JNS.org – Why is Amalek considered the archenemy of Israel? We’ve had no shortage of vile and murderous enemies in our time. What makes Amalek so fiendishly unique that even the Nazis were symbolically referred to as Amalekites?

In this week’s Torah reading, Ki Tetze, we find no less than 74 biblical commandments, the highest number of any parshah. It represents some 12% of the 613 commandments of the Torah in this one weekly reading.

The final item on the agenda this week is about the nation of Amalek—specifically, the obligation to remember the nefarious attack on the Israelites following their exodus from Egypt. Furthermore, we are commanded never to forget what Amalek did to us and to wipe out any memory of Amalek.

One of the interpretations as to why Amalek is so reviled is because he attacked “the stragglers, the weary and the weak” among the Israelites. It was considered diabolically devilish to start with the weak and the weary, and then eventually overwhelm all the people.

I remember hearing a talk by one of the inventors of the Iron Dome air-defense system who said that when it comes to an enemy who fires rockets at you, you know where they stand and, please God, have to do what’s necessary to defend oneself. But when the enemy sits down at a negotiating table in a pinstripe suit and professes to be “pro-peace,” we must be very careful indeed. Such an enemy is far more treacherous and dangerous. He talks peace while at the very same time celebrating terrorist atrocities and educating, nay, brainwashing his schoolchildren with venom and hate. Beware, this is Amalek incarnate.

On the spiritual level, the rabbis said of the evil inclination, “Today, he says do this, and tomorrow he says do that, until he comes and says, ‘go and serve idolatry!’ ” The downhill road to spiritual neglect is not sudden and dramatic, but rather a “slippery slope” that begins with seemingly innocuous disregard but ends with complete abandonment.

Kaddish was once sacred in Jewish life. Which son didn’t recite Kaddish regularly in the year after a parent’s death? Today? We watch in dread as a son standing at his father’s open grave struggles to read the Kaddish … in English! This didn’t happen overnight. It was a gradual decline.

Not that long ago, just the mention of the word Yizkor would send a tremor down Jewish spines. Even people who kept their shops open on Shabbat and Yom Tov would close them to go to synagogue for Yizkor. Today? “Yizkor, what’s that?”

Once upon a time, the second day of Rosh Hashanah was no different from the first. Today, it’s becoming an optional extra.

My lamented, late brother-in-law—the legendary Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky—used to describe this phenomenon as follows: “The zayde called it the ‘holy Shabbos.’ The son referred to it as ‘Saturday.’ The grandson described it as ‘the weekend.’ And the great-grandson said it was ‘the day before Super Bowl Sunday.’”

That pretty much sums up the decline of Jewish observance in 21st-century America.

Our great spiritual teachers taught us that there is a little Amalek inside each of us who is shrewd and manipulative. He knows full well that if he told us to deny our faith completely, he’d be fighting a losing battle. Some things are non-negotiable, even for the less observant among us. Yom Kippur, a Passover seder, a brit milah and a bar mitzvah are generally not up for discussion. These are sacred and inviolate. But a second day of Yom Tov may well be negotiable. And mourning for a full year may likewise be more than many can handle. And so it goes.

Slowly, but surely, one tradition after another falls by the wayside. And then we wonder why our children don’t consider themselves very Jewish any longer.

And so, our true villain and archenemy is the devilishly shrewd, cunning and less-threatening enemy who cuts off the “stragglers”—he who starts by attacking our seemingly less important traditions. Lurking beneath is the villain who gradually destroys everything, even our most sacred pillars and principles.

In this Jewish month of Elul, as we prepare for the Days of Judgment ahead, may the Almighty help protect us from the outer Amaleks of this world. And hopefully, we will be able to help ourselves against our own inner Amalek.

The post Battling the Amalek Within first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

JNS.org – NPR recently broadcast an article asserting the lie that Israel has been “spreading false information about UNRWA,” referencing the United Nations agency responsible for Palestinian “refugees.” Yet, Israel has presented voluminous evidence that UNRWA is a front for the Hamas terror group.

In fact, it’s the UN that’s lying about UNRWA, and now its lies are being covered up by NPR and other mainstream media.

Indeed, back in April, The New York Times parroted the bogus claims of an “independent” review that exonerated UNRWA of having ties to Hamas, with the headline, “Israel Hasn’t Offered Evidence Tying Many U.N. Workers to Hamas, Review Says.”

Wrong.

The State of Israel has presented extensive lists of terrorists connected to UNWRA, as well as examples of overlapping funding, governance and facilities, indicating that UNRWA has been thoroughly infiltrated by Hamas operatives and loyalists. While this evidence was presented to UNRWA High Commissioner Phillipe Lazzarini, he and the review panel simply ignored it.

