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.
RSS
Trump Holds 10-Point Lead Over Harris With New York Jews, Poll Finds
Republican presidential candidate and former US President Donald Trump speaks as he campaigns at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, US, August 12, 2023. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump holds a commanding lead over her Democratic opponent Kamala Harris among New York Jewish voters in the 2024 election, according to the latest Siena College poll.
The poll found that Jewish New Yorkers prefer Trump, who previously served as the 45th US president, over Harris, the current vice president, by a margin of 54 percent to 44 percent when including third-party candidates. If the US presidential election were held today and it was just a two-person race, the figures would only change slightly, with Trump beating Harris among Jewish voters in the Empire State by a margin of 54 percent to 46 percent.
Conducted from Sept. 11-16, the findings suggest that Trump has made significant inroads with the Jewish community.
Additional polling data from Siena indicates that Jewish voters are rapidly warming up to Trump as Election Day in the US inches closer. Trump led Harris 50 percent to 49 percent among Jewish New York voters in August, according to Siena College. In June, Jewish voters preferred then-presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden over Trump 52 percent to 46 percent.
Trump’s favorability among Jewish voters has also significantly increased in recent months, according to the polling data. In July, 44 percent of Jewish voters indicated a “favorable” view of Trump and 52 percent indicated an “unfavorable” view of the former president. That number has surged since then, with 52 percent of Jewish voters revealing a “favorable” view of Trump and 48 percent revealing an “unfavorable” view of the Republican nominee in the latest poll.
The poll represents the latest indication that at least some Jewish voters could be fleeing the Democratic Party, potentially over frustrations stemming from the Biden administration’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war and surging antisemitism within traditionally-liberal institutions.
The data also indicates that Harris possesses notably weaker support among New York Jews than Biden, potentially suggesting dissatisfaction over the vice president’s positions on Israel or a lack of trust that she will forcefully defend the Jewish state’s interests.
Trump has made numerous overtures to the Jewish community in recent months, attempting to win over a significant share of the traditionally-liberal voting bloc. He has delivered speeches at various events catered toward the Jewish community, including the Republican Jewish Coalition. The former president also co-hosted an event focusing on antisemitism at his Trump National Golf Club Bedminster alongside prominent Jewish donor Miriam Adelson.
The former president has touted his former administration’s support for Israel as a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign. During his single term in office, Trump recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, a strategic region on Israel’s northern border previously controlled by Syria. He also moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, recognizing the city as the Jewish state’s capital. The Trump administration also helped to broker the Abraham Accords, which normalized Israel’s relations with four Arab countries in 2020.
Evidence of Trump’s success in wooing Jewish voters has been replicated by other polls. A July survey conducted by pollster Richard Baris showed that Jewish voters nationally prefer Harris over Trump by a margin of 52.7 percent to 45.9 percent.
However, a poll commissioned by the Jewish Democratic Council of America released earlier this month found that 72 percent of Jewish Americans plan on casting a ballot for Harris and 25 percent are poised to do the same for Trump.
The post Trump Holds 10-Point Lead Over Harris With New York Jews, Poll Finds first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel’s Ambassador Tells UN Security Council: ‘Wake Up,’ Stop Turning ‘Blind Eye’ to Iran’s Support for Terrorism
Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon addressing the UN Security Council on Sept. 19, 2024. Photo: Screenshot
Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon lambasted Iran for being a puppet master “pulling the strings” of terrorist groups across the Middle East, describing them as “Iran’s attack dogs” while addressing the UN Security Council on Thursday.
Danon stressed that the Islamic Republic of Iran, which he described as “the most oppressive regime in the world,” wants “dominance, not diplomacy.” The country’s “grand ambition” is the “creation of a Shiite supremacist empire that stretches across the entire Middle East and beyond,” he insisted.
“This council and the world must wake up to the reality of the threat Iran poses,” Danon added. “The dark force driving the violence we see today is not a collection of independent groups. It is Iran pulling the strings. The Iran proxies — Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, and terrorist cells in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] — are all Iran’s attack dogs unleashed to spread death and destruction across the region.”
Danon also described the different terror cells as the “claws of a beast” that is Iran.
The ambassador then shifted his attention to the Palestinian Authority, accusing it of “standing by, utterly weak and impotent,” by turning a blind eye to Iran’s terrorist actions or “actively collaborating with these terror networks.” He once the PA’s leadership, including President Mahmoud Abbas, for refusing to condemn Hamas since the terror group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
“With leaders such as them, is it any wonder that terrorism continues to worsen in Judea and Samaria?” he asked, before noting how Iran is funding, arming, and recruiting terrorists in the West Bank to target Israelis.
