I sometimes wonder what would happen if Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar came back to life. What would he think of Gaza today? Would he believe that he lost the war, or would he think that Hamas won?

On the one hand, yes, he is dead. Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh are gone too, along with almost every mid-to-senior Hamas commander in Gaza. The group’s rocket arsenal is depleted, its command structure is shattered, and at least half of its tunnels are destroyed. The IDF still controls about half of Gaza’s territory, with no withdrawal in sight. Militarily, Hamas has been broken. Still, as we’ve seen in recent weeks, Hamas is far from gone. Its armed men, wearing masks and green headbands, are back on the streets of Gaza, reasserting control, policing the population, and reminding everyone that the organization might have been beaten as an army but not erased.

Nearly three weeks have passed since US President Donald Trump unveiled his 20-point plan. Yet little progress has been made on any of the 19 remaining points, and even the first point – the release of the hostages – remains incomplete. The spectacle this week of Hamas staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s remains and inviting the Red Cross to film it was a stark reminder that it continues to manipulate both Israel and the international community.

Trump’s plan envisioned a post-Hamas Gaza, with a new governing body composed of technocrats unaffiliated with the terrorist group, supported by an International Stabilization Force deployed to maintain security. But none of this has materialized. The countries that had pledged support for the ISF are hesitating. They first want to see whether Hamas will be removed. In the absence of that, a dangerous vacuum is forming, and Hamas is filling it.

It’s worth remembering the objectives that Sinwar set out when he orchestrated the October 7 invasion. He wanted to derail the normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and on that front, he has succeeded. Even with the ceasefire in place, normalization still feels distant, especially given the current Israeli government’s refusal to declare support for a political process with the Palestinians, something the Saudis are demanding.

Sinwar also wanted to bring the Palestinian issue back onto the global agenda. On that count, too, he succeeded beyond his imagination. Despite October 7 being the greatest massacre of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust, Gaza has become a rallying cry for people across the Western world. The sight of young men and women marching through Western capitals draped in keffiyehs, chanting “Free Palestine,” and calling for Israel’s elimination proves that he has achieved that goal.

Did the attack weaken Israel? On October 7, it did, but two years later, Israel is arguably more secure. Hamas and Hezbollah have sustained devastating blows. Iran is on the defensive, and its nuclear facilities have been destroyed. The Assad regime was toppled in Syria. Yet politically, Sinwar managed to shift the global narrative. The Palestinian cause has once again become the calling for much of the progressive West. France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, Belgium, and Australia have all recognized a Palestinian state, even while Israeli hostages were still being held alive in Hamas captivity.

So, is Hamas winning or losing? The answer is not simple. For now, Trump remains committed to what he calls the “peace” he brokered after a “3,000-year conflict.” But this is hardly peace. It is a ceasefire barely staying together, and as Hamas continues to violate its terms, it becomes harder for Israel to justify staying quiet. This week illustrated that complexity: After Hamas played with the remains of a hostage, it ambushed an IDF unit in Rafah, killing reservist Yona Feldbaum. Israel struck back, but only after coordinating with Washington. Within a day, the ceasefire was reinstated.

The question is, what happens the next time Hamas violates the terms – either again delaying the return of hostages or again attacking IDF troops? Will the world back Israel’s right to respond, or will it pressure Jerusalem to withdraw entirely, arguing that if Israel were not in Gaza, maybe Hamas would stop attacking? Sadly, we already know the answer. The same voices that demanded restraint on October 8 will do so again. The same governments that recognized a Palestinian state while Hamas held hostages will again equate Israeli self-defense with aggression.

That is the reality Israel now faces. Its military achievements are real, but without a political structure to replace Hamas, they risk evaporating. A vacuum cannot exist in Gaza; something will fill it – either the international coalition envisioned by Trump or Hamas itself.

Israel’s options are limited. Its first priority must be ensuring continued American support. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit this week to the US Central Command-run coordination center in Kiryat Gat was part of that effort. Interestingly, even the more right-wing ministers in the government, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, have remained uncharacteristically quiet.

They seem to realize that it is wiser to let Hamas break the ceasefire than to collapse it themselves. If Israel is forced to resume the war, it must do so with legitimacy, not defiance.

However, legitimacy alone won’t solve the problem. If Hamas retains control on the ground, if a new governing entity never emerges, and if the ISF fails to deploy, Gaza will revert to exactly what it was before October 7 and emerge once again as a terror enclave posing a constant threat to Israel. Hamas will not disarm voluntarily, nor will it reform. Allowing it to reestablish control would be a historic mistake.

If Israel wants to truly win, it must insist on a real alternative in Gaza, one backed by regional partners and sustained by international legitimacy. Without it, Hamas’s ideology will endure, and Sinwar’s legacy will live on even from the grave.

