RSS
The Israeli Military Made Strategic Mistakes Before Oct. 7; Here’s How to Fix It
Until the 1980s, the occupation of territory and the transfer of warfare to enemy territory for the purpose of removing the threat of infiltration were central components in the IDF’s perception of warfare. But combat against guerrilla warfare in the security zone in Lebanon, and against terror and guerrilla warfare in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, caused a shift in this perception. The holding of conquered territory that contained an enemy population prepared to conduct guerrilla warfare was perceived as a liability rather than an advantage.
The transition of enemy behavior to a pattern of reciprocal firing, and the development of an Israeli response of counter-fire and active defense implemented in limited “cycles” in Gaza, almost completely removed the occupation of territory from Israeli military and public discourse. This diminished the IDF’s focus on maintaining the military capability meant to implement occupation: the land maneuver.
This trend can be seen in IDF strategic documents over the years. In the IDF Operations Concept document of Chief of Staff Dan Halutz (2006), for example, an emphasis was placed on developing the capability of systemic fire against armored fighting vehicles as an alternative to the strategy of occupying territory. Occupation was perceived as an unacceptable burden because of the guerrilla warfare to which occupying IDF forces would be subjected.
The prolonged influence of the IDF’s experience in Lebanon is evident here. In the IDF Strategic Concept document of 2015, written almost a decade after the Second Lebanon War, a return to land maneuver capability was stressed, but with two non-occupation-focused components: the “focused maneuver” against key political and authoritative centers and the “distributed maneuver” against enemy artillery fire and dispersed warfare infrastructures. Occupying territory to be used as a diplomatic bargaining chip was not defined as an objective.
The victory perception of Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi had three pillars: engagement in firefights, land maneuver, and defense, with an emphasis on “neutralizing capabilities” — in other words, maneuvering for the purposes of disrupting artillery firing capabilities, stopping enemy operatives, and destroying warfare infrastructure, but not for the purpose of occupying territory.
Israel’s operations in Gaza clearly illustrate the IDF’s preference for firing and defense activation. The maneuver was activated during Operation Protective Edge to neutralize the threat of the attack tunnels. Ever since the Second Lebanon War, the IDF has immediately withdrawn from every territory it conquered, forfeiting any achievement provided by the occupation of territory. In all documents and operations, occupation was meant to neutralize artillery fire or tunnels but was not viewed as an objective unto itself.
This is a narrow view, as occupying territory serves multiple purposes on all levels of warfare. On the tactical level, it can be used to capture advantageous positions from the enemy. On the operational level, it can disrupt enemy formations. On the strategic level, the enemy’s capital can be occupied for the purpose of regime change. On the diplomatic level, occupied territory can be a bargaining chip for negotiation.
There are three reasons why it is a serious mistake to devalue the achievement of occupying territory.
The first reason is at the diplomatic and strategic level: It’s the land, stupid. Losing territory is a painful loss for Israel’s enemies. Hamas in Gaza wants to “return” to Jaffa, Ashdod, Ashkelon (Majdal), and indeed the rest of the State of Israel, either through direct occupation, by exhausting Israel until it collapses, or by exerting enough political pressure to force the “right of return.” Hezbollah is fighting for the Galilee foothills, and the Rashidun force wanted to conquer the Galilee. Territory remains as important to Israel’s enemies as it ever was. Israel’s occupation and holding of enemy territory thus constitutes a serious loss for those enemies.
Holding territory is also a bargaining chip in diplomatic negotiations. This was the case with Egypt and Syria in the agreements on the separation of forces at the end of the Yom Kippur War, and later in the framework of the peace agreement with Egypt, which insisted on the complete return of Sinai.
This will always apply when Israel occupies territory. Hamas’ claim that it will return the captives as long as the IDF withdraws from Gaza’s population centers proves that occupied territory is once again a diplomatic bargaining chip.
