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
Jewish Leaders Push US Congress to Bolster Antisemitism Protections Amid Rising Anti-Jewish Violence
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul lays flowers in honor of shooting victims Israeli Embassy workers Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, US, May 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Hundreds of Jewish leaders from across the US gathered in Washington, DC on Wednesday with a clear and urgent message to lawmakers that Jewish communities in the United States are under threat and need stronger federal protection.
Nearly 400 advocates representing more than 100 Jewish communities participated in the two-day United for Security Emergency Leadership Mission in the nation’s capital, holding more than 200 meetings with members of Congress and their staff. The mission, organized by the Jewish Federations of North America and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, comes amid a rise in domestic antisemitism and increased tensions between Israel and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program.
Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter urged American officials to take a hard line as talks with Iran are set to resume.
“The basis of any agreement pursued with Iran has to be there is no more attempt to annihilate the Jewish state, the Jewish people,” Leiter said during remarks at the Hilton in Washington.
Much of the mission focused on concerns regarding domestic antisemitism. Organizers say Jewish Americans have faced a surge of threats since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led assault on Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza, with attacks and harassment targeting synagogues, schools, and community centers across the country. Data indicates that antisemitic attacks have surged across the US since the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel.
The meeting also comes one month after the fatal shooting of Israeli Embassy staffers Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim in Washington, D.C. The pair was targeted by a pro-Palestinian activist after exiting an event at the Capital Jewish Museum. Milgrim’s father has suggested that the pair might have been saved had there been more security at the venue.
“Had there been more security at the event where Sarah and Yaron were tragically murdered, had there been more security outside, watching the crowd, I feel that it possibly could have identified the shooter pacing back and forth and possibly disarmed him,” Bob Milgrim told the Jewish delegation on Wednesday.
Advocates are calling on Congress to adopt a six-point federal policy plan that includes raising the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to $1 billion annually, providing support for private security costs, expanding FBI counterterrorism resources, and enhancing federal aid to local law enforcement. The plan also calls for stronger enforcement of hate crime laws and new efforts to regulate online hate speech and violent incitement.
“We are here to speak with one voice,” said Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America. “We know there are many things on the nation’s agenda, but we must insist that the safety and security of the Jewish community and the battle against domestic terror be at the very top.”
“Support for Israel’s security is not a partisan issue. It is a moral imperative, a strategic interest and a Jewish responsibility,” added William Daroff, CEO of the Conference of Presidents. “Support for Israel is not negotiable, Jewish safety in America is not optional, and the silence in the face of antisemitic incitement, whether it comes from Iran’s Ayatollahs or American campuses, is unacceptable.”
The mission brought together more than 50 national organizations in what participants described as an unprecedented show of unity. Organizers said the gathering reflected a growing sense of alarm over the safety of Jewish communities at home and abroad.
The post Jewish Leaders Push US Congress to Bolster Antisemitism Protections Amid Rising Anti-Jewish Violence first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New York Police Arrest Shirtless Man After Wig Theft, Child Attack, Knife Threats Against Jews in Crown Heights
The headquarters of the worldwide Chabad-Lubavitch movement in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
Law enforcement in New York City arrested an unnamed individual alleged to have terrorized multiple Jewish residents in the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Crown Heights in Brooklyn.
Photos from the scene on Wednesday morning showed New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers leading away a skinny, shirtless man whose pants sagged down just above his knees. The images showed him handcuffed with bare feet and a report described him as riding a bicycle.
The man allegedly approached a Jewish mother and her children before stealing her wig (worn for religious observance) and hitting one of her children. He also reportedly yelled antisemitic slurs, punched a Jewish man, and threatened him with a knife before the NYPD and Crown Heights Shmira, a nonprofit Jewish security agency, arrested him.
The attacks came amidst a surge of antisemitic hate crimes in New York City following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led terror attacks across southern Israel. Earlier this year, the NYPD released a report showing that for 2024, it counted 641 total hate crimes with 345 targeting Jews — an increase of 7 percent from 2023 and a staggering 54 percent of all hate crimes.
