RSS
The Day After: ‘Every Day Is Oct. 8’
JNS.org – Every ending is a new beginning.
When we conclude each of the five books of the Torah (as we did last week) the reader leads the congregation in the refrain “chazak chazak v’nitchazek,” meaning “be strong, be strong, and let us be strengthened.”
This custom began in the 1100s, and is one of a group of customs related to finishing a Torah reading. According to Sephardic custom, after one receives an aliyah, congregants greet them with “chazak u’baruch,” “may you be strong and blessed”; Ashkenazi Jews say instead, “yiyasher kochacha,” “may your strength be renewed.” After finishing an entire book of the Talmud, we read the siyum declaration which begins with the words “Hadran Alach,” “I will return to you,” expressing a commitment to return to that just studied. These customs declare that one can never retire from responsibility, even after extraordinary success. Endings are never the end.
For the same reason, on Simchat Torah, when we read the final Torah reading of the year, we go a step further and actually start reading the Torah again from the beginning. We want to make it clear we are not going to abandon the Torah, once completed. (Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik suggests that this may be why we say “Adon Olam” at the end of the Musaf prayer on Shabbat morning; even after lengthy service, we go right back to the very first prayer, indicating we are ready to start all over again!)
Every victory brings with it the possibility of defeat. Overconfidence can turn strong armies into weak ones. It is precisely after achieving success, after concluding the task, that we have to remember to “be strong, be strong, and be strengthened.”
One of the major British victories in World War II was the second Battle of El-Alamein, which ended on Nov. 11, 1942. That day, Winston Churchill spoke to Parliament to report on the victory. Then he added the following:
“We are entitled to rejoice only upon the condition that we do not relax. I always liked those lines by the American poet, Walt Whitman. I have several times repeated them. They apply to-day most aptly. He said: ‘Now understand me well—it is provided in the essence of things that from any fruition of success, no matter what, shall come forth something to make a greater struggle necessary.’ The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult. … We shall need to use the stimulus of victory to increase our exertions, to perfect our systems, and to refine our processes.”
This is an eloquent restatement of “chazak chazak v’nitchazek.” Unlike the tagline of the beer ads, once a job is done, it is not “Miller Time.” Victory brings with it a multitude of problems, and the greatest of them all is being spoiled by success.
Every new chapter requires an even greater struggle.
The catastrophe of Oct. 7 occurred due to the sin of overconfidence. Multiple warnings were ignored, while the political and military leadership clung to the assumption that the enemy simply would not attack despite clear evidence to the contrary. No one remembered the lesson of “chazak chazak v’nitchazek.”
In retrospect, this war will probably be seen as a defeat and victory mashed up together, much like the Yom Kippur War 50 years ago. What happens the “day after” has been discussed almost from the very beginning. Pundits, politicians and polemicists all offer their visions. They are planning for a very different political and social landscape.
While a new blueprint is probably necessary, even more important than that is a new mindset.
History is considered by Judaism to be a form of revelation. In a recent seminar, I made mention of Emil Fackenheim’s “614th commandment.” Fackenheim was a prolific writer on the theology of the Holocaust, and believed that history is a form of revelation. The Holocaust, he argued, despite its horrors, carries the commanding voice of history. To Fackenheim, this voice declared: “Thou shalt not hand Hitler posthumous victories.” That is a new commandment, the 614th commandment. One of his students paraphrased Fackenhiem’s four-fold view of this commandment as meaning: “Jews must remain Jews, they must remember the Shoah victims, they must not despair of man, and they must not despair of God.”
History as revelation is the very lesson of Purim. The Book of Esther meticulously excludes mention of God’s name. Instead, it urges us to hear God through the commanding voice of history. Much like Fackenheim’s understanding, the practical commandments in the Book of Esther offer a series of lessons as well, which I would summarize this way: Evil exists. Celebrate salvation, and celebrate with friends. Care for the vulnerable. Connect to your community. Read aloud these lessons every year so you don’t forget them.
Actually, the lessons of history cannot offer a simple blueprint for the future; circumstances change all the time. Instead, they are meant to transform our perspective.
After Oct. 7, a commanding voice calls out to us again, asking us to see the world differently. Bret Stephens, in a brilliant column, writes:
“There used to be a sign somewhere in the C.I.A.’s headquarters that read, ‘Every day is Sept. 12.’ It was placed there to remind the agency’s staffers that what they felt right after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001—the sense of outrage and purpose, of favoring initiative over caution, of taking nothing for granted—had to be the mind-set with which they arrived to work every day.