Jerusalem Post

The post Even with Gaza ceasefire in place, Hamas may still be winning the war first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

For decades, the Soviets were the world’s puppeteers, manipulating the West’s “useful idiots.” Jihadis have seized that mantle. Shamelessly evil, they don’t even bother singing some seductive socialist song. Yet they find it easier duping today’s morally mushier West. Predictably, the Soviets targeted Jews and Israel, calling Zionism “racist.” Today, Jews and Israel remain favorite targets, as jihadi genociders accuse Israel of committing genocide and imposing mass starvation.

Admittedly, these are painful times for Zionists. Amid epic military achievements safeguarding Israel and the West, Israel is mired in a difficult war against jihadists using their own people for cannon fodder and propaganda points.

War is hell! Unavoidably, Israel faces morally challenging moments during a war that remains existential: Hamas wants to destroy us, not only our reputation. We cannot be so hard-hearted to deny Palestinian suffering, exacerbated by unintentional Israeli operational failures. Yet we dare not be so softheaded as to fall for the jihadi genociders’ con.

It’s mind-boggling. Hamas’s charter calls to exterminate the Jews. Seventy-four percent of Palestinians cheered as Hamas marauders and Gazan rampagers yelled “Itbah al Yahud” – meaning “slaughter the Jew,” not “end the occupation.” Nevertheless, by October 8, Israel was accused of “genocide.” And it stuck!

I acknowledge Israel’s misfires, our government’s leadership vacuum, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s moral failures to fire rabid ministers. I lament Palestinian suffering in Gaza. But I also recognize that:

Hamas manufactured Palestinian suffering, from rejecting a two-state solution and proving that conceding territory weakens Israel, to starting this war, cowering behind civilians, and manipulating the food flow;

recent hostage photos expose what deliberate starvation really looks like, just as Hamas’s October 7 videos demonstrate what genocidal “intent” really looks like;

Gaza is messy, complicated, confusing, so most remote-control-moralists pronouncing about what’s happening mostly reveal their own biases;

as Col. John Spencer and other urban warfare experts note, by flooding Gaza with two million tons of food – 82 million meals from the US-Israeli Gaza Humanitarian Foundation alone – Israel “delivered more humanitarian aid to Gaza than any military in history has provided to an enemy population during wartime”;

Israel’s terrorist-to-civilian kill urban warfare ratio of one killer per one or two innocents, sets standards America’s moral army hasn’t met;

with Hamas still holding hostages and amassing weapons, Israel cannot withdraw blithely from Gaza or assume, as many do, that Hamas will ever relinquish every hostage – Hamas’s only hold over Israel, which keeps polarizing Israel;

critics should offer realistic alternatives, sparing us performative moral indignation or counterproductive calls for a Palestinian state, which reward terrorism while incentivizing Hamas to dither. Hamas calls these calls “fruits of October 7.”

Traditionally, the punishment fits the crime, while the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Bash-Israel-Firsters water down crimes like “genocide” and “starvation” to fit the punishment – ostracism – while Israel is forever guilty, even when proven innocent.

Many of the dupes keep overreaching – because it’s hard to indict a democracy defending itself after being attacked and trying to minimize civilian damage. Proving starvation with pictures of children suffering genetic diseases, or spreading videos showing the well-fed arms of Hamas torturers off camera abusing truly starved Israeli victims, shows you’re working a weak hand.

Genocide is SICK: systematic, intentional, comprehensive killing. It’s Hutus slaughtering 800,000 Tutsis in 100 days, Nazis planning a “Final Solution” to kill all Jews. In November 2023, the genocide scholar Omer Bartov warned in The New York Times that constantly labeling “atrocious events” genocide “obfuscate[s] reality.” Genocide “aims at destroying” a “population wherever it is.”

Israel’s Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI) acknowledges that genocide designations require “specific intent, or dolus specialis… the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group as such.”

Yet, suddenly, in the Times, Bartov accuses Israel of genocide without proving anything systematic or comprehensive. His article ignores the many Gazans Israel tried saving, without admitting that these wartime tragedies occurred in military theaters, not “wherever” Israelis encounter Palestinians.

Meanwhile, PHRI’s report concludes: “genocidal intent may be inferred from the pattern of conduct.” Stretching, it targets Israel’s “campaign to delegitimize Gaza’s health system.” PHRI admits, however, that “there are cases suggesting that Hamas may have unlawfully used medical infrastructure to shield military objectives,” then contradictorily claims “Israel has not provided sufficient evidence.”

Actually, reporters proved that Hamas used hospitals to hold hostages, hide weapons, build bunkers. Yet Israel’s actions, when the jihadis mocked international law, supposedly reflect “genocidal intent.”

Even more egregious, the novelist David Grossman pronounces “genocide” based on “what I’ve read in the newspapers… and talking to people,” while Israel studies professor Dov Waxman claims: “Israel’s actions are having a genocidal impact.” Deeming the impact “foreseeable,” Waxman decides “one can reasonably infer genocidal intent from Israel’s conduct in Gaza.”

No longer methodical mass murder, “genocide” is now thought crimes, “reasonably infer[red.]”