The review cited by both NPR and the NYT is highly suspect, since it was commissioned by U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who is operationally responsible for UNRWA activities. Guterres called UNRWA a “lifeline of hope and dignity”—lofty praise for an organization that has utterly failed for 75 years to help Palestinians rise above their dependent refugee status. To the contrary, the agency has cynically fostered and perpetuated Palestinian victimhood.

Most egregiously, the panel that conducted the probe on behalf of the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) lacked the mandate to investigate the presence of Hamas among its staff—which should have been the very subject of the investigation. In fact, by the UN’s own admission, the review was only designed to ease the concerns of donors. These two facts were somehow omitted by NPR, the NYT and other media.

Furthermore, the probe was led by a former French foreign minister, Catherine Colonna, presenting another major conflict of interest, since Colonna approved French support of millions of euros for UNRWA.  Also participating in the probe were three organizations whose executives have expressed extreme animosity towards Israel, accusing it of “genocide” and “apartheid.”

Despite these major flaws, following publication of the OIOS findings, the media were quick to absolve UNRWA and turn the tables by attacking Israel. Major media ran headlines such as “Report says Israel has not provided evidence of widespread militancy among UNRWA staff” (Washington Post) and “Israel has yet to provide evidence of Unrwa [sic] staff terrorist links, Colonna report says,” (The Guardian).

In truth, UNRWA and Hamas are virtually indistinguishable. No wonder Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Oren Marmorstein said that “Hamas has infiltrated UNRWA so deeply that it is no longer possible to determine where UNRWA ends and where Hamas begins.”

Guterres’s “probe” hides the complicity of UNRWA with Hamas.

According to UN spokesperson Chris Gunness, the investigation’s real purpose was to “provide the donors with further cover if that’s what they need within their own internal constituencies to resume funding for UNRWA.”

Indeed, Colonna, who headed the OIOS panel, said the purpose of the review was to “enable donors” to “regain confidence . . . in the way UNRWA operates.” In other words, the panel’s goal was to prove UNRWA’s innocence. So much for revealing the truth about terrorist infiltration.

Israel presented overwhelming evidence of UNRWA’s corruption and integration with Hamas.

This evidence included a list of 100 terror operatives employed by the agency, as well as intelligence indicating that over 10% of senior UNRWA educators in Gaza were members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

Israel also revealed proof that over 30 UNRWA facilities contained terrorist infrastructure, such as tunnel shafts powered by UNRWA electricity. Hamas even operated a high-end server farm directly under—and connected to—UNRWA’s Gaza headquarters. Lazzarini—and the media and the panel and donor countries—had this information, but all chose to suppress it.

The OIOS probe was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

It was designed to avoid exposing UNRWA’s corruption and staffed by those likely to support the collaboration of UNRWA and Hamas. For starters, the investigation was led by Colonna, who herself helped establish France as UNRWA’s fourth largest donor, also a founding board member of the UN agency.

The review also included organizations whose executives expressed extreme anti-Israel bias: the Michelsen Institute, whose senior staff and board members have accused Israel of “genocide” and “apartheid;” the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, whose executive director also accused Israel of apartheid; and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, whose communications director accused Israel of “illegally occupying” Palestine for 70 years.

The media lied and covered up the Hamas-UNRWA marriage.

The Washington Post, Reuters, The Guardian, NPR and The New York Times all joined the effort to hide UNRWA corruption. Their headlines claimed Israel provided no evidence of UNRWA’s ties to Hamas, when in fact the Israeli government provided massive evidence—and reporters were able to see much of it on the ground. In parroting the OIOS report’s false claims, these media again demonstrated despicable journalistic practices and outright bias against Israel.

The Washington Post said UNRWA “has mechanisms in place to prevent its facilities from being misused for political or military purposes.” Really? Then why are UNRWA facilities being used as terrorist bases?

The Associated Press even asserted that “Israel did not express concern about [UNRWA] staff.” Seriously? In fact, for years Israel has expressed outrage about Hamas’s infiltration of UNRWA’s ranks, but the media have refused to cover it.

Indeed, the media have every interest in hiding the reality that Hamas and UNRWA are virtually inseparable. This truth would destroy their newsrooms’ false narrative that the agency is a benevolent humanitarian organization, doing its best to serve desperate, needy Palestinian victims of Israel’s aggression.

Both the U.N. and the media are disguising the truth that Hamas and UNRWA are inextricably intertwined. They simply don’t want donor nations—and the public—to know the shameful truth. If citizens of donor countries, like the U.S., were to see proof that their tax dollars are funding barbaric terrorism, they would surely insist on slashing UNRWA’s funding.