“There ought to be a similar sign in every Jewish organization, synagogue and day school, and on the desks of anyone—Jewish or not—for whom the security and well-being of the Jews is a sacred calling: ‘Every day is Oct. 8.’”
This is a powerful point. Jews must nevermore be naive. Our destiny can no longer depend on here today, gone tomorrow “allies,” and our security must depend on something more than a high-tech fence.
But the voice of history has much more to say about Oct. 7. One day a “Book of Oct. 7” will be composed, with all the stories of unity, heroism and optimism. And through these stories, we will hear God’s commanding voice, and learn lessons about the mindset we need in order to move forward into the future.
Allow me to share one such story. This past week I met a young woman from Kfar Aza, Or Tzuk, who spoke at an AIPAC conference.
On Oct. 7, Hamas terrorists murdered her parents. Her 25-year-old brother was able to survive by hiding under a bed; he stayed there for seven hours just inches from his mother’s body, soaked in her blood. (Or and her husband had gone away on vacation.)
Or told us how she promised her brother that whatever happens in the future, she will always care for him; he can come any day and move right into her house. And she told everyone that she was three months pregnant and had thrown up just before she got on stage.
When I spoke to her afterward, I asked Or why she decided to get pregnant just two months after her parents were brutally murdered. Her response was simple: Jews know they must choose life. Jews must always be optimistic, even in the worst of times.
Or said she drew inspiration from the Jewish holidays. Unlike many other cultures and religions, Jewish holidays are not unvarnished stories of joy; rather, they tell stories about how resilient heroes like Esther, Moses and the Maccabees overcame extreme challenges.
When speaking to Or, I realized that I was talking to a modern-day Esther. She has heard a voice calling out, telling her to choose life, to choose family, to choose community.
And that voice speaks to us too. This is the only way forward for the day after.
Originally published by The Jewish Journal.
The post The Day After: ‘Every Day Is Oct. 8’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Philadelphi Conundrum
JNS.org – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, visibly frustrated and at times even rightfully furious, addressed a hostile foreign press Wednesday evening, condemning defeatist elements who advocate for Israel’s withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor—a move demanded by Hamas, the international community, some of the prominent leftist representatives in Israel’s political and defense establishments, and a minority of Israeli civilians.
Clearly under pressure from the international community to leave the corridor, Netanyahu warned repeatedly during the press conference that such a retreat would enable Hamas to maintain power and smuggle in weapons, preventing the demilitarization of Gaza and posing a grave threat to Israel’s security.
National Unity Party leader Benny Gantz and Knesset member Gadi Eisenkot held their own press conference on Tuesday evening, accusing Netanyahu of obstructing a potential hostage deal with Hamas. They also disputed his stance that Israel should maintain control of the Philadelphi Corridor.
But many Israelis believe this type of thinking is misguided and part of the failed “conceptzia” (governing assumptions) that preceded the Oct. 7 attacks.
As Gallant, Gantz and Eisenkot, as well as opposition leader Yair Lapid, have demonstrated in recent days, they and other high-ranking political and military figures still hold on to these defeatist views.
According to Enia Krivine, senior director for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Israel Programs and National Security Network, “Since day one of the war there has been tension between two of the primary war goals—to bring the hostages back and dismantle Hamas.”
Some in Israel’s political and military echelon, said Krivine, “have decided that bringing the hostages home alive has become the paramount war goal and that this moral imperative supersedes the other two goals,” she said.
Thousands of Israelis siding with this view are currently demonstrating against Netanyahu, accusing him of obstructing a hostage deal.
Netanyahu has been criticized by Israelis on the right for not entering Rafah sooner and taking control of the Philadelphi Corridor immediately after the initial military invasion of Gaza on Oct. 27.
Now that Israeli forces are there, Israelis on the left want Netanyahu to withdraw them to facilitate a deal to get more hostages released.
But many experts, including Krivine and former Israeli National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat, agree with Netanyahu that contrary to what some Israeli defense officials believe, Israel will not be able to easily return to the corridor once it withdraws, as the international community will place heavy pressure on Jerusalem to keep it from doing so.
