Nazi as an act of resistance because governments refused to stop a genocide perpetrated by Nazis. Today, a person killed a Zionist as an act of resistance because governments refuse to stop a genocide perpetrated by Zionists,” the writer said.
Abulhawa has an extensive history of publicly condemning those who support Israel’s right to self-defense. In an X/Twitter post, she accused Dana Stroul, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, of having a “single loyalty to a foreign country, for which they endlessly extort US tax dollars and spill American blood to maintain.” She also castigated Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D), who is Jewish, for being “a major player in the Zionist death cult infecting the world.” She added that that Zionists “aren’t human like us” and that “we’re ruled by spawns of Satan.”
Last year, the writer accused then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken of having a “single loyalty to Israel,” perpetuating the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jewish people are inherently untrustworthy citizens more loyal to Israel than their own countries.
Abulhawa has also celebrated Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of southern Israel, saying that the massacre “wasn’t the beginning of violence; it is the beginning of the end of a genocidal colonial entity.” In an article published in the anti-Israel outlet Electronic Intifada just days after the atrocities, Abulhawa wrote that “Palestinian fighters finally broke free on 7 October 2023 in a spectacular moment that shocked the world.” Lauding the Hamas terrorists, she stated that “these brave Palestinian fighters overtook Israeli colonies built on their ancestral villages, seeing their stolen lands for the first time in their lives.”
Despite her comments against Jews, Zionists, and Israelis, Abulhawa’s work has been widely read. Mornings in Jenin, a novel penned by Abdulhawa, sold over one million copies worldwide. The activist also served as the lead organizer for the “Palestine Writes” festival at the University of Pennsylvania in 2023. The event, which featured a litany of anti-Israel speakers, incensed Jewish alumni and donors.
The post Prominent Palestinian Writer Dismisses Victims of Fatal DC Shooting as ‘Genocide Cheerleaders’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
George Washington University Sued in New Antisemitism Lawsuit
Pro-Hamas supporters at George Washington University in Washington, DC on March 21, 2025, to protest the war in Gaza. Photo: Bryan Dozier/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect.
George Washington University enabled an outburst of antisemitic discrimination and harassment on its campus, a new lawsuit brought on behalf of two recent graduates of the institution alleges.
Filed on Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the complaint recounts dozens of antisemitic incidents following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel which the university allegedly failed to respond to adequately because of anti-Jewish, as well as anti-Zionist, bias. Among the incidents detailed, the campus Hillel Center was vandalized; someone threw a rock through the window of a truck owned by a Jewish advocacy group; and a Jewish student was told to “kill yourself” and “watch your back” in a hate message which also called her a “filthy k—ke.”
That and more transpired, court documents charge.
“Protesters at GWU raised repulsive, antisemitic signs and shouted slogans like ‘final solution,’ ‘the irony of being what you once hatred,’ a message that equated the swastika to the Star of David; and ‘Globalize the Intifada,’ an express call for violence against Jews,” the complaint adds. “Protesters vandalized university property in what amounted to rioting and blocked Jewish students from traversing campus freely, attending class, and otherwise engaging in educational opportunities.”
The plaintiffs, Sabrina Soffer and Ari Shapiro, say the university’s anemic response to campus antisemitism constitutes a violation of Title VI of the US Civil Rights Act. They are seeking damages and injunctive relief.
“I have long been proud to call George Washington University my academic home. Yet, after nearly four years of bringing attention to the university’s persistent antisemitism problem, I remain disheartened by its failure to take sufficient action to protect against the hostile environment facing the Jewish and Israeli community,” Soffer said in a statement shared with The Algemeiner. “My sincere hope is that this lawsuit marks a turning point — one that restores accountability and reaffirms a genuine commitment to the values the university professes to uphold.”
As previously reported, George Washington University has been a hub of extreme anti-Zionist activity that school officials have struggled to quell. A major source of such conduct has been Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which, among other conduct, has threatened a Jewish professor and intimidated Jews on campus.
Most recently, a student used her commencement speech to lodge accusations of apartheid and genocide against Israel, a notion trafficked by neo-Nazi groups and jihadist terror organizations.
