RSS
Israel Has Proved Its Doubters Wrong in Gaza and Lebanon; Where Does It Go From Here?
One claim frequently heard from commentators and experts, both within and outside Israel, is that Jerusalem lacks a clear strategy and political plan for the day after the Iron Swords War.
According to this argument, while Israel may have achieved significant military gains in the north and in Gaza, Israel has no plan in place to translate those achievements into political arrangements that end the war and improve Israel’s security and international position. These commentators consistently repeat the phrase well-known to every first-year student of international relations: that the purpose of military action is to bring about an improved political situation, meaning there is no military solution without a concluding political leg (this has at least been true of most contemporary wars).
However, any implementation of a political arrangement that improves Israel’s security-political situation after October 7 will require military achievements and an end state that most of these commentators either refuse to accept or do not believe can be reached.
Until mid-September and the exploding pagers attack on Hezbollah — the first in a series of severe blows inflicted on Hezbollah by Israel, including the elimination of most of its leadership — many insisted that Israel must end the war as soon as possible. Their argument was based primarily on the need for an immediate hostage deal. This is a legitimate need that stands on its own. However, it would not be the precursor to a dramatic strategic-political change that brings with it peace on the borders, normalization with Saudi Arabia, improved relations with the US, and other desirable developments, as is erroneously claimed by many pundits and observers.
Those arguing against the expansion of the war into the north pointed out that in Gaza, Hamas has not been completely eliminated and is still tying up IDF forces. There was therefore no possibility of opening another front against Hezbollah, which is a much stronger opponent. However, contrary to these assessments, Israel reached a point in the Gaza campaign when it was able to shift its strategic attention and resources sufficiently to take aggressive action in Lebanon (indeed, it can be argued that it took Israel too long to reach this point in the campaign).
It appears that for the time being, Israel’s strategic patience has paid off, and most of its critics have been revealed as short-sighted. (It is worth noting that in most cases, these were the same people who warned against a ground operation in Gaza and insisted that Israel had no chance of operating in the Philadelphi Corridor and taking control of Rafah.)
Had Israel sought an arrangement in the days before it launched its campaign against Hezbollah, it would likely have received “shame and war together” in return, as Churchill famously put it.
Israel is now on the verge of a strategic turning point. It is in a position where it has restored its military superiority over Iran and its proxies. We should of course not rush to celebrate while the campaign is still ongoing, and the pendulum can still swing in any direction. At the time of writing, we do not yet know what Israel’s response will be to the recent direct Iranian missile attack, what Iran’s response will be to the Israeli response, and so on.
What, then, are Israel’s strategic goals in the war, and how can they be translated into political goals?
As in any war, Israel has both explicitly defined, declared goals and implied, undeclared goals that it would like to realize as a result of the war. It is essential to stress that in the Israeli view, this is an existential war.
Post-October 7, Israel now understands that it can no longer allow hostile terrorist armies to exist on its borders waiting for the order to invade Israeli territory. When a war is existential, the goal is first to remove the threat and only then to clarify arrangements for “the day after”. This is not, after all, the American invasion of Iraq, a war that took place thousands of kilometers from US borders.
Here are Israel’s declared strategic and political goals in Operation Iron Swords:
In Gaza: 1) To eliminate Hamas’ military power and force the collapse of its rule, with the object of bringing about a situation in which there is no longer any security threat from the Gaza Strip; and 2) to create conditions for the return of the hostages.
In Lebanon: To return the residents of the Israeli north to their homes by destroying and pushing Hezbollah forces north of the Litani River.
However, it appears there is also an undeclared goal for the overall campaign that takes a more comprehensive and long-term view: the creation of a new regional security reality.
Israel aims to dismantle the two Iranian proxies — Hamas and Hezbollah — that threatened it on its borders, creating a ring of fire that contained the threat of ground invasion. Without these two proxies, Iran will be much weaker, and decades of investment are now going down the drain. Considering Iran’s current economic state, it is doubtful that it will be able to reinvest in its proxies on the same scale.