The second reason is at the operational level: The occupation of territory gives the IDF a clear asymmetrical advantage. This is about military thinking that exploits enemy vulnerabilities and maximizes the IDF’s strengths. Only the IDF can occupy territory, clear it of the enemy, defend it against counterattack, use it to reduce the threat of infiltration, and hold it as a bargaining chip for diplomatic negotiations. None of Israel’s enemies can occupy territory and hold it for more than a few hours.
This asymmetry is especially important when it comes to firepower. Though the IDF is reluctant to admit this, a sort of symmetry has emerged between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah has built a vast arsenal containing statistical rockets, short-range rockets, precision missiles, 120mm mortars, and drone-delivered explosives. The IDF has a highly sophisticated air force with precise intelligence-guided targeting capabilities on a world-class scale. The problem is that a symmetry has emerged. Both sides are capable of inflicting significant damage on the other, and victory in this operational space will be on points.
It has been argued for many years that occupying territory is not worth the price it will cost in terms of heavy casualties and exposure of IDF troops to guerrilla warfare. The “Iron Dome” war demonstrates that both these risks are limited in scope. It appears that with adjustments, territorial occupation can be restored during a future war in Lebanon. This can be done with relatively low attrition ratios (harder to achieve in Lebanon than in densely populated Gaza) and with the evacuation of the local population from the battlefield area (easier to achieve in Lebanon than in Gaza).
Territory captured in a future war must be cleared of warfare infrastructure. Residents should not be allowed to return until Israel’s desired diplomatic arrangement is achieved, even if this means the IDF stays for months or years in the enemy’s security zone. I stress that preventing the return of the population is not for the purpose of punishing them. Rather, it is for the same reason that they were evacuated before the war: to minimize the chances of their being harmed. Territory captured during ground combat will remain largely destroyed and will lack any basic electricity or water infrastructure, and it will be filled with ruins and explosive remnants. Fighting is also likely to continue to occur in the area, even if only sporadically.
The third reason is that warfare changes constantly, both globally and regionally. Unlike advanced science, which progresses forward, the phenomenon of warfare sometimes returns to old motivations and patterns. When Israel was perceived as the stronger side against Hamas, the limitations placed upon it were severe. The Western world expected Israel to defend its citizens solely with active defense systems and counter-fire, without resorting to ground action. In terms of internal legitimacy, the cost of occupying territory was believed to outweigh the benefits when each round of conflict ended with relatively minor damage.
But on October 7, 2023, both Israel’s and the world’s understanding of the conflict with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran changed completely. In response to Hamas’ brutal, genocidal massacre and mass hostage-taking, the State of Israel declared a comprehensive war. After a long period of “wars of choice” in which Israel was the stronger side, the Jewish State has returned to an era of “no-choice wars.” In a comprehensive multi-front war, which will include fighting against Hezbollah and Iran and possibly other elements, Israel will have to utilize all means at its disposal to defend itself. This includes occupying and holding territory.
Occupying territory in Lebanon — for the fifth time
Without attempting to broadly speculate on how the next war in Lebanon will unfold, we will consider a situation in which Israel has decided to enter Lebanon on the ground. In such a scenario, a defensive zone would be established and held as a security belt to protect the northern border settlements from surface-to-surface fire and ground attack until a diplomatic arrangement is reached. The conquered territory would remain “sterile,” with neither an enemy presence nor returned local residents, in order to protect those residents from the fighting that is likely to continue in the area as the enemy attempts to reconquer the territory or attack IDF forces.
Israel has a great deal of experience in Lebanon. During Operation Hiram in October 1948, the IDF captured 14 villages in the eastern sector. Israel withdrew half a year later as part of an agreement with the Lebanese government, but in Operation Litani in 1978, the villages were recaptured. In the First Lebanon War in 1982, they were captured a third time; in the Second Lebanon War in 2006, they were captured a fourth time. If we were to capture them a fifth time, as well as other areas along the border for a fourth time, we will need to ensure as much as possible that that will be the last time they pose a threat to the border settlements.
