Connect with us

RSS

Israel Needs a Large Army — Not Just Advanced Technology (PART ONE)

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) train the northern reserve paratrooper brigade to boost readiness along the northern border. Photo: IDF

What are the lessons for IDF force build-up following the Hamas attack on October 7 and the Iron Swords War? A recent article by Prof. Azar Gat concludes that “there is no need to increase the scope of the forces and the existing force build-up should be continued, the main [element] of which is investments in technologies that are the key to the advantage of the IDF on the battlefield and for the current achievements.”

We do not agree with this conclusion, and believe it to have negative strategic consequences. The continuing inability of the IDF to realize the goals of the current war is mainly the result of a lack of ready and available maneuvering units, a lack that military technology cannot compensate for no matter how good it is. If the IDF is to be able to fulfill its responsibilities, it needs more well-trained maneuver divisions to resurrect the territorial defense organization as well as maintain technological superiority.

More than half a year after October 7, the Iron Swords War is still going on. Before after-action investigations have been completed, experts have already begun to draw conclusions about key strategic aspects of the war.

One central aspect concerns the future force build-up of the ground forces. Should the number of divisions and brigades be increased? What level of readiness and competence must they have? How does the concept of territorial defense fit into the army? What is the right balance between investment in advanced technologies and the size of combat forces available at any given time?

In his recent article, Prof. Gat warns against drawing incorrect conclusions from the October 2023 failure. He notes that “Since Hamas’s attack and the outbreak of the war in the Gaza Strip, the public discourse has been impressed by the view … that the IDF is too small given the threats; that reliance on technology has led to dangerous neglect and reduction of the ground forces; that the air force is disproportionately funded at the expense of the ground forces; and that there is a need to increase the defense budget significantly and permanently, beyond covering the expenses of the war.”

In his view, “These claims are misleading and even damaging, both militarily and economically.” Gat also claims that the forces that were in the Gaza Strip sector on the morning of October 7, which included about 400 fighters and 12 Merkava 4 tanks, could have, had they been in position, thwarted the Hamas attack. Combat helicopters and helicopters on standby, combined with the forces of the standby units, would have completed the defeat of Hamas, according to Gat.

Gat’s bottom line claim is that there is no need to increase the scope of the maneuvering forces. It is necessary, he says, to invest more in resurrecting the territorial defense organization and continue building the existing force, the main elements of which are investments in technology that are the key to the IDF’s advantage on the battlefield and to the current achievements.

While we take issue with his overall conclusion, Gat is right in two key matters. First, territorial defense forces must be rebuilt so they can provide an immediate response to an all-out attack or targeted raid on a civilian settlement until the arrival of military forces. Many plausible scenarios, including a ground attack on several fronts or several sectors on the same front by many invading forces, would keep the military forces too busy to rapidly reinforce every civilian settlement in the areas being attacked even if the army is ready, and this is even more true if the enemy achieves surprise. Properly equipped and trained forces organized on a local basis in each settlement would be able to provide a reasonable response to a wide range of scenarios of this type until the army is able to provide forces to support them.

Secondly, Gat is absolutely right that a proper balance must be maintained between defense spending and the state’s ability to continue to maintain a growing and developing economy, for both civilian and military reasons. Maintaining a large well-equipped and well-trained army requires a well-balanced and strong economy. An overstretching of resources to defense could lead to an economic collapse.

One of the lessons learned by the IDF and the Israeli governments from the Yom Kippur War was that if the regular army had been larger, the enemy’s initial achievements would have been radically diminished. Furthermore, Israel’s ability to conduct a protracted war required an increase in reserve forces and larger stocks of ammunition, spare parts and other essential commodities. However, the extent of the increase in Israel’s military, which was 2-2x the 1973 figures, was too large to be financed by the Israeli economy. This was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Israeli economy in the first half of the 1980s.

Our dispute with Gat is about the optimal balance point. Gat claims that the current war proves that the size of the IDF’s ground force is sufficient, and that there is therefore no need to increase it. We believe, to the contrary, that the war proved and continues to prove that the size of the existing force is insufficient. Had it been larger, we would be in a better operational situation today, which would also have had a positive effect on Israel’s political situation.

Even discounting the effect of the surprise on the outcome of October 7, 400 soldiers and 12 tanks are not sufficient to hold a front that is about 60 kilometers wide. So the question arises: Why was this the size of the force that was left on that front? The answer is that over the past two years, many forces have been diverted to fight in Judea and Samaria (Operation Breakwater) due to a sharp jump in the frequency of attacks there and the need for a significant increase in forces to address the increase and reduce it.

