RSS
Israel Is Solely Responsible for Own Defense — But Must Work With Allies
The principle that Israel should “defend itself with its own forces” is fundamental to the Jewish State’s concept of national security.
Recently, doubts — sometimes tendentious — have been raised about this principle. In the opinion of the late former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, for instance, the deployment of American aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean and Red Seas shows that “Israel is not capable of defending itself alone.”
This is a hasty conclusion, because the carriers serve as second-line defense. There is no contradiction between the basic Israeli principle stated above and Israel’s comprehensive cooperation with the US, which has political, economic, and other benefits for both sides. American military aid constitutes 16% of the Israeli defense budget and about 2% of the general budget. It also entails Israeli access to the American security system, with its wide dimensions and possibilities.
Even if Israel were to significantly increase its own production of weapons, as it is obliged to do because of the constant threat of attack, it will continue to need supplies from foreign sources, mainly the US.
Israel does not have a blank check for this purpose, even though US security aid is anchored by Congressional decisions and serves the strategic, industrial, and economic interests of the US. The aid is vulnerable to political considerations in the form of reassessments or internal American political dynamics, such as the anti-Israel trend that is increasingly visible in some parts of the Democratic Party. Problems may also arise from the Republican side of the aisle due to the isolationist positions of Donald Trump.
Countries act according to their interests, and American interests sometimes conflict with Israeli interests. US security ties with Israel met American opposition in the the mid-20th century because of the need for Arab oil, but also because of the fear that America would end up having to fight for Israel.
Those fears evaporated after the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War, which opened the door to an ever-expanding military cooperation with the US. Since then, total US aid to Israel has increased to $3 billion a year — originally $1.8 billion in military aid and $1.2 billion in civilian aid, to be delivered partly in credit.
An important change was made by Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, when he announced that Israel would give up civilian aid and that the entire amount would be directed to security. Civilian foreign aid was unpopular in the eyes of American politicians who had difficulty justifying it at a time when their own constituents were struggling with economic problems. Since the Israeli economy was growing at the time, it was unnecessary in any case — certainly in comparison to security aid, which was seen by both the Americans and the Israelis as necessary and justified. It was agreed that the security aid would be a grant, not a loan, and that the full amount would be granted in advance. There has also been an American contractual commitment in place since 2008 that Israel will have military (i.e., weapons) superiority over all its enemies.
From time to time, the idea of a defense agreement between Israel and the US has been floated, but its critics see it, rightly, as a possible violation of Israel’s freedom of military action without adding much to the existing security arrangements. However, this does not disqualify regional or more extensive military engagements.
Calling Israel “America’s continental aircraft carrier” was an exaggeration, but the fact that Israel is the only democratic and stable country in the Middle East and that it has a developed technological, scientific, and military capacity have increased its value to the Americans in a security sense. The operational capability of the IDF in the current war will further strengthen this assessment.
The Israeli concept of security, designed by David Ben-Gurion, is based on several components — deterrence, defense, warning, and decisiveness — and the transfer of war to the enemy’s territory. Deterrence means the enemies of Israel will be deterred by Israel’s military and security power, and by the threat of the damage that power would cause if it were unleashed against them in full force.
On October 7, and in fact well before it, Israeli deterrence lost many of its components. This was the result, in part, of Israel’s refusal to act strongly against the terrorist attacks of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and its reliance instead on the economic benefits of a more tolerant approach.
“Defense” means the country’s borders will be protected by physical elements, such as civilian settlements and various obstacles, but mainly by the IDF. The “18 points” document drawn up by Ben-Gurion in 1953 strove to bridge Israel’s quantitative disparity in terms of population size and military might by prioritizing deterrence and deterrence actions. This approach derived from the insight that Israel cannot sustain long wars from an economic and human perspective and therefore must strive for decisive victory as quickly and overwhelmingly as possible.
Despite the emphasis on the principles of defense, Israel should not shy away from proactive actions that serve its basic goals. The premise is that Israel cannot lose any war, as such a failure — indeed even the image of such a failure — could lead to its destruction. Additional principles such as defensible borders were added to the theory of security.
And as for peace? As Ben-Gurion put it, “Peace is not a goal, and war is not a goal. The goal is the realization of Zionism, [and peace will come] when the Arabs also want peace.”