In Gaza, the fight against remnants of Hamas, isolated terrorist cells that continue to operate, will go on for many months and perhaps even years. The realistic goal is to hit Hamas hard enough that Gaza does not pose a greater threat than that posed by Palestinian terrorists on the West Bank. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other organizational cells are present and active on the West Bank, but they do not pose a strategic threat. Israel will have to reach a hostage deal and thereafter to “mow the lawn” in Gaza as it is doing in the West Bank for the foreseeable future.
Israel is faced with an unresolved dilemma regarding Hamas’ control over humanitarian aid. If Israel distributes the aid, it will become the de facto force ruling Gaza, which it does not want. But if it does not act on the matter, it allows Hamas to control both the aid and the population. A solution needs to be found to this quandary.
However, Gaza is a relatively small area, and Israel currently controls the exits and entrances. It can gradually erode Hamas’ power, as the group is almost entirely unable to replenish its lost assets. Even the new fighters it is recruiting from among the local population lack the knowledge and equipment of the people Hamas has lost. Hamas has been stripped of most of its military assets and will not be able to restock them under the conditions of the Israeli closure and continuing military pressure.
One can hope that at some point, Hamas will be weak enough that an agreement can be reached with a body or agency (or a combination thereof) that will manage the Strip and maintain law and order. As of now, no body other than the IDF will agree to confront the remnants of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Moreover, no Palestinian element is currently capable of committing to such an arrangement, even if it were willing to do so. (The Americans, who have spoken about the need for reform in the Palestinian Authority, are aware of this.)
The IDF understands that in Lebanon, unlike in Gaza, it is not possible to destroy most of the enemy’s forces. It is, however, possible to hit Hezbollah extremely hard, as the IDF has already managed to do. The IDF is capable of pushing Hezbollah north of the Litani River and destroying its infrastructure, as well as severely damaging its long-range missile and rocket array.
The undeclared goal in Lebanon is to bring Hezbollah to the point where it no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel and is unable to carry out the horror scenarios that were outlined before the current operation, which included a massive invasion of the Galilee and severe damage to army bases, critical infrastructure, ports, airports, and so on. From this point on, Israel’s test will be whether or not it can prevent Iran from rehabilitating Hezbollah.
Israel’s strategic achievement here (beyond returning the residents of the north) is breaking free from the equation of mutual deterrence that has paralyzed it from acting against Hezbollah in Lebanon all these years. This means Israel will have to expand the campaign between the wars that it has been conducting in Syria for 10 years. It will now need to include Lebanon for the purpose of disrupting, delaying, and perhaps even preventing Hezbollah’s buildup. At some point, Israel may have to launch a broad preventive strike if Hezbollah manages to rebuild its power. Until then, Israel will gain a few years of quiet and rehabilitation of the north.
This scenario is based on Iran’s continuing as usual without any significant change. However, it is possible that Israel’s release from the grip of the Iranian proxies will allow to focus more strategic attention on Iran. This could lead to moves that weaken Iran and possibly even bring an end to the regime. If this occurs, Israel will be free to take some risks and break through to new arrangements in the Middle East. Its partners, primarily Saudi Arabia and other countries, would also be free to promote agreements with Israel. Other possibilities could open up for an accommodation with the Palestinians that both addresses the interests of both sides and has a chance of holding up.
Those familiar with the cabinet discussions that were conducted during the Yom Kippur War of 1973 know that after the lines on the fronts were stabilized on October 8, there was great fear of a continued war of attrition in which Israel would be at a disadvantage. The question facing the cabinet was how to bring Syria and Egypt to want a ceasefire on terms favorable to Israel. Initially, there was an unsuccessful attempt that included shelling Damascus and a ground advance that was eventually halted. The Syrians were not impressed. Subsequently, the crossing of the Suez Canal plan matured, and the encirclement of and threat to destroy the Third Army led to an Egyptian request for a ceasefire on terms favorable to Israel. Henry Kissinger, who thought Israel was seeking a ceasefire on October 11, was horrified by the thought that Israel would negotiate from a position of military weakness.