We further ask: How many soldiers, tanks and other military equipment were deployed on the other borders of the State of Israel on October 7? Was the situation on the Lebanese border better than on the Gaza border? The answer is no. There too, the size of the force deployed across the front was tiny compared to what was required. That being the case, what would have happened if, on that day, not only Hamas had attacked Israel but Hezbollah as well? And what about the Golan Heights? After all, Hezbollah does not stand alone. Iran and its other proxies stand behind it.

Part of the solution is the regular recruitment of more reserve units, but this will not suffice — due, among other things, to cuts in reserve units that have concentrated reserve days among a relatively small group of people.

Responding to the events of October 7 as they occurred, or as they could have occurred in a much more severe manner (i.e., on several fronts at the same time), is not the end of the discussion. After mobilizing all possible ground forces of the IDF, Israel was facing war on only two fronts, and it immediately became clear that it lacked ground forces.

As long as the threat of a major Hezbollah offensive remained relevant, it was not clear whether the fighting in the north would remain at the level of low-intensity attrition or escalate to high-intensity fighting. The IDF was thus unable to concentrate enough forces to properly attack Gaza. Instead of attacking the Gaza Strip simultaneously in all, or at least most, of its sectors, the IDF was forced to carry out a sequential attack, an act that took a lot of time and had negative strategic and political ramifications.

Today, after more than six months of fighting against an enemy substantially weaker than the IDF, the IDF’s achievements are good, but not enough. The task of destroying Hamas and the organizations that help it remains uncompleted. Meanwhile, most of the reservists had to be discharged to ease the pressure on both their personal livelihoods and the national economy, so the size of the active fighting force has been greatly reduced. A larger ground force on October 7 would have made it possible to ensure a solid front against Hezbollah, including the possibility of a simultaneous all-out multi-sector attack across the entire Gaza Strip.

There are of course other considerations that prevented Israel from attacking the entire Gaza Strip at once (among them the need to leave quiet areas into which the population could be moved), and there are further reasons why the war was prolonged and taken from high-intensity warfare to the low-intensity warfare that is taking place now. However, the lack of sufficient ground forces was the main inhibiting factor. Had the IDF begun the war with more ground forces, the scale of the achievement by the time it became necessary to release the reserve forces, after about four months of mobilization, would have been greater and would have reduced the time needed to conduct the low-intensity combat phase in which we are now engaged.

Furthermore, the first offensive phase could have been conducted with larger forces that could have operated in several sectors at the same time. Had more units been available, the IDF could have sequenced their mobilization in turns in order to maintain a higher intensity of action over a longer period of time while conducting the multi-sector offensive.

Dr. Eado Hecht is a researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and a lecturer in the master’s degree program in Security Studies at Bar-Ilan University. Prof. Eitan Shamir is Director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post Israel Needs a Large Army — Not Just Advanced Technology (PART ONE) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 637
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Marco Rubio Says US Denying Visas to Foreigners ‘Celebrating’ Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Marco Rubio speaks after he is sworn in as Secretary of State by US Vice President JD Vance at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, Jan. 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Monday that the US is denying visas to foreigners who publicly celebrate the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, a move he cast as part of a broader posture against extremist rhetoric.

While traveling in the Middle East, Rubio told reporters that the State Department has been denying visas to individuals glorifying Kirk’s murder online. He added that officials are also reviewing existing visas and that he expects some to be revoked.

“It isn’t just about Charlie Kirk. If you’re a foreigner and you’re out there celebrating the assassination of someone who was speaking somewhere, I mean, we don’t want you in the country,” Rubio said. “Why would we want to give a visa to someone who think it’s good that someone was murdered in the public square? That’s just common sense to me.”

When asked if the US has actually revoked any visas yet, Rubio responded, “We’ve revoked visas of people. I don’t know if we’ve revoked visas of people that are inside the country. We’ve most certainly been denying visas.”

Rubio also addressed the issue in a social media post on X while sharing a video from a Fox News interview during which he was asked if he planned to restrict visa access or revoke visas for those celebrating Kirk’s killing.

“America will not host foreigners who celebrate the death of our fellow citizens,” Rubio said in the post accompanying the video. “Visa revocations are under way. If you are here on a visa and cheering on the public assassination of a political figure, prepare to be deported. You are not welcome in this country.”

Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the influential Turning Point USA organization, was shot and killed last week while speaking at Utah Valley University. Authorities have formally charged 22‑year‑old Tyler Robinson of Utah with aggravated murder and several related offenses, including discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering.

Rubio’s announcement comes amid intensifying efforts by the Trump administration to expel foreigners who express support for violence or terrorism. The administration has launched an overhaul of the US visa system, part of what officials describe as an effort to root out individuals deemed a potential threat to the country. The sweeping measures include expanded social media vetting for new applicants, continuous monitoring of the 55 million current visa holders, and the revocation of thousands of student visas.