Antisemitic criminals in New York City have often chosen Crown Heights as their hunting ground for harassing or even assaulting Jews.
In November, for example, three men who hid their faces behind hoods and ski masks chose to stalk and rob a Hasidic man. Yaacov Behrman, liaison of Chabad Headquarters and founder of the Jewish Future Alliance (JFA) nonprofit, said following the crime that his organization was “deeply concerned not only about the increase in crime but also the fact that, once again, the perpetrators were wearing masks. We need to reinstate mask laws.”
Other antisemitic attacks against Crown Heights Jews in 2024 included a failed robbery which devolved into a beating instead, an assault on a 13-year-old Jewish boy biking to school, a kidnapping attempt, and a stabbing.
Many of the incidents — including the most recent Wednesday attacks — have been acts of Black-on-Jewish crime, straining cross-cultural relations in the multi-ethnic New York borough. A 2022 report by Americans Against Antisemitism (AAA) identified Orthodox Jews as the group most targeted for hate crimes in the city with 69 percent of their attackers African American.
In an interview about the crime surge, former New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D) asked The Algemeiner in November, “Shouldn’t there be a plan for how we’re going to deal with it? What’s the answer? Education? We’ve been educating everybody forever for God’s sake, and things are just getting worse.”
May 25 also saw an antisemitic protest led by an African American activist named Terrell Harper — also known as “Relly Rebel” — described by the Jewish security service Shomrim as “a known antisemitic agitator, accompanied by approximately 30 cohorts.” The group targeted the Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters during a ceremony to commemorate the anniversary of the death of Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky, a prominent Hasidic leader. They waved signs attempting to link the Israel Defense Forces with the 2020 police death of George Floyd and broader indifference to global Black suffering. Law enforcement soon intervened to block off the protesters from the Jews attending the service.
While in previous decades fringe Black nationalist figures such as Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan fueled Black-Jewish antisemitism, today such celebrities as rapper and former billionaire Kanye West and his friend, far-right podcaster Candace Owens, have used their much larger platforms to promote radical ideologies and conspiracy theories targeting the Jewish people. In a June 24 interview with Piers Morgan, Owens declared, “I’d want my kids to go to jail before they fought for Israel.”
Another clash between protesters and law enforcement in Crown Heights occurred on April 28. A planned anti-Israel march through the neighborhood inspired a robust police counter-presence with officers dispersed among the activists.
Chabad-Lubavitch spokesperson Rabbi Motti Seligson described on X how others had come out to support their Jewish neighbors. “It was heartening to see scores of people, some Jewish and some not, who came to Crown Heights to protect the residents. These people weren’t looking for a fight. Some gathered in front of the synagogue at 770, others stood at strategic corners. Clearly this was not 1991,” he wrote.
Seligson concluded in reference to the Crown Heights race riot which took place from Aug. 19-21, 1991, and which EJewishPhilanthropy described as “widely considered the worst antisemitic riot in American history.”
The post New York Police Arrest Shirtless Man After Wig Theft, Child Attack, Knife Threats Against Jews in Crown Heights first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel ‘Achieved Its Objectives’ in Iran Operation, Says Leading War Studies Think Tank
Smoke rises following an Israeli attack in Tehran, Iran, June 18, 2025. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
A leading war studies think tank has assessed that Israel “achieved its objectives” in its recent operation against Iran’s nuclear program.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) released a report on Tuesday explaining that, in the 12-day operation, “Israel achieved its objectives vis-a-vis the nuclear program by destroying nuclear facilities and enrichment capacity with US support and killing key nuclear scientists who were instrumental in the development and weaponization of the program.”
ISW, in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project (CTP), explained the details and implications of the conflict in their daily Iran Update, “which provides insights into Iranian and Iranian-sponsored activities that undermine regional stability and threaten US forces and interests.”
Israel launched a broad preemptive attack on Iran earlier this month, targeting military installations and nuclear sites across the country in what officials described as an effort to neutralize an imminent nuclear threat. Over the next several days, Israeli forces systematically dismantled Iran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities, destroying much of the infrastructure and killing top military leaders and nuclear scientists.