Israel is only one side in any set of political arrangements. It cannot dictate terms unilaterally. Nor can it determine who the leaders will be on the opposing side. At most, it can perhaps determine who will not be those leaders, as it has done to Hezbollah’s leadership and to a significant part of Hamas’ leadership. Israel can ensure an improved military-security situation and hope conditions mature on the other side, whether Lebanese or Palestinian, to the point that agreements can be reached that are worth the paper they’re written on. Israel does not control the internal political processes of the peoples surrounding it.
With that said, Israel is committed first and foremost to achieving a military achievement that significantly improves its security situation and places the other side in a position of clear military inferiority, which would improve the chance that that side is eventually interested in coming to an agreement.
The cabinet discussion of November 19, 1973, almost a month after the end of the Yom Kippur War, was recently published. Then-Prime Minister Golda Meir said, “Many things will be forgiven us, but one thing will not: weakness. The moment we are registered as weak, it’s over.”
In the same discussion, then-defense minister Moshe Dayan said, “Once we relied on the fact that we have deterrence power regarding the Arabs. I am very much afraid of a conception [arising] among us that we will be the deterred [party] – that we will fear confrontation with the Arabs and enter a psychosis of reverse deterrence.”
These words resonate strongly, even today.
Prof. Eitan Shamir serves as head of the BESA Center and as a faculty member in the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University. His latest book is The Art of Military Innovation: Lessons from the IDF, Harvard University Press, 2023 (with Edward Luttwak). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Israel Has Proved Its Doubters Wrong in Gaza and Lebanon; Where Does It Go From Here? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘F—k the Jew, F—k the Zionist’: Former CAIR Director Launches Antisemitic Tirade in Manhattan
Noora Shalash confronting Jewish men in New York City. Photo: Screenshot
A former senior employee of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was caught on camera launching a profane and antisemitic tirade at Jewish men in New York City in a viral video posted to social media on Thursday.
Noora Shalash, who previously worked as the director of government affairs for CAIR’s Kentucky branch, was confronted by an individual in an office building after allegedly harassing a “visibly Jewish man.” After being grilled for her alleged conduct, Shalash then went on an antisemitic diatribe.
“F—k the Jew. F—k the Zionist,” Shalash said.
Shalash then said that she “loves Jesus” and claimed Jews “dishonor the Virgin Mary and call her a ‘whore.’” She also called the man recording the video a “b—ch” and swiped her hand at his cellphone. A security guard intervened and physically pulled Shalash away while she appeared to continue attempting to assault the man.
“This is what Jews have to deal with in New York City,” the man said.
Midtown Manhattan – crazed antisemite assaults a visible Jew and gets arrested.
“F*ck the Jew … f*ck the Zionists” she says confidently. pic.twitter.com/EdmTR2UzWg
— StopAntisemitism (@StopAntisemites) February 7, 2025
The video, which was obtained and posted on X/Twitter by the watchdog group StopAntisemitism, quickly went viral on social media, gaining nearly 600,000 views within 16 hours.
CAIR National responded to the viral incident, claiming that Shalash had not been employed by the organization for five years and currently has “no other role at our civil rights group.”
“We condemn and reject the antisemitic comments in the video, just as we condemn and reject the anti-Palestinian racism and anti-Muslim hate,” the organization added.
A picture circulated on social media showing CAIR identifying Shalash as a senior official as of October 2020.
PHOTO: CAIR-KY met with #Kentucky Senate Pres Robert Stivers. Representing CAIR-KY were CAIR-KY Board members: Dr. Salah Shakir, Dr. Nadia Rasheed, Dr. Dina Rasheed, Noora Shalash (CAIR-KY Dir Gov Affairs) Sen. Reginald Thomas attended @kysenatepres @BGPolitics @tweet2waheedah pic.twitter.com/YtYGH7z8V3
— CAIR National (@CAIRNational) October 1, 2020
CAIR has long been a controversial organization. In the 2000s, the organization was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case. Politico noted in 2010 that “US District Court Judge Jorge Solis found that the government presented ‘ample evidence to establish the association’” of CAIR with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “some of CAIR’s current leadership had early connections with organizations that are or were affiliated with Hamas.” CAIR has disputed the accuracy of the ADL’s claim and asserted that it “unequivocally condemn[s] all acts of terrorism, whether carried out by al-Qa’ida, the Real IRA, FARC, Hamas, ETA, or any other group designated by the US Department of State as a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization.’”