The perceptions formulated by Ben-Gurion did not pass the test of October 7 — not because they were incorrect, but because the leadership and the army did not follow them. The areas surrounding Gaza not only did not constitute an obstacle to aggression but had become an easy target for the attackers, who bypassed the physical obstacles with incredible ease. (This, by the way, was the lesson that should have been learned from the failure of the Bar-Lev line in the Yom Kippur War.) As for the army’s forces, they did exist, but were in the wrong place and lacked the necessary readiness. The “warning” — that is, reliable and constant monitoring of the enemy’s capabilities and provision of a strategic and tactical warning in real time about any movement — was probably the main failure of October 7.
The “decisiveness” value is more complex. In Israel’s circumstances, a temporary decisive win on the battlefield — as was achieved in the War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and the Yom Kippur War — does not prevent the enemy from renewing itself and intensifying further attempts at aggression. Nor can it bring about sustainable peace unless political and international conditions are also met.
Israel does enjoy a clear military advantage over its enemies in terms of the quality of its weapon systems, the size of its forces, its technology and its resources — but as the events of October 7 and the current situation with Hezbollah in Lebanon show, these advantages are not always expressed in absolute achievements on the battlefield, at least not in the immediate term.
In recent years, Israel’s security center of gravity has shifted from the Arab world to Iran — initially towards its proxies, but in an inevitable process towards Iran itself, as proved by Iran’s massive air attack on Israel in April. Israel’s military and political cooperation with the US played an important role in thwarting Iranian intentions on that day — not only in terms of the attack, but perhaps even more in the episodes that preceded it and without which Israel would not have been able to develop and perfect the means of defense and attack it currently has and will need against Iran in the future.
As Brigadier General (Res.) Eran Ortal put it: “The State of Israel will defend itself by itself, but while relying on a great ally.” Iran is a threat to American national security as well as Israeli, and the US intelligence assessment published in February of this year clearly states that the US must act with “vigilance and strategic wisdom” but without specifying the intention.
As far as Israel is concerned, the direct Iranian threat is extremely dangerous because it is a political-ideological entity whose stated and practical goal is the complete physical destruction of the State of Israel, and it is close to equipping itself with weapons of mass destruction that will be capable of accomplishing this.
Although the US says it will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, it does not take sufficient measures to convince Iran to stop its efforts. In other words, for Israel, Iran represents a concrete, gravely serious threat that requires consideration from all possible aspects, in terms of both diplomacy and security. “Defending itself with its own forces” is indeed the first line in Israel’s security, but cooperation with others, as much as possible, will complete it.
Zalman Shoval was Israel’s ambassador to the US (1990-1993 and 1998-2000) and an MK in the Rafi, National List, and Likud parties. He was a member of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee and the Joint Committee for the Defense Budget. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Israel Is Solely Responsible for Own Defense — But Must Work With Allies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Nominates Marco Rubio for US Secretary of State
US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, Sept. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
US President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday confirmed that he will nominate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to serve as secretary of state in his incoming administration, a potential signal that the next White House will take a more adversarial posture toward Iran.
Trump’s confirmation came a couple days after several media outlets reported that he was expected to tap Rubio, 53, to head the US State Department. The move to place a lawmaker known for his hawkish foreign policy views as the nation’s top diplomat has mollified concerns among some critics that the second Trump administration would adopt a more isolationist approach to international affairs.
“Marco is a Highly Respected Leader, and a very powerful Voice for Freedom. He will be a strong Advocate for our Nation, a true friend to our Allies, and a fearless Warrior who will never back down to our adversaries,” Trump said in an official statement. “I look forward to working with Marco to Make America, and the World, Safe and Great Again!”
Rubio issued a brief statement advocating an approach of “peace through strength” to international relations.
“As Secretary of State, I will work every day to carry out his foreign policy agenda. Under the leadership of President Trump we will deliver peace through strength and always put the interests of Americans and America above all else,” Rubio said on X/Twitter.
Since his election to the Senate in 2010, Rubio has developed a reputation as a foreign policy hawk, advocating for greater investments in the US military and a tougher approach to adversaries such as Iran, China, Cuba, and Venezuela.
Rubio’s policy views have previously resulted in conflict with more isolationist members of the Republican Party, who have argued that the US should step back from international conflicts and increase focus on domestic issues.