“Iran has transformed our region into a railway of terror” and is operating a “murderous Orient Express” that is “right under the world’s nose,” Danon said. He talked at length about the “dark web of terror Iran and its proxies continue to weave in Judea and Samaria, and said these reasons are why Israel must take “preventative steps” to protect its borders and civilians.
“Let me ask you all: What would your security forces do if they had intelligence about terrorists planning a massive attack on your civilian populations?” he asked the Security Council. “Think about your capital cities. Would there be any doubt about what to do? Well, we have no such doubts and neither do any of you … but when Israel takes reasonable steps regarding intelligence to neutralize a threat, preventing terror attacks against our civilians, we are condemned.”
“This council remains paralyzed by indecision,” he added. “We are not dealing with isolated acts of terror. We are dealing with an orchestrated campaign of distraction directed by the ayatollahs in Iran. And while this body debates restraint and diplomacy, Iran’s terror network grows stronger. The time for half-measures, blind eyes, and empty statements are over. What is required now is not talk about the symptoms, but action against the disease itself, which is the Iranian regime.”
He concluded his remarks by calling for Hezbollah and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to be designated as terrorist organizations worldwide, and urged the UN to apply more sanctions against the Iranian regime until its “capacity to support terror is completely diminished.”
“We expect this council to stop them at the root,” Danon said of Iran, before reiterating that Israel will take all measures necessary to protect itself.
“Israel will defend itself with all the force necessary to protect our people,” he said. “We will dismantle every terrorist network, uproot every Iranian proxy and strike down those who seek to harm us. The international community for must stand with us, for the very future of the Middle East. The stakes could not be higher [and the] time for inaction has passed.”
Also on Thursday, Danon sent a letter to UN Security Council President Samuel Zbogar that pressured the 15-member Security Council to condemn a ballistic missile attack from the Houthis in Yemen that hit central Israel on Sunday. The Israeli ambassador sent an identical letter to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
On Wednesday, the UN General Assembly passed with an overwhelming majority a non-binding Palestinian resolution that demands Israel end its “occupation” of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem within 12 months.
The resolution, which calls for the end of Israel’s “unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” was passed by a 124-14 margin with 43 abstentions. It backs an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, which ruled that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip against international law.
The General Assembly resolution also called on states to “take steps towards ceasing the importation of any products originating in the Israeli settlements, as well as the provision or transfer of arms, munitions and related equipment to Israel … where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” It further urged Israel to withdraw all military forces and Israeli Jewish settlements from those territories. Those who voted against the resolution on Wednesday included the United States, Argentina, the Czech Republic, Fiji, Hungary, Malawi, Nauru, Paraguay, and Papau New Guinea.
The resolution made no mention of Israel’s security concerns and terrorist threats from its neighboring countries, the state of Israel or the Jewish people’s historical ties to the land, or the deadly Oct. 7 terrorist attacks orchestrated by Hamas that took place across southern Israel.
Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) said that by omitting all these facts, the resolution “tells a one-sided, fictional story.” The MFA condemned the resolution in a released statement on Wednesday, describing the General Assembly as a “political theater” that has adopted “a distorted decision disconnected from reality, encourages terrorism and harms the chances for peace.”
“This is what being disconnected looks like; this is what cynical international politics looks like,” the MFA added.
“The General Assembly decision bolsters and strengthens the Hamas terrorist organization and the Iranian terrorist state that stands behind it,” the ministry continued. “The resolution sends a message that terrorism pays off and yields international resolutions. The decision only encourages Hamas’ rejectionism with regards to the deal for the release of the hostages and a ceasefire and further distances the possibility of reaching such a deal.”
Israel’s Foreign Ministry went on to argue that the resolution “undermines the foundation of any attempt to promote a peaceful solution to the conflict,” arguing that the PA, which initiated the measure, “is not interested in peace, but in defaming Israel.”
The Jewish state “will respond accordingly,” the statement warned.
Danon called the resolution “a shameful decision that backs the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic terrorism.”
“Instead of marking the anniversary of the October 7 massacre by condemning Hamas and calling for the release of all 101 of the remaining hostages, the General Assembly continues to dance to the music of the Palestinian Authority, which backs the Hamas murderers,” he said.
“We will continue to defend Israel in the international arena and fight against the diplomatic terrorism of the Palestinians,” he added.
The UN General Assembly resolution politically isolating Israel was passed days before world leaders will assemble for the annual UN gathering. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are both due to address the 193-member General Assembly on Sept. 26.
