Connect with us

RSS

It’s Not a Border with Lebanon — It’s a Front

Israeli firefighters work following rocket attacks from Lebanon, amid ongoing cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, near the border on its Israeli side, June 13, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Avi Ohayon

Israel’s traditional security concept consisted of a defensive strategy based on mainly offensive tactics. After the Yom Kippur War, the IDF was criticized for focusing too much on its offensive ethos and making poor defensive preparations. The October 7 attack naturally raised the issue of defense to the top of Israel’s list of priorities, but behind the obvious need to strengthen our defense lies an important discussion of principle. Before billions are poured into concrete molds to beef up the border obstacles, this discussion needs to be held consciously and methodically.

The key question is this: What is the main lesson we should learn from the October 7 attack?

The first possibility is that the main failure was in the defense concept. This begins with the wrong early warning assumption and continues with poorly designed defensive positions. If this is indeed the main lesson, the fix is ​​relatively simple. Better defensive infrastructures should be built, the border should be better manned, and the dependence on warning should be reduced. A huge investment in rebuilding the border defense infrastructure will be required, as well as another huge investment in stationing large forces on the borders for years. This appears at first glance to be a direct, clear, and necessary lesson from October 7.

But there is a fly in the ointment. When we examine the development of Israel’s defense concept in recent decades, we find that this is precisely the lesson Israel has drawn again and again from its conflicts. After the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, we invested enormously in strengthening the northern border with a barrier, outposts, technologies, and new roads. We did it again after the Second Lebanon War, drawing operational lessons from the previous obstacle such as the need to pave more rear axes for movement hidden from the eyes of the enemy. But it soon became clear that behind the border fence, Hezbollah had become a real army. So once again, the IDF embarked a few years ago on a refortification plan for the northern border, known as the “Integrating Stone” project. Yet more billions were poured into refortifications. The decision to evacuate the northern settlements at the beginning of the Iron Swords War shows that even that enormous and expensive defense infrastructure did not provide enough protection, at least in the eyes of the decision makers.

The story of the Gaza border is no different. A modern and sophisticated defense system was established upon the Israeli withdrawal in 2005. Less than a decade later, during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, it became clear that the enemy had spent the interim digging over 30 axes of tunnels into our territory, bypassing the new and advanced defense system.

The IDF “learned its lesson” from this discovery and embarked on yet another vast new border project, this time including an underground barrier and a major renewal of the defense infrastructure on the ground. We all saw the failure of this project on October 7.

Strengthening border obstacles and reinforcing them with additional units is of course not a wrong step to take. The danger is that we will once again be satisfied with learning technical lessons and miss the more essential ones. The key lesson to be learned from October is the failure of the defensive strategy that allowed the terrorist armies to build up major strength on our borders without hindrance.

Israel’s flawed border strategy rested on two false assumptions. The first was that Hamas and Hezbollah could be tamed through withdrawals and understandings. The second was that they could be deterred by the threat of Israeli air power, since they had both assumed “state responsibility.” According to this logic, the organizations should have been reluctant to use their forces against us because of the price Israel would likely exact from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

By relying on these two false assumptions, Israel allowed the threat on its borders to build up without interruption. Every military expert knows that “the first line will be breached.” This means there is no chance of stopping a significant attack on a border line that has no depth. Under conditions in which an enemy is constantly present and ready, there is no chance for early warning. The defense forces will always be surprised.

As we know, the State of Israel lacks operational depth. The settlements mark the border line. That is why we implemented a defensive strategy for most of our history that entailed an offensive tactical approach. In other words, the other lesson to be learned is that a defensive deployment that is not supported by an offensive initiative in enemy territory will not be enough.

In the decades during which we adopted a strategy of defense and deterrence from the air, the border turned from an imaginary line drawn on maps into an actual barrier in military thinking, with very practical consequences. For example, when the IDF chose to establish new units, it established them mainly for defensive needs (border patrol units, for instance, and air defense battalions). The IDF now finds itself with no choice but to put some of those units into combat in Gaza.

