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
On Yom HaShoah, Three New Holocaust Films Are Worth Watching
As we mark Yom HaShoah this year, three Holocaust films stand out.
The first is a gripping drama about the first Jewish escape from a death camp. The World Will Tremble is directed by Lior Geller and features excellent acting by Oliver-Jackson Cohen, who plays Solomon, a Jew who makes an unlikely escape from Chelmno. The cast of Jews and Germans is all stellar but Geller, who wrote and directed the film, is the real star. Geller crafted a gripping film that soaks you in a bath of horror and despair only to embrace you with a towel of freedom and hope. It is an impressive movie that is full of heart, and tells a story that is not well known.
UnBroken is a documentary that shares the seemingly implausible story of seven Jewish siblings who survived the Holocaust, largely due to gentile farmers who chose to hide them. It is directed with deft and passion by Beth Lane, who goes to Germany to see the places where her family, including her mother, hid.
Unbroken explains how Lane’s grandmother was extremely daring, and when she loved a Christian man, she got him to convert. There is some unexpected humor toward the beginning of the film, and at a time when few survivors are alive, it is a blessing to see a film in which some appear and are completely cogent. The film is also based on the writings of Alfons, one of the seven siblings who survived. Was that result due to luck, kindness of farmers, or the work of God? The film is not overly preachy and allows the viewer to come to their own conclusions.
Lane’s film is an exquisite look at how the morality of two people can impact more than 70 lives, as the siblings have children and grandchildren. At one point, Lane asks if young people today would risk their lives to hide her. We can never really know what one would really do, but I suspect that few would risk their lives to save strangers.
Both The World Will Tremble and UnBroken would be excellent choices to show high school or college classes.
And if you want to learn about something you most certainly haven’t heard of, none other than the iconic Martin Scorsese has done an episode of his series The Saints that involves an unexpected hero of the Holocaust. Available on Fox Nation, the episode tells of Maximilian Kolbe, a Catholic priest who started the first Christian radio station in Poland. Interestingly, Kolbe at one time preached antisemitism, believing that the sick conspiracy book The Protocols of The Elders of Zion was actually true.
But that did not stop him from doing something unthinkable when the Gestapo sent him to Auschwitz. When one Jew escaped, a Nazi decided 10 would have to die. When Kolbe heard that one Jewish man cried that he had a wife and child, Kolbe asked the Nazi if he could be killed instead. He agreed. And a Jewish man named Franciszek Gajowniczek was saved, and lived until 1995 and attended the canonization of Kolbe.
There is not much dialogue, but the acting of Milivoje Obradovic is strong as Kolbe, who isn’t dramatic, doesn’t yell and chooses his fate to die for a Jew as if it is a totally normal request, even though the Nazi seems dumbfounded.
It is unclear whether or not he realized The Protocols of The Elders of Zion was a lie, or he simply realized that the barbarity of the Holocaust was an affront to God. Earlier in the episode, as a child, he says he wants to be pure and a martyr and may have been affected by his father’s death.
At a time when some people think they know all of the Holocaust stories already out there, here are three new ones — and all are worth telling.
The author is a writer based in New York.
The post On Yom HaShoah, Three New Holocaust Films Are Worth Watching first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
UK Lifts Sanctions Against Syria’s Defense Ministry, Intelligence Agencies

Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa attends an interview with Reuters at the presidential palace, in Damascus, Syria, March 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Britain on Thursday lifted assets freezes on Syria’s defense and interior ministries, and a range of intelligence agencies, reversing sanctions imposed during Bashar al-Assad’s presidency.
The West is rethinking its approach to Syria after insurgent forces led by the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ousted Assad as president in December after more than 13 years of civil war.
A notice posted online by the British finance ministry said the Syrian Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Defense, and General Intelligence Directorate were among 12 entities no longer subject to an asset freeze.
The notice did not set out reasons for the de-listing.
In March, the government unfroze the assets of Syria’s central bank and 23 other entities including banks and oil companies.
The British government has previously stressed that sanctions on members of the Assad regime would remain in place.
The post UK Lifts Sanctions Against Syria’s Defense Ministry, Intelligence Agencies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Finding Peace in the Middle East

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then-US President Donald Trump, and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed display their copies of signed agreements as they participate in the signing ceremony of the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and some of its Middle East neighbors, in a strategic realignment of Middle Eastern countries against Iran, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, September 15, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Tom Brenner/
President Donald Trump is planning a trip to the Gulf States in May. According to the White House, he will visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In anticipation, others are shifting gears, raising the question. “Are we getting closer to, or farther from, a peaceful region?”
