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
Hamas ‘Tones the Theatrics Down,’ New York Times Claims From Gaza
Armed Palestinian carry one of the four coffins during the handover of the bodies of four Israeli hostages to the Red Cross in Khan Yunis. Photo: Abed Rahim Khatib/dpa via Reuters Connect
“Hamas tones the theatrics down a notch at the latest hostage release” is the online headline over an item published by the New York Times.
The headline appears over a photograph that renders the words ridiculous. The picture features five gun-brandishing fighters costumed in military vests, camouflage uniforms, black facemasks, red-and-white Italian-restaurant-tablecloth-style checked keffiyehs, and green Hamas headbands. Behind them is a tightly packed audience of mostly young and male spectators. There’s no need for such a show of force in connection with a hostage release; the point is for Hamas propaganda to make it appear that, rather than being nearly vanquished, the terrorist organization still exists as a strong, organized, well-equipped fighting force.
What kind of warped editorial mind surveys a scene that grotesque and makes the judgement that the news to be emphasized is that the theatrics have been toned down?
The item was a product of the Times “live” desk that provides continuously updated coverage of breaking news events for the Times website. It carries the bylines of Aaron Boxerman and Saher Alghorra. Alghorra is also credited with taking the photograph in Khan Younis, Gaza. Perhaps he has a reasonable fear that if the headline said, “Hamas turns hostage turnover into a cruel circus,” the gunmen from the terrorist organization would make him their next target. The Times itself has previously conceded that “Hamas restricts journalists in Gaza,” making it reasonable for readers to wonder what restrictions Alghorra was subject to in his photographing and reporting.
“Live” coverage gives readers more speed, but in this case, it seems to have come at the expense of thoughtful judgment and editorial standards. The real story isn’t that Hamas has “toned down” the theatrics from some previously absurd level. The real story is that the hostage releases are being accompanied by such violent public spectacles in the first place.
The media watchdog group Honest Reporting was having none of it. Honest Reporting posted to social media: “Actually, @nytimes, parading tortured, terrified hostages on stage isn’t ‘theatrics,’ and it sure wasn’t ‘toned down.’ It was even worse — Hamas doubled down on the humiliation with sick ‘personalized gifts’ like an hourglass taunting a hostage’s mother.”
It is a challenge when covering a horrible terrorist organization to maintain perspective. And I guess in some theoretical journalism class sort of way one can debate whether the proper bar of comparison is such a group’s previous atrocious behavior or normal, non-terrorist behavior. Yet a headline like “tones the theatrics down a notch,” is an example of what George W. Bush used to call the soft bigotry of low expectations. Rather than asking why Hamas took Israeli civilian hostages in the first place, and why it has taken so long for Hamas to release them, and why the releases are being accompanied by displays of military force, the Times headline-writer chooses to focus on the appearance of this hostage release being slightly less barbaric than the previous one.
It appears as if the Times headline is celebrating some sort of newfound praiseworthy civility or improved behavior by Hamas. That’s grossly inappropriate, under the circumstances.
I’ve been skeptical in the past of the practice of dunking on Times online headlines that are later revised for print, and in this case, the print editors had the better judgment to avoid using in print the headline that appeared to be almost praising Hamas for toning down the theatrics. Yet at a certain point, there have been enough bad online breaking news headlines that it’s become a pattern. If the Times placed a higher priority on its reputation and credibility, it’d tone its own carelessness down a notch.
Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
The post Hamas ‘Tones the Theatrics Down,’ New York Times Claims From Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas’s Grotesque Parading of Hostage Bodies Shows True Face of Their Vile Ideology
A drone view shows Palestinians and terrorists gathering around Red Cross vehicles on the day Hamas hands over the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages Oded Lifschitz, Shiri Bibas, and her two children Kfir and Ariel Bibas, seized during the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack, as part of a ceasefire and hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 20, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer
This week, the world witnessed one of the most macabre displays of cruelty in recent history, adding insult to injury to the horrors we all saw on Oct. 7, 2023. In the heart of Gaza, Hamas staged a grotesque ceremony, parading the bodies of four murdered Israeli hostages — 32-year-old loving mother Shiri Bibas and her two gorgeous children, Ariel (4) and Kfir (9 months), along with 83-year-old peace activist Oded Lifshitz — before the cameras, flanked by masked terrorists brandishing assault rifles alongside cheering Gazans.
