RSS
Israel Needs a Large Army — Not Just Advanced Technology (PART TWO)
Israeli soldiers drape their country’s flag over an IDF tank near the border with Gaza after the October 7 Hamas massacre. Photo: Reuters/Ronen Zvulun
For Part One of this article, click here.
The offensive fighting in Gaza has drawn the bulk of the IDF’s effort. Meanwhile, approximately 100,000 Israeli citizens cannot return to their homes on the Lebanese border, and no one is able to commit to a date for dealing with this problem. Again, there are several reasons for this, but the most influential is the lack of sufficient forces. The IDF was unable to simultaneously conduct major ground offensives in both Gaza and Lebanon. Although the IDF’s achievements in the ongoing war of attrition on the Lebanese front have been good, they are far from sufficient to achieve Israel’s political goal: the removal of Hezbollah forces from the border to allow our citizens to return home.
Consider the lessons of the Yom Kippur War. After that war, the IDF increased its standing forces to deal with the threat of another multi-front surprise, but it also increased its reserve forces to enable victory to be achieved faster. Over the past few decades, the IDF has drastically reduced both its standing and reserve forces (about 170,000 soldiers were dismissed from the reserves due to a decision by IDF leadership that they were no longer required). The current war has demonstrated that this reduction of the reserve forces was a mistake in every possible respect. Not only were they reduced numerically, but most of those not cancelled had their training budgets drastically reduced. It is no coincidence that it took almost three weeks of retraining before the IDF was able to go on the attack in the current war. In the Yom Kippur War, reserve forces were fighting in large numbers within a single day on the Syrian front and within two and a half days on the Egyptian front.
The IDF has always depended on the reserve forces to complete its combat power on the battlefield – in fact, the reserves were considered the main force. However, the mobilization of reserves dictates short wars. Israel is also committed to short wars because of the intense political pressure it is invariably under to stop fighting before it has reached the achievements required to guarantee its security.
This is not a new situation. But the need for short wars returns us to the issue of the size of the force, and this war created a chain reaction: the inability to attack the whole Gaza Strip simultaneously led to the prolongation of the fighting, which led in turn to the release of reserves before the mission was completed. The continuation of the war also led to the loss of patience of countries that had supported Israel, which ratcheted up the pressure on Israel and led to the partial stagnation that now prevails in Gaza.
The fact is that after over six months of war, despite all the operational achievements of the IDF, politically and strategically the State of Israel is still in the basic state of defeat it suffered on October 7. Israelis remain expelled from their homes with no possibility of defining a clear time limit on their status as internal refugees, and this is because the full sovereignty of the State of Israel has not yet been restored to all its territories.
The military technology used by IDF forces, for all its sophistication, cannot change this strategic reality. Over the past two decades, some of the most advanced technologies in the world have been acquired by the IDF. Much has been said about the use of computer network warfare technologies, precision weaponry and remotely operated means to replace old and supposedly obsolete means that are no longer needed. This concept failed in the war in Ukraine, and it failed once again in the war in Gaza.
The most efficient and useful tools turned out to be the “unnecessary” ones that had been reduced in number and were not sufficiently available for the forces – tanks, bulldozers, mortars, etc. This does not mean the new technologies have no value; they add additional performance, but do not obviate the need for the old means. In the war in Ukraine, the leading powers in the field of cyber warfare did not achieve a single achievement of strategic significance. Also, despite the use of many varieties of precision weaponry and remotely operated aircraft, battles are decided by “outdated” statistical artillery and mass. If the IDF had had two or three additional divisions available, even equipped with less advanced technology, Israel’s strategic situation would have improved considerably.
Advanced technology is important, but the question is which technology and at what level of investment and equipment. Most of us have phones and computers with many tools and options we don’t use or need, but we pay a lot for the latest models anyway. The IDF has spent huge amounts on advanced technologies whose overall contribution to the results on the battlefield is less than their alternative cost. Interception systems for the defense of the home front are a necessary technology; systems such as the “Trophy” (which has saved hundreds of fighters) are necessary; but many other technologies, while scientifically amazing, cost more than they are worth.
For example, a basic Merkava 4 costs 150% more than a Merkava 3. An advanced Merkava 4 costs even more. But some of the additions and upgrades it contains do not provide sufficient tactical value to justify the additional cost. The lack of sufficient tanks was due not only to the perception that they are unnecessary but also to their increasingly high price. Among other things, the steep price led to a reduction in training in a way that diminished the competence of commanders and crews. Cheaper tanks in greater quantity, with advanced technology limited to specific tactically important capabilities rather than the best that can be created whatever the cost, would have enabled maintaining larger and better-trained tank forces — forces that were lacking during this war.
