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
Three New Yorkers Charged With Hate Crimes for Antisemitic Vandalism of Homes of Brooklyn Museum Officials
A woman and two men in New York have been indicted on hate crimes charges for allegedly vandalizing the homes of officials from the Brooklyn Museum, including its Jewish executive director, Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez announced on Monday.
Taylor Pelton, 28, of Astoria, Queens; Samuel Seligson, 32, of Brooklyn; and Gabriel Schubiner, 36, of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, were charged in a 25-count indictment in connection with the antisemitic incidents that took place in June in Brooklyn and Manhattan. The indictment includes charges such as making a terroristic threat as a hate crime, making a terroristic threat, third- and fourth-degree criminal mischief as a hate crime, third- and fourth-degree criminal mischief, making graffiti, possession of graffiti instruments, and fifth-degree conspiracy. Schubiner was arraigned on Monday and released without bail, and Seligson and Pelton are expected to be arraigned next week.
The defendants allegedly targeted executives of the Brooklyn art museum who had Jewish-sounding names, but only one of their victims was in fact Jewish — Executive Director Anne Pasternak. Gonzalez did not reveal the names of the victims, but it was previously reported that they included the museum’s President and Chief Operating Officer Kimberly Panicek-Trueblood, Board Treasurer Neil Simpkins, and Chairman of the Board of Directors Barbara Vogelstein. Panicek-Trueblood’s husband is Jewish.
“Acts of vandalism that target individuals in their own homes are a deeply disturbing violation meant to intimidate, terrorize, and instill fear,” Gonzalez said in a statement. “These defendants allegedly targeted museum board members with threats and antisemitic graffiti based on their perceived heritage. These actions are not protests; they are hate crimes, and we are deeply committed to holding accountable anyone who uses such unlawful tactics in Brooklyn.”
The three defendants allegedly committed their acts of vandalism during the early morning hours of June 12.
According to prosecutors, Pelton drove the defendants, and three unapprehended others, to the neighborhood of Boerum Hill in Brooklyn and from there, they were caught on surveillance video walking with black bags to Douglass Street, where a member of Brooklyn Museum’s board of directors lives. Schubiner allegedly painted over a video camera at the location, in an attempt to conceal the group’s identity, and the defendants then proceeded to deface the home with red paint and the words, “Brooklyn Museum, blood on your hands.”
The alleged assailants also left a banner that featured the victim’s name and claimed she had “blood on your hands, war crimes, funds genocide,” prosecutors claimed. The banner included several inverted red triangles, which is a symbol used by the terrorist organization Hamas in its propaganda videos to indicate Israeli targets they plan to attack. A stencil found on the ground at the site had a fingerprint covered in red paint that belonged to Schubiner.
Pelton then allegedly drove the group in her car to Pasternak’s residence in another area of Brooklyn. A video camera was painted over again to hide their identity as the defendants defaced the entrance of Pasternak’s apartment building with red paint, including an anarchy symbol and red inverted triangles, prosecutors said. The assailants allegedly hung a banner that described Pasternak as a “White Supremacist Zionist” with red handprints and accused her of funding genocide. Gonzalez said the banners also had the words “Blood on your hands.”
This is not peaceful protest or free speech. This is a crime, and it’s overt, unacceptable antisemitism.
These actions will never be tolerated in New York City for any reason. I’m sorry to Anne Pasternak and members of @brooklynmuseum‘s board who woke up to hatred like this.
— Mayor Eric Adams (@NYCMayor) June 12, 2024
The defendants then headed in Pelton’s car to Manhattan, where Schubiner and the unapprehended others were captured on surveillance footage spraying red paint on a building in Lenox Hill where Vogelstein lives, according to prosecutors. They allegedly painted her name, the red inverted triangles, and an anarchy symbol.
Shortly after the alleged hate crimes took place, an anonymous group claiming responsibility for the vandalism released a statement to Hyperallergic in which they cited the Brooklyn Museum’s “complicity in the Palestinian genocide” and ties that its board members have to weapon manufacturing and Israeli military interests, claims that museum officials have denied. The anonymous group said the vandalism was done in response to a heavily policed pro-Palestinian protest on May 31 at the museum, where dozens were arrested by the New York City Police Department (NYPD).
“Our action is a retaliation against the museum’s direct connections to the networks that materially support the genocidal entity as well as its collaboration with the fascist NYPD,” the statement said.