In 2020, the Border Patrol Corps was established in the ground forces. Apparently, the IDF had adapted itself to the challenges of the hour. In practice, the new corps was established on the ruins of the Combat Intelligence Collection Corps, which was responsible for army reconnaissance. This happened at the exact moment when the IDF’s operating concept stated that “uncovering a stealthy enemy” within the framework of land warfare is the key to battlefield success. While the operating concept strove to restore military decisiveness and gave critical weight to combat intelligence collection, the IDF’s practical decisions ran in the opposite direction. The collapse of the line in Gaza and the destruction of the means of collection on the borders of Gaza and Lebanon – failures forced on Israel by the enemy within mere hours – indicates that the cancellation of combat collection retroactively harmed the defense mission as well. The establishment of the Border Defense Corps did not strengthen our defense. What happened to us?

This is what happened: The border turned from a political line into a military conceptual fixation. Gradually, military thought became enslaved to the division between “our territory” and “their territory.” Only intelligence and the Air Force are to operate in “their territory.” “Our territory” is where defense takes place, but as “our territory” is protected and safe, there is no point in making strict preparations there that meet basic tactical rules. “Maneuver” is the act in which ground forces cross the fence into enemy territory. The ground forces are to prepare for this, but the strategy is to avoid it.

But the simple truth is that “maneuvering” is not defined by enemy territory. Freeing Kibbutz Beeri and the Nahal Oz outpost from Hamas occupation required offensive battles – maneuvers that were no less and perhaps even more challenging than the occupation of Gaza. In general, “defense” turned out to be the more difficult tactical scenario, not the easier one. The reality is that even when defense is conducted in our territory as it is conducted today in the north, and not in a surprise scenario, threats to our forces are still significant. The Air Force’s air defense is not as effective at the front as it is on the home front. The front is more loaded with enemy threats and forces that need to be defended against. It is also constantly changing.

The distinction between “front” and “home front” is more suitable for military thinking than the political definitions of “our territory” and “their territory.” At the “front,” which is on both sides of the border, defensive and offensive battles take place. They are all a form of maneuver. At the front, there is a reality of tactical dynamism and great many threats. It requires not only intelligence but also combat reconnaissance and monitoring at the unit level. It requires not only the national air defense umbrella but its own tactical defense umbrella. The months of attrition in the north in the face of anti-tank missiles and UAV launches make this clear. The defensive battle is required not only to prevent enemy achievements but also to create the conditions for retaking the initiative and attack, which includes taking advantage of opportunities. The defense divisions have to know what is happening across the border and must be able to prevent evolving threats. That is why they were previously called “territorial divisions” and not “defense divisions.” This principle, by the way, is called “forward-depth.”

We must not be naive. An exercise in military thinking will not immediately change political strategy. It is possible that the reality after the current war will not yet allow the Northern Command to enjoy offensive and preventive freedom of action into Lebanese territory. If so, we will have to strive for this as a strategic result in the next round. But even if this is the case, it is still correct that we build the force in a way that suits reality, not in a way that repeats the mistakes of the past – spending billions to sanctify the border line with barriers that will eventually fail.

Instead of thinking “defense” versus “maneuvering,” “our territory” versus “their territory,” we must think “front” versus “rear.” The forces at the front are required to be capable of defensive and offensive battles in the most difficult conditions. The front should benefit from good intelligence and air support but should not be dependent on them, especially not in surprise scenarios. We learned that the hard way. Defense needs its own intelligence assessment, one that relies more on combat gathering. We have learned that such collection should rely on mobile capabilities and unmanned aircraft, because cameras mounted on masts do not meet the definition of tactical combat collection. They are too easy a target.

I am not the only person to make these arguments. IDF senior officials have previously recognized the danger of establishing a “defensive army” versus an “attack army” and the conceptual obstacle that the fence poses to our military thinking.

