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 Insists US Will ‘Take’ Gaza, Jordan’s King Stays Mum on Palestinian Relocation During White House Visit
US President Donald Trump meets with Jordan’s King Abdullah at the White House in Washington, DC, Feb. 11, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
US President Donald Trump insisted that America will “take” Gaza and that other countries in the Middle East will absorb the Palestinians currently residing in the enclave while meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan in the White House on Tuesday.
“There’s nothing to buy. We will have Gaza. No reason to buy. There is nothing to buy,” Trump said.
The president suggested that the damage incurred by the ongoing Israel-Hamas war has corroded Gaza’s value and that the United States will simply seize the enclave. However, he did not detail how he plans to facilitate or finance the reconstruction of Gaza.
“It’s Gaza. It’s a war-torn area. We’re going to take it. We’re going to hold it. We’re going to cherish it,” Trump added.
Nonetheless, the president vowed that the US will energize Gaza’s economy and turn the territory into a “diamond” and “tremendous asset” for the Middle East. Trump maintained that Gaza possesses the potential to become a “great economic development” for the region, touting its scenic location on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.
However, the president lamented that seemingly “every 10 years” Gaza erupts into explosive warfare, resulting in “death and destruction” for its civilians.
Trump added that he believes “99 percent” that the United States could strike an agreement with Egypt to relocate the residents of Gaza, where the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas ruled before the war and remains the strongest faction.
When asked what he thought of Trump’s ambitions to transfer Palestinian civilians to Egypt, Abdullah revealed that Egypt and other Arab countries are planning to meet in Saudi Arabia to discuss the future of Gaza. Abdullah refused to speak extensively about Trump’s stated goal of removing Palestinians from Gaza, advising reporters to “not get ahead of ourselves” and wait for Arab countries to deliberate about the matter.
“It’s hard to make this work in a way that’s good for everybody,” Abdullah said.
Though the Jordanian king would not commit to taking in large numbers of Palestinians, he said Jordan would be willing to “take 2,000 children that are cancer children or are in [a] very ill state” while Arab countries “wait for the Egyptians to present their plan on how we can work with the president to work on Gaza challenges.”
During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House last week, Trump called on Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states in the region to take in Palestinians from Gaza after nearly 16 months of war between Israel and the Hamas. Arab leaders have adamantly rejected Trump’s proposal.
Last week, the US president expressed similar sentiments as he did on Tuesday, saying that the US would “take over” the Gaza Strip to build the war-torn Palestinian enclave back up. However, many members of the US Congress across both parties pushed back on Trump’s declaration, accusing him of endangering American troops, destabilizing the Middle East, and floating an ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza. Trump has also stated that Palestinians would not have the “right to return” to Gaza after being relocated and said no US troops would be needed for his plan without elaborating.
Following his meeting with Trump, Abdullah took to social media to call for a permanent end to the war in Gaza and the creation of a Palestinian state.
“This is the unified Arab position. Rebuilding Gaza without displacing the Palestinians and addressing the dire humanitarian situation should be the priority for all,” he wrote on X/Twitter.
“Achieving just peace on the basis of the two-state solution is the way to ensure regional stability. This requires US leadership. President Trump is a man of peace. He was instrumental in securing the Gaza ceasefire. We look to US and all stakeholders in ensuring it holds,” the Jordanian king added.
The post Trump Insists US Will ‘Take’ Gaza, Jordan’s King Stays Mum on Palestinian Relocation During White House Visit first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Bowdoin College Clears ‘Gaza Encampment’
Anti-Zionist Bowdoin College students storming the Smith Union administrative building on the evening of Feb. 6, 2025, to occupy it in protest of what they said are the college’s links to Israel. Photo: Screenshot
Bowdoin College in Maine has negotiated an end to an anti-Zionist group’s occupation of an administrative building without acceding to any of its demands for a boycott of Israel, The Bowdoin Orient reported on Monday.
The group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)had installed an encampment inside Smith Union on Thursday night in response to US President Donald Trump’s proposing that the US “take over” the Gaza Strip and transform it into a hub for tourism and economic dynamism. The roughly 50 students who resided inside the building vowed not to leave until the Bowdoin officials agree to adopt the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
Following the action, Bowdoin officials promptly moved to deescalate the situation by counseling the students to mind the “gravity of situation” in which they placed themselves, with senior associate dean Katie Toro-Ferrari warning that their behavior “could put them on the path where they are jeopardizing their ability to remain as Bowdoin students.” No sooner had it sent this communication than it began issuing temporary suspensions to students who rejected appeals to leave Smith Union and return to normal student life.
“You will be placed on temporary suspension, effective immediately, pending a college disciplinary process,” Bowdoin vice president Jim Hoppe wrote to the protesters in a letter, copies of which were sent to their parents. “During your immediate suspension, you may not attend your Spring 2025 courses … Your family will receive a copy of this letter. This temporary status will continue until further notice.”
