RSS
Who Must Share Responsibility for the Events of Oct. 7?
Smoke rises following Israeli strikes in Gaza, October 7, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Salem
JNS.org – The former head of the Mossad, Uzi Arad, was very critical of Benjamin Netanyahu in an Oct. 4 interview with Shira Rubin of The Washington Post. Netanyahu, he said, “championed a radical reconceptualization of Israel’s approach to Hamas.” It was a strategy of “containment that relied on shoring up the group’s government in Gaza with financial support from intermediaries while keeping its military capabilities in check with occasional bombing campaigns.” Arad, however, is of the opinion that “it was self-delusion. And there wasn’t anyone who challenged it.”
Conceptualizations have been the bane of Israel’s security failures before, most notably regarding the 1973 Yom Kippur War. That debacle, at least, was one in which the government was convinced a full day earlier that war would break out, unlike Netanyahu’s cabinet. Whereas Israeli premier Golda Meir and her ministers decided not to act preemptively on the information available to them and based on army intelligence, Netanyahu was not even woken up to digest the incoming reports or given a chance to make a wrong—or correct—decision until 6:29 a.m. on the day Hamas crossed the border.
Journalistic investigations into the debacle of the performance of the Israel Defense Forces leading up to Oct. 7, including lack of reinforced shelters and arms training, as well as the near-total collapse of any effective organized defense action until well after midday by the IDF, make for painful reading. Even if Israel’s governments preferred to simply contain Hamas—and worse, allowing themselves to be convinced that Hamas was deterred—it is the army’s responsibility, at the very least, to be prepared to confront attacks.
No one in the IDF, in the Mossad, in the GSS thought to alert the prime minister of a possible dangerous development in Israel’s south. Even Maj. Gen Aharon Haliva, now retired, the former commander of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Directorate, slept through the night while other commanders discussed and debated the situation.
The most senior commanders, in the two previous years, had either ignored or suppressed indications of a change in Hamas strategy from the field spotters. Herzi Halevi, appointed as IDF Chief of Staff by Benny Gantz (over protests that were ignored by the State Attorney General, appointed by Gantz’s government on the recommendation of Gideon Sa’ar) was previously the commander of the Israeli Southern Command, responsible for Gaza, and before that, the chief of the Military Intelligence Directorate. It would appear that the IDF’s role in the debacle is not incidental. One decision was to remove rifles from the members of the emergency intervention teams of the communities. Another was to close the Open Source Intelligence unit and merge it, making it less effective.
The army, however, was only part of the problem of a wrong and misguided conceptualization. The political echelons over the years contributed to the willingness of the senior command to dismiss or minimize the threat that Hamas represented.
The idea—the belief that peace is obtainable by convincing the Arabs that Israel is willing to compromise—only fed their convictions that the Zionist entity is weak. Ever since the Oslo Accords, and even previously, territorial surrender combined with a strengthening of the military capabilities of the Arab terror groups, mainly via Iran, undermined Israel’s strategic security. It needs be acknowledged that between Gaza and Iran, Israel’s governments viewed the threat of a nuclear enemy as one that demanded the most attention.
It is another matter if Netanyahu had ordered the army these past few years to operate in a much more aggressive manner and if those opposing his policies would have applauded that approach. For example, what has occurred in Judea and Samaria—the elimination of more than 600 mainly Hamas terrorists over the past year, including drone strikes and aerial bombings—would have been unacceptable if not for the Oct. 7 invasion.
An unexpected voice highlighting a different approach to responsibility is that of Aviad Bachar. A resident of Kibbutz Be’eri, he lost his wife and son Carmel. They were killed in their safe room during the overrunning of the kibbutz. His right leg required amputation. The kibbutz belongs to the historic Mapai stream—founded in 1946 as one of the “11 points in the Negev”—and was a center of Habonim settlement training. An island of socialism.
Touching on the responsibility of a political conceptualization that weakened, perhaps, security planning, back in February, he said, “Migration is a solution. The State of Israel must encourage emigration. … Physically expel them, so that there will not be one there.”
Interviewed recently on Israel’s Channel 12, he added, “Those who live on the other side there, they don’t talk to you about life, and you can’t negotiate with them about people, only land. They understand land. By the way, they didn’t kill us because of our Jewishness, and massacred us with unbearable brutality, because they simply wanted this land.”