Similarly, The Washington Post quotes the PHRI’s Guy Shalev intent-shopping: “The systematic destruction of the healthcare system, the denial of access to food, the blocking of medical evacuations, and using humanitarian aid to advance military objectives – all indicate a clear pattern of conduct, a pattern that reveals intent.”

Did Nazis, Hutus, Turks, use “humanitarian aid to advance military objectives”? Actually, they offered no humanitarian aid!

Col. Spencer writes: “Genocide is not defined by a few comments taken out of context… or by how war looks in headlines or on social media. It is defined by specific intent….”

Thoughtful people must wonder: Why water down genocide’s definition to damn Israel? As usual, critics of Israel’s actions could choose many words. Their “starvation” and “genocide” libels oversimplify maliciously, conscripting millions into this jihadi-orchestrated, media-fueled mass witch burning.

Originally published in JPost

The post Indicting Israel unfairly: Defining genocide broadly first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

Calls for a Palestinian state are echoing from Western capitals, but Israelis know the truth: October 7th was not about founding Palestine, it was about destroying Israel. For decades, the dream of a “return” has been the deeper obstacle to peace, more enduring than the absence of a flag or defined borders. If Palestinians truly want statehood, it must be accompanied by the acceptance — at long last — that Israel is here to stay.

The Hamas-led attacks of October 7th made this brutally clear. They were not about establishing a Palestinian homeland in Gaza and the West Bank, but about erasing the Jewish homeland altogether. The chants that accompanied the violence spoke not of independence but of conquest: liberating Jerusalem and Jaffa, not Khan Yunis and Rafah. To argue that granting Palestinians a state today would “reward” Hamas is to miss the point. Hamas’ war aims were never about sovereignty; they were about Israel’s destruction.

For decades, the central question has not been whether Palestinians would gain a state alongside Israel, but whether they would accept that Israel itself has a right to exist. With Arab armies long defeated, the dream of eliminating Israel shifted to the so-called “right of return.” Through UNRWA, the United Nations kept this dream alive, ensuring millions of Palestinians and their descendants remained officially “refugees,” waiting for the day they might return to the homes their ancestors left in 1948.

If Palestinians were truly ready to accept that their future lies within Gaza and the West Bank — and not inside Israel — then Hamas’ October 7th assault would stand as a catastrophic failure, exposing the futility of its cause.

Yet on campuses and in capitals across the West, the chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” remind us that for many, the conflict is still framed not as a struggle for independence, but as a campaign to eliminate the Jewish state. This vision cannot coexist with peace. A Palestinian state can only bring an end to the conflict if it also brings an end to the dream of returning to Israel and dismantling it from within.

That is why Israel’s answer must be “yes, but.” Yes — if the Palestinian state is demilitarized and committed to peace. Yes — if all refugees and their descendants are resettled within its borders, ending the cycle of statelessness and the perpetual hope of “return.” Yes — if its borders are drawn on the basis of the 1967 lines, adjusted by mutual agreement to ensure both security and viability.

To say “no” outright would only reinforce the narrative that Israel opposes Palestinian independence, when in truth the struggle has always been about Israel’s survival. But to say “yes” without conditions would be to invite disaster. The “yes, but” is not a rejection of peace; it is the only path toward it.

The Arab–Israeli conflict has never been about the absence of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the refusal to accept a Jewish one. Only when Palestinians are prepared to see a future state as their home — rather than a launching point for renewed struggle — will peace be possible.

Israel must be ready to say “yes” to a Palestinian state — but only if that “yes” finally buries the dream of Israel’s destruction, not the hope of peace.

TOI

The post A Palestinian State? Yes — But only if it ends the war on Israel’s existence first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

Two months ago, on May 27, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began distributing food in the Gaza Strip. From the outset, the group was mired in controversy. Israel initially claimed it had no connection to the organization, calling it an independent American foundation. Within days though, the chairman resigned, and a major U.S. consulting group cancelled its contract with the GHF amid questions over its funding and management.

Despite the turbulence, that day was celebrated by some in Israel as a breakthrough. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich hailed the GHF’s arrival as a “turning point in the war.” Finally, he declared, there was an entity that could deliver to the Palestinian people who needed it without connection to the United Nations and without simply funneling supplies to Hamas. The GHF, Smotrich insisted, would bypass the terror group and reach ordinary Gazans in need.

“God willing, [this will] lead to victory and the destruction of Hamas,” Smotrich said at the time. “Better late than never.”

It’s worth recalling those words after Sunday, when Israel began parachuting aid into Gaza and allowing other nations to do the same, while implementing daily pauses in fighting as claims of mass starvation sparked unprecedented global outrage.

While the United Nations’ accusations should be viewed skeptically given its institutional bias against Israel, Netanyahu could not ignore a joint statement by 28 countries — including the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Italy and Japan — demanding an immediate end to the war and condemning what they called “the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.”