The student, Cecilia Culver, accused Israel of targeting Palestinians “simply for [their] remaining in the country of their ancestors” and said that GW students are passive contributors to the “imperialist system.” An economics and statistics major, Culver deceived administrators who selected her to address the Columbian College of the Arts and Sciences ceremony, the university said in a statement.
GW faculty have also allegedly contributed to the promotion of antisemitism on campus. In 2023, former psychology professor Lara Sheehi was accused of verbally abusing and discriminating against her Jewish graduate students.
As recounted in a 2023 civil rights complaint filed by StandWithUs, Sheehi expressed contempt for Jews when, on the first day of term in August 2022, she asked every student to share information about their backgrounds and cultures. Replying to a student who revealed that she was Israeli, Sheehi said, “It’s not your fault you were born in Israel.” Jewish students said they made several attempts to persuade the university to correct Sheehi’s behavior or arrange an alternative option for fulfilling the requirements of her course. Each time, StandWithUs alleged, administrators said nothing could be done.
Later, the complaint added, Sheehi spread rumors that her Jewish students were “combative” racists and filed misconduct charges against them. One student told The Algemeiner at the time that she never learned what university policies Sheehi accused her and her classmates of violating.
“GWU has obligations under Title VI and other laws to protect its Jewish students and faculty, and our complaint demonstrates that GWU has failed its obligation,” attorney Jason Torchinsky, who is representing Soffer and Shapiro, said in a statement on Friday. “We look forward to this case and to protecting current and future Jewish students at GWU.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post George Washington University Sued in New Antisemitism Lawsuit first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Lebanon, PA Reach Agreement to Disarm Palestinian Refugee Camps; Hamas Excluded From Talks
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun meets with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the presidential palace in Baabda, Lebanon, May 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
The disarmament of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon is set to begin next month, following an agreement between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Lebanese government, as part of the latter’s effort to assert control over its entire territory.
The agreement follows a three-day visit to Beirut by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, during which he met with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to discuss the disarmament of all 12 Palestinian refugee camps across Lebanon.
During their meeting, both leaders agreed that Palestinian factions would not use Lebanese territory as a launchpad for attacks against Israel and that all weapons would be placed under the authority of the Lebanese government.
In a statement, Lebanese authorities announced that both sides agreed to “launch the process of handing over weapons according to a specific timetable, accompanied by practical steps to bolster the economic and social rights of Palestinian refugees.”
Hamas — a rival of Abbas’s Fatah faction that dominates the PA — criticized the agreement for excluding them from the discussions, arguing that the demilitarization process lacked proper representation without their involvement.
The Palestinian terrorist group also urged the Lebanese government to hold a dialogue with all Palestinian factions present in the country.
“We call on the Lebanese government to open a responsible dialogue with the Joint Palestinian Action Committee, which includes all Palestinian factions and forces, to discuss the Palestinian situation from all its aspects,” Ali Baraka, Hamas’s head of foreign relations, said in a statement.
“Limiting the discussion to the security framework alone could open the door to the trap of resettlement or displacement, which is what [Israel] seeks,” Baraka continued.
By a long-standing agreement, the Lebanese army refrains from entering the refugee camps — where Fatah, Hamas, and other armed groups operate — and instead leaves security responsibilities to the factions within the settlements.
According to UNRWA, the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, Lebanon is home to more than 200,000 Palestinian refugees who are subject to government restrictions that bar them from many professional jobs, limit their legal protections, and prohibit them from owning property.
Under the new agreement, Hamas — which has long maintained operations in Lebanon — will reportedly only be allowed to operate in the country for political activities, with no involvement in military matters, Lebanese officials said.
In the past, Hamas has claimed multiple attacks on Israel launched from Lebanese territory, especially during last year’s conflict between the Jewish state and Hezbollah — a war that erupted after the terrorist group expressed “solidarity” with Hamas following the group’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah. Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from Lebanon’s southern border, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
Israel, which decimated much of Hezbollah’s senior leadership during last year’s war, has continued to carry out regular airstrikes in southern Lebanon since the ceasefire.
Israeli officials assert that Hezbollah continues to maintain infrastructure in the south of the country, while Lebanon and Hezbollah accuse Israel of occupying Lebanese territory by refusing to withdraw from five hilltop positions.
The post Lebanon, PA Reach Agreement to Disarm Palestinian Refugee Camps; Hamas Excluded From Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login