Mass anti-Israel protests took place in late May outside the Brooklyn Museum, one of the oldest and largest art museums in the country. Activists demanded that the institution divest from Israel and demonstrators from groups like the pro-Palestinian organization Within Our Lifetime hung a banner over the museum’s main entrance that called on the institution to “divest from genocide.” More than 30 protesters were reportedly arrested at the museum after occupying much of the lobby area, clashing with police inside and outside of the building, and defacing an outdoor sculpture with graffiti.
“There was damage to existing and newly installed artwork on our plaza,” a museum spokesperson said at the time, as reported by Reuters. “Protesters entered the building, and our public safety staff were physically and verbally harassed.”
The post Three New Yorkers Charged With Hate Crimes for Antisemitic Vandalism of Homes of Brooklyn Museum Officials first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump, Harris Spotlight Antisemitism, Gaza War in Closing Rallies Heading Into Election Day
Amid a surge of antisemitism across the United States and frustration over the ongoing war in Gaza, presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Kamala Harris sought to win over skeptical Jewish and Arab American voters in their final campaign rallies on Sunday and Monday.
On the eve of the election, both campaigns have scrambled to convince Jewish voters of their commitment to both protecting Israel and combating antisemitic violence on American soil. In their closing pitch to US voters, Harris and Trump presented contrasting visions on how to bolster Jewish security and end the Israel-Hamas war.
During a rally on Monday night in Raleigh, North Carolina, Trump reflected on the fatal shooting of a Jewish man in Chicago by an illegal immigrant from North Africa, casting blame on the Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policies for allowing the assailant in the country.
“An illegal alien from North Africa, who Kamala let into our country with her horrendous, open border — just a dangerous, horrendous situation — traveled to a Jewish neighborhood in Chicago and tried to execute a Jewish man on the street, shooting him in the back as he walked to synagogue,” said Trump, a Republican. “He then opened fire on police and paramedics, shooting an ambulance before police returned fire and ended his rampage fairly quickly.”
Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi, a 22 year-old migrant from Mauritania, allegedly shot a Jewish man who was walking to a synagogue on Oct. 26. Prosecutors issued terrorism and hate crime charges against Abdallahi after police unveiled evidence which, they said, showed he purposefully sought to violently target Jews.
Meanwhile, Harris, a Democrat, promised to do “everything in her power” to end the Israel-Hamas war if she wins the White House while speaking to voters at Michigan State University on Sunday. The presidential hopeful also revealed that she had a private conversation with “leaders of the Arab-American community.”
“This year has been difficult, given the scale of death and destruction in Gaza and given the civilian casualties and displacement in Lebanon,” Harris said in her remarks to the crowd. “It is devastating.”
“As president, I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza,” Harris said, “to bring home the hostages, end the suffering in Gaza, ensure Israel is secure, and ensure the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, freedom, securit,y and self-determination.”
Harris’s statements on the war in Gaza echoed previous sentiments she made during a campaign stop in Detroit on Sunday.
“I am honored to have the support of many Arab American leaders who represent the interests and the concerns also of the Arab American community,” Harris said in Detroit. “But I also know well enough to know it is not a monolith.”
“The level of death of innocent Palestinians is unconscionable,” she added. “We need to end the war, and we need to get the hostages out.”
Over the course of her campaign, Harris has repeatedly vowed to secure an elusive ceasefire deal between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which rules Gaza. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said on Monday that Hamas rejected the latest temporary ceasefire agreement presented by Egypt. The 12-day proposal would have reportedly started with a 48-hour ceasefire followed by Hamas releasing four hostages who the terrorist group kidnapped last year from Israel over the next 10 days.
In exchange, Jerusalem would release around 100 Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails, and over the 12-day period, Israel and Hamas were to hold indirect talks on extending the truce.
Since replacing President Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket in July, Harris has attempted to strike a balance between demonstrating support for Israel and calling for more restrictions on their defensive military campaign while expressing sympathy for the Palestinian civilians of Gaza. Recent polling indicates that Harris’s strategy has not panned out as she hoped. Anti-Israel Green Party nominee Jill Stein edged out Harris among US Muslim voters by a 42-41 percent margin, according to a poll conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
The post Trump, Harris Spotlight Antisemitism, Gaza War in Closing Rallies Heading Into Election Day first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Obituary: Lloyd Newman, 90, a passionate supporter of Nova Scotia’s cultural groups and Jewish community
Lloyd Newman, who built a family clothing business into a 20-store chain, served on the board of nearly arts institution and Jewish organization in his adopted province of Nova Scotia. […]
The post Obituary: Lloyd Newman, 90, a passionate supporter of Nova Scotia’s cultural groups and Jewish community appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.