Under pressure and recognizing that ignoring the pleas would come at a price, Netanyahu ordered a dramatic policy shift: Israel would significantly increase aid deliveries, parachute food into Gaza, and implement daily 10-hour pauses in populated areas, establishing new humanitarian corridors.

The move raises stark questions about Israel’s conduct and assumptions throughout the war. Did the government genuinely believe, as it claimed in March when the last ceasefire collapsed, that it could halt nearly all aid to Gaza without paying a crushing diplomatic price? When the GHF began operations in May, did Israel truly believe that this private initiative would change the war’s trajectory and bring Hamas to its knees?

Reality tells a different story. Hamas has not buckled under pressure since the GHF began distributing aid. If anything, it has hardened its demands. Last week, both the United States and Israel pulled out of ceasefire talks in Doha, with President Donald Trump bluntly declaring that Hamas does not want a deal. Can Israel alone be blamed for the deadlock? No. When Hamas sees France formally recognizing a Palestinian state and dozens of countries issuing unprecedented condemnations of Israel, it has little incentive to compromise or free the hostages.

And while Israel is right to push back against the exaggerated language of “genocide” and “mass starvation,” it cannot deny that Gaza faces a genuine humanitarian crisis. Pretending otherwise — as some in Israel’s leadership have done — doesn’t make the problem disappear. Israel may insist that there is no famine, and technically be correct, but the optics are undeniable: After 22 months of war, Israel is airdropping aid and halting military operations, an act that for much of the world reads as an admission that the crisis is very real.

The deeper problem, however, is not the aid itself. It is the pattern the aid represents: reactive decisions by Jerusalem, and not strategic thinking. For over a year, this war has been plagued by the same flaw: no clear plan, no defined objectives and no coherent endgame. Only tactical moves, almost always made under either diplomatic or political pressure.

The GHF was supposed to isolate Hamas and the renewed military operation was supposed to force Hamas into a hostage deal. Neither outcome has materialized. Now, defense officials argue that by addressing the starvation narrative, Israel will corner Hamas and pressure it to negotiate. Will that theory hold? Maybe. But experience suggests otherwise.

What is undeniable is this: Nearly two years after Oct. 7, Israel is not too far from where it started — improvising, dropping aid from the sky, pausing operations, and grasping for a path forward. The government still cannot articulate how this war ends. Until it does, every shift — from the GHF’s launch to the latest aid parachutes — will be just another tactical adjustment in a war drifting without a strategy.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency

The post However it distributes aid, or doesn’t, Israel still has no plan for its war in Gaza first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

With the withdrawal of the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties from the coalition, the Israeli government became a minority government. This signals the formal realization of a longstanding basic reality: even when the government enjoyed the solid support of 68 Knesset members, it was, fundamentally, a minority government.

Its positions on major national issues do not align with the majority of the Israeli public. This is a minority government not only in the Knesset but also among the people. Take, for example, the management of the war. The government strives for a “total victory,” yet just a minority of the public believes this is an achievable goal (31% – JPPI). The vast majority of Israelis think the war should be ended through a deal that would release all the remaining hostages in one fell swoop (70% – Accords Center). The government chooses to continue embroiling the people’s army in a war that most of the people want to end.

An overwhelming majority of Israelis demands the establishment of a state commission of inquiry (78%, including 52% of coalition voters – Maariv). Is it conceivable not to thoroughly and professionally investigate the circumstances that led us to the lowest point in our national life since the establishment of the state? The government, which holds the authority to establish such a commission, is bucking the will of more than three-quarters of the Israeli public.

THE SAME applies to haredi IDF conscription. Israelis are fed up with the continued de facto exemption of young haredi men from military service. The gap between the lived experience of combat soldiers and their families – under the heavy cloud of existential anxiety, jeopardized physical and mental health, family separation, and economic uncertainty – and the lives of young haredim, some of whom study Torah while others idle in white shirts, is incomprehensible to almost all of us. Yet the government refuses, seeking instead to use its power to perpetuate this injustice.

An overwhelming majority of 89% of Jewish Israelis believe haredim who are not studying seriously should be drafted, and 62% support drafting all haredim, including those who do study. The government’s priorities diverge entirely from those of the public. The highest priority for this government is advancing the judicial overhaul/revolution, which subverts the standing of the judiciary, legal advisers in the executive branch, the media, and any governmental or civil body that might serve as a check on government power.

By contrast, among the general public, only a negligible minority sees this as the most pressing issue (10% – Channel 13), and nearly two-thirds believe the reform plan should not be pursued during wartime (61% – Israel Democracy Institute).

The common sense of Israelis – including many who support the reforms in principle – calls for a pause in the internal conflict, at least until the geopolitical situation stabilizes. Yet once again, the government does the opposite – stoking controversy, deepening division, and fanning the flames at every opportunity.

THE MAJORITY of the Israeli public leans to the Right. Likud and the coalition parties have represented the dominant identity camp in Israel over the past decade. The war has further strengthened this inclination. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has remarkably collapsed the Iranian web and mobilized the US, with all its power, as a strategic partner.