The way to do this, given the history I have described, is to gain internal and international legitimacy by turning these rural areas into a security zone under Israeli control. They should remain under Israeli security control until an agreement is reached that ensures that if Israel withdraws, the areas will no longer pose a threat.
Brigadier General (res.) Dr. Meir Finkel is head of research at the Dado Center and its former commander. He has written a series of books about the IDF’s senior headquarters: the Chief of Staff (2018), the General Staff (2020), Air Force Headquarters (2022) and Ground Headquarters (2023). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The Israeli Military Made Strategic Mistakes Before Oct. 7; Here’s How to Fix It first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
It’s Important That We Know the Truth About the Aid Situation in Gaza
Palestinians carry aid supplies which they received from the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in the central Gaza Strip, May 29, 2025. REUTERS/Ramadan Abed
Heads you win, tails I lose. That’s how it feels watching the world’s reaction to Israel and America’s new food aid model in Gaza.
For months, Israel was condemned for not letting enough aid in and for blockading aid until the hostages were released. Now that Israel is letting in food directly — but cutting the corrupt United Nations and the Hamas terrorists out of the picture — those same voices are howling even louder.
First, the accusation was: “You’re starving Gaza!” Now, it’s: “You’re weaponizing aid!” and “You’re manipulating Gaza’s hunger!” Heads you win, tails I lose. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s utterly grotesque.
The images from Gaza tell the real story. Thousands of hungry people, many of them openly and unabashedly critical of Hamas, lining up at distribution points — eager to accept boxes of food from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which is quietly, without fanfare, working with Israeli and American support.
Suddenly, we are witnessing a population that’s been exploited and abandoned by Hamas and used as political pawns by the UN finally ready — and finally able — to challenge their oppressors.
Yet instead of celebrating this breakthrough, the usual chorus of international do-gooders — all of them card-carrying haters of Israel and America — are up in arms.
The UN leadership is outraged at being usurped from its traditional role as the world’s perpetual busybody. Apparently, if the UN is to be taken at its word, delivering aid outside of Hamas’s control somehow violates humanitarian norms.
Even European diplomats are muttering darkly that this new scheme is some kind of Israeli conspiracy.
And it goes without saying that academics in distant universities are warning about “the instrumentalization of aid for war purposes.” Has anyone in all of history ever uttered something quite so ridiculous? In any event, try telling that to the Gazan father, who eagerly thanked “everyone who helped us” to a reporter on the scene.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Since the October 7th Hamas-perpetrated atrocity and the war against Hamas that followed, all these same voices have been deafeningly silent as Hamas turned food and medicine into tools of terror. Surely, that was “the instrumentalization of aid.”
But they said nothing while Hamas stole international donations in plain sight, extorted desperate families at military checkpoints, and funneled the profits into weapons and ever more violence. Now, as soon as Israel steps in to break that deadly cycle—taking real risks to ensure that Gazan civilians aren’t starved or blackmailed—these critics suddenly find their voices. But instead of using them to support real humanitarian work, they stridently protect the “principles” of an aid system that Hamas has been openly using as a cash cow.
It’s easy to stand in Geneva or New York and patronizingly tut-tut about “neutrality.” It’s much harder to look a starving child in the face and say: “Sorry, we can’t give you food unless your terrorist overlords sign off on it,” or “There’s food for you, but you can’t have it because it’s the Israelis giving it out.”
This is the greatest moral inversion of our times: Israel’s “sin” is that it’s doing what every serious humanitarian ought to do: stop the abuse of aid by criminals and ensure that food actually reaches the hungry.
Hamas is so eager to keep control, and its international enablers are so equally keen to keep Hamas from being ousted, that a shooting last week at a food collection point quickly became an international incident. The so-called mass casualty event occurred as hundreds of Gazans made their way to the only open distribution center in Rafah.
The Hamas-controlled “health ministry” claimed that 31 people were killed and nearly 200 wounded in the pre-dawn shooting near the site — and of course, inevitably, Israel was guilty of a deliberate massacre.