The selection of Rubio also indicates the incoming Trump administration will be diplomatically supportive of Israel.
In the year following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7, Rubio has steadfastly signaled his support for the Jewish state, resisting calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and underscoring the importance of Israel achieving a decisive win against Hamas.
He stated in October 2023 that Israel has “no choice but to seek the complete eradication of Hamas in Gaza,” adding that “this tragically necessary effort will come at a horrifying price” and that “the price of failing to permanently eliminate this group of sadistic savages is even more horrifying.”
In May 2024, the senator cautioned that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization in Lebanon, could soon break out into full-scale war.
“The imperative that Israel has at some point to address it, even though there’s a real threat there of a full-scale war with Hezbollah, which militarily is a lot more challenging and destructive,” Rubio said.
Last month, Rubio condemned Iran’s direct attack against Israel after the Iranian regime fired a barrage of nearly 200 ballistic missiles at the Jewish state.
“I urge the reimposition of a maximum pressure campaign against Iran and fully support Israel’s right to respond disproportionately to stop this threat. The United States will continue to stand with Israel,” Rubio said in a statement.
Rubio has also assigned blame to Iran for fomenting instability and chaos in the Middle East, adding that the regime has also acted as the “primary” oppressor of its own civilians.
“The primary source of violence, conflict, suffering, and instability in the Middle East is the criminal ‘Islamic Republic’ regime which has also oppressed the people of [Iran] for almost [45] years,” Rubio said on X/Twitter.
Beyond Rubio, Trump has also handpicked other administration members with pro-Israel bonafides. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a lawmaker who has gone viral for her blistering repudiations of university presidents over their response campus antisemitism, has been selected to serve as ambassador to the United Nations. Trump also selected Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) to serve as his next national security adviser.
The post Trump Nominates Marco Rubio for US Secretary of State first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump’s Top National Security Picks Have Expressed Strongly Pro-Israel, Anti-Iran Views
US President Donald Trump is interviewed by then-Fox and Friends co-host Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, US, April 6, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
US President-elect Donald Trump’s selections for national security adviser and defense secretary have a history of making statements in support of Israel’s right to defend itself from neighboring threats.
In the week following his resounding victory at the polls, Trump has swiftly moved to fill his incoming cabinet with allies of Israel.
Among his top national security picks, the president-elect has chosen US. Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) to serve as his national security adviser and nominated Fox News host and Army National Guard officer Pete Hegseth as the next secretary of defense.
Waltz, a Green Beret and former Pentagon policy adviser, has developed a hawkish reputation on foreign policy matters. He supported Israel’s retaliatory strikes against Iran in October, arguing that the Jewish state should target Kharg Island, a major hub of the regime’s oil exports. The representative also suggested that Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities outside of Tehran. The lawmaker has openly criticized the Biden administration for allegedly holding Israel back from a full force retaliation against Iran.
Waltz has also argued that the US should attempt to weaken Iran through sanctioning the Chinese buyers of Iranian oil, saying that isolating Iran economically would cripple their ability to finance the operations of terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah. He has also helped spearhead bipartisan efforts to recategorize the Houthis in Yemen as an official international terrorist organization, a move that he argues would isolate the group by making financial transactions with them illegal.
On Tuesday, Trump raised eyebrows by tapping Hegseth to head the Pentagon. Hegseth, a former infantry officer in the Army National Guard deployed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has repeatedly expressed affinity for Israel. Hegseth, a devout Christian, argued on television that Jews have a right to live in Israel on Biblical grounds. In his 2020 book, American Crusade, Our Fight to Stay Free, he stated that Israel is “central to the story of Western civilization” and that the Jewish state is “inextricably linked” to America.
“If you love America, you should love Israel. We share history, we share faith, and we share freedom. We love free people, free expression, and free markets,” he wrote. “And whereas America is blessed with two big, beautiful oceans to protect it, Israel is surrounded on all sides by countries that either used to seek, or still seek, to wipe the nation off the map.”
During a 2016 trip to Israel, Hegseth said that he was “struck by the pervasive sense of purpose which permeates Israel and its people who understand the special nature of its founding and defense.” He also said that America can “learn from Israel” and that the Jewish state “is indispensable for the future of the West and human freedom.”
Following the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, who headed the Quds Force responsible for overseeing Iran’s proxies and terrorist operations abroad, Hegseth urged then-President Trump to bomb Iran’s nuclear production facilities.