Despite these historic achievements, public trust in him and the “full-on” right-wing government remains very low (61% do not trust it – JPPI). Clearly, the enormous gap between public opinion and government policy on all critical issues undermines public trust. There is no greater political wizard in Israeli politics than the prime minister – his extraordinary longevity at the top of the political pyramid is definitive proof of that. Why then does he choose to turn his back on the will of the majority, thereby eroding public trust in him and his government?

It appears that Gulliver is bound by Lilliputians: National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have bound him with the rope of “total victory,” likely against his better instincts. The haredim twist his arm to support their escape from responsibility for Israel’s security. The revolutionaries – posing as conservatives – push him to promote an anti-democratic agenda under the guise of reform.

Netanyahu is perceived as a formidable leader. However, the continuing predicament in which he acts according to the proclivities of others – fringe elements and extremist factions – raises the question: Is he a leader or a follower? The facts show that the far Right, the haredim, and the so-called conservative radicals who, having cast him as Sampson, are chopping at his hair, chipping away his authority, and steering him toward their extreme predilections, which stand in stark contradiction to the preferences of the overwhelming majority of Israelis.

Will he know how to return to his senses?

Published in the Jerusalem Post

The post Netanyahu must decide if he’s a leader or follower as his government loses Israel’s trust first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

The messages keep coming: in “how are you”; “are your kids safe?” Most moving, because we had to cancel our neighborhood minyan Friday night and Shabbat, a friend from New Jersey promised to pray with all of us “in mind.” But much as we in Israel appreciate all this love and support. It’s not what we need. My friends, in America, Canada, the UK, Australia, France, Argentina, and the rest of the world, this is your moment, too. Are you ready to stand up for Israel, the Jewish people, and Western civilization against Iran’s genocidal, nuclear-hungry, sexist, homophobic, anti-democratic, Jihadist dictatorship – or not?

Of course, we in Israel are doing what we need to do. Our pilots, our, ahem, spies, our amazing army, are doing what America and the West should have been doing – which is teaching Iran and the world that rogue states shouldn’t go nuclear, especially when they threaten other states with genocide and spread terror globally. And, far from this battlefront, our home front is strong, determined, united. This morning, on Jerusalem’s Emek Refaim, the coffee shops were busy, not just the “essential” services like grocery stores and pharmacies. And the wedding we were invited to at 10:30 AM was postponed to 3 PM – for must of us to watch on Zoom. But, boy, the energy, the joy, the optimism, popped through our screen and sent us soaring.

But, beware – there’s an anti-Israel storm coming. Of course, it’s been brewing, but it will get worse. Consider the first opinion column American Jewry’s holy bible, the New York Times, published. Called “Will Trump Show Restraint in the Middle East” by the usually- thoughtful Nicholas Kristof, it showed just how much work each of you needs to do, to defend the Jewish state on this war’s 8th front – the war for Israel’s reputation – and, I add, for moral clarity as well as a healthy world.

Kristof starts, not by saying “Israel” attacked – in a justified, long overdue, attack – but that the hated “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has bombed Iran in what may lead to yet another war in the Middle East.”

Most outrageously, ahistorically, Kristof wrote that “Netanyahu justified his latest military campaign by saying that Iran was a ‘clear and present danger.’ … But a key reason for Iran’s increasingly dangerous course was the past colossal misjudgments by Netanyahu and Trump in their dealings with Iran. With strong backing from Netanyahu, Trump in 2018 pulled out of the nuclear agreement that President Barack Obama had reached that largely contained Iran’s nuclear program.”

Wow. Better do your homework and eat your wheaties. Kristof is rewriting history, trusting that BDS and TDS – Bibi Derangement Syndrome and Trump Derangement Syndrome – will bypass your brains, hearts, and souls.

First, Kristof neglects this war’s true cause– that after repeatedly threatening Israel, encouraging terrorists to attack it, and destabilizing the region, Iran launched two separate ballistic missile attacks against Israel. What country absorbs over 500 missiles from an evil adversary that promises more – and says, “thanks so much, we’ll ‘take the win,’ because we didn’t absorb the kind of losses of people and property you tried imposing on us.”

Second, the weasel words “Netanyahu justified his latest military campaign” are a modern-day blood libel – and I don’t use that phrase lightly. It implies that the bloodthirsty Bibi and his primitive Israelis are just collecting wars and skulls. It ignores the October 7th rampage, the Hezbollah bombings, the Houthi attacks, and the ongoing Palestinian terrorist attacks inside and outside Gaza – often bankrolled and orchestrated by Iran. Most Israelis feel that Netanyahu failed to address these threats early enough. He dodged one military campaign after another.

Third, we can debate Barack Obama’s JCPOA – which was an A – an agreement — because he couldn’t make it a T – a treaty that would pass the Senate. But, there was no excuse for America to send Iran millions of dollars that fueled terrorists who raped and pillaged.

