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
Norway to Donate Proceeds From Israel Soccer Match to Doctors Without Borders in Gaza
Alexander Sørloth of Norway scores the 1-2 goal during the FIFA World Cup Qualifier football match between Israel and Norway on March 25, 2025, in Debrecen. Photo: Photo: VEGARD GRØTT/Bildbyran/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The governing body of soccer in Norway announced on Monday that profits from an upcoming Norway-Israel qualifying match for the 2026 FIFA World Cup will go to the international NGO Doctors Without Borders to support humanitarian efforts in the Gaza Strip.
The Norwegian Football Federation, also known as the Norges Fotballforbund (NFF), made the announcement ahead of the sold-out game on Oct. 11 scheduled to take place in Oslo. Roughly 23,000 tickets were sold for the game at Ullevaal Stadium. The organization first announced in mid-August that it would donate profits from ticket sales for the match to a humanitarian cause that helps Palestinians in Gaza, but its selection of Doctors Without Borders was not publicized until Monday in a statement on NFF’s website.
“The money will be earmarked for the organization’s emergency relief work on the ground in Gaza and the surrounding areas affected by the war,” the NFF said. One of Norway’s largest investment companies had pledged to donate an additional 3 million Norwegian kroner – which is almost $307,000 – to Doctors Without Borders, according to the federation. The NFF did not disclose the name of the company but said both the NFF and Doctors Without Borders know the identity of the donor.
NFF President Lise Klaveness said that as a member of FIFA and the UEFA, the Norwegian governing body of soccer “has to deal with Israel participating in their competitions.”
“At the same time, we cannot and will not be indifferent to the humanitarian suffering that is taking place in the region, especially the disproportionate attacks against civilians in Gaza,” she added. “We want to give the profits to an organization that saves lives in the Gaza Strip every day and that contributes with active emergency aid on the ground, and that is what Doctors Without Borders does.”
The NFF previously shared that extra security measures will be taken at the match on Oct. 11, including limited capacity, to ensure the safety of everyone in attendance.
Also on Monday, Gabriele Gravina, president of the Italian Football Federation, said in an interview with national public radio that his organization “will coordinate with UEFA to implement some humanitarian initiatives” surrounding Italy’s game against Israel on Oct. 14. The Italians will host Israel in Udine.
Klaveness and Gravina are both part of the UEFA’s 20-person executive committee, which also includes Israel Football Association President Moshe Zuares.
When the NFF announced last month that it will donate profits from the Norway-Israel match on Oct. 11 to a humanitarian cause, Zuares’s organization urged its Norwegian counterpart to “make sure the money is not transferred to terrorist organization.” The Israel Football Association also said it “would be nice” if the Norwegian Football Association condemned the Hamas-led terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023.
“We do not usually advise associations regarding the use of match revenue, even if it is obtained thanks to a match against our proud national team, but we will deviate from our custom this time,” the Israeli Football Association said in a statement. “It would be nice if some of the amount were directed to try to finding a condemnation by the Norwegian FA of the Oct. 7 massacre that claimed the lives of hundreds of Israeli citizens and children, or action in favor of the release of 50 hostages – and please, make sure that the money is not transferred to terrorist organizations or to whale hunting.”
RSS
In Show of Support, Belgian PM Attends Concert of Israeli Conductor Disinvited From Music Festival
Lahav Shani, future chief conductor of the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, stands on stage after receiving the Golden Medal of Honor from the City of Munich. Photo: Sven Hoppe/dpa via Reuters Connect
Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever attended a concert by the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra over the weekend in a sign of solidarity after a Belgian music festival rescinded its invitation to the orchestra because its future chief conductor is from Israel.
Organizers of the Flanders Festival Ghent canceled a scheduled performance by the Munich Philharmonic set for later this week due to concerns regarding Tel Aviv-born conductor Lahav Shani, and his “attitude to the genocidal regime in Tel Aviv.” Shani is the chief conductor of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra and will take over as chief conductor of the Munich orchestra for the 2026/27 season.
The cancellation of the concert sparked widespread criticism and accusations of discrimination and antisemitism. The move was condemned by senior German and Belgian politicians, including Munich Mayor Dieter Reiter and the prime minister of the Belgian region of Flanders. De Wever, who also previously criticized the decision, wrote in a post on X that he traveled to the German city of Essen on Saturday to attend a performance by Shani and the orchestra, and to “strongly condemn” the decision.
“Let me be very clear: there will never, ever be any room for racism and antisemitism in this country. That is where I draw the line,” the prime minister wrote in a post on X, which included a picture of him shaking Shani’s hand.”I therefore strongly condemn the recent cancellation of the Münchner Philharmoniker by the Flanders Festival Ghent, solely on the basis of the origin of conductor Lahav Shani. I insisted on conveying this message to him personally and expressing my appreciation for his contribution to the power of music.”