Several of the online posts praising Kirk’s assassination have emerged from the Middle East, with individuals condemning the slain political activist over his vocal support for Israel. During his life, Kirk repeatedly spoke in defense of the Jewish state and expressed support for its military campaign in Gaza.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau concurred with Rubio’s statement, calling on consular officials to prevent the distribution of visas to anyone “praising, rationalizing, or making light of” the murder of Kirk.

Rubio has not explained the standards the State Department is using to determine what qualifies as “celebrating” the assassination. Some critics have speculated that this ambiguity could set up legal challenges from advocacy groups, who are already warning about the First Amendment and due process implications.

Post Views: 43
Continue Reading

RSS

‘Down With Fascists’: Columbia Activist Who Said ‘Zionists Don’t Deserve to Live’ Celebrates Charlie Kirk’s Murder

Khymani James, Columbia University student who filmed himself saying Zionists should be murdered. Photo: Screenshot

A former leader of the anti-Israel movement at Columbia University expressed full support for the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last week.

Khymani James, who made the posts, was a “campus a leader in the pro-Palestinian student protest encampment” at Columbia, according to The New York Times.

In the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, James posted on X, “More. MORE!!!,” referencing the killing. He followed up that post by saying, “Down with all the fascists 😍.” (He later also called California Gov. Gavin Newsom a fascist.)

In another post, James wrote, “‘Be careful what you post’ and it’s people rightfully celebrating the inevitable and just fate of fascists. anywho… NO ONE MOURNS THE WICKED 😩🤣.”

In addition to the posts he wrote, James also reposted statements such as “Thoughts and prayers for the bullet,” “rest in piss,” and “saw that s–t and started giggling and kicking my feet and shouting YOOOOOO.”

In James’s biography on the social platform X, he notes, “Anything I said, I meant it. DEATH TO EMPIRE.”

This is not the first time James has rhetorically supported violence. Last year, he was on video saying, “Zionists don’t deserve to live,” and proclaiming that people should “be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.”

He also said, “I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser. I fight to kill.”

The comments triggered widespread backlash, and James was suspended by Columbia. The incident also resulted in what was widely seen as an apology for James on behalf of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), one of the most notorious anti-Israel campus groups in the US. Months later, however, the group retracted its previous apology.

“All CUAD organizers were complicit in not maintaining our political line, keeping the statement public on our Instagram, and in neglecting the mental and physical safety of Khymani,” the post read. CUAD apologized for causing “irrevocable harm” to him.

Despite James’s comments about the possibility of murdering Zionists, CUAD’s post claimed that he was criticized and socially ostracized for “fight[ing] back against state violence.”

James also responded to this post, writing on X, “Thank you to my comrades for posting this beautiful, powerful letter. I never wrote the neo-liberal apology posted in late April, and I’m glad we’ve set the record straight once and for all. I will not allow anyone to shame me for my politics.”

“Anything I said, I meant it,” he concluded.

Kirk, 31, was shot and killed during a speaking event at Utah Valley University, where he was engaging in dialogue with students. He is survived by his wife and two young children. A young Utah man — Tyler Robinson, 22 — was taken into custody last week as the suspected shooter, about 33 hours after the assassination, according to state and federal law enforcement.

Kirk was an outspoken supporter of Israel and advocate against antisemitism. He regularly debated students on the subject of Israel and brought his ideas to young people at a time when, according to recent polling, that age group was turning decidedly against the Jewish state.

“There’s a dark Jew hate out there, and I see it,” Kirk told a student during a podcast episode which aired earlier this year. “Don’t get yourself involved in that. I’m telling you it will rot your brain. It’s bad for your soul. It’s bad. It’s evil. I think it’s demonic.”

Post Views: 43
Continue Reading

RSS

Spain’s PM Sánchez Faces Backlash for Fueling Anti-Israel Hostility Amid Surge in Antisemitic Incidents

Cycling – Vuelta a Espana – Stage 21 – Alalpardo to Madrid – Madrid, Spain – Sept. 14, 2025: Barriers are smashed by anti-Israel protesters during Stage 21. Photo: REUTERS/Ana Beltran

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is facing backlash from his country’s political leaders and Jewish community, who accuse him of fueling antisemitic hostility after incidents at the Vuelta a España disrupted the prestigious cycling race.

Amid a sharp rise in anti-Jewish hate crimes and anti-Israel sentiment, Lorenzo Rodríguez, mayor of Castrillo Mota de Judíos in northern Spain, accused the country’s leader of “fueling a discourse of hatred” against Israel and the Jewish people.

“The government is fostering antisemitism that will prove deeply damaging for Spain,” Rodríguez said in an interview with the local outlet El Español.

“Sánchez’s moves are less about serious foreign policy and more about deflecting attention from his trials and failures in governance,” he continued. “Spain isn’t leading anything — it’s merely whitewashing Hamas and other terrorist groups.”