Finally, unknowingly raising a major issue Americans must face, Kristof writes that “the best way Trump can protect” America’s soldiers and embassies in the region “is to stay out of this fight and try to resurrect a nuclear deal.” Trump tried – and failed. Obama tried – and the Iranians cheated while making mayhem. America must stop being scared of paper tigers like Iran and start leading the world again. And Americans must understand that, sometimes, especially when facing maniacal Jihadi dictators, a little bit of short-term war is the best way to get a whole lot of long-term peace.

So, my friends, here is your mission – and you really, really need to accept it.

Learn the facts – and spread these truths – which are not talking points:

Iran instigated this conflict, repeatedly over twenty years, with genocidal threats, which provides sufficient justification for a just war.

This was not a “pre-emptive” strike because Iran bombarded Israel with over 500 ballistic missiles, twice – and has vowed to do it again.

Israel isn’t being – with apologies to Bob Dylan – the “neighborhood bully” but “the world’s watchmen – or sanitation engineers – doing today what America and the West should have done years ago. Especially, after the April 13-14th attacks, America should have hit Iran, hard – not to defend Israel, but to save Taiwan from China by showing strength and determination.

This war has nothing to do with Palestinians, the occupation preoccupation, settlements, or even Gaza – except that October 7, like 9/11, illustrated what happens when you downplay genocidal jihadist threats.

In short, Israel has once again proved its worth to the world and to America – in the most “transactional way. ” Israel should be thanked by Democrats and Republicans, by Americans, Canadians, Brits, Australians, Europeans, South Americans – and peace-loving Arabs as well as Iranians, most of whom hate the mullahs’ aggressive, oppressive, regime.

I don’t care if you hate Trump and Bibi, and are fed up with Israel’s Gaza War. In fact, those of you who have those positions have added credibility in what must become the biggest, bravest, boldest campaign of your lives. Thank the President and the Republican incumbents – as a usual critic – for supporting Israel at this moment, and encourage more because this is a marathon, for the sake of the West and for peace, not just Israel. And reach out to the usual Bash Israel Firsters or the growing corps of Israel-skeptics – especially if you ally with them and vote with them on other issues. Then explain, in your language, with your shared values, why defeating a human-rights-abusing theocracy saved us all.

You must take the lead here – and take risks. Risk friendships. Risk your usual comforts. Risk your reputations. You’ll discover there are many more people out there cheering for Israel, who can distinguish between democratic though imperfect Israel and Iran’s perfectly evil dictatorship oppressing their own proud Persian people. More important, by standing strong, you will pass the mirror test – liking the hero, the leader, the clear-eyed prophet you see in the mirror. And you will pass the most basic history test: you will stand on the right side of history, and help Israel defend itself – and the rest of the world too.

Jewish Journal

The post Calling All Jews: This is Your Moment first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

After 500-plus days of using Israel’s national emergency to defer elections, squelch national inquiries, and keep power despite failing catastrophically on October 7, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is allowing us to return to normal.

Apparently, we’ve subdued our enemies enough for him to assail the national security establishment and the rule of law, demoralize reservists by refusing to address them honestly, and tolerate ultra-Orthodox draft evasion to keep his coalition staggering ahead. That justifies everyone demanding elections – now. In the spirit of our desperately needed national renewal, the prime minister should quit – along with all the other failed opposition leaders who were blinded by the conceptzia [or confirmation bias]: Benny Gantz, Yair Lapid, and Yair Golan.

It’s hard to believe that Netanyahu remains in power. Hasn’t he gotten the memo? Israelis are fed up with him, his divisiveness, his contempt for democracy; with his refusal to take responsibility for October 7 and other disasters, with his hostility to any critics. Nearly three-quarters of Israelis want him resigning immediately or after the war.

Yet he and his devotees keep earning gold medals in authoritarianism, bullying, and cowardice – distracting Israelis from genuine enemies outside by treating fellow citizens as traitors within.

Alas, looking Left, they just keep demonstrating. Haven’t they heard? Most Israelis are fed up with the blocked traffic and impotent fury.

The hostage protesters sabotaged their own cause by weakening Israel’s bargaining position, harassing Israeli leaders at home rather than protesting Qatari embassies worldwide. Now, a few fanatics foolishly keep infuriating most Israelis, feeding Bibistas’ paranoid fantasies of a condescending Ashkenazi elite earning their gold medals in sore-loserdom. More shockingly: Who’s the protesters’ martyr this week? The Shin Bet head who, like Bibi, should resign for his October 7 failures.

Extremists from both sides forget that our enemies delight in our divisiveness, our partisan venom.

We must keep pressuring Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Iran. We should correct the Israeli and foreign reporters claiming that Netanyahu only continues attacking Gaza for “domestic considerations.” You have to dig deep in most articles blasting Israel’s renewed bombings to find the word “hostages.” Although Israel must protect its borders and keep crushing Hamas, the dynamics would change immediately if all the Gazan terrorists holding them released every hostage.

