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
We Must Give Our Jewish Youth Hope, Not Despair
College students hold dueling demonstrations amid Israel’s war with Hamas in April 2024. Photo: Vincent Ricci via Reuters Connect
Walk into any Chabad on campus, scroll through Instagram, or attend a panel on “Jewish identity in 2025,” and you’ll feel it: exhaustion.
The faces are younger, but the weight they carry is old — heavier than it should be for college students trying to find meaning, connection, and joy in their heritage. Antisemitism is surging, yes. The headlines are overwhelming. The betrayal of supposed allies stings. But here’s the deeper crisis we need to talk about: we’re burning out the very generation we’re trying to awaken. And we’re doing it with good intentions.
We’ve built an identity around crisis. Every gathering starts with the stats: “This amount of hate crimes.” “These many campus protests.” “These politicians failed us.” The algorithm serves us fear on a loop. The message? Being Jewish today means being a victim. Being Jewish means you’re losing. Why, then, are we surprised that some young Jews are opting out?
They aren’t indifferent. They’re uninspired. They’re not apathetic. They’re allergic to despair.
Victimhood Is Not an Identity
Jewish history is filled with trauma, but it is also filled with triumph. For millennia, our people have turned pain into purpose, exile into renewal, and scarcity into genius. We are not here because we were victims. We are here because we are survivors, builders, dreamers, and creators.
But in the last few years, we’ve allowed antisemitism to dominate the narrative. Every Jewish conference has a keynote on Jew-hatred. Our newsletters lead with the latest outrage. Our talking points are soaked in fear. The result? We’ve made Judaism feel like a burden, a fight, a cause to defend — rather than a light to share.
We’ve turned off the very people we need to turn on.
They Don’t Want a Protest Movement. They Want a Purpose.
Young Jews don’t want to be told their identity is something to protect. They want to be told it’s something to celebrate. And they want to celebrate it in their own way — not just through Holocaust remembrances and antisemitism awareness panels.
They want to build startups with a Jewish soul. Create art that reflects our ancient values. Reimagine what it means to be a Jewish leader in politics, tech, fashion, or sports. They want to innovate, not litigate their existence.
And we should let them.
If we only hand them a Judaism defined by its enemies, we shouldn’t be surprised if they reject it. If all we offer is a defense mechanism, why would they embrace it with pride?
Being the Light Isn’t Just a Slogan
The world doesn’t need more Jewish martyrs. It needs more Jewish mentors.
We must tell stories of Jewish greatness — not to brag, but to build. To show that our strength is not theoretical, but proven — and that being Jewish is not about surviving the storm; it’s about being the lighthouse.
We’ve produced scientists who changed medicine. Filmmakers who shaped global culture. Economists, engineers, scholars, and soldiers. The IDF doesn’t just defend Israel — it’s a school of leadership, innovation, and moral clarity. The same values pulse through the veins of Jewish entrepreneurs, philanthropists, and changemakers everywhere.
This is the Judaism that inspires. Not one built on fear, but one built on fire.
Let’s Not Scare Them Into Silence
There’s another danger to our obsession with antisemitism. We’re not just exhausting our youth; we’re intimidating them.
If every interaction with Jewish life feels like a moral war zone, many will choose to remain on the sidelines. Not because they don’t care, but because they’re overwhelmed. We’ve created an emotional toll booth at the entrance to Jewish identity. Pay in trauma, or move along.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
Do you know what’s actually countercultural? Joy. Confidence. Pride.
Instead of telling young Jews how bad it is to be hated, let’s tell them how good it is to be chosen. Not “chosen” in the arrogant, exclusivist sense that critics distort — but chosen to bring light, to pursue justice, to elevate the mundane.
Being Jewish isn’t about what others think of us. It’s about what we think of ourselves.
You want to energize a generation? Tell them the truth: Judaism is not the losing team. It’s the longest-running success story in human history. We are a tiny people with a massive legacy. We don’t need pity. We need purpose.