CAIR leaders have also found themselves embroiled in further controversy since Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The head of CAIR, for example, said he was “happy” to witness Hamas’s rampage of rape, murder, and kidnapping of Israelis in what was the largest single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.
“The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege — the walls of the concentration camp — on Oct. 7,” CAIR co-founder and executive director Nihad Awad said in a speech during the American Muslims for Palestine convention in Chicago last November. “And yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land, and walk free into their land, which they were not allowed to walk in.”
The post ‘F—k the Jew, F—k the Zionist’: Former CAIR Director Launches Antisemitic Tirade in Manhattan first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New ‘Gaza Encampment’ Hits Bowdoin College
Anti-Zionist Bowdoin College students storming the Smith Union administrative building on the evening of February 6, 2025 to occupy it in protest of what they said are the college’s links to Israel. Photo: Screenshot
“Gaza Solidarity Encampments” returned to American higher education on Thursday with the capture and occupation of an administrative building at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine by the group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
According to the Bowdoin Orient, the campus newspaper, SJP stormed Smith Union and installed its encampment on Thursday night in response to US President Donald Trump’s proposing that the US “take over” the Gaza Strip and transform it into a hub for tourism and economic dynamism. The roughly 50 students residing inside the building have vowed not to leave until the Bowdoin officials agree to adopt the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
“President Trump’s recent statement suggests a potential endorsement on Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, a move that threatens the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people and undermines the prospect for a just and lasting peace,” SJP leader Yusur Jasmin said during a speech delivered to the students, who are breaking multiple school rules to hold the demonstration.
Following the action, Bowdoin officials promptly moved to deescalate the situation by counseling the students to mind the “gravity of situation” in which they placed themselves, with senior associate dean Katie Toro-Ferrari warning that their behavior “could put them on the path where they are jeopardizing their ability to remain as Bowdoin students.” However, the Orient said the students continued to flood Smith Union anyway. One student, Olivia Kenney, proclaimed that “Bowdoin does not know how to handle us right now.”
Bowdoin has not conceded the fight to gain control of Smith Union. On Friday, the Orient said it ordered security to declare the building closed for the day and to deny access to all who attempt to enter it, including Orient reporters seeking interviews with the occupiers. The directive has so far blocked entry to over a dozen students who approached its doors on Friday while chanting “This institution does not scare us. To the security, you do not scare us.” The school has also stated unequivocally that refusing to end the demonstration will prompt a “disciplinary process,” the paper added.
“The demonstration that began on our campus on Feb. 6 is in clear violation of our policies, and those students who are participating will be subject to the disciplinary process. Bowdoin’s priority is to ensure that all our students, faculty, and staff feel safe and welcome on campus,” Bowdoin College told The Algemeiner on Friday in a statement.
No college or university has seen the successful establishment of a “Gaza Solidarity Encampments,” since the conclusion of the spring semester of the 2023-2024 academic school year, when anti-Zionists across the US commandeered school property and vowed to maintain control of them until school officials agreed to boycott and divest from Israel, a measure they said would signal disapproval of Israel’s prosecution of its war to eradicate Hamas from Gaza. Several attempts to do so this academic year were undertaken at the University of California, Los Angeles and Sarah Lawrence College, as well as the University of Cambridge and Munich University in Europe, but those endeavors were short lived.
Bowdoin’s encampment, equipped with tents and provisions to support an extended stay inside Smith Union, seems to be modeled directly on those which emerged last year and could be just as difficult to uproot. Some schools, such as Stanford University, failed to negotiate an end their encampments for as many as 120 days. How Bowdoin moves forward will be an early example of how college officials plan to operate in new political and legal parameters set by Trump’s second administration, which has vowed to quell campus unrest.
On Friday the National Association of Scholars, which published in 2013 a groundbreaking study — titled, What Does Bowdoin Teach? — of scholar-activism at Bowdoin College and has been a vocal critic of the anti-Zionist campus movement, called on school officials to restore order and uphold “the core mission of liberal arts education.”