WITH AT least two dozen Israelis still enduring unspeakable abuse in Hamas tunnels and “innocent” Gazans’ homes, Defense Minister Israel Katz finally warned that the more Hamas persists, “the more territory it will lose to Israel.”

This should have been clear long before October 7. When Hamas bombarded Israel after the 2005 Gaza disengagement, I proposed in these pages that Israel seize 10 meters of borderlands for each barrage. Territorial loss is the traditional language of war: Palestinians understand that language, too.

Facing these threats, it’s unconscionable that our (mis)leaders – especially Bibi – divide the country, depress our soldiers, and divert attention from Israel’s existential fight for survival – domestically and internationally. Netanyahu should stop his manipulative attempts to rally his fanatic but dwindling band of supporters.

I am not anti-Bibi in principle: I have repeatedly saluted Netanyahu for defying former US president Joe Biden and helping Israel weaken Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. Having achieved those aims, now working with a friendlier administration, Netanyahu should call elections, retire, and let the debate rage over his legacy and culpability.

In order to shame him and to model the self-sacrificing leadership Israel deserves, and to reject their old stale protest playbook, every opposition leader should resign.

Go Home Gantz, Lapid, and Golan. Advise Ehud Barak and Bogie Ya’alon and the other hysterics to stop talking. Anyone who was part of the security establishment and trusted our hi-tech Gaza border should teach Bibi and the Shin Bet’s Ronen Bar how to retire gracefully – from public debate, too. Anyone who has so futilely divided Israel for so long should let others lead constructively.

The search for new leaders shouldn’t stop with everyone’s favorite fantasy group, the reservists. It’s time to diversify ethnically and geographically. I remember the look of disgust people from Sderot, Netivot, Kiryat Shmona, Metulah, and elsewhere had for months after October 7, 2023, whenever we discussed Netanyahu and his government’s botches, especially the failure to gracefully and generously support many of those displaced. Let’s find opposition leaders from among them, not just from the Kaplanists.

And let’s change the tune. Claiming democracy has “died” as demonstrators assert their democratic right to protest, instinctively cheering the opposite of whatever Bibi says, and being so blinded by anti-Bibi rage, doesn’t change anything, but does further fragment. Articulate a positive, unifying vision around shared values and our shared fate.

Let’s stop threatening not to serve, pay tax, or be patriotic – that undermines the justified critique of ultra-Orthodox draft-dodgers. And stop shrieking – it brings out the crazies and the craziness.

Instead, how about organizing non-partisan moments of silence midday, simply demanding elections, stopping everything briefly, asserting power, commanding attention, minimizing harm. Then hosting salons transcending Left-Right, religious-secular, and ethnic divides, articulating a common Zionist and Israeli political agenda for a new age – with new leaders.

On a brighter note, Passover prep has begun. The cleanser commercials and antacid ads remind us that the Jewish calendar keeps saving us – injecting moments of joy and reassurance during these difficult times.

Passover warns against Pharaohs who bring plagues upon their people and yet blame everyone else for the troubles. We honor leaders like Moses: humble enough to know he’s not indispensable but great enough to articulate a compelling vision of freedom from today’s problems – and give way to his successors when he knows his time is up.

Our stuck leaders, Left and Right, should quit, freeing us from their poison, so we can renew and rebuild our Promised Land – together.

Published by the Jerusalem Post

The post Netanyahu, Bar, and all of Israel’s leaders failed and must step down first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

If there were any remaining doubts about the true nature of Hamas, Thursday’s grotesque spectacle should have erased them. The terrorist group erected a stage to release the bodies of Oded Lifshitz, Shiri Bibas, and her sons Kfir and Ariel – victims of the unthinkable brutality that Hamas inflicted and continues to inflict on Israel.

For 16 months, the world hoped and prayed for good news about Shiri and her children. That hope was shattered on Thursday when Hamas delivered their bodies in coffins, handed over to the Red Cross for burial in Israel. The image of four masked terrorists carrying the tiny coffin of Kfir Bibas – snatched from his home, only to be murdered in cold blood – stuns the soul. There is no language that can capture this cruelty. It speaks for itself.

The difference between Israel and Hamas could not be starker. We sanctify life. They, in Gaza, sanctify death. This clash of values is reflected in the price Israel is willing to pay to save its hostages: dozens of convicted murderers released for each life saved. In contrast, Hamas parades the corpses of children they stole from their families.

Oded Lifshitz, Shiri Bibas, and her sons placed their trust in Israel’s government and its military. On October 7, they were abducted by Hamas from their homes in the kibbutz of Nir Oz, believing that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF would do everything to bring them back. Their return in coffins is a reminder of the catastrophic failures of that day – and the strategic mistakes made in the years leading up to it. Israel allowed Hamas to grow into the monster it became, and the Bibas and Lifshitz families – along with more than 2,000 others – have paid the ultimate price.