“There are those who believe that we can temporarily relinquish control—for 42 days—until the first phase of the deal is completed, and then, if the deal does not progress, return and regain control of the area,” said Ben-Shabbat.
“Of course, the IDF has the ability, operationally, [to] reoccupy this corridor even after 42 days, but it’s not just a matter of military capability,” he added. “Everyone understands that once we leave, Israel will face immense diplomatic pressure from the U.S. and other countries not to return.”
Ben-Shabbat, now the head of the Misgav Institute for Zionist Strategy & National Security, in Jerusalem, warned that since we are in the final stretch before the U.S. elections, the expected American pressure “will be extremely heavy.”
“The legitimacy Israel had to occupy this corridor following Oct. 7 will not exist after we leave it,” he said.
Krivine agreed, saying Israel “would [not] have the legitimacy or the support necessary to accomplish this; not from the United States, not from Egypt and not from the international community.”
Part of the reason for Israel’s insistence, she told JNS, is because the third primary goal of the war is “to make sure that Hamas can no longer pose a threat to Israel.”
Part of the confusion leading up to the press conference was that Netanyahu seems to now be saying he does not intend to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor, but media outlets had reported that he had agreed to withdraw from parts of the corridor that are heavily populated, in the second phase of a proposed ceasefire deal.
Netanyahu clarified on Wednesday that Israel would be willing to withdraw if a suitable foreign entity is found that is able to properly monitor the border and prevent smuggling there.
It is worth mentioning that the European Union Border Assistance Mission (EUBAM) was supposed to monitor the Rafah border after Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, but in 2007, after Hamas took over, EUBAM officials simply ran away, fearing for their own security.
Israel is not interested in, nor can it afford, a repeat of such a scenario.
The Philadelphi Corridor was problematic from the very beginning
When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice overrode strong Israeli objections to giving up control over the Philadelphi Corridor.
Israel knew that without effective control of this strip of land, it would become a conduit for smuggling weapons into Gaza. But heavy pressure from the Bush administration, and Rice specifically, forced Israel to pull its forces from the area.
Rice urged Israel to vacate the corridor as a “peaceful gesture” to the Palestinians. Unfortunately, Israel’s leader at the time, Ariel Sharon, caved to this dangerous request.
While today Egypt denies it has allowed the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, we know this is not true.
Already in 2008, Rice said Cairo must improve border patrol efforts after Israeli officials complained that Egypt was doing a “terrible” job on the Gaza border, failing to stop smuggling of weapons and ammunition into Gaza through tunnels under the Philadelphi Corridor.
“We think that Egypt has to do more. Those tunnels need to be dealt with,” Rice said at the time.
Israeli officials said they had sent a video to Washington showing Egyptian security forces helping Hamas terrorists smuggle arms across the border into Gaza.
Egypt responded that it was “doing its best” with the number of personnel it was allowed to deploy at the border under the 1979 peace treaty and a subsequent agreement with Israel.
When Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi came to power in 2013, he allegedly moved to destroy many of the tunnels.
But having uncovered and blocked off 150 smuggling tunnels so far in just the past few months, the IDF has proven that Egypt cannot be trusted and Israel cannot again leave the corridor since Hamas, or other terror organizations, will swiftly return to building new ones.
That decision by the Americans—the type of thinking that continues to pervade the U.S. State Department through the present day—directly led to the tragic events of Oct. 7, the ensuing war over these last 11 months and the continuing tragedy of the hostages in Gaza.
This thinking is the reason Israel was forced to pause fighting for three months earlier in the war, was behind the American pressure on Israel not to enter Rafah and is the leading reason the Americans insist the war “must end now.”
Demonstrating more common sense, Israel’s Security Cabinet voted last Thursday night in favor of maintaining a continued IDF presence in the corridor, even at the cost of a hostage deal.
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant voted against the decision, while National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir abstained.
Following news of the execution by Hamas of six hostages, whose bodies were found on Saturday in a Rafah tunnel, Gallant on Sunday called for the Cabinet to reverse its decision, claiming that the corridor is one of the biggest obstacles to a ceasefire deal.
U.S. President Joe Biden expressed his shock and anger over the hostages’ murders and said Hamas leaders must be held accountable.
However, when asked if he felt Netanyahu had done enough to get the hostages released, Biden said “no.”