As always, in the future, there will be operational constraints and sectors that will have to be reduced to strengthen others. Sustainable defense cannot be based on an obstacle, light forces and assistance from Tel Aviv alone, nor on a premise of a constant large standing force. It should be built from the presence of significant reserve forces at the front. Training facilities close to the border will allow this without harming the IDF’s ability to prepare. The front should maintain independence in the areas of combat gathering, available fire support and tactical air defense. The border obstacle should be perceived not as the center but as a supporting factor.

On the way towards the restoration of Israel’s traditional defense strategy, defense through preventive and decisive attacks, it is also necessary to remove the misperception of the border. From now on, call it a front. 

Brig. Gen. (res.) Eran Ortal recently retired from military service as commander of the Dado Center for Multidisciplinary Military Thinking. He is a well-known military thinker both in Israel and abroad. His works have been published in The Military Review, War on the Rocks, Small Wars Journal, at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford, and elsewhere. His book The Battle Before the War (MOD 2022, in Hebrew) dealt with the IDF’s need to change, innovate and renew a decisive war approach. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post It’s Not a Border with Lebanon — It’s a Front first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

One-Third of US Jewish College Students Feel Faculty Promote Antisemitism, Hostile Learning Environment: Survey

Pro-Hamas demonstrators at Columbia University in New York City, US, April 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs

College professors across the US are promoting antisemitism and fostering hostile learning environments, according to Jewish students who responded to a newly released survey.

Roughly one-third of students, 32 percent, hold such feelings, according to the American Jewish Committee’s “State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report,” which contains copious data on the Jewish experience in the US.

As part of the report, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) partnered with Hillel International to document Jewish students’ experiences during their time on US college and university campuses.

Of those who responded, 35 percent said they had personal encounters with antisemitism, 20 percent of whom did so more than once. Meanwhile, 32 percent reported feeling uncomfortable on campus, and 34 percent found ways to conceal that they are Jewish. forty-three percent refuse to discuss Israel and the conflict with the Palestinians for fear of being identified as a Zionist.

Additionally, 22 percent of Jewish students reported feeling that groups and campus events have excluded them because of anti-Jewish animus.

“How are Jewish students supposed to show up and engage in class or have trust in their educators if they feel that their professors are creating a hostile environment for Jews on campus?” AJC chief executive officer Ted Deutch said in a statement. “If students feel that they need to just keep their head down and earn their grade, they are not fully participating in the educational experience that they have a right to and deserve.”

He continued, “Educators and administrators need to take action to ensure that their classrooms and campuses are places free from hate, bigotry, and harassment so that all students — including Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist students — have the opportunity to grow and thrive.”

Hillel International chief executive officer Adam Lehman added, “As Jewish teens and their families make decisions about where they will spend their college years, it is crucial that they know they will be safe and able to fully express their Jewish identities. Jewish students should feel safe to express their Jewish identities no matter where they are on campus — whether at Hillel or in the dorms, the library, or the classroom.”

AJC’s survey also explored student attitudes regarding the “Gaza Solidarity Encampments” which emerged on college campuses across the US during the 2023-2024 academic year and caused incidents of violence and even the cancellation of Columbia University’s main commencement ceremony. Fifty-one percent said the demonstrations “made them feel unsafe on campus.”

The connection between anti-Zionist professors, many of whom are members of Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP), has been explored before.

In a study published in Sept. 2024, antisemitism watchdog AMCHA Initiative was able to establish a correlation between a school’s hosting a Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) chapter and anti-Zionist and antisemitic activity. For example, the researchers found that the presence of FJP on a college campus increased by seven times “the likelihood of physical assaults and Jewish students” and increased by three times the chance that a Jewish student would be subject to threats of violence and death.

FJP also “prolonged” the duration of encampment protests on college campuses, and such demonstrations lasted over four and a half times longer where FJP faculty were free to influence and provide logistic and material support to students. Professors at FJP schools also spent 9.5 more days protesting than those at non-FJP schools.