But even as news outlet after news outlet blindly reported the atrocity, the IDF denied responsibility and later published an audio recording featuring a local Gazan who insisted that it had been Hamas, not Israel, that opened fire. “They don’t want the people to receive aid,” he told an Israeli officer. “They want to foil the plan so that the aid will go to them, allowing them to steal it. They’ve gone completely bankrupt.”
The Torah in Parshat Nasso teaches us about the Nazir, someone who vows to separate themselves from wine and other mundane aspects of ordinary life for a period of spiritual self-discipline. The Torah says, “for the crown of his God is upon his head” (Num. 6:7).
It’s a powerful image: by abstaining from doing what others do, the Nazir isn’t running away from the world. Instead, they’re being true to themselves — choosing to do the right thing, even if it means breaking from routine in order to achieve something positive. And for that, they are depicted as having the crown of God on their heads.
The commentators add that the Nazir’s vow of abstention is really about reclaiming control. Instead of being pulled in every direction by outside influences — whether it’s peer pressure, popular opinion, or the desire to fit in — the Nazir says: “Enough is enough. I will not be ruled by these forces. I will decide my own path.”
That’s precisely what Israel’s new aid model is doing. Israel has finally, and wisely, entered into the status of Nazir. For too long, everything about the “aid system” in Gaza has been governed by what everyone else thinks is right and what Israel should or should not be doing or allowing on their borders.
But Israel the Nazir has taken a vow of abstention. Instead of working with the UN, they’ve taken a stand. They’re saying: “Enough. We will not let terrorists decide who eats and who starves. We will take control of the situation and do what is right for us and for those who are most in need.”
And yes, it’s messy. The Torah itself acknowledges that the Nazir’s vow isn’t the norm — it’s a response to a world that the Nazir feels is no longer working for them. But when everything around you is distorted, you’ve no choice but to do something radical to restore balance.
So here we are: Israel, with America alongside it, is stepping in to provide real aid — no strings attached, no financial siphon for Hamas’ tunnels, no middlemen selling precious food that was meant to be free so they can fund terror. And just as every Nazir in history has been seen as odd or extreme, Israel is being seen as venturing outside accepted norms.
But the Torah says that when you stand apart from the mob and refuse to play by their twisted rules, you wear a crown of holiness: “The crown of his God is upon his head.”
No Nazir was ever perfect. That’s a given. Neither is Israel perfect, nor is this new system. But to those who can’t see past their own dogmas, who only find their voices when Israel acts to fix the mess they ignored –maybe it’s time to take a lesson from the Nazir. Be independent. Worry about your spiritual and moral responsibilities. And whether the rest of the world turns their noses up is unimportant.
Because when you do that, it’s heads I win, and tails you don’t lose.
The author is a writer in Beverly Hills, California.
The post It’s Important That We Know the Truth About the Aid Situation in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
There Is Trouble on Campus as the 2024-2025 Academic Year Ends
Demonstrators take part in an “Emergency Rally: Stand With Palestinians Under Siege in Gaza,” amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, Oct. 14, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
The Spring semester has ended with higher education in upheaval. The political and economic relationships with the Federal government are now rapidly changing, with billions of taxpayer funding frozen or and foreign student visas on hold.
Here are some recent incidents that have occurred on campus:
- Protestors briefly and violently occupied a library at Columbia University. Later reports indicated they were mostly Columbia students, Some 65 students were suspended by the university with many barred from campus. In court, the group’s lawyer described the action as a “teach-in”;
- At the University of Washington, pro-Hamas and Antifa protestors occupied a newly opened engineering building, setting fires and damaging equipment. Over 30 arrests were made, and damage to the building was estimated at $1.2 million. The state’s governor claimed those responsible would be held “accountable,” and a Federal investigation was launched;
- At Brooklyn College, protestors attempted to create an encampment, but were driven off campus by police. As protestors left, they stopped at the Hillel house where one individual gave a speech denouncing it as a “Zionist institution.” Altercations ensued, resulting in arrests;
- An encampment at Swarthmore College was removed by police, and nine individuals were arrested. The encampment was sparsely attended and Swarthmore activists reported frustration with “unambiguously ineffective” SJP tactics, hostility toward otherwise sympathetic supporters, and an “increasingly adversarial tone towards the general student body;”
- An encampment at Dartmouth College was dismantled after the administration agreed to provide subsidies to international students “in need” and to meet with protestors regarding divestment. Later in the month, protestors briefly occupied an area outside the university president’s office;
- At Rutgers University, a pro-Hamas demonstration was held outside the Hillel building, where Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) was holding a roundtable meeting. This resulted in four arrests. One police officer was assaulted;
A number of “Nakba Day” protests were held at universities including at Trinity College (Cambridge) and Tel Aviv University, and across major cities including New York and London.