He is not the only one to reconsider their ideological positions and the responsibility of those positions for what led to Oct. 7. In Haaretz, you could read this headline in February: “‘Settlers Are Right’: The Kibbutz Movement Should Break Away From the Left, Outgoing Leader Says.” Well-known chef Meir Adoni announced that he was that he was “ashamed that he was part of the delusion of the delusional left who don’t understand that we are surrounded by extreme Islam monsters who have no interest in peace and normalcy, and only want to burn us alive.” He even asked forgiveness for having identified as left-wing.
Another peace activist, Yael Noy, who heads Roads to Recovery—the group that drove Gazans into Israel for hospital treatment—while refusing to yield on the need for the continuation of such volunteering, admits: “Even people on the left say that we should flatten Gaza. Both sides have become more and more radicalized.” While a minority still, there is no doubt many left-wingers are less comfortable in their ideologies than previously.
Returning to the IDF’s responsibility, there is a need to reflect on two post-Oct. 7 events: the promotions of senior officers who were involved in the failures, such as Shlomi Binder; as well as the removal of officers supposedly considered “too assertive” and too identified with rightist, nationalist outlooks, like Ofer Winter and Yaniv Asor. Asor had urged a stricter attitude towards the reservists and volunteers promoting the campaign of the Brothers in Arms group to refuse to serve. That campaign is widely believed to have encouraged Hamas in its decision to attack, seeing it as a weakening and a collapse of Israel society.
There is much to be investigated. It must be a broad and deep process. No one—from the prime minister (and former prime ministers) to IDF commanders—should be immune. But it must be done to identify not only who failed but how to be victorious in the future.
The post Who Must Share Responsibility for the Events of Oct. 7? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
A History of Hanukkah and Jewish Survival
A Hanukkah menorah. Photo: Pixabay
We like to think that Hanukkah was the great victory of Judah, the son of Mattiyahu the Priest (who initiated the resistance) against the mighty Syrian or Seleucid Greeks over 2,000 years ago. The Seleucid campaign against Judea began when Antiochus the 4th invaded in 167 BCE). He believed his culture was far superior to that of the Jews. Jewish merchants were beginning to rival the Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean, so commercial rivalry was a factor too.
Judah (the name Maccabee is not mentioned in Talmudic sources) did indeed defeat some Seleucid armies and retook the Temple and purified it in 164 BCE. But in fact, the fighting went on for some five years.
Although in between, the Temple did indeed function the way it did before Antiochus, nevertheless it was not a clear-cut victory. The in-fighting in the court of the Syrian Greeks, the assassination of kings and rival generals, all contributed to stalemate with Syrians still holding on to their fortress in Jerusalem.
Judah was killed in the battle of Elasa in 160 BCE. Judah’s brother Jonathan was killed in 143 BCE. Only with the last brother Simon, who was recognized officially as Judea’s high priest and the head of the Judean state in 142 CE, did Judea become independent, for a while.
Judah did not establish the annual eight-day festival we have today. He did replicate the Eight Days of King Solomon’s original dedication of the first Temple when he re-took it. The late Talmudic rabbis established the ongoing eight days to commemorate the miracle of the oil not mentioned earlier. And their failure to mention Judah indicates their disapproval of the Hasmonean dynasty in general as it played out.
Was Hanukkah just a matter of military conquest — or just cultural disagreement with the Greeks? There were no Palestinians to be seen. In competing for markets, Greeks killed Jews and Jews killed Greeks back. John Hyrcanus, Simon’s successor ,was particularly effective at retaliating against those who attacked Jews even beyond his territory.
Within the Jewish community of Judea, there were huge divisions, which reflected the precise divisions that exist today within the Jewish communities in Israel and the Diaspora.
Succeeding generations could not even agree what the significance of Hanukkah was. For those who fought, it was a military victory that ultimately led to the establishment of regaining and re-opening the Temple and an autonomous state.
For the rabbis of the Talmudic era, who were scarred by the Roman conquests, it was a celebration of the spiritual flame kept burning by the few against the many. Judah the fighter was not mentioned. Some saw it as a response to the Diaspora festival of Purim, others as the interaction between the Diaspora and Israel, with both suffering from different pressures and antagonisms. What we now call antisemitism.
A lot has changed over the last 2,000 years — and a lot has not.
Empires have come and gone, rulers have risen and died, and Jews remain a people as Bilaam says (Numbers 23:9) “A nation that dwells alone and is not regarded (or valued) by the other peoples.” We have always been loners. Does this really matter? For some it does and that explains why so many Jews have always abandoned the confines of Jewish life to try to thrive in the non-Jewish world. It also explains why others have fought for their beliefs and freedom — and why some have become zealots.