The post Media Promote Bogus UN Report Claiming Hamas Has No Ties to UNRWA first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

JNS.org – Europe borders the Middle East, and the continent cannot insulate itself from events in this region. Its options, however, are limited: Europe is hardly a strategic actor with the political will and requisite capabilities to intervene. Moreover, the Middle East is not easily amenable to foreign intervention. Nevertheless, Europe cannot ignore developments that impact its national security, and if it concentrates its efforts it may have a modest input in ensuring that pro-stability forces gain the upper hand.

The Gaza war reflects two important features of Middle Eastern politics, as well as the ongoing competition in the global system. In large parts of the Middle East, we see failures in grappling with the challenge of state building. The Hamas Islamist militia took over Gaza in a bloody coup in 2007, as the Palestinian Authority failed to maintain a monopoly over the use of force in the territory under its control. Palestinian Islamic Jihad operated alongside Hamas in Gaza, and several clans had armed militias. Similarly, militias are vying for control in Iraq (in the wake of the American departure), in Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Libya. Hezbollah, a Shi’ite militia, has taken over Lebanon, despite the parallel existence of a national government and army. Hezbollah started a war of attrition with Israel in October 2023 without consulting the Lebanese government.

The Gaza war is also a manifestation of Iranian ambitions for hegemony in a region once part of the Persian empire. Iran’s Islamic Revolution has sought to wage perpetual and unbridled holy war against Western civilization and to take over Sunni Arab lands—it also targets Israel in this jihad. Many of the region’s militias have been trained, equipped and supported by a religiously motivated Iran. While not all are fully subservient to Tehran, they act in unison against Israel and Western interests. Iran and its proxies are the main challengers to the status quo and are actively threatening the national security of Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Sudan and Israel. Recently, Cyprus, a member state of the European Union, was added to the list of threatened states.

The Gaza war also mirrors the main struggle in the international system against American predominance, that is being conducted primarily by the quartet of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The war in Ukraine has strengthened this alliance. For years, Iran has conducted a multi-front war against Israel, an American ally, and the only state that has the power to oppose its aspirations in its campaign to drive the United States out of the region. The quartet shares this aim.

In the absence of the capability to defeat Israel on the battlefield, Hamas implements the Iranian-inspired strategy that targets its civilian population, hoping this will leave it under duress. The premeditated atrocities perpetrated and filmed on Oct. 7, 2023, were intended to terrorize Israeli citizens, in the same way as the missile attacks that rained down on Israeli civilians. Israel had no choice but to counterattack and to its dismay discovered global sympathy for Gazans (an overwhelming majority of whom have shown support for Hamas and the evil it committed on Oct. 7), accompanied by a huge wave of antisemitic acts and statements.

Europeans initially expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself, but much of their behavior (including their voting record at the United Nations) undermined Israel’s quest to destroy completely the military capability of Hamas and the efforts to increase pressure on the organization to secure the release of the Israeli hostages. Moreover, several European states recognized the non-existent state of Palestine, thus rewarding the dysfunctional Palestinian national movement and Hamas’s terrorist activities.

How can Europe play a more positive role in making the Middle East more peaceful? What can the Europeans do to curb the current inclinations in the region toward despotic regimes, terrorism, religious fanaticism and nuclear proliferation?

The developments in the Middle East have underscored an old truism. Outsiders have very little influence over Middle East outcomes; these are determined primarily by domestic forces and ingrained local political culture. Despite heroic efforts and vast financial investment, the United States has failed to create an Iraq in its image. Afghanistan was even more resistant to Western reform efforts. This should not be a surprise, as British and French colonial rule over several decades also did not change the way the “natives” conducted business.

Western attempts to intervene during the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Egypt ended in a similar failure. The ambitious project conducted by the European Union to create a “civil society” in the Palestinian territories has only enriched academics and cunning civilian entrepreneurs with little influence over Palestinian political culture. Political engineering by outsiders is doomed to fail in the Middle East. Therefore, an active interventionist European foreign policy to move societies into a democratic track is unlikely to produce positive results. Europeans tend to forget that it took European states centuries to adopt a democratic system.

Nevertheless, Europe or the European Union can do more to support pro-stability forces in the Middle East and weaken sources of instability. First, it should adopt a realpolitik lens and throw away its rose-tinted view of human nature. This is how Middle Easterners view the world. They often muse over European naiveté, which is occasionally despised. Similarly, the discourse about creating trust is simply nonsense in the region’s political parlance. Trust is not a currency used in Middle East politics. The employment of force and fear are more useful.

Some of the actors in the Middle East are evil, and engaging them diplomatically is rarely productive in limiting their mischief. Similarly, applying economic sanctions often has only meager results. Iran has been subject to such sanctions for over two decades without any change in its behavior. Europeans must overcome their reluctance to see military force as a useful tool in punishing and deterring destabilizing actors. Calling for restraint and fearing escalation when a bad guy is being beaten is counterproductive.