Another example is drones. The cost of professional military drones is much higher than that of commercial civilian drones. Military UAVs have important capabilities that civilian models do not, and a certain number of them is required — but, as was proven in the war in Ukraine and again in athe current war in Gaza, cheap civilian UAVs and drones of all kinds are able to provide most of the required capabilities at a negligible cost. It is possible to distribute them widely in the army, not only to a small number of specialist units, and thus better exploit their unique tactical contribution.
In conclusion, the IDF needs more ground forces than it currently has at its disposal. It is important not to exaggerate and increase forces to dimensions the State of Israel cannot sustain without intolerable financial cost. Technology is an important component of war-fighting too – but again, it is important not to exaggerate. Operational experience, not only from the current war but also from Israel’s previous wars and the wars of others, shows that not every technological innovation is beneficial. Sometimes their costs cause more damage than the added capability they provide because acquiring them reduces the ability to acquire other no-less necessary capabilities.
In our opinion, considering the existing and emerging threats surrounding the State of Israel, the IDF needs at least two more armored/mechanized divisions, and preferably three. It is desirable for Israel to have technological superiority over its enemies, but the benefit of this superiority is not equal in every field. There are areas in which it would be advantageous for the IDF to equip with the most modern technology available, provided it is able to purchase a reasonable amount — a “critical mass” — and still have a budget that enables the training of operators and the purchase of quantities of older tools. Inadequate skill levels due to a sharp cut in the depth and quality of training over many years led to Israel’s paying a price in casualties and insufficient performance, despite the very advanced technologies the forces had at their disposal.
In most cases, an improved technology that is “good enough” in large quantities is many times better than an excellent technology, even the most advanced that exists, but in a tiny quantity. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule that must be identified and invested in.
One area where a particularly large shortage was discovered is ammunition. The ammunition shortage is not unique to Israel. Russia and Ukraine have also discovered that they do not have either enough stocks or sufficient capacity to produce new ammunition, and this shortage has severely limited their ability to conduct operations. The NATO countries are behind Ukraine, but all of them put together are unable to meet the needs of the Ukrainians. Russia’s situation is a little better, and this gap is greatly affecting the results of the fighting. Although there is a huge effort by many countries to increase production, there are also shortages in raw materials, production machines and skilled workers, slowing down the industrial build-up to increase production. To this must be added fear of an escalation of conflict in East Asia over the issue of Taiwan or other possible flashpoints, which, if it occurs, will create an even greater shortage. Therefore, Israel should do as much as it can to increase its independent production capacities and accumulate stocks much bigger than the ones with which it started the current war.
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 TWO) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Netanyahu Accuses France’s Macron of Siding With Hamas, Pushing Anti-Israel ‘Blood Libels’
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron in Jerusalem, Oct. 24, 2023. Photo: Christophe Ena/Pool via REUTERS
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday accused French President Emmanuel Macron of standing with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and repeating “blood libels” against the Jewish state after Macron castigated Israel’s policy in Gaza.
“Macron has once again chosen to stand with a murderous Islamist terrorist organization and echo its despicable propaganda, accusing Israel of blood libels,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement. “Israel will not stop and will not surrender.”
The statement added that Israel is fighting “for its very existence following the horrific massacre committed by Hamas against innocent people on Oct. 7, including the murder and kidnapping of dozens of French nationals.”
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the ongoing war on Oct. 7, 2023, when they invaded southern Israel, murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped 251 hostages while perpetrating widespread sexual violence and other atrocities. Israel responded with an ongoing military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in Gaza, the neighboring Palestinian enclave ruled by the terrorist group for nearly two decades.
Speaking to French television on Tuesday, Macron said the Israeli government’s blockade of aid into Gaza is “unacceptable” and “shameful.”
“What the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is doing is unacceptable … there is no water, no medicine, the wounded cannot get out, the doctors cannot get in. What he is doing is shameful,” Macron told TF1 television. “We need the United States. President Trump has the levers. I have had tough words with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I got angry, but they [Israel] don’t depend on us, they depend on American weapons.”
Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza aid since early March, when it resumed military operations against Hamas following a two-month ceasefire. Experts and Israeli officials have said that Hamas steals much of the aid to fuel its terrorist operations and sells some of the remainder to Gaza’s civilian population at an increased price. Jerusalem has also said that aid distribution cannot be left to international organizations, which it accuses of allowing Hamas to seize supplies intended for the civilian population.
Netanyahu’s office slammed Macron for lambasting Israel rather than siding with the Middle East’s lone democracy.
“Instead of supporting the Western democratic camp fighting the Islamist terrorist organizations and calling for the release of the hostages, Macron is once again demanding that Israel surrender and reward terrorism,” the statement said.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz also lambasted Macron for his comments.