Facing threats of severer sanctions, SJP agreed to vacate Smith Union on Monday and shared that they had issued a plea for mercy in discussions with college officials which called for them to “understand a context of good faith for the students who have engaged in this action.” By that time, several students had already left the building, according to the Orient.
Republicans in Washington, DC have said that disruptive and extremist political activity on college campuses “will no longer be tolerated in the Trump administration.” Meanwhile, the new US president has enacted a slew of policies aimed at reining in disruptive and discriminatory behavior.
Continuing work started during his first administration — when Trump issued Executive Order 13899 to ensure that civil rights law apply equally Jews — Trump’s recent “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism” calls for “using all appropriate legal tools to prosecute, remove, or otherwise … hold to account perpetrators of unlawful antisemitic harassment and violence.” The order also requires each government agency to write a report explaining how it can be of help in carrying out its enforcement. Another major provision of the order calls for the deportation of extremist “alien” student activists, whose support for terrorist organizations, intellectual and material, such as Hamas contributed to fostering antisemitism, violence, and property destruction.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Bowdoin College Clears ‘Gaza Encampment’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Rebuffs Trump’s ‘Worthless’ Call for Israel to Resume War if Terror Group Refuses to Release Hostages
Then-US President-elect Donald Trump makes remarks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, US, Jan. 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Hamas has rebuffed US President Donald Trump’s warning that he’ll “let hell break out” if the Palestinian terrorist group does not release all the Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza, saying that the American leader’s threats are “worthless and only complicate matters.”
“Trump must remember that there is an agreement that must be respected by both parties, and this is the only way to get the prisoners back,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhr told multiple press agencies, referring to the Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal between the terrorist group and Israel. “The language of threats is worthless and only complicates matters.”
On Monday, Trump advised Israel to cancel the ceasefire and said he would “let hell break out” if Hamas refused to release the remaining hostages. Trump’s comments echoed statements made by his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, last month that the White House would support Israel resuming the war in Gaza if Hamas violated the ceasefire agreement.
“As far as I’m concerned, if all of the hostages aren’t returned by Saturday at 12 o’clock … I would say, cancel it [the hostage deal] and all bets are off and let hell break out,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “I’d say they ought to be returned by 12 o’clock on Saturday, and if they’re not returned — all of them — not in dribs and drabs, not two and one and three and four and two — Saturday at 12 o’clock. And after that, I would say, all hell is going to break out.”
Trump cautioned that Israel might want to override him on the issue and said he might speak to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump’s comments came after Hamas announced on Monday that it would stop releasing Israeli hostages until further notice over alleged violations of the ceasefire deal. Hamas spokesperson Abu Obeida claimed that Israel has prevented Palestinians from returning to northern Gaza, conducted strikes throughout the Gaza Strip, and impeded the delivery of humanitarian goods.
“The resistance leadership has closely monitored the enemy’s violations and its failure to uphold the terms of the agreement,” Obeida said.
The Israel Defense Forces has insisted that its strikes were conducted for defensive purposes, saying that its soldiers have “operated to distance suspects who posed a threat to them in different areas of the Gaza Strip.”
“The IDF is committed to fully implementing the conditions of the agreement for the return of the hostages,” the military wrote in a statement, adding that their forces are “prepared for any scenario and will continue to take any necessary actions to thwart immediate threat to IDF soldiers.”
Meanwhile, Israel said last week that 12,600 trucks of aid had arrived in Gaza since the beginning of the deal on Jan. 19.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza when they murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages during their invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in the neighboring enclave. The conflict raged for nearly 16 months until both sides agreed to last month’s ceasefire and hostage-release deal, the first phase of which is set to last six weeks.
Under phase one, Hamas agreed to free a total of 33 Israeli hostages, eight of whom are deceased, and in exchange, Israel would release over 1,900 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom are serving multiple life sentences for terrorist activity. Meanwhile, fighting in Gaza will stop as negotiators work on agreeing to a second phase of the agreement, which is expected to include Hamas releasing all remaining hostages held in Gaza and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the enclave.
So far, 16 of the 33 hostages in Gaza have been released within the first phase of the ceasefire.
The three latest hostages were released on Saturday. Their strikingly thin and emaciated bodies sparked international outrage about Hamas’s treatment of the hostages, with Trump comparing the captives to Holocaust survivors.
The details of the second phase of the ceasefire are still being negotiated. However, Israel has reportedly presented the White House with a plan to advance the truce with Hamas.
The post Hamas Rebuffs Trump’s ‘Worthless’ Call for Israel to Resume War if Terror Group Refuses to Release Hostages first appeared on Algemeiner.com.