From Complaint to Campaign
Let’s be clear: fighting antisemitism is essential. But it cannot be our identity. It must be a chapter, not the cover.
The future of Judaism won’t be written in the language of grievance. It will be written by those who build, create, and lead with confidence –who wear their Jewish identity not as armor, but as a beacon.
The next generation doesn’t want to join a protest. They want to join a movement. Not just against something. But for something. For beauty. For wisdom. For joy. For life.
Let’s give them that movement. Let’s give them that story. Let’s give them back their pride.
Steve Rosenberg is the Principal of the Team GSD, the Regional Director for NAVI in Philadelphia and the author of the book: Make Bold Things Happen: Inspirational Stories from Sports, Business And Life.
The post We Must Give Our Jewish Youth Hope, Not Despair first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
A View From the Classroom: The War Against Israel on Dutch University Campuses
March 29, 2025, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands: A pro-Palestinian demonstrator burns a hand-fashioned Israeli flag. Photo: James Petermeier/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Outside of America, the war against Israel is also being fought on European university campuses — a second, often overlooked front.
While most attention is focused on the US, equally troubling developments are unfolding across Europe — particularly in the Netherlands.
Maastricht University exemplifies this concern. Student organizations like Free Palestine Maastricht (FPM) routinely host demonstrations marked by extremist rhetoric, inciting violence and antisemitism. Chants include explicit calls for violence such as “Long live the armed resistance, there is only one solution, Intifada revolution,” and “Falasteen horra horra, el sahyouni barra barra” (Palestine free, Zionists out), creating a deeply hostile environment for Jewish students and faculty.
Beyond rhetoric, FPM engages in fundraising disguised as humanitarian aid, funneling funds to extremist-linked entities in Gaza.
One Gazan recipient, the Sanabel Team, publicly celebrated antisemitic violence against Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer fans in Amsterdam in November 2024, framing these acts as continuations of Hamas atrocities on October 7, 2023. Alarmingly, FPM reposted and endorsed the chilling call: “Kill all Zionists.”
After platforms like PayPal and GoFundMe blocked extremist fundraising, FPM continued through direct transfers and cash collections, coinciding notably with reports of severe financial difficulties faced by Hezbollah, Hamas’ ally.
Faculty complicity further deepens the crisis. A lecturer from Radboud University in Nijmegen reposted propaganda from Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, implicitly endorsing violence. He also explicitly called for disrupting a lecture by Syrian peace advocate Rawan Osman at Maastricht University, enthusiastically acted upon by FPM. The event escalated dangerously, prompting municipal authorities to advise its termination. Protesters surrounded the building, aggressively banged on windows, hurled antisemitic slurs, and attendees required police protection to exit. Subsequently, Jewish students who organized the lecture were denied permission for future events, while FPM continues freely.
Both Nijmegen and Maastricht universities have historical connections with Samidoun, designated by several countries as a front for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a terrorist entity. Samidoun advocates for prisoners involved in terrorism, amplifies extremist rhetoric, and participates actively in anti-Israel propaganda.
Maastricht University maintains partnerships with Iranian universities linked to Iran’s extremist regime, yet simultaneously froze ties with Israeli institutions after FPM occupied a faculty building’s garden, declaring it a “Zionist-free” zone. This double standard underscores alarming institutional complicity. Additionally, FPM has spread the shocking accusation on social media that the Hebrew University of Jerusalem uses stolen Palestinian organs for scientific research — a modern revival of antisemitic blood libels — yet Maastricht University has taken no action against this dangerous and inflammatory propaganda.
This troubling climate exists on campuses across the Netherlands, as confirmed by recent research conducted by Dr. Eliyahu Sapir and myself. Our findings document widespread intimidation, threats, and explicit antisemitism at Dutch universities, including professors penalizing students who object to antisemitic remarks, campus protests equating Israel with Nazi Germany, and confrontations specifically targeting visibly Jewish students.