“We remember well what happened to the Jews in France when they could not defend themselves,” he said in a post on X/Twitter, apparently referring to the mass killing of Jews during the Nazi occupation of France in World War II. “President Macron will not preach morality to us. It is expected of those who define themselves as friends of Israel to stand by Israel in its war against the murderous terrorist organization Hamas and the Iranian axis of evil that threaten to destroy the State of Israel — instead of trying to deny it the right to self-defense.”
He added, “The IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] operates at an unsurpassed level of morality in difficult and complex circumstances — certainly more than anything France has done in its past wars.”
The spat between Paris and Jerusalem came after Macron said last month that France is making plans to recognize a Palestinian state and could do so as early as June. Israeli and French Jewish leaders sharply criticized Macron’s announcement, decrying such a decision as a “prize for terrorism and a boost for Hamas.”
The post Netanyahu Accuses France’s Macron of Siding With Hamas, Pushing Anti-Israel ‘Blood Libels’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Meets Syrian President, Urges Him to Establish Ties With Israel
US President Donald Trump meets with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in this handout released on May 14, 2025. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
US President Donald Trump met with Syria’s president in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and urged him to normalize ties with longtime foe Israel after a surprise US announcement that it would lift all sanctions on the Islamist-led government.
Trump then flew to Qatar, where he oversaw the signing of a deal for the Gulf Arab country to buy jets from US manufacturer Boeing.
He did not mention a controversial separate offer by Qatar to donate a Boeing jet to serve as the US president‘s official airplane. That would be one of the most valuable gifts ever given to the United States and it has triggered alarm in Washington over its security and ethics implications.
After Trump‘s declaration that he would lift sanctions on Syria, which is seeking to rebuild after more than a decade of civil war, he met with interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who swept to power at the head of a group that Washington has called a terrorist organization and once pledged allegiance to al Qaeda.
According to the White House, Trump urged Sharaa to join the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco, which normalized relations with Israel under the US-brokered Abraham Accords in 2020.
“I told him, ‘I hope you’re going to join when it’s straightened out.’ He said, ‘Yes.’ But they have a lot of work to do,” Trump said, according to a White House pool report.
Photos posted on Saudi state television showed the two men shaking hands in the presence of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Trump said the meeting with Sharaa, who he described as a young, attractive guy with a very strong past, was “great.”
“He’s got a real shot at holding it together,” said Trump.
BUSINESS DEALS
Trump‘s four-day visit highlights the United States’ growing ties to the oil-rich region, where his real-estate company is also developing several projects.
That has raised concerns about a conflict of interest between Trump‘s official duties as president and his business interests.
Trump has dismissed ethical concerns about his plan to accept the $400 million luxury plane from Qatar to serve as Air Force One, saying on Monday it would be “stupid” to turn down the generous offer.
Qatar has been working to build up political capital with Trump in his second term after falling the wrong side of the US president when he was first in office.
In 2017, during Trump‘s first term, the tiny but hugely wealthy gas producer was isolated by a diplomatic, trade and air embargo imposed by Gulf states and some other Arab nations which accused Doha of backing terrorism and getting too close to Iran. At the time, Trump‘s administration sided with Doha’s rivals.
In Doha, Trump and Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani announced deals that the White House said were worth $1.2 trillion. That included an agreement by Qatar Airways to buy Boeing aircraft and GE Aerospace engines.
Trump said the two leaders discussed Iran and the Ukraine-Russia war. “We always had a very special relationship,” Trump said of the emir.
Trump‘s visit to Saudi Arabia brought a $600 billion commitment from the kingdom to invest in the US and $142 billion in US arms sales to the kingdom.
ISRAELI WORRIES
Trump‘s Middle East trip – which does not include a visit to Jerusalem – has fueled doubts in Israel about where the country stands in Washington’s priorities.
Syria is one of Israel‘s biggest foes, and Israeli officials have continued to describe Sharaa as a jihadist, though he severed ties with al Qaeda in 2016. Sharaa first joined the group in Iraq, where he spent five years in a US prison. The United States removed a $10 million bounty on his head in December.
Israel opposes lifting sanctions on Syria, which would clear the way for greater engagement by humanitarian organizations and boost foreign investment. Israel has escalated military strikes in Syria since Sharaa took power after toppling former President Bashar al-Assad in December.
Trump‘s administration is also holding nuclear talks with its other enemy, Iran.
The Israeli prime minister’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump told reporters the fact he has relationships with countries in the Middle East is “very good for Israel.”