Jordan just banned the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The country’s Interior Minister said all MB activities would be banned in the country, and anyone promoting the group’s ideology will be held accountable by law. He added that the ban includes publishing, and requires “closure and confiscation” of all MB offices and property.
This, along with the Kingdom’s ban on Al Jazeera, puts Jordan in line with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Israel and Bahrain also ban Al Jazeera, as does the Palestinian Authority (see below). All these entities understand that the Qatari government-owned media outlet magnifies and encourages radical MB ideology, promotes Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and attacks conservative Arab governments.
Jordan’s actions garnered praise from a prominent UAE entrepreneur posting on X: “The UAE was among the first to ban the Muslim Brotherhood and warn the world about its ideology … This is not Islamophobia! This is about national security, public safety, and peace.”
This is a step forward.
Lebanon
While Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun agrees that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) should be the only armed force in the country, he is hedging over what happens to the remaining Iran-supported Hezbollah forces and weapons. “Any divisive issue should not be approached through the media or social platforms, but rather through quiet and responsible communication with the concerned parties.”
Hezbollah wouldn’t agree “to give up its arms de facto out of principle,” Karim Safieddine, a Lebanese political writer and doctoral student in sociology at Pittsburgh University, told Al Jazeera. Instead, they could disarm “in exchange for big benefits.”
Now, that is a bit of bravado, as Saudi reports indicate that more than 200 of the remaining Hezbollah commanders have left Lebanon for South America, where the organization has a well-entrenched drug and arms smuggling network.
Apparently, the commanders fear they could be targeted if more of its infrastructure is dismantled — though whether it would be targeted by the IDF or by unhappy Lebanese citizens is unclear. In any case, there are still tens of thousands of Hezbollah supporters in the country, and Lebanon still permits the airing of Al Jazeera.
But, an Israeli military source told Ynet, “In large areas, the Lebanese army is taking action against Hezbollah to a much greater extent than we expected.” Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah offers Lebanon its best chance for stability and prosperity in decades. If they can take it. It is a maybe.
The Palestinian Authority
It almost sounded as if Mahmoud Abbas, the corrupt dictator of the Palestinian Authority (PA), in the 20 year of his single, elected 4-year term, had come to grips with the monstrosity of Hamas behavior. Abbas called on Hamas to “release the hostages.” And, indeed, he did call Hamas “sons of b****es,” a huge insult.
But this is not about peace. Abbas opposes the continued holding of hostages by Hamas because he, Abbas, is paying a price. And Israel is winning. He told an audience:
They don’t want to hand over the American hostage. You sons of b****es — hand over what you have and get us out of this. Don’t give Israel an excuse. Don’t give them an excuse. Hamas has given the criminal occupation excuses to commit its crimes in the Gaza Strip, the most prominent being the holding of hostages. Why have they taken them hostage? I am the one paying the price. Our people are paying the price, not Israel … My brother, just hand them over. [emphasis added]
The banning of Al Jazeera by Abbas should be seen in this context. Al Jazeera, and the Government of Qatar, support Hamas over the PA and incite violence against both the PA and Israel. While the latter is acceptable to him, the former is not.
And Abbas isn’t too keen on Americans, either. He told his audience: “They [the Americans] said: Normalize, or something like that. You know the Americans; the Americans are like this. May their father be cursed [Laughter and applause]. I am not a great Arab leader. I am a dwarf, this small. Thirty-three times I told them, ‘No!’”
This is not a man seeking a resolution of the conflict either with Israel or the United States. This one is a no.
Finding Peace
The Abraham Accords of 2020 split the region. There remain those like Lebanese Sunni Islamic scholar Aboubaker Zahabi, who, during a protest in Beirut, declared: “To the sons of Zion, our religion is the religion of jihad. We will come to you and slaughter you.”
But there is also Khalifa, who marked Holocaust Memorial Day: “Standing here today as an Emirati and a believer in tolerance, coexistence and peace, I honor the memory of Holocaust victims and pay tribute to their memory by working to create a world where dignity is upheld and diversity is cherished.”
And Mohamed Albahraini of Bahrain, who wrote: “#Holocaust Remembrance Day. Asking God for the victims of our #JEWISH brothers and sisters mercy and forgiveness. May their souls rest in peace forever.”
As the President prepares for his trip, more Khalifas and Mohameds — and fewer Aboubakers — means more possibility that the region’s upheaval will ultimately result in peace. Good luck, President Trump.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly magazine.
The post Finding Peace in the Middle East first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login