During a local press conference on Monday, Netanyahu dismissed reports that Biden had criticized him for not doing enough to secure a ceasefire deal, saying he “does not believe Biden said that” in light of the murders.
“What message does this send Hamas?” said Netanyahu.
“I don’t believe that either President Biden or anyone else serious about achieving peace and achieving [the hostages’] release would seriously ask Israel to make these concessions. We’ve already made them. Hamas has to make the concessions,” he added.
What if Israel withdraws?
Ben-Shabbat told JNS that relinquishing control of the Philadelphi Corridor “would encourage Hamas, signal to the residents of Gaza that the terror organization will continue to be the dominant force in the Strip and might even embolden the ‘resistance axis,’ particularly Hezbollah, to take a harder stance against Israel.”
He added: “If, after Oct. 7, and after seeing the implications of military buildup, we don’t insist on this, then it essentially means Israel can be forced to fold on any issue.”
Ben-Shabbat went on to say that “past experience does not allow us to rely on the goodwill of others, especially after what happened to us on Oct. 7.”
He recalled what happened in January 2009 on the eve of the conclusion of “Operation Cast Lead,” when then-Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni signed an agreement with the United States and NATO for joint efforts to counter the smuggling threat.
“This agreement did not prevent even a gram of gunpowder from being smuggled into Gaza,” he said.
While some argue that it’s not wise to occupy the corridor because it’s a narrow strip of land, and staying there would expose Israeli forces, Ben-Shabbat told JNS that “now is precisely the time for the IDF to carry out all the necessary engineering work in the area to improve conditions for the safety of our forces,” adding, “Who said we have to settle for a 14-meter-wide strip?”
Ensuring the security of Israeli forces “justifies making the necessary changes to the terrain, and the width of the corridor should be determined accordingly,” he said.
In Krivine’s view, Israel may eventually be able to allow the Egyptians or Americans physical control of the corridor, but it would be irresponsible to do so today.
“There is no way to prevent arms getting in—or terrorists and potentially hostages—being smuggled out of the enclave without a credible inspections regime in the corridor both below ground and above ground,” she said. “Until there is a credible inspections regime established that deprives Hamas the ability to rearm, the Philadelphi corridor must remain in the hands of the IDF.”
[Hamas leader] Yahya Sinwar “understands that the hostages are his only remaining leverage over the government of Israel,” she said, adding that Sinwar’s “wicked decision” to execute the hostages when IDF forces were so close to rescuing them “was a ploy to create a wedge in Israeli society and pressure Netanyahu into making tough concessions at the negotiating table.”
Sinwar, she said, “knows that Israel’s Achilles heel is its deep valuing of human life, and he understands how to drive a stake into the heart of Israeli society.”
According to Krivine, giving in to Hamas’s demands means that the terror group survives and begins the process of rebuilding.
“There is no third party—not the P.A. and not the moderate Arab states—that will step into the void unless the IDF can ensure that Hamas is unable to regroup and rearm,” she said.
Israel’s path forward
Brian Carter of the American Enterprise Institute seems to agree.
He told JNS that “either Israel or another capable entity must control the Philadelphi Corridor for Israel to prevent Hamas from rebuilding its capabilities to the same level the group reached by Oct. 7.”
Otherwise, he warned, “Hamas will gradually rebuild itself and undo the progress Israel has made toward defeating the group.”
Any outcome that results in a rebuilt Hamas is “unacceptable and would constitute an Israeli defeat,” he said.
According to Carter, the way forward is to find a party that is capable of and willing to control the Philadelphi Corridor.
He believes it is “unlikely” that any force could prevent smuggling under the corridor without a presence on the corridor.
Ben-Shabbat told JNS that Israel can take more steps to ensure it achieves its objectives in this war.
First, Israel must “completely deprive Hamas of control over the supplies entering the Strip,” he said. “This is its lifeline and the main means of maintaining its governance.”
Second, Israel should “divide Gaza into more sections, beyond what currently exists.”
Third, as another former head of the Israeli National Security Council, Giora Eiland, proposed, Israel should launch a “broad operation” in northern Gaza. This means evacuating Gaza City and the northern Strip, closing it off as a military zone, cutting off supplies to the area, and then conducting a thorough military operation to destroy terrorists.
“In my opinion, it is a good option,” Ben-Shabbat told JNS.