To be clear, this was not about returning remains to grieving families. It was a calculated, sadistic performance deliberately designed to inflict maximum pain and suffering on those who had spent over 500 days praying for the safe return of their loved ones. It was barbarism incarnate, a pageant of death, an orgy of evil, orchestrated by men who claim to represent God but whose actions reveal them as the ultimate desecrators of His name.
There was no tactical necessity for this display. The hostages were already dead. Hamas could have simply handed their remains to the Red Cross quietly, as any group with even a shred of human decency would have done.
Instead, they turned the return of these four innocent victims into a piece of monstrous theater, ensuring that every Israeli, every Jew, and, frankly, every person with even a shred of humanity felt a knife twist in the open wound of their anguish. The intention was clear: to deepen the grief, to prolong the suffering, and to display their utter contempt for human life.
Contrast this with the core principles of Judaism, the foundation of all monotheistic faiths — including Islam. The Torah teaches that human dignity (kavod habriyot) is paramount.
As the medieval commentator Rashi famously notes at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim, the Torah’s placement of civil and social justice laws immediately after the Revelation at Sinai highlights that ethical treatment of fellow human beings is not secondary to divine worship — it is its very manifestation. How we treat others is a direct reflection of our relationship with God.
In Jewish tradition, even the remains of one’s enemies must be treated with dignity. The Torah commands (Deut. 21:23) that those executed for capital crimes must be buried immediately and respectfully — “For he that is hanged is a curse unto God.”
Rashi, citing the Talmud (Sanhedrin 46b), explains that every human being is created in the image of God (tzelem Elokim), and leaving a body hanging is a desecration of God’s dignity. The analogy is that of a king whose twin is publicly hanged — onlookers might mistakenly assume it reflects upon the king himself.
And if the Torah demands respect even for the worst criminals, how much more so for innocent civilians, for women, for children?
But Hamas, and by extension radical Islam, operates on an entirely different value system. To them, human life is expendable — both the lives of their enemies and their own. They strap suicide vests to teenagers, use hospitals as shields, and celebrate mass murder as divine service. Their god is not the Merciful One; it is a bloodthirsty idol that revels in human misery.
And yet, they dare present themselves as a religious movement. How can an organization that parades corpses and blasts triumphant music over coffins claim to be a messenger of God?
How can a movement that holds hostages for political leverage, tortures them, and then defiles their bodies speak in the language of faith?
This is not religion. It is a grotesque mockery of faith, an abomination in the eyes of any true believer.
Then there is Qatar, the supposed ‘mediator’ between Hamas and Israel, but in reality, the host of Hamas’s leadership and the financier of their operations. Qatar would have the world believe it is an “honest broker,” a neutral party seeking peace.
But what honest broker would facilitate such a monstrous display? What mediator with even a shred of integrity would stand by while the bodies of slaughtered children were exploited for propaganda? Where is their outrage?
Even the United Nations, an institution notoriously biased against Israel, was appalled by this latest act of barbarity. UN human rights chief Volker Turk condemned the handover, calling the display of bodies “abhorrent and cruel” and declaring that it blatantly violated international law.
“Under international law, any handover of the remains of the deceased must comply with the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, ensuring respect for the dignity of the deceased and their families,” he said in a statement.
The truth is that Qatar is not a mediator. It is an enabler. It is the financial and political patron of Hamas, providing them safe haven in Doha’s luxury hotels while their foot soldiers in Gaza carry out atrocities.
If Qatar had any real interest in peace, it would not be shielding Hamas leadership – it would be expelling them. If Qatar had any concern for human life, it would be pressuring Hamas to release hostages alive rather than supporting their murder and the humiliation of their corpses.