Campus-driven extremism directly impacts Dutch policy and public opinion. In 2024, intensified activism led the Dutch Court of Appeal to halt exports of essential components for Israel’s F-35 jets. Public opinion has also shifted markedly; an April 2025 Ipsos poll revealed 54% of Dutch citizens now support harsher policies toward Israel.
These campus developments mirror shifts within the Dutch government. Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp consistently aligns his rhetoric with Hamas, advocating ceasefires to facilitate hostage releases, rather than insisting on the prior release of hostages. He criticized pro-Israel groups, labeling their humanitarian support for Jewish settlements “undesirable,” yet offered no similar scrutiny to Hamas-linked funding groups. Veldkamp even prematurely suggested Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu could face arrest due to an ICC ruling, deliberately setting a confrontational diplomatic tone.
The gravity of this situation is internationally recognized. At the upcoming European Jewish Association (EJA) Annual Conference in Madrid (May 12–13, 2025), over 150 Jewish community leaders will address antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment on European campuses, highlighting Maastricht as a key example.
Given this hostile climate and complicity in extremist activities, Israel should seriously reconsider academic partnerships with Dutch universities. Taking decisive action would send a clear message: institutions tolerating antisemitic propaganda must face meaningful consequences.
There are few dissenting voices against this extremist narrative — I am one of them. Consequently, I have received racist and sexist slurs, faced online death threats explicitly stating that I am a legitimate target to be destroyed, vaporized, or made to “disappear.” I have found pigeons slaughtered on my car, and my car door smeared with blood. These attacks are not personal; they are part of the broader war against Israel.
Let’s win it.
The author is Associate Professor at Maastricht University.
The post A View From the Classroom: The War Against Israel on Dutch University Campuses first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Disgusting News: Pulitzer Prize Winner Excused Abduction of Israelis by Hamas
Released British-Israeli hostage Emily Damari arrives at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel, after being held in Gaza since the deadly Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, in this image obtained by Reuters on Jan. 19, 2025. Photo: Maayan Toaf/GPO/Handout via REUTERS
The Pulitzer Prize was awarded last week to a Gazan poet who excused the abduction of Israelis by Hamas, HonestReporting revealed on exclusively, while calling for the prestigious award to be rescinded.
Mosab Abu Toha, who also spread antisemitic content and fake news on his social media platforms, won the top honor in journalism on Monday (May 5) for his essays published in the New Yorker describing the ongoing war in the enclave.
But it seems that both the magazine and the Pulitzer committee failed to check Abu Toha’s virulent social media posts against Israeli hostages whom Hamas brutally abducted on October 7, 2023.
HonestReporting exclusively shared these posts with Fox News Digital, which reached out to Abu Toha, The New Yorker, and the Pulitzer Prize organization for comment.
Meet Pulitzer Prize winner Mosab Abu Toha. He justifies the kidnapping of Israelis on Oct. 7.
We aren’t going to congratulate him for his prize. Instead, we’re going to ask @PulitzerPrizes whether they bothered to check his social media.
Because we did, and it’s not pretty.
pic.twitter.com/qQAMQGi0IK
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 7, 2025
“How is this girl called a hostage?”
Abu Toha, who currently lives in the US, specifically disparaged female Israeli hostages, questioned their hostage status and implicitly justified their abduction.
Toha posted the following about Israeli hostage Emily Damari on January 24, 2025:
How on earth is this girl called a hostage? (And this is the case of most ‘hostages’). This is Emily Damari, a 28 UK-Israeli soldier that Hamas detailed on 10/7… So this girl is called a ‘hostage?’ This soldier who was close to the border with a city that she and her country have been occupying is called a ‘hostage?’
Damari, an Israeli civilian, was shot twice and abducted from her home on Kibbutz Kfar Aza on October 7. Hamas held her for 471 days. But Abu Toha thinks that she cannot even be considered a hostage because she was a “soldier.”