On Sunday, anti-Israel protests forced the finale of the Vuelta a España cycle race to be abandoned as police tried to quell demonstrations against the participation of an Israeli team.

In his interview, Rodríguez blamed Sánchez for fostering a hostile climate in Spain, saying the country is witnessing “hatred toward an entire people.”

He also criticized the Spanish leader for failing to take a strong stand on other international crises, including those in Russia and Venezuela.

“We all recognize that the Palestinian people are suffering, but the solution cannot be to blame the Jewish people,” Rodríguez said.

“People are afraid. There’s growing concern because our town was recently targeted,” he continued. “We are being singled out and threatened even though we have nothing to do with this war.”

Before the incidents on Sunday that led to the race’s cancellation, Sánchez expressed “admiration for the Spanish people mobilizing for just causes like Palestine” through their protests.

Madrid’s Mayor José Luis Martínez-Almeida strongly condemned Sánchez’s statement, accusing him of encouraging hostility and fueling tensions.

“The prime minister is directly responsible for this violence, as his statements this morning helped instigate the protests,” Martinez-Almeida said after the race was canceled.

“Today is the saddest day since I took office as mayor of this great city,” he continued.

Santiago Abascal, leader of the far-right Vox party, also criticized Sánchez’s remarks, accusing him of stoking division to maintain his hold on power.

“The psychopath has taken his militias to the streets,” Abascal wrote in a post on X. “He doesn’t care about Gaza. He doesn’t care about Spain. He doesn’t care about anything. But he wants violence in the streets to maintain power.”

Shortly after the incidents, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain (FCJE) publicly denounced the violence, urging authorities to respond quickly and decisively.

“Violence and intimidation have no place in a democratic society and cannot be excused under the guise of freedom of expression,” FCJE said in a statement.

“These violent demonstrations fuel hatred and contribute to a concerning rise in antisemitism in Spain, which we have been warning about over the past two years,” the statement read. “It is unacceptable that violence is justified on ideological grounds and hostility is directed toward the Jewish community”

Since the start of the war in Gaza, Spain has become one of Israel’s fiercest critics, a stance that has only intensified in recent months, coinciding with a shocking rise in antisemitic incidents targeting the local Jewish community — from violent assaults and vandalism to protests and legal actions.

On Monday, Sánchez called for Israel to be barred from international sports events after pro-Palestinian activists disrupted the finale of the Vuelta cycling race in chaotic scenes in Madrid.

“The sports organizations should ask whether it’s ethical for Israel to continue participating in international competitions. Why was Russia expelled after invading Ukraine, yet Israel is not expelled after the invasion of Gaza?” Sánchez said while speaking to members of his Socialist Party.

“Until the barbarity ends, neither Russia nor Israel should be allowed to participate in any international competition,” the Spanish leader continued.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar condemned Sánchez’s remarks, labeling him “an antisemite and a liar.”

“Did Israel invade Gaza on Oct. 7th or did the Hamas terror state invade Israel and commit the worst massacre against the Jews since the Holocaust?” the top Israeli diplomat wrote in a post on X.

The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas started the war in Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, when it led an invasion of southern Israel, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages while perpetrating widespread sexual violence against the Israeli people.

Israel responded with an ongoing military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities and political rule in Gaza.

As part of its anti-Israel campaign, Spain announced on Tuesday that it will boycott next year’s Eurovision Song Contest if Israel participates, citing the country’s military offensive against Hamas in the war-torn enclave.

Last week, Sánchez also unveiled new policies targeting Israel over the war in Gaza, including an arms embargo and a ban on certain Israeli goods.

The Spanish government announced it would bar entry to individuals involved in what it called a “genocide against Palestinians,” block Israel-bound ships and aircraft carrying weapons from Spanish ports and airspace, and enforce an embargo on products from Israeli communities in the West Bank.

In one of its latest attempts to curb Israel’s defensive campaign in Gaza, Spain has canceled a €700 million ($825 million) deal for Israeli-designed rocket launchers, as the government conducts a broader review to systematically phase out Israeli weapons and technology from its armed forces.

Saar has denounced Sánchez’s latest actions, accusing the government in Madrid of antisemitism and of pursuing an escalating anti-Israel campaign aimed at undermining the Jewish state on the international stage.

“The government of Spain is leading a hostile, anti-Israel line, marked by wild, hate-filled rhetoric,” Saar wrote in a post on X, accusing Sánchez’s “corrupt” administration of trying to “divert attention from grave corruption scandals.”

“The obsessive activism of the current Spanish government against Israel stands out in light of its ties with dark, tyrannical regimes — from Iran’s ayatollahs to [Nicolás] Maduro’s government in Venezuela,” the Israeli diplomat continued.

Post Views: 46
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News