We should not be surprised today to discover how many Jews are antagonistic to the Jewish people, and certainly not about how the non-Jewish world continues to be extremely ambivalent towards us. Both in the Middle East and in the West, communities are now no longer as monochromatic or as unified as they once were. Mass migrations have changed the complexity of many societies and divided them against themselves.
This is why the Hanukkah story is so important. It’s the only festival we have that records the military triumph of Israel against its opponents, and the survival of our tradition despite the continuous, repeated attempts to snuff us out.
We have thrived despite it all. In our prayers every single day of the year, we think of Jerusalem and returning to it in our minds if not in our bodies. This is something that the world just does not get — because they are not concerned with history or facts. This is our story, whichever the way the wind blows, and they will not snuff our lights out.
The author is a writer and rabbi, currently based in New York.
The post A History of Hanukkah and Jewish Survival first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Deriving Harmony: A ‘Mathematical’ Reading of Parshat Vayigash and the Story of Yosef
Reading from a Torah scroll in accordance with Sephardi tradition. Photo: Sagie Maoz via Wikimedia Commons.
Parshat Vayigash brings us to one of the most emotionally charged moments in the Torah.
Yosef, now a powerful ruler in Egypt, reveals his identity to his brothers, setting the stage for reconciliation after years of separation, pain, and misunderstanding. The parsha highlights themes of forgiveness, unity, and divine providence, as fractured relationships are mended and a family realigns with its shared destiny.
From a mathematical perspective, the resolution in Parshat Vayigash can be seen as a system of linear equations. Just as a system requires each equation to be satisfied simultaneously at a single solution point, the family’s conflicting perspectives and needs converge into a unified outcome. This metaphor provides a structured lens through which to understand the intricate interplay of values, responsibilities, and emotions in this story.
The Mathematical Framework: Systems of Linear Equations
A system of linear equations consists of two or more equations that must be satisfied simultaneously. For example:
Here, x and y represent variables, while the coefficients
This concept mirrors the narrative arc of Parshat Vayigash. Yosef’s perspective, shaped by his journey and Divine purpose, represents one equation, while Yehdah’s plea, grounded in responsibility and repentance, represents another. Both have their own unique parameters, yet the Torah demands that their paths intersect to achieve harmony.
Yosef’s Equation
Yosef’s trajectory is shaped by years of hardship and Divine intervention. Sold into slavery by his brothers, he rises to become the viceroy of Egypt, using his position to save countless lives during a devastating famine. His equation includes parameters such as forgiveness, hidden identity, and the fulfillment of his prophetic dreams. Yosef operates with a long view of history, understanding that his suffering was part of a Divine plan to ensure the survival of his family.
In mathematical terms, Yosef’s line reflects a higher-level perspective. His decisions are calculated, testing his brothers to see if they have truly changed. He places Benjamin in a position of vulnerability, forcing his brothers to confront their past actions and demonstrate growth.
Yehudah’s Equation
Yehudah’s line, meanwhile, is rooted in loyalty, repentance, and self-sacrifice. Once a key player in the sale of Yosef, Yehudah now steps forward as the family’s moral leader. His heartfelt plea to protect Benjamin, even offering himself as a slave in his brother’s place, demonstrates a profound transformation. Yehudah’s parameters include responsibility for his actions, a commitment to his father Yakov, and a willingness to endure personal suffering for the sake of his family’s unity.
Yehudah’s line represents a grounded, immediate perspective. He is not thinking about grand plans or Divine foresight; he is focused on the here and now, ensuring Benjamin’s safety and preserving his father’s fragile spirit.
Solving the System
The brilliance of Parshat Vayigash lies in how these two “lines” converge. Yosef and Yehudah begin from vastly different places: Yosef with his concealed identity and tests, and Yehudah with his guilt and earnestness. Through their charged interaction, each adjusts their position, mirroring the process of manipulating equations to find a solution.
Yosef’s eventual revelation — “I am Yosef” — is the moment when the system resolves. At this point, all conditions are satisfied: Yosef’s need to confirm his brothers’ repentance, Yehudah’s commitment to his family’s well-being, and the overarching Divine plan to reunite Yakov’s children.
The solution to the system is a point of harmony where all variables align. The family’s unity is restored, not by erasing their differences, but by finding a resolution that respects and incorporates each perspective.
