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
New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
In a warning sign for the campaign of Democratic nominee for mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani, a majority of city voters in a new poll say the candidate’s hardline anti-Israel stance makes them less likely to vote for him.
In the survey of likely city voters conducted by American Pulse, 52.5 percent said Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada” coupled with his backing of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement made them less likely to vote for him in November. Just 31% of city voters polled were more likely to support him because of these positions.
At the same time, a significant share of young New York City voters support Mamdani’s anti-Israel positioning, a striking sign of shifting generational views on Israel and the Palestinian cause.
Nearly half of voters aged 18 to 44 (46 percent) said the State Assembly member’s backing for BDS and “refusal to condemn the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’” made them more likely to support him.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist from Queens, has been under fire for defending “globalize the intifada,” a slogan many Jewish groups associate with incitement to violence against Israel and Jews. While critics argue it glorifies terrorism, supporters claim it’s a call for international solidarity with oppressed peoples, especially Palestinians. Mamdani has also voiced support for BDS, a movement widely condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations as antisemitic for singling out Israel.
The generational divide exposed by the poll comes amid a broader political realignment. Younger progressives across the country are increasingly critical of Israeli policies, especially in the wake of the Gaza war, and more receptive to Palestinian activism. But to many Jewish leaders, Mamdani’s rising support is alarming.
Rabbi David Wolpe, visiting scholar at Harvard University, condemned the phrase with a sarcastic analogy.
“‘Globalize the intifada’ is just a political slogan,” he said. “Like ‘The cockroaches must be exterminated’ was just a housing authority slogan in Rwanda.”
Jewish organizations have reported a surge in antisemitic incidents in New York and across the U.S. since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last fall. The blending of anti-Zionist slogans with calls for “intifada,” historically linked to violent uprisings, has deepened fears among Jewish communities that traditional red lines are being crossed.
Whether this emerging coalition reshapes New York politics remains to be seen. However, the poll indicates that among younger voters, views that were once considered fringe are quickly moving into the mainstream.
The post New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events
A Jewish gay pride flag. Photo: Twitter.
The research division of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) released a report on Wednesday detailing incidents of hate against Jews which took place last month during demonstrations in celebration of LGBTQ rights and identity.
Incidents reported by the group include:
- At a Pride march in Wales, the activists Cymru Queers for Palestine chose to block the path and show a sign that said “Profiting from genocide,” an attempt to link the event’s sponsors — such as Amazon — to the war in Gaza.
- A Dublin Pride march saw the participation of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which labeled Israel a “genocidal entity.”
- In Toronto at a late June Pride march, demonstrators again attacked organizers with a sign declaring, “Pride partners with genocide.”
CAM also identified a recurring narrative deployed against Israel by some far-left activists: so-called “pinkwashing,” a term which the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement calls “an Israeli government propaganda strategy that cynically exploits LGBTQIA+ rights to project a progressive image while concealing Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies oppressing Palestinians.”
The report notes that at a Washington DC Pride event in early June Medea Benjamin, cofounder of activist group Code Pink and a regular of anti-war protests, wore a pair of goofy, oversized sunglasses and a shirt in her signature pink with the phrase “you can’t pinkwash genocide.”
Other incidents CAM recorded showed the injection of anti-Israel sentiment into Pride events.
A musical group canceled a performance at an interfaith service in Brooklyn, claiming the hosting synagogue had a “public alignment with pro-Israel political positions.” In San Francisco before the yearly Trans March, a Palestine group said in its announcement of its participation, “Stop the war on Iran and the genocide of Palestine, stop the war on immigrants and attacks on trans people.”
CAM notes that this “queers for Palestine” sentiment is not new, pointing to a 2017 event wherein “organizers of the Chicago Dyke March infamously removed participants who were waving a Pride flag adorned with a Star of David on the grounds that the symbol ‘made people feel unsafe.’”
In February, the Israel Defense Forces shared with the New York Post documents it had recovered demonstrating that Hamas had tortured and executed members it suspected of homosexuality and other moral offenses in conflict with Islamist ideology.
Amit Benjamin, who is gay and a first sergeant major in the IDF, said during a visit to New York City for Pride month that “All the ‘queers for Gaza’ need to open their eyes. Hamas kills gays … kills lesbians … queers cannot exist in Gaza.”
The post Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl/File Photo
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff over their return to the country’s nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran’s facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran’s parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency’s inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
“An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict,” the IAEA said on X.
Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors’ safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“[Grossi] reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible,” the IAEA said.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran’s nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400 kg enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful, but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries’ declarations. But the bombing of Iran’s facilities has now muddied the waters.
“We cannot afford that … the inspection regime is interrupted,” Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
The post IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on first appeared on Algemeiner.com.