This means accepting Israel’s objective of destroying Hamas military capabilities in order to give its citizens a respite from missile attacks. Moreover, trying to save an Islamist mini-state that serves Iranian interests on the shores of the East Mediterranean is strategic folly; over-sensitivity to the human cost in eliminating it makes little strategic sense. Its location near the Suez Canal, an important choke point and sea route, as well as to offshore gas deposits, lends importance to who rules this area. The Europeans should appreciate efforts to minimize the presence on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean of Islamic radicals whose influence has already spread to Turkey, Syria, Lebanon Libya and the Sinai Peninsula.

A new European attitude toward the use of force also means an understanding of Israel’s need to launch a war against Hezbollah to allow its displaced citizens to return home to a normal life. A military blow to Hezbollah may also provide an opportunity for Lebanon to free itself of Islamist influence and become the tolerant and prosperous state it once was. Moreover, it signals to Iran and its proxies that their actions carry costly consequences. Exacting pain for misbehavior is the ABC of international relations.

The timidity of the United States and its European allies in dealing with the Houthis, an Iranian proxy blocking the Bab el Mandeb Strait, an international waterway, is intriguing. Forcing naval traffic to go to Europe around Africa, instead of the Suez Canal, carries financial costs and inflicts significant damage to the economy of Egypt, a pivotal pro-Western state in the Middle East. Tolerating this situation only encourages Iran to become more aggressive in its actions in the region and less fearful of Western retaliation.

Indeed, nowadays Iran is the main source of trouble in the Middle East. If Europe is serious about minimizing the dangers emanating from the Middle East, it must adopt a more confrontational posture toward the mullahs in Tehran. This has become more urgent as Iran progresses quickly toward the bomb. Europe must support all actions, including the military option, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power whose missiles can reach the old continent as well. Everything should be done to halt a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. A nuclear multipolar Middle East would become a strategic nightmare for everybody in the region and its vicinity. An Iranian nuclear umbrella for Tehran’s proxies would further embolden them. The United States, which is geographically remote from Iran and thus has a lower threat perception, needs a more energetic Europe particularly on this matter.

Europe must realize that constraining the activities of radical Islamists does not amount to Islamophobia. For example, the absurd distinction between the political and the military arms of Hamas is still accepted by some European governments. The radical anti-Western ideology of Hamas is inextricably intertwined with its violent modus operandi. Europe should outlaw Hamas in all its forms, forbid its fundraising activities and pursue all its supporters on the continent. This of course also holds true for Hezbollah.

This should not be construed as a pro-Israeli policy, but as a policy that strengthens moderate Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Jordan. They all abhor the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt and its offshoots such as Hamas in Palestine, as well as Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and a large part of his Justice and Development (AK) Party. They are all concerned about the freedom enjoyed by the followers of this movement in Europe. The MB is a larger danger for the Arab states than for Israel. Europe should be critical of Qatar, which plays a unique role in destabilizing the Middle East by funding the MB, while its Al Jazeera media network is the MB’s mouthpiece in instigating against Arab regimes. Turkey, which hosts Hamas on its soil and spreads the MB message in Europe and elsewhere deserves similar critical treatment.

Europe should announce its full support for Israel with all its means if the Jewish state is attacked by a terrorist organization. Such a statement amounts to strategic and moral clarity. Europe’s human rights nitpicking for violations during warfare in Gaza are a result of ignorance regarding what a modern battlefield looks like and the unprecedented efforts by the Israel Defense Forces to limit the loss of civilian lives.

Europe should also overcome its obsession with the two-state solution. As noted, the Palestinians have failed miserably to meet the Weberian test of statehood—monopoly over the use of force. They established weak, corrupt and fragmented polities. The Palestinian political trajectory leads toward a civil war waged by a variety of militias, similar to other Arab states, or to a Hamas-dominated entity. Moreover, all polls show that the Palestinians are still far from relinquishing their revisionist dreams and becoming peaceful neighbors of the Jewish state.

The Palestinians’ real problem is not where the border between the Palestinian state and the State of Israel lies, but the very fact that there is such a border, because so many believe that there is no legitimacy for a Jewish nation-state in the Middle East. Pushing for Palestinian statehood at this stage will only increase the chances of a deadly Israeli-Palestinian war in which both sides will suffer, but in which the Palestinian pain will certainly be greater. The status quo—not ideal—is probably the less destructive alternative.

A peaceful Middle East is not on the cards anytime soon. Limiting the power of the bad guys is a realistic objective, however. In addition to a more astute American foreign policy, a coherent and realistic E.U. strategy toward the Middle East could contribute toward attaining such a goal.

Originally published by The Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.

The post The Gaza War and Europe first appeared on Algemeiner.com.