It continued, “We urge Bowdoin College to reaffirm its dedication to a balanced liberal arts education by maintaining an environment where academic inquiry prevails over political activism. By doing so, the college can uphold its responsibility to educate students who are well-equipped to engage thoughtfully and constructively in civic life.”
Bowdoin College is not the only higher education institution that has been convulsed by anti-Israel activity this semester.
Columbia University was a victim of infrastructural sabotage last month, when an extremist anti-Zionist group flooded the toilets of an academic building with concrete to mark the anniversary of an alleged killing of a Palestinian child. The targeted facilities were located on several floors of the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), according to Keren Yarhi-Milo, dean of the school, who addressed the matter, calling the behavior “deplorable, disruptive, and deeply unsettling, as our campus is a space we cherish for learning teaching, and working, and it will not be tolerated.”
Numerous reports indicate the attack may be the premeditated result of planning sessions which took place many months ago at an event held by Alpha Delta Phi (ADP) — a literary society, according to the Washington Free Beacon. During the event, the Free Beacon reported, ADP distributed literature dedicated to “aspiring revolutionaries” who wish to commit seditious acts. Additionally, a presentation was given in which complete instructions for the exact kind of attack which struck Columbia on Wednesday were shared with students.
Republicans in Washington, DC have said that such behavior “will no longer be tolerated in the Trump administration.” Meanwhile, the new president has enacted a slew of policies aimed at reining in disruptive and discriminatory behavior.
Continuing work started started during his first administration — when Trump issued Executive Order 13899 to ensure that civil rights law apply equally Jews — Trump’s recent “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism” calls for “using all appropriate legal tools to prosecute, remove, or otherwise … hold to account perpetrators of unlawful antisemitic harassment and violence.” The order also requires each government agency to write a report explaining how it can be of help in carrying out its enforcement. Another major provision of the order calls for the deportation of extremist “alien” student activists, whose support for terrorist organizations, intellectual and material, such as Hamas contributed to fostering antisemitism, violence, and property destruction.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post New ‘Gaza Encampment’ Hits Bowdoin College first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Sanctions ICC, Blasts Court for Setting ‘Dangerous Precedent’ With Netanyahu Arrest Warrant
US President Donald Trump speaks at the White House, in Washington, DC, Feb. 3, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
US President Donald Trump has issued an executive order imposing travel and economic sanctions against those who assist with International Criminal Court (ICC) investigations of American citizens or allies such as Israel.
Trump announced the executive order on Thursday, coinciding with the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — for whom the ICC issued an arrest warrant last year over his role in the Gaza war — to Washington, DC. Under the sanctions, ICC officials, employees, and agents, together with their immediate family members, will have their property and assets blocked and their access to the United States suspended.
“The ICC’s recent actions against Israel and the United States set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest,” the order reads. “This malign conduct in turn threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and undermines the critical national security and foreign policy work of the United States Government and our allies, including Israel.”
In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and now-deceased Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict. The ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which has provided significant humanitarian aid into the war-torn enclave throughout the war.
US and Israeli officials issued blistering condemnations of the ICC move, decrying the court for drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the heads of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the ongoing war in Gaza with its massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.
The ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel as it is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the court. Other countries including the US have similarly not signed the ICC charter. However, the ICC has asserted jurisdiction by accepting “Palestine” as a signatory in 2015, despite no such state being recognized under international law.
The ICC responded to Trump’s executive order with a forceful condemnation, stressing that the court produces “independent and impartial” work.
“The court stands firmly by its personnel and pledges to continue providing justice and hope to millions of innocent victims of atrocities across the world,” the ICC said.
European Council President Antonio Costa blasted the US move, writing that “sanctioning the ICC threatens the court’s independence and undermines the international criminal justice system as a whole.”
However, not all reactions to the executive order were negative. Israel commended Trump for his sanctions against the ICC.
“I strongly commend @POTUS President Trump’s executive order imposing sanctions on the so-called ‘international criminal court,’” wrote Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar on X.
The post Trump Sanctions ICC, Blasts Court for Setting ‘Dangerous Precedent’ With Netanyahu Arrest Warrant first appeared on Algemeiner.com.