AMCHA added that FJP facilitated the proposal and success of student government resolutions demanding adoption of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement — which aims to isolate Israel culturally, financially, and diplomatically as the first steps towards its destruction. Wherever FJP was, BDS was “4.9 times likely to pass” and “nearly 11 times more likely to be included in student demands,” showing, AMCHA concluded, that FJP plays a role in radicalizing university students at the 103 schools — including Harvard University, Brown University, Princeton University, the University of Michigan, and Yale University — where it is active.

Citing its own latest data, AJC Center for Education Advocacy director Dr. Laura Shaw called on colleges and universities to reconcile anti-discrimination policies with intellectual and academic freedom.

“Academic freedom is foundational to higher education,” Shaw said. “However, academic discourse and debate can and must take place in an environment that is free from bias and discrimination. Our data, and work with students across the country, unfortunately show that American Jewish college students are feeling a pervasive lack of trust in their institutions and professors to maintain an atmosphere that is not biased against them. And we know that students who feel threatened cannot learn.”

The administration of US President Donald Trump has made moves to combat campus antisemitism, fulfilling a campaign promise which helped to elect him to a rare, second non-consecutive term in office.

Last month, Trump issued a highly anticipated executive order aimed at combating campus antisemitism and holding pro-terror extremists accountable for the harassment of Jewish students. Continuing work started during his first administration — when Trump issued Executive Order 13899 to ensure that civil rights law apply equally Jews — the “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.”

“It shall be the policy of the United States to combat antisemitism vigorously, using all appropriate legal tools to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful antisemitic harassment and violence,” Trump said in the order, which denounced the previous administration’s handling of campus antisemitism as a “failure.”

No sooner had the executive order been issued than the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to create a “multi-agency” Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, the aim of which is to “root out antisemitic harassment schools and on college campuses.”

“Antisemitism in any environment is repugnant to this nation’s ideals,” Leo Terrell, senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights who has been appointed to lead the initiative, said in a statement announcing the task force. “The department takes seriously our responsibility to eradicate this hatred wherever it is found. The Task Force to Combat Antisemitism is the first step in giving life to President Trump’s renewed commitment to ending antisemitism in our schools.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post One-Third of US Jewish College Students Feel Faculty Promote Antisemitism, Hostile Learning Environment: Survey first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Israeli Defense Chief Vows to Act ‘At Full Strength’ Against Hezbollah Amid Lebanon Withdrawal

Israeli soldiers gesture from an Israeli military vehicle, after a ceasefire was agreed to by Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, near Israel’s border with Lebanon in northern Israel, Nov. 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Tuesday vowed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will continue to act against the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, as the Jewish state reportedly completed its military withdrawal from most of southern Lebanon.

“The IDF’s enforcement activity against Hezbollah will continue at full strength,” Katz said in a Hebrew-language post on X.

“We will not allow a return to the reality of Oct. 7,” he added, referring to the 2023 Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel. The Oct. 7 onslaught not only started the war in Gaza to Israel’s south but also prompted Hezbollah, which wields political and military influence across Lebanon, to begin firing barrages of missiles, rockets, and drones at northern Israel on a daily basis..

In his statement, Katz reiterated that the IDF “will remain in the buffer zone in Lebanon at five control posts along the border line, to ensure the protection of the northern communities.”

On Monday, Israel said it would keep troops in several posts in southern Lebanon past the Feb. 18 ceasefire deadline for their withdrawal, as Israeli leaders sought to reassure northern residents that they can return home safely.

“We need to remain at those points at the moment to defend Israeli citizens, to make sure this process is complete and eventually hand it over to the Lebanese armed forces,” military spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani told a briefing with reporters, adding that the move was in accordance with the mechanism of the ceasefire agreement.

According to the Israeli public broadcaster Kan News, Israel completed its withdrawal from southern Lebanon ahead of the midnight deadline. IDF officials told the outlet that “the challenge is to preserve the [military] achievements and prevent Hezbollah from returning.”