Lessons from the Formula
The system of linear equations in Parshat Vayigash teaches us profound lessons about reconciliation and harmony. Just as mathematical systems require each equation to maintain its integrity while finding common ground, human relationships thrive when differing perspectives are acknowledged and balanced. The Torah shows us that unity is not about uniformity; it’s about creating a space where all voices can contribute to a shared solution.
The process of solving such a system highlights the importance of adjustments and dialogue. Yosef and Yehudah’s interactions involve testing, negotiation, and moments of vulnerability. The result is a meaningful reconciliation that strengthens their family’s bond.
Conclusion
Parshat Vayigash offers a timeless blueprint for resolving conflicts and building unity. Through the lens of a system of linear equations, we see how Yosef and Yehudah’s distinct trajectories intersect to create a harmonious outcome. Each perspective brings its own parameters, yet the solution honors them all. This mathematical metaphor not only deepens our understanding of the parsha, but also inspires us to seek alignment in our own relationships, finding points of connection where harmony can flourish.
Rochie Gottheil is an analyst by day and creates high school and college math curricula in her spare time. She can be reached at Rochel.desk@gmail.com
The post Deriving Harmony: A ‘Mathematical’ Reading of Parshat Vayigash and the Story of Yosef first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How Hamas Lies About Israeli Hostages — With the BBC’s Help
The BBC logo is seen at the entrance at Broadcasting House, the BBC headquarters in central London. Photo by Vuk Valcic / SOPA Images/Sipa USA.
On Dec. 17, the BBC News website published a report by Yolande Knell and Rushdi Abualouf headlined “Gaza ceasefire talks in final stage, Palestinian negotiator tells BBC.” Readers of that report were told that:
Of 96 hostages still held in Gaza, 62 are assumed by Israel to still be alive.
As was the case in another BBC report published a week earlier, that portrayal fails to clarify that Hamas also holds two Israeli civilians who entered the Gaza Strip in 2014 and 2015, and the bodies of two soldiers who were killed in 2014.
Readers are also told that Israel’s concern for the security of its civilians is “problematic” and a nod to the “far right”:
According to his spokesman, [Israel’s minister of defence] Katz told members of the Israeli parliament’s foreign affairs committee on Monday: “We have not been this close to an agreement on the hostages since the previous deal,” referring to an exchange of hostages and Palestinian prisoners in Israel in November 2023.
He has since written on X: “My position on Gaza is clear. After we defeat Hamas’s military and governmental power in Gaza, Israel will have security control over Gaza with full freedom of action,” comparing this to the situation in the occupied West Bank.
“We will not allow any terrorist activity against Israeli communities and Israeli citizens from Gaza. We will not allow a return to the reality of before 7 October.”
Such comments are likely to be seen as problematic by negotiators trying to bridge gaps with Hamas. However, in Israel, they are seen as vital to guarantee the support of far-right Israeli cabinet ministers who have previously warned they would not agree to what they have described as a “reckless” deal in Gaza.
In a televised report about the talks which was aired on the BBC News channel on the same day, Rushdi Abualouf (located in Istanbul) told viewers that: [emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]
“…also the first stage will allow the dead hostages — the civilian dead hostages — also will be released. So not only alive [sic] hostages but also the people who were killed in the airstrikes and they are civilians…”
With that highlighted statement Abualouf promoted and mainstreamed the long-standing Hamas propaganda whereby any deceased hostages were killed as a result of Israeli actions.
In August we saw that when such claims were shown to be false, the BBC failed to adequately inform its audiences when Hamas murdered six Israeli hostages, including American Hersh Goldberg-Polin.
Among the civilian hostages known to be deceased, are those who were murdered during the October 7 onslaught and their bodies then abducted and taken to the Gaza Strip. They include Idan Shtivi, Judith Weinstein Haggai, Gadi Haggai, Dror Or, Yair Yaakov, Manny Godard, Ilan Weiss, Eitan Levy, Ofra Keidar and two Thai nationals. Additional hostages were kidnapped alive and subsequently died or were murdered while in captivity.
Rushdi Abualouf not only promoted disinformation by claiming that the deceased civilian hostages were “killed in the airstrikes” — he deliberately misled BBC audiences by means of brazen promotion of the Hamas narrative, which is intended to erase its responsibility for the deaths of hostages and place the blame on Israel.
Hadar Sela is the co-editor of CAMERA UK — an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article first appeared.
The post How Hamas Lies About Israeli Hostages — With the BBC’s Help first appeared on Algemeiner.com.