Qatar’s duplicity must be exposed, and real consequences must follow when this war is finally over. Their assets in the West should be frozen. Their privileged status as a US non-NATO ally must be revoked. And the US military base in Doha should be relocated to a Gulf state that genuinely seeks to consign radical Islam to the dustbin of history.
If the world truly wishes to rid the region of radical Islam, Qatar must be forced to choose a side: civilization or barbarism. There is a sickness in our world, and it has many enablers. Hamas is the disease, but its financiers, apologists, and media cheerleaders are the vectors.
And in the face of this evil, there can be no moral equivocating. There is no ‘both sides’ when one side parades the corpses of murdered babies as trophies. There is no ‘cycle of violence’ when one side revels in death while the other seeks to protect life.
The return of the Bibas family and Oded Lifshitz should have been an occasion for solemnity and mourning. Instead, Hamas turned it into a grotesque spectacle, a final act of cruelty inflicted upon those they had already murdered.
The world must take note. This is what radical Islam represents. This is the true face of Hamas, and the many in Gaza who love them and support their vile ideology.
And those who stand by, those who refuse to call out this evil, those who continue to treat Hamas as anything other than the monstrous death cult that it is — they are also complicit.
Editor’s note: The Israeli military said on Friday that one of the bodies released by Hamas that was supposed to be Shiri Bibas did not belong to any of the hostages held in Gaza. Bibas’s status is currently unknown.
The post Hamas’s Grotesque Parading of Hostage Bodies Shows True Face of Their Vile Ideology first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Azerbaijan, Israel Discuss Regional Developments as Bilateral Ties Grow Stronger
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. Photo: Facebook.
A senior Azerbaijani official met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem this week to discuss bilateral ties and regional developments, underscoring Azerbaijan’s growing role as a strategic player in the evolving Middle East.
The high-level meeting between Hikmet Hajiyev, assistant to the president of Azerbaijan, and Netanyahu took place amid strengthening ties between the Jewish state and the predominantly Shi’ite Muslim country.
“Mr. Hajiyev conveyed the greetings of President Ilham Aliyev to Prime Minister Netanyahu,” the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tel Aviv said in a statement, adding that both sides discussed expanding bilateral cooperation and addressed key developments in the region.
Azerbaijan’s ties with Israel have long been significant, with the country serving as the Jewish state’s most vital ally in the Caucasus and Central Asia for more than three decades, fostering a partnership that spans energy security, defense, and intelligence.
As of 2019, Azerbaijan supplied over a third of the Jewish state’s oil. Meanwhile, Baku has acquired advanced Israeli defense systems, including the “Barak MX” missile system and surveillance satellites, and remains a leading buyer of Israeli military hardware, which was crucial in its 2020 war with Armenia.
Earlier this month, Israel and Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR, struck a major energy deal, marking one of the latest examples of Azerbaijan’s growing influence in the Middle East.
Azerbaijan’s strategic importance stems not only from its economic influence in the region, but also from its role at the crossroads of a growing pro-Western bloc countering the regional ambitions of Iran, with which Azerbaijan shares a long border.
The Abraham Accords reshaped regional alliances during US President Donald Trump’s first term, and his current administration could further this shift, with Azerbaijan – a country that shares hundreds of miles of border with Iran while maintaining strong ties with Israel and Turkey – playing a key role in balancing regional power blocs and advancing Trump’s goals for the Middle East.
According to Ze’ev Khanin, a professor of Eurasian geopolitics at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Azerbaijan is a key part of strategic alliances that he calls “unclosed triangles,” with Baku comprising the missing link.
“We are living in the world of so-called unclosed triangles, which is unlike what we had in the 19th century and 20th centuries – when the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the friend of my friend is also my friend,” he recently told The Algemeiner.
One prominent example is the unclosed triangle of Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Israel. Despite strained ties between Turkey and Israel, Azerbaijan continues to use Turkey as a transit point for energy exports to Israel.
“The Turks didn’t stop the stream of Azerbaijani energy through Turkey to Israel,” Khanin said, adding that Ankara was eager to position itself as a transit hub for energy exports to Europe.
The post Azerbaijan, Israel Discuss Regional Developments as Bilateral Ties Grow Stronger first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login