The US on Saturday night joined Israel’s campaign by bombing three key Iranian nuclear sites, before President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire to the conflict between the two Middle Eastern adversaries that went into effect on Tuesday.
Debate has raged this week over how extensive the damage was to Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially in the wake of the US bombings.
In the immediate aftermath of the strike, Trump declared that the Iranian nuclear facilities were completely destroyed. However, CNN and other media outlets subsequently reported on a leaked preliminary assessment from the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon’s intelligence arm, which found that key elements of the nuclear program were not destroyed and that the strikes only set the program back a few months.
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth lambasted the fact that the “top secret report” was leaked, adding that “it was preliminary; it was low confidence.” Trump and other senior administration officials have similarly dismissed the findings of the DIA report, saying that the Iranian nuclear program has been decimated.
ISW indicated it believes the US and Israeli strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites were successful.
“The destruction of the centrifuges and equipment inside does not necessarily require the collapse of the facility itself,” the think tank wrote in its Iran Update published on Wednesday. “The Institute of Science and International Security, a nuclear nonproliferation think tank that has long studied the Iranian nuclear program, assessed that it was very likely the strikes destroyed or damaged most of the centrifuges at Fordow on the basis of the impact locations and the effects of the blast waves.”
The Institute of Science and International Security said in its own report that although there are “non-destroyed parts [of the Iranian nuclear program] … [that] can be used in the future to produce weapon-grade uranium,” the US and Israeli attacks “have effectively destroyed Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program. It will be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack.”
Meanwhile, Israeli assessments found that “significant damage” was done to the nuclear sites. Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said that based on the assessments of senior military intelligence officers, the damage “is … systemic … severe, broad and deep, and pushed back by years.”
The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission added that “the devastating US strike on [the Iranian nuclear site Fordow] destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes … have set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years.”
Axios reporter Barak Ravid noted that Israeli officials were reportedly “perplexed by a leaked US intelligence report that suggested otherwise.”
Ravid also reported that an Israeli official with direct knowledge of intelligence on Iran told Axios that “intercepted communications suggest Iranian military officials have been giving false situation reports to the country’s political leadership — downplaying the extent of the damage.”
Then, in a new assessment on Wednesday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe said the strikes had “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear program. He explained that they had gained additional intelligence since the initial DIA report. “This includes new intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years,” Ratcliffe wrote.
The central goal of the Israeli campaign, known as Operation Rising Lion, was to disable Iran’s nuclear program, ISW explained. And this main effort was supported “by conducting a campaign designed to prevent Iran from conducting effective retaliatory strikes on Israel by degrading its ballistic missile capabilities.”
“The IDF sought to limit Iran’s ability to respond to Israel at the start of its campaign and continued to destroy Iranian missile launchers and stockpiles throughout the air campaign,” ISW wrote. “Iranian leaders originally planned to launch up to one thousand ballistic missiles at Israel in the immediate aftermath of an Israeli strike, presumably in multiple barrages. The first Iranian missile barrage included about 30 missiles, and Iran never managed to launch over 40 ballistic missiles in a single barrage throughout the 12 days of attacks.”
This aspect of the operation, likewise, was a success. ISW reported that over the entire two-week operation, Iran fired a total of only 543 missiles, of which 89 percent were intercepted (and many that were not intercepted hit open, not residential, areas).
Still, “Iranian ballistic missiles did penetrate Israeli air defenses striking populated areas in some instances, however. Air defense systems are not perfect, and some projectiles will penetrate the system.”
Additionally, the missiles Iran used were not particularly helpful in a military sense. “The relatively poor accuracy of these missiles compared to a precision-guided munition means that even in instances when Iranian missiles struck military targets, they were largely ineffective and caused no casualties and limited damage,” ISW noted.
The post Israel ‘Achieved Its Objectives’ in Iran Operation, Says Leading War Studies Think Tank first appeared on Algemeiner.com.