The US also hopes regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia will join the Abraham Accords, but discussions came to a halt after the Gaza war erupted and the kingdom insists there can be no normalization without Palestinian statehood.
The post Trump Meets Syrian President, Urges Him to Establish Ties With Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Could Trump’s Trip Offer a New Hope for Israeli-Arab Alliances in the Middle East?
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then-US President Donald Trump, and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed display their copies of signed agreements as they participate in the signing ceremony of the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and some of its Middle East neighbors, in a strategic realignment of Middle Eastern countries against Iran, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, September 15, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Tom Brenner/
At an Israeli Independence Day reception in Washington, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff declared, “On behalf of President Trump, I pledge that we will work tirelessly this year so that next year’s Independence Day is not just a wish for happiness, but a reality of peace, prosperity and for Israel, unity.”
Witkoff’s suggestion of the “reality of peace” came on the eve of the President’s visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE — the first official foreign trip of his second term.
It came during a time of intense conflict in the Middle East. Just last week, Israel’s security cabinet voted to significantly broaden the military offensive against Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis struck Israel near Ben Gurion Airport, and Israel retaliated, striking key economic and military assets of the terror organization in Yemen. At the same time, the threat of a nuclear Iran becomes more likely with each passing day.
With the horrors of October 7, 2023, continuing to plague Israel and the Arab world, amidst the heartbreak of loved ones lost, and as we await an agreement that will finally bring the remaining hostages home, we must also look towards the future. There are two very different paths before us. One is to continue down the road of perpetual conflict, endless wars, and missed opportunities. The other is to acknowledge that violence and hate cannot and will not lead to a future of peace or prosperity — that force without a political horizon only gets you so far.
Building on the successes and stability of the Abraham Accords, President Trump has a rare opportunity to alter the reality in the Middle East by breathing new life into Israeli-Arab integration efforts. Nearly 600 days since the atrocities of October 7, expanded normalization between Israel and other Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, may be more difficult than it was during talks two or three years ago, but it is still within reach.
The reasons for this are simple. The Middle East and North Africa, with the second youngest population on the planet, is the least economically integrated region in the world, one of the most water-poor, and one of the fastest-warming regions due to climate change. The notion that any one country can successfully confront these challenges alone is a fantasy.
Overcoming the challenges that have emerged post-October 7 is much less straightforward.
For Israel, the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict remains acceptance and the right to live peacefully in the only homeland of the Jewish people. For Israelis, it is indefensible that the vast majority of the Arab world cannot utter the word Hamas or publicly condemn the October 7 massacre. Israelis do not understand how Egypt, in the fifth decade of its historic peace treaty with Israel, can release a 106-page document about the day-after in Gaza, a plan then endorsed by the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and not mention Hamas. After 19 months, this selective silence has led many across Israel to feel they have no one to turn to as a partner for peace.
But potential partners do exist and have stepped forward.
In June 2020, UAE Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba published an op-ed directly addressing the Israeli public. He warned about the dangers of annexation and extended his hand in peace. The article is credited with being one of the drivers of the US-brokered Abraham Accords.
While it may be more difficult for Arab leaders to address the Israeli public today, President Trump could help create a space in which key voices in the Arab world make clear that Hamas has no future and that all Israeli hostages must be released; that Israel is part of — and a contributor to — the region; that Jews are indigenous to their land; and that Israelis have a right to live in peace and security. Arab leaders could also publicly acknowledge the limitations of Palestinian governance and commit to supporting significant institutional reform and acceptance of their Jewish neighbors.
In the same breath, Arab leaders can also make clear that for this future to be secured, the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people must be addressed. The Israelis could commit to a pathway to self-governance, with necessary security conditions. And while this will not yield statehood tomorrow, the Arab world can help promote new opportunities — political, economic, and civic — for Israelis and Palestinians to work and build trust with one another, while also building recognition of the need to share the sliver of land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea.
President Trump fostering new diplomatic and social engagement will also allow him to pick up where his first administration left off, bringing new life to the economic possibilities of a more interconnected region — which could create four million new jobs and more than $1 trillion in new economic activity over a decade, according to a 2021 Rand study. Equally important, renewing the process of regional integration will move the area toward becoming a necessary bulwark against — instead of a seething generator of — hate and extremism.
President Trump is making this visit at a time that requires Israelis and Arabs to be more interdependent in ways not previously imaginable. So while the challenges in the Middle East are clear, so too are the unprecedented opportunities. President Trump has a rare opportunity to once again make history in this too-long-troubled region.
Benjamin Rogers is the Director of Middle East and North Africa Initiatives for American Jewish Committee (AJC).
The post Could Trump’s Trip Offer a New Hope for Israeli-Arab Alliances in the Middle East? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login