After being booted from the Flanders Festival Ghent last week, the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra was invited to perform on Monday at the Konzerthaus Berlin as part of the Berlin Music Festival. The short-notice invitation and guest performance was organized as a joint effort by the Berlin Philharmonic (also known as the Berliner Philharmoniker), festival organizers, and in cooperation with the Konzerthaus Berlin. Shani conducted the orchestra in a performance of Beethoven’s violin concerto and extracts from Richard Wagner’s opera “Tristan and Isolde.”
In a released statement, the board of the Berliner Philharmoniker Foundation expressed “full solidarity” with Shani, the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, and violinist Lisa Batiashvili, who was scheduled to perform alongside them at the Flanders Festival.
“Lahav Shani has been closely associated with our orchestra since his debut in Sept. 2020,” the board said. “During this time, we have come to know him as a thoughtful artist and a person who – especially with regard to the Middle East conflict – has repeatedly spoken out in favor of peace, dialogue, and reconciliation. Excluding an artist from a festival because of his nationality is wrong and contradicts our understanding of music and culture. We are convinced that, especially in these times, music should build bridges rather than deepen divisions.”
RSS
Under US Pressure, Syria and Israel Inch Toward Security Deal
Members of Israeli security forces stand at the ceasefire line between the Golan Heights and Syria, July 16, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Under US pressure, Syria is accelerating talks with Israel for a security pact that Damascus hopes will reverse Israel‘s recent seizures of its land but that would fall far short of a full peace treaty, sources briefed on the talks said.
Washington is pushing for enough progress to be made by the time world leaders gather in New York for the UN General Assembly at the end of this month to allow President Donald Trump to announce a breakthrough, four of the sources told Reuters.
Even a modest agreement would be a feat, the sources said, pointing to Israel‘s tough stance during months of talks and Syria‘s weakened position after sectarian bloodshed in its south inflamed calls for partition.
Reuters spoke to nine sources familiar with the discussions and with Israel‘s operations in southern Syria, including Syrian military and political officials, two intelligence sources, and an Israeli official.
They said Syria‘s proposal aims to secure the withdrawal of Israeli troops from territory seized in recent months, to reinstate a demilitarized buffer zone agreed in a 1974 truce, and to halt Israeli air strikes and ground incursions into Syria.
The sources said talks had not addressed the status of the Golan Heights, which Israel seized in a 1967 war. A Syrian source familiar with Damascus’s position said it would be left “for the future.”
The two countries have technically been at war since the creation of Israel in 1948, despite periodic armistices. Syria does not recognize the state of Israel.
After months of encroaching into the demilitarized zone, Israel abandoned the 1974 truce on Dec. 8, the day a rebel offensive ousted Syria‘s then-president Bashar al-Assad. It struck Syrian military assets and sent troops to within 20 kilometers (12 miles) of Damascus.
Israel has shown reluctance during the closed-door talks to relinquish those gains, the sources said.
“The US is pressuring Syria to accelerate a security deal – this is personal for Trump,” said an Israeli security source, who said the US leader wanted to present himself as the architect of a major success in Middle Eastern diplomacy.
But, the source said, “Israel is not offering much.”
The offices of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, who has been leading the negotiations, did not respond to Reuters questions.
A State Department official said Washington “continues to support any efforts that will bring lasting stability and peace between Israel, Syria, and its neighbors.” The official did not answer questions on whether the US wanted to announce a breakthrough during the General Assembly.
TRUST DEFICIT AT TALKS
Israel has voiced hostility to Syria‘s Islamist-led government, pointing to President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s former jihadist links, and has lobbied Washington to keep the country weak and decentralized.
But the US has encouraged talks – keen to expand the countries that signed peace deals with Israel under the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first administration.
Exploratory contacts began in Abu Dhabi following Sharaa’s April visit to the Emirates, which have ties with Israel. The two sides then met in the Azerbaijani capital Baku in July.
Days later, discussions were plunged into disarray when Syrian troops deployed to the southwestern Sweida region to quell sectarian violence between Bedouin and Druze militias. Israel said the deployment violated its enforcement of a “demilitarized zone” and bombed the defense ministry in Damascus. Sharaa accused it of seeking pretexts to interfere in Syria‘s south.
A US-brokered ceasefire ended the violence and, a month later, bilateral negotiations resumed in Paris – marking the first time Syria publicly acknowledged holding direct talks with its longtime foe.
However, the atmosphere in the room was tense, with a lack of trust between the two sides, according to two Syrian sources and a Western diplomat.