“The plan does have its drawbacks though as Israel can expect resistance from the United States and the international community, and the fact that it involves returning many IDF forces to the Gaza Strip,” he noted.
Finally, Ben-Shabbat suggested Israel could “take action” against Hamas leaders abroad.
The post The Philadelphi Conundrum first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Yemen’s Houthis Say They Shot Down US MQ-9 Drone over Marib Governorate
i24 News – Yemen’s Houthi jihadists claimed Saturday night that they successfully ambushed and downed an American MQ-9 drone in Yemen.
“The Yemeni air defenses shot down an American MQ-9 aircraft while it was carrying out hostile activities in the airspace of Ma’rib Governorate,” said the jihadist group’s spokesman Yahya Saree. “This is the eighth plane of its type that the Yemeni Armed Forces have succeeded in shooting down during the Battle of the Promised Victory and the Holy Jihad in support of Gaza.”
“The Yemeni Armed Forces continue to perform their jihadist duties in solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people and in defense of beloved Yemen,” he went on.
“And with the help of Allah Almighty, they are in the process of strengthening their defensive capabilities to confront and respond to the American-British aggression by targeting its hostile military movements in the naval operations zone.”
The post Yemen’s Houthis Say They Shot Down US MQ-9 Drone over Marib Governorate first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jordanian Terrorist Kills Three Israelis at Allenby Crossing
JNS.org – Three security guards at the Allenby Bridge crossing in the Jordan Valley were killed in a terrorist shooting on Sunday morning.
The gunman, who according to the IDF was a Jordanian citizen, was killed, and Israeli forces were conducting scans of the area to ensure there were no more terrorists in the area.
Magen David Adom emergency service spokesperson Zaki Heller said that “after resuscitation operations, MDA medics and paramedics in cooperation with the IDF medical force pronounced the deaths of three men about 50 years old with gunshot wounds to their bodies.”
One of the victims was named as Yohanan Shchori, 61, a father of six from Ma’ale Efraim. Yuri Birnbaum, 65, from Moshav Na’ama north of Jericho, was also killed in the attack. The third victim was Adrian Marcelo Podsmeser, from the city of Ariel in Samaria.
The terrorist who carried out the attack was named as Maher D’yab Hussein Jazi, a 39-year-old truck driver from the city of Irbid.
The IDF said that the terrorist drove in a truck to the crossing from the Jordanian side. The terrorist then exited the vehicle and began firing at forces guarding the crossing. Security forces were working to rule out suspicions that the truck was laced with explosives.
Jordan’s Interior Ministry announced the “beginning of the investigation into the shooting incident” at the border. A Jordanian security official told Arab media that the Allenby crossing was closed on the Jordanian side following the attack.
The crossing was also closed on the Israeli side and security forces cordoned off nearby Jericho to rule out the presence of additional terrorists who may have crossed the border.
The Allenby Bridge, known in Jordan as the King Hussein Bridge, located around three miles east of Jericho, connects Israel’s Judea and Samaria region with the Hashemite kingdom. The terminal is used mostly by Palestinians and foreign tourists and is forbidden for Israeli citizens, except for Muslims making a pilgrimage to Mecca.
David Elhayani, head of the Jordan Valley Regional Council, told Channel 13, “We have known for several months from conversations with the military that they are aware of what is happening in Jordan, and are aware that the Palestinian population in Jordan supports Hamas and encourages it.”
He continued, “The army knows this and prepared for it, but they did not think that it can come from a bridge of apparent peace. The result is very difficult.”
Last Sunday, three Israeli police officers were killed in a drive-by shooting near the Tarqumiya checkpoint, some 7.5 miles northwest of Hebron in Judea.
They were identified as Ch. Insp. Arik Ben Eliyahu, 37, from Kiryat Gat, who is survived by his wife and three children; Command Sgt. Maj. Hadas Branch, 53, from Moshav Sde Moshe, who is survived by her husband, three children and granddaughter; and 1st Sgt. Roni Shakuri, 61, from Sderot, who is survived by his wife, daughter and granddaughter.
Shakuri’s other daughter, 1st Sgt. Mor Shakuri, 29, was killed in Sderot on Oct. 7 while fighting Hamas terrorists attempting to take control of the city’s police station.
The post Jordanian Terrorist Kills Three Israelis at Allenby Crossing first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login