A similar post by Abu Toha, posted on February 3, 2025, targeted former Israeli hostage Agam Berger:
The Israeli ‘hostage’ Agam Berger, who was released days ago participates in her sister’s graduation from an Israeli Air Force officers’ course. These are the ones the world wants to share sympathy for, killers who join the army and have family in the army! These are the ones whom CNN, BBC and the likes humanize in articles and TV programs and news bulletins.
Hamas held Agam Berger hostage with none of the rights due to a prisoner who has gone through a legal process. But that doesn’t matter to Abu Toha.
Toha also cast doubt on the forensic evidence that showed that the Bibas children — 9-month-old Kfir and Ariel, 4 — were killed by their captors.
Toha posted February 21, 2025:
Shame on BBC, propaganda machine. IDF spokesman Daniel Hagari said ‘forensic findings’, which have not been seen by the BBC, suggested the boys had been killed with ‘bare hands.’ If you haven’t seen any evidence, why did you publish this. Well, that’s what you are, filthy people.
An Israeli forensic analysis found that the two small boys were killed by the murderers’ “bare hands.” Heart-wrenching footage from October 7 showed Shiri Bibas and her two boys being kidnapped from their home in Kibbutz Nir Oz.
Abu Toha’s rush to cleanse Hamas of their brutal murder could be considered to be justifying it.
Antisemitic Slurs
Other posts by Abu Toha constitute a clear violation of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.
When Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimeh was arrested by Swiss police in Zurich, Abu Toha blamed “the Zionists,” echoing antisemitic tropes about Jewish control over state bodies, government, and the media.
Another pattern in Abu Toha’s posts is the demonization of Israeli soldiers and symbols. According to Abu Toha, Israeli “terror soldiers” celebrating the Jewish festival of Hanukkah is “what true antisemitism looks like.”
He also thinks that Israeli soldiers’ blood is forfeit when they are off duty — implicitly supporting harming Israeli civilians, most of whom served or still serve as reservists in the IDF due to Israel’s mandatory conscription law.
In another breach of IHRA’s definition, Abu Toha minimized the Holocaust by comparing it to Gaza’s “genocide.”
Abu Toha also seemed to mouth Hamas propaganda and fake news, accusing Israel of having bombed Al-Ahli Hospital in the Gaza Strip on October 17, 2023. In the initial hours after the blast, mainstream media outlets parroted claims made by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry that Israel bombed the hospital, killing as many as 500 people.
But international authorities quickly concluded that it was the hospital’s parking lot that was hit by a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad missile, resulting in a death toll a fraction of what Hamas had first alleged.
A Blemish on the Pulitzer Prize
The exposure of Abu Toha’s posts prompted HonestReporting executive director Gil Hoffman to call for the prize to be rescinded:
The Pulitzer Prize is the top award in journalism and should not be blemished by bestowing it to a man who repeatedly twisted facts,” Hoffman said. “Abu Toha justifies abducting civilians from their homes, spreads fake news, and calls lighting a Menorah on Hanukkah antisemitism. That doesn’t sound prizeworthy to me.
Hoffman’s words are all the more poignant given that last year, HonestReporting campaigned against giving the Pulitzer Prize to photographers who crossed the border from Gaza with terrorists on October 7, 2023, and broke both physical and ethical boundaries.
When Reuters won the prize for international photography, there were no pictures from that day in the winning bid. Reuters later confirmed that images obtained from infiltrators were deliberately excluded so the win would not be marred.
Meanwhile, Israeli Consul General in New York, Ofir Akunis, told Fox News Digital that “these posts are an absolute disgrace, and this man should be condemned for his comments, not given a Pulitzer Prize. Reading these posts should make any decent person absolutely sick to their stomach.”
HonestReporting believes it’s necessary to unequivocally condemn Abu Toha and rescind the prize if the Pulitzer organization wishes to uphold its reputation as a beacon of excellence and ethics in journalism that must not be tarnished.
HonestReporting is a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Disgusting News: Pulitzer Prize Winner Excused Abduction of Israelis by Hamas first appeared on Algemeiner.com.