Negotiators are following a phased process modeled on deals Israel reached with Egypt that paved the way for a landmark normalization of relations in 1980. That involved the return to Egypt of the Sinai peninsula, seized by Israel in the 1967 war.
Six sources briefed on the talks said Israel would be unwilling even in the longterm to return the Golan, which Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli in his first term.
Instead, Israel floated a proposal to the US special envoy for Syria, Thomas Barrack, that it could withdraw from southern Syria in return for Sharaa relinquishing the Golan, the Israeli official said.
“Our feelers via the Americans suggest this is a non-starter,” the official said. Netanyahu’s office, Dermer’s office, and the US State Department did not respond to questions on the swap proposal.
A Syrian official told Reuters that Sharaa understood that “any compromise on the Golan would mean the end of his rule” and had told Barrack the security pact must be anchored in the 1974 lines.
While Sharaa is willing to accelerate talks with Israel to please Washington, he remains wary, according to a Western intelligence officer, the Israeli official, and Syrian source.
He has told Barrack that conditions are not yet ripe for a broad peace agreement. “The basic elements of trust are simply not there,” said the Syrian official.
A senior US administration official told Reuters that Trump was clear when he met Sharaa in May in Riyadh that “he expected Syria to work towards peace and normalization with Israel and its neighbors.”
“The administration has actively supported this position since then,” the official said. “The president wants peace throughout the Middle East.”
NARROW PATH FOR SHARAA
Realities on the ground have limited the Syrian leader’s options.
On the one hand, Israel‘s incursions and support for the Druze have hardened Syrian public opinion against any deal, a factor weighing on Sharaa, officials say.
On the other, Israel‘s land grabs in Syria pose a threat to Damascus, making a de-escalatory pact all the more important for Sharaa.
A Syrian military officer based near the border with Israel, who asked not to be identified, said Syrian army patrols in the south avoid confronting Israeli troops, who regularly raid villages and go door-to-door collecting household data and searching for arms.
In response to Reuters questions, the Israeli military said its operations had discovered “numerous weapons,” thwarted smuggling attempts, and apprehended “dozens of suspects involved in advancing terrorist activity.”
The Israeli military was operating in southern Syria to protect Israel and its citizens, the statement said. Israel has threatened air strikes on any significant Syrian military or intelligence presence near the border without its consent.
Israel uses its new post at Mount Hermon, which it seized after Assad’s fall, to surveil the region. Defense Minister Israel Katz said last month Israel would not cede the location.
Israel‘s military has imposed buffer zones in some neighboring countries following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas, in which some 1,200 people were killed.
“As in northern Gaza and southern Lebanon, Israel is now enforcing a wider demilitarized zone in southern Syria,” Syrian security analyst Wael Alwan said.
DRUZE DEVELOPMENTS BOLSTERED ISRAEL
Israel‘s position has been strengthened by developments in Sweida, where Syrian forces stand accused of execution-style killings of Druze civilians. Druze leaders are calling for independence and a humanitarian corridor from Golan to Sweida – a challenge to Sharaa’s vow to centralize control of Syrian territory.
Two senior Druze figures, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, said that since the Sweida fighting, Israel was helping unify splintered Druze factions and had delivered military supplies including guns and ammunition to them.
The two Druze commanders and a Western intelligence source said that Israel was also paying salaries for many of the roughly 3,000 Druze militia fighters.
Reuters was not able to independently confirm the munitions supplies nor the payments. The offices of Netanyahu and Dermer did not respond to Reuters questions on support for the Druze militia.
Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani dismissed the possibility of a humanitarian corridor at the Paris talks, saying it would infringe on Syria‘s sovereignty, according to a Syrian official familiar with the discussions.
Both sides agreed that stability in Syria‘s south was key to preventing a resurgence of covert agents linked to Iran, Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, or Palestinian terrorist groups – common enemies of Israel and Syria‘s new leaders. Israel agreed to allow interior ministry forces to deploy checkpoints in Sweida.
“Both parties are probing areas of common ground,” said the Syrian official.
Sharaa is keen not to provoke his southern neighbor, aware of how much damage its military can inflict, one close aide said on condition of anonymity: “Avoiding confrontation is central to his plan to rebuild and govern.”
Erdem Ozan, a former Turkish diplomat and expert on Syria, said Sharaa could accelerate talks to secure economic aid and reconstruction support from investors, Gulf benefactors, and Washington.
“Sharaa’s focus on economic delivery could push him toward pragmatic concessions, but he’ll need to balance this with maintaining legitimacy among his supporters,” Ozan said.
Concessions could include handing greater autonomy to regional groups, including the Kurds and Druze, Ozan said, as well as demilitarization near Syria‘s borders with Israel and Jordan.