On Sunday, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem threatened Israel with consequences if it failed to comply with the Tuesday deadline to withdraw its forces, saying, “We will know how to deal with it.”

“Israel must fully withdraw on Feb. 18, it has no excuse [not to do so],” the top terrorist leader said in a televised speech cited by the France 24 news outlet.

Shortly after Israel’s withdrawal, the Lebanese army announced that its forces were deployed to several areas throughout southern Lebanon, with engineering units surveying the areas, reopening roads, and removing unexploded ordnance left behind during the war.

In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah. Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.

In late January, Israel’s withdrawal, originally set for Jan. 26 under the ceasefire deal, was postponed and extended until Feb. 18.

Tens of thousands of residents in northern Israel were forced to evacuate their homes last year and in late 2023 amid the unrelenting attacks from Hezbollah, which expressed solidarity with Hamas amid the Gaza war.

Last fall, Israel decimated much of Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, which ended with the ceasefire.

The post Israeli Defense Chief Vows to Act ‘At Full Strength’ Against Hezbollah Amid Lebanon Withdrawal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Tech Entrepreneur Palmer Luckey Calls Himself a ‘Radical Zionist’ While Defending Israel’s Right to Exist

Palmer Luckey on the Shawn Ryan Show (Source: Youtube/Shawn Ryan Show)

Palmer Luckey on the “Shawn Ryan Show.” Photo: Screenshot

Prominent tech entrepreneur Palmer Luckey referred to himself as a “radical Zionist” while vigorously defending Israel’s right to existence during a new interview on the podcast the “Shawn Ryan Show.”

During the sit-down, Luckey reminisced about his 2017 firing from Facebook, allegedly over his support for US President Donald Trump. Luckey, founder of the defense tech company Anduril Industries, rejected the “lockstep narrative” presented by the media that he is “racist” or “sexist,” pointing toward his strong support for Israel as an example of his support for minority groups. 

I’m actually a radical Zionist,” Luckey said. 

When asked by Ryan to elaborate on what he meant, Luckey explained that Jews have the right to maintain a state for their own self-defense. He argued that the Holocaust proved the need for a Jewish state, and without it Jews are at risk of facing violence. 

“I strongly believe in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. People are like, That’s so problematic, though. It’s so ethnostate adjacent.’ I said, ‘I don’t care,’” Luckey said. “After what happened to them in World War II, they deserve a place where they can do their own thing and protect their own people without getting wrecked by everybody else who hates them.”

Luckey also dismissed the “slippery slope” argument that validating Israel’s existence could lead to a surge in the formation of ethno-states for other groups, calling such hypothetical scenarios “absurd” reasons to oppose the Jewish state. He argued that it is “very reasonable for the Jews to have their own state” and that the potential formation of a Palestinian state should be treated as “a separate political issue.”

All minority groups in Israel, including the Arabs who comprise about 20 percent of the Israeli population, enjoy the full and equal rights of the country’s democratic system, including the ability to serve in parliament and the judiciary. 

Meanwhile, Jews and other minority groups, including Christians among others, have faced intense discrimination in other parts of the Middle East. In the Palestinian-governed West Bank, for example, Palestinians are prohibited from selling land directly to Jewish Israelis.

Luckey has stated his support for Israel several times. Following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the tech entrepreneur lambasted prominent American individuals and institutions for not standing behind the Jewish state. 

“Israel has my [and our] unqualified support,” Luckey said at the Wall Street Journal‘s Tech Live Conference in October of 2023. 

“What’s happening in Israel is just another instance of the same type of evil that’s been going on for a very long time,” he added. “And I think it reflects very poorly on our billionaire class that you’re not seeing a whole-of-country effort to become involved and to speak up about these issues, hedging on condemnation of Hamas for fear of saying the wrong thing, either in the court of public opinion or because it hurts their business interests.”

The post Tech Entrepreneur Palmer Luckey Calls Himself a ‘Radical Zionist’ While Defending Israel’s Right to Exist first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News