The post Israel’s Ambassador Tells UN Security Council: ‘Wake Up,’ Stop Turning ‘Blind Eye’ to Iran’s Support for Terrorism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Used Shell Company to Make Hezbollah’s Exploding Pagers: New York Times Report
An ambulance arrives at a hospital as thousands of people, mainly Hezbollah fighters, were wounded on Sept. 17, 2024 when the pagers they use to communicate exploded across Lebanon. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
A Hungary-based company suspected of supplying Hezbollah with the pagers that exploded across Lebanon on Tuesday was actually an Israeli shell company established by Israeli spies, The New York Times reported on Thursday citing three American intelligence officers.
The large-scale operation killed several Hezbollah members and injured thousands across Lebanon, where the Iran-backed terrorist group is based, and Syria.
Rather than tampering with existing devices during production or distribution, Israel actually “manufactured them as part of an elaborate ruse,” the report said. While the company did indeed manufacture standard pagers for other customers, these were “produced separately, [and] contained batteries laced with PETN,” a highly explosive stable material.
Following the first round of explosions, hundreds of walkie-talkies used by the group also detonated on Wednesday, causing mass panic across Lebanon.
According to The New York Times, the firm, BAC Consulting, was listed as an LTD in 2022 but its website was established in October 2020.
Two other shell companies were also reportedly created to obscure the connection between BAC and Israel, the unnamed officers said.
The devices reportedly began arriving in small numbers to Lebanon in 2022, with production increasing as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah publicly urged followers to avoid cellphones due to concerns they could be tracked by Israel.
Nasrallah warned supporters during a speech in February, saying, “The phone in your hands, in your wife’s hands, and in your children’s hands is the agent … Bury it. Put it in an iron box and lock it.”
“Israeli intelligence officials saw an opportunity,” the Times report noted.
With Hezbollah relying more heavily on the explosive-laden pagers, Israeli intelligence viewed them as “buttons” that could be triggered at any moment, ultimately leading to Tuesday’s explosions.
The pagers that detonated in Lebanon were branded with the logo of a Taiwanese company, Gold Apollo. While BAC was authorized to use Gold Apollo’s branding, the latter stated that “the design and manufacturing of the products are solely the responsibility of BAC.”
Lebanese authorities said the explosions were catastrophic, killing 12 people and injuring nearly 3,000 bystanders, most of whom were either Hezbollah operatives or civilians nearby. Another 20 died when walkie-talkies exploded the following day. Both devices, the report claimed, were rigged with PETN.
BAC Consulting denied any involvement, with its CEO Cristiana Bársony-Arcidiacono saying that her firm only acted as an intermediary in the transactions and was not responsible for manufacturing the pagers. “I don’t make the pagers. I am just the intermediary. I think you got it wrong,” Bársony-Arcidiacono told NBC News.
A Hungarian government spokesperson echoed this, stating that BAC merely facilitated the trade and that the pagers had never actually entered Hungary. “Authorities have confirmed that the company in question is a trading intermediary, with no manufacturing or operational site in Hungary. It has one manager registered at its declared address, and the referenced devices have never been in Hungary,” wrote Zoltán Kovács on X.
Hezbollah holds Israel responsible for the explosions and has vowed retaliation. Israel has neither publicly confirmed nor denied responsibility for the blasts.
In a televised address on Thursday, Nasrallah admitted that the terror group had sustained a “major and unprecedented massacre.”
“We have undoubtedly experienced a significant security and military setback, one that is unparalleled in the history of the resistance and in the history of Lebanon,” Nasrallah stated in his address.
“This kind of killing, targeting, and crime may be unprecedented in the world,” he added, saying the attacks were “a declaration of war.”
“The enemy has lost all control, laws, and morals,” he said. “Israel intended to kill 4,000 people in one minute by detonating the pagers. Many of them were civilians,” Nasrallah said, despite the fact that the devices were carried exclusively by Hezbollah operatives. “The following day, 1,000 more in one minute. In two minutes, Israel intended to kill 5,000.”
He vowed that the more than 60,000 Israelis from northern Israel who have been evacuated from their homes would not return.
Hours after his speech, Israeli fighter jets targeted more than 60 Hezbollah sites in southern Lebanon, in one of the biggest waves of attacks since the beginning of the war.
Earlier in the day, two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers were killed and nine more wounded after Hezbollah launched a barrage of anti-tank missiles and drones in the north.
During a visit to Northern Command on Wednesday, IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi alluded to the fact that Israel has yet unseen methods of war to be deployed against Hezbollah.
“We have many more capabilities that we have not yet used,” he said. “We are well prepared and we are laying the groundwork for these plans going forward.”
The post Israel Used Shell Company to Make Hezbollah’s Exploding Pagers: New York Times Report first appeared on Algemeiner.com.