“I happen to believe that we can’t kick the can down the road any longer in trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. They used the killing of Soleimani as an excuse to say ‘we’re scrapping the Iran Deal.’ We all know they were scrapping it anyway,” Hegseth said on Fox News, adding that America should notify Iran of its plans to destroy its “nuclear production facilities,” “key infrastructure,” “missile sites,” and “port capabilities.”
Hegseth also argued that attempts to restrain Israel from direct confrontation with Iran are “ridiculous” and that the Islamic regime represents an “existential threat” to the Jewish state.
“Israel wants to deal with Iran, we should let them … If it was not for Israel, Iran would have had the bomb already,” he said.
The post Trump’s Top National Security Picks Have Expressed Strongly Pro-Israel, Anti-Iran Views first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
American Jewish Organizations React to Trump’s Choice for US Ambassador to Israel
Mike Huckabee looks on as Donald Trump reacts during a campaign event at the Drexelbrook Catering and Event Center, in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania, US, Oct. 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
American Jewish organizations were quick to react to US President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he would choose former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to be the next US ambassador to Israel after he assumes office in January.
“Mike has been a great public servant, governor, and leader in faith for many years. He loves Israel, and the people of Israel, and likewise, the people of Israel love him. Mike will work tirelessly to bring about peace in the Middle East!” Trump wrote in his announcement.
Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, has long been a vocal pro-Israel voice. He has repudiated the anti-Israel protests that erupted in the wake of Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7 and criticized incumbent US President Joe Biden for sympathizing with anti-Israel protesters during his speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC). The incoming ambassador also lambasted the anti-Israel encampments at elite universities, stating that there should be “outrage” over the targeting and mistreatment of Jewish college students.
Ted Deutch, the CEO of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), posted on X on Tuesday that his organization “looks forward to working with Gov. Huckabee and newly appointed Special Envoy for the Middle East Steven Witkoff to strengthen the US-Israel relationship, bolster Israel-diaspora relations, and promote strong connections between American Jewry and Israel.”
Other Jewish communal organizations, such as the Jewish Federations of North America and the Anti-Defamation League, have so far not made statements.
The Republican Jewish Committee (RJC) said it was “thrilled” with the choice. “As a man of deep faith,” the RJC wrote, “we know Governor Huckabee’s abounding love of Israel and its people is second to none.”
It continued, “As the Jewish state continues to fight an existential war for survival against Iran and its terrorist proxies, Governor Huckabee will represent America’s ironclad commitment to Israel’s security with distinction.”
On the other side, however, the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) called Huckabee “utterly unqualified for this role” and argued that “his extremist views with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not further the national security interests of the United States or advance prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”
Huckabee told Israel’s Army Radio in his first interview since the announcement of his ambassadorship that “of course” the annexation of the West Bank is a possibility during Trump’s second presidential term.
“Unfortunately, when it comes to the US-Israel relationship,” the JDCA concluded, “Donald Trump will continue to only be motivated by his own narrow self-interest, and we’re deeply concerned about what that means for the United States and Israel.”
J Street also opposed the choice, writing in a statement that “Huckabee, a right-wing, evangelical minister with a long history of championing settlement expansion, annexation, and a radical ‘Greater Israel’ agenda, holds principles and espouses views that — if now implemented — would shatter the foundations on which a healthy and strong US-Israel relationship has been built over the past 75 years.”
J Street on Monday urged the Biden administration to withhold offensive weapons from Israel as part of a partial arms embargo, arguing that the United States needs to hold Israel accountable for alleged human rights “violations” before Trump takes office.
Huckabee has taken positions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict considered further to the right than most American Jews and politicians. The former governor has defended Israel’s right to build settlements in the West Bank, acknowledging the Jewish people’s ties to the land dating back to the ancient world.
“There is no such thing as the West Bank — it’s Judea and Samaria,” Huckabee has said, referring to the biblical names for the area. “There is no such thing as settlements — they’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There is no such thing as an occupation.”
Huckabee has also argued, including during his 2008 US presidential campaign, that any future Palestinian state should be created from land in Arab countries, rather than from territory that Israel captured in 1967 during the Six-Day War.
The post American Jewish Organizations React to Trump’s Choice for US Ambassador to Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.