Security precautions for Jewish communities and institutions were heightened after the Washington, D.C. murders. Even prior to this, Birmingham University’s Hillel house announced it would apply for permission construct a large fence around its property as protection from antisemitic protests and attacks.
In an especially disturbing development, a local Michigan judge considered ordering the state’s gay and Jewish Attorney General, Dana Nessel, to recuse herself from prosecuting pro-Hamas trespassers at the University of Michigan because of allegations that she is biased against Arabs and Muslims that were made in a separate case.
The Trump administration continues to target leading institutions, above all Harvard and Columbia, with funding cuts and other restrictions over their refusal to rapidly address new mandates regarding the eradication of DEI politics and campus antisemitism.
Other leading institutions including Vanderbilt University and Dartmouth College, which have explicitly adopted positions defending free speech as well as maintained campus safety and civility, have not been the focus of the Trump administration.
Administration efforts to remove foreign students who support Hamas and advocate for revolution against the US have been stymied by court orders. Most key individuals targeted by an early wave of deportation orders have been freed by courts — even though they openly supported a US-designated terror group on the streets of America.
The higher education industrial complex continues to complain about Federal cuts and pressure. A recent poll, however, indicates that significant numbers of Americans hold negative views of Ivy League institutions, suggesting that the elite sector of the industry has little social capital. But concerns remain that continued administration emphasis on antisemitism, along with DEI and resulting discrimination policies, will generate resentment and antisemitism as Jews are blamed for what is happening.
As the immense confrontation between the Trump administration and the higher education industrial complex unfolds, faculty find themselves trapped. The majority of faculty who are not pro-Palestinian — much less overt Hamas — supporters have been tarred by their ideologically committed colleagues, as have scientists who have found their funding and student staffing destroyed.
Professional organizations such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have been built as left wing pressure groups, which now give credence to far left factions explicitly in support of Hamas. Other professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, are suffused with antisemitism and anti-Israel bias to the point where they have now attracted political attention.
Faculty groups continue to provide largely anonymous support for pro-Hamas protestors and anti-Israel policies:
- The University of Washington chapter of Faculty for Justice in Palestine strongly condemned the university for taking action against protestors who caused over $1 million in damage to an engineering building and for accepting donations from Boeing;
- Columbia University’s American Association of University Professors condemned the institution’s handling of the library takeover and for plans to revise “shared governance” structures;
- The George Washington University Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine condemned the university’s response to a student commencement speaker who had excoriated Israel. She was later barred from campus;
- The University of Toronto Faculty Association also narrowly voted to divest from Israel and demanded the university follow suit.
Largely in contrast to university administrations, faculty-led groups have also rewarded student protestors. In one example, two Harvard Law School students who had assaulted a Jewish student were awarded fellowships while other anti-Israel students were recommended for Rhodes and Truman scholarships. Also at Harvard, an honorary degree was awarded to Berkeley faculty member and BDS supporter Elaine Kim.
In parallel, reports continue to appear regarding the pervasiveness of anti-Israel bias in British university classrooms, and the systematic purging of Jewish adjuncts from the City University of New York’s accounting department. These and other incidents indicate that disparate faculty members have continued or even intensified both anti-Israel and antisemitic efforts in spire of media and Federal scrutiny.
Students continued to protest against Israel with particular emphasis on the anniversaries of 2024 encampments and “Nakba Day.” One protest strategy that has reemerged are hunger strikes by students and faculty, including at Stanford University, Yale University, Occidental College, Cal State Long Beach, and San Francisco State University.
As has been the norm in previous years, commencements were the scene of pro-Hamas protests. Columbia students drowned out president Claire Shipman’s remarks, including favorable comments regarding detained student Mahmoud Khalil, which produced angry jeers from the crowd. Later several students burned their diplomas. Two students were arrested. Barnard College president Laura Rosenbury was jeered by graduates who shouted “shame.” Graduates at many institutions waved Palestinian flags and jeered, including at Brooklyn College.
In another notable case at New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study, the student commencement speaker deviated from the speech he had originally submitted and excoriated the US and Israel saying, “I want to say that the genocide currently occurring is supported politically and militarily by the United States, is paid for by our tax dollars, and has been live streamed to our phones for the past 18 months.” Students applauded the speech and the university stated the student “lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules.” It then withheld his diploma.
Other students deviated from approved remarks and called for divestment and accused Israel of “genocide” and their schools of complicity in their commencement speeches, such as at MIT and George Washington University. Disruptions were reported at City University of New York, Columbia University and Rutgers University. Faculty members dressed in keffiyehs at New York University.
Another commencement related incident saw Salman Rushdie, who was almost murdered by a Muslim protestor in 2022, withdraw as commencement speaker at Claremont McKenna College after complaints by the local CAIR branch and threats to protest by the school’s Muslim Student Association.
K-12
Anti-Israel bias and overt antisemitism continues to be integrated into K-12 education through teachers’ unions and “ethnic studies.” The continued promotion of “anti-Palestinian racism” as the pinnacle of intersectionalism is an especially ominous development. The concept, which sacralizes Palestinian narratives regarding “nakba” and Israeli evil, and makes factual counter-narratives and potentially Jewish expressions of identity and belief illegal on the basis of hurt feelings, is now official policy in Toronto public schools.
A variety of reports have shown how radical teachers in Philadelphia public schools have systematically dominated teacher training and curriculum development in the name of “racial justice,” and against Israel and Jews.
The role of teachers’ unions in promoting “Palestine” as a core principle is most developed in Britain. There, the National Education Union has been at the forefront of anti-Israel organizing with “days of action,” workshops to “advocate for Palestine in our schools,” celebrating Nakba Day, and circulating BDS petitions, all ostensibly aimed at teachers rather than students. In reality, reports continue to document how teacher routinely indoctrinate students against Israel and Jews both inside and outside classrooms, employing crude and vicious terms such as “ZioNazis.”
In the US, local teachers’ unions such as the Beaverton Education Association and internal affinity groups such as “NY Educators for Palestine” and “Teaching While Muslim” continue to push indoctrination efforts such as “Teach Palestine Week.” At the national level, the Democratic Socialists of America is currently running several candidates for the leadership of the United Federation of Teachers.
Local pushback against teachers’ unions, such as in Massachusetts, has had limited impact, since unions operate with impunity. Control of oversight institutions such as school boards has become critical, since these too are routinely taken over by BDS supporters. In an unusual outcome, in the New Rochelle, NY, school board vote a progressive candidate endorsed by former Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D) lost resoundingly to both another Black candidate and Jewish candidates. She then blamed anti-Blackness and her support for “Gaza.” Jewish and centrist voters had mobilized vigorously against her on the basis of Bowman’s endorsement.
The author is a contributor to SPME, where a completely different version of this article was published.
The post There Is Trouble on Campus as the 2024-2025 Academic Year Ends first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Sailing to Gaza: Greta Thunberg’s Latest Anti-Israel Publicity Stunt
Police officers detain Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, during an Oily Money Out and Fossil Free London protest in London, Britain, October 17, 2023. Photo: Reuters/Toby Melville
Greta Thunberg is on her way to save the people of Gaza.
The 22-year-old Swedish climate crusader is one of 12 anti-Israel activists sailing to the Gaza Strip on the vessel Madleen, allegedly to bring aid to the embattled enclave and to challenge Israel’s naval blockade.
Even though the boat is still days away from reaching the coast, it is already making news due to the high-profile status of some of those onboard. Along with Thunberg are Game of Thrones actor Liam Cunningham, French politician Rima Hassan, and Al Jazeera journalist Omar Faiad.
As social media becomes inundated with images of the activists galivanting on the high seas and mainstream media outlets like the Associated Press, ABC Australia, and CBS News are beginning to report on the vessel’s “humanitarian mission,” it is important that news consumers understand why there is a blockade of the Gaza Strip and are aware of the sordid history of past attempts to break the blockade.
Greta Thunberg’s so-called “freedom flotilla” encapsulates the delusion and hypocrisy surrounding the Israel-Gaza war.
This isn’t a humanitarian mission—it’s a Mediterranean leisure cruise. Participants are smiling, swimming, and filming TikTok videos. This is self-serving… pic.twitter.com/eUzhsXW54r
— Maccabee Task Force (@MacTaskForce) June 3, 2025
The Blockade of Gaza: A Brief History
Following Hamas’ violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, both Israel and Egypt restricted maritime traffic off the coast of Gaza to curb weapons smuggling by Hamas.
In 2008, Israel declared the Mediterranean Sea adjacent to Gaza a war zone, and reserved the right to inspect ships entering that area. Then, in 2009, Israel implemented a total naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Since the imposition of the naval blockade in 2009, there have been several incidents of the Israeli military intercepting ships carrying weapons bound for Hamas and other Gaza-based terror groups.
This includes the Victoria, which was intercepted in 2011 carrying 50 tons of Iranian weapons, the Klos-C, an Iranian arms ship that was seized in 2014, and a weapons-smuggling vessel disguised as a fishing boat that was intercepted in 2016.
Along with the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, there are also restrictions on the importing of goods through the land crossings between the Gaza Strip and both Israel and Egypt that are also meant to contain Hamas’ ability to bring in weapons and other goods intended for its terror infrastructure.
While the Israeli-Egyptian land and maritime blockade of Gaza might appear to be harsh, it is a legal necessity that provides basic necessities for the people of Gaza while also serving as a deterrent to Hamas’ terror campaign.
It should also be noted that, contrary to its depiction as such by some activists and journalists, the blockade of Gaza is not a “siege.” Aside from a brief two-month period (March-May 2025) during the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, there have never been extended periods of time when food and other necessities were entirely barred from entering the Gaza Strip.
Attempts to Break the Blockade
For almost as long as the Gaza Strip blockade has existed, activists have attempted to break it, placing greater emphasis on public attention than actually bringing aid to the people of Gaza. Even in this current case of the Madleen, organizers have admitted that the limited amount of aid on the ship is “symbolic.”
The most famous attempt to break the blockade was in 2010, when Israeli forces intercepted a naval flotilla (led by the ship Mavi Marmara) as it attempted to reach the Gazan coast. After Israeli naval commandos boarded the lead ship, a violent confrontation broke out between the “peace activists” and the soldiers, resulting in the deaths of 10 Turkish activists and the wounding of several Israeli soldiers.
The Turkish organization that organized this flotilla, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), reportedly has ties to Hamas and was more focused on confronting the Israeli blockade than providing aid to the people of Gaza. The aid, which was offloaded in Israel, was later refused by the Hamas authorities in Gaza.
Now, 15 years later, the IHH continues to be involved with the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which is sponsoring the latest blockade-breaking attempt by the Madleen.
As the publicity campaign around Greta Thunberg and the Madleen continues to gather steam, will the media provide their audience with a proper context for understanding Israel’s blockade of Gaza, or will this latest stunt merely serve as a lightning rod for false narratives and misleading information about Israel’s war against Hamas?
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Sailing to Gaza: Greta Thunberg’s Latest Anti-Israel Publicity Stunt first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login