Yet Thursday’s grim reality also serves as a somber reminder: The hostage deal must continue. The remaining hostages in Gaza are running out of time. The haunting image of the coffins, loaded into Red Cross vehicles, must make us more determined to bring back the remaining hostages. We cannot afford to lose any more lives. The families waiting for their loved ones cannot endure another loss.

WHAT HAPPENS in the coming week will be critical for the return of the remaining hostages. On Saturday, six living ones are meant to be released and then another group of dead hostages next Thursday. With that, the first stage of the deal will come to an end – and the question will be whether Israel and Hamas can agree on a second stage.

At the same time, there is growing concern that Netanyahu is more focused on political survival than on saving the hostages. Many politicians in the opposition and members of the media used his decision, to appoint Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer to head the hostage negotiation team instead of the heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) as proof that the prime minister plans to torpedo the second stage of the deal and further politicize the negotiations.

On the one hand, the concern is legitimate. Too many times over the last 16 months, Netanyahu seemed to prioritize political survival over the survival of the hostages. Itamar Ben-Gvir admitted as much when he revealed that he used threats to topple the coalition several times to prevent a hostage deal from being approved by the cabinet.

The statement put out on Wednesday by a “senior source” close to Netanyahu – blasting the heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet and claiming the success in getting Hamas to agree to release six hostages on Saturday only for the prime minister – did not buy credit and undermines the public’s trust in the government and the man at its head.

On the other hand, there is also no denying that most of the hostages have returned home. Between the deal in November 2023 for the women and children, the few hostages rescued in IDF operations, and now this current deal, Netanyahu has managed to bring back most of the 251 people who were taken on October 7. While “most” is crucial, it is not enough, and Israel will not be able to move on or rest until all of its people are back home with their families.

AND WHILE the suspicion against Netanyahu is legitimate – too many times over his long years in office he prioritized political survival over what was right for the nation – this does not mean that Dermer’s appointment is illegitimate. On the contrary: Dermer is one of the most capable members of the government and has forged strategic ties with the Trump administration and particularly with the president’s Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.

There is value in having someone who is completely trusted by the prime minister and the Americans in the role of chief negotiator. While the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet are men with integrity, they are also political appointments and serve at the pleasure of the prime minister and his government.

The criticism of Dermer long ago crossed what is acceptable. There are those who claim he “is not Israeli” since he was born in the US, moved here in his mid-20s, was too old to serve in the IDF, and still speaks with an American accent. The fact that he has served this country with distinction for decades in both Israel and the US, first as economic attaché and then as ambassador – and that his children serve in the IDF – means nothing to them. The fact that this country was built by immigrants also means nothing.

What bothers them is not Dermer; it is that he works with Netanyahu and is close to him. If there was someone like him working for Yair Lapid or Benny Gantz, would we hear the same criticism? I doubt it.

This does not mean that we should not be vigilant. Israelis need to be clear that politics will not be allowed when it comes to the hostages and that the negotiations cannot become a political football.

The only question that matters is this: Will Israel continue to bring its hostages home, or will they remain trapped in the clutches of Hamas?

The answer begins now.

Published by Jerusalem Post

The post Israel’s hostage negotiations cannot become political football first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

If anyone had any doubts after Hamas’s October 7 mega-atrocity, the terrorist organization has now made it clear: to deter terrorism, civilized countries need a death penalty, implemented swiftly, after mass terror events. Allowing terrorists to hang out in prison until they are traded for innocents taken hostage is absurd, spurring more terrorists to violence.

The Gaza ceasefire agreement has condemned Israelis to ride an emotional roller coaster for the next few weeks. First, Hamas releases some hostages, drip, drip, three, four at a time. Israelis try looking past their drug-induced smiles, hoping to see the strength that sustained them, fearing a glimpse of the brutality Hamas systematically imposed on them for nearly 500 days.

While delighting in the hostages’ liberation, calling these strangers by their first names because they feel like family, everyone braces for the hangover. That includes the anguished cries of families whose relatives are not on this cruelly truncated list, or yet another story about yet another terror victim whose life was cut too short by the mass-murdering evildoers Israel keeps releasing to free innocents.

It’s a grotesque exchange. Philosophers – and propagandists – can contrast Israelis’ cult of life, and the price Israel pays to free each holy hostage, with Hamas’s death cult, as they deify murderers of children, of students eating at Hebrew University’s cafeteria, of a shopper going about his business on a sunny day.

Still, people of conscience worldwide have to wonder: how can we prevent this spectacle – and are our leaders enabling it?

When politicians say: “We don’t negotiate with terrorists,” it’s as credible as debtors saying: “The check is in the mail.” Most Western leaders don’t just negotiate with terrorists, they facilitate the sick black market whereby innocents kidnapped are considered suitable currency to liberate homicidal maniacs.

Today’s approaches doubly incentivize terrorists. They know that if they survive the attack, they face years in well-tended jails, bonding with like-minded buddies. And, in Israel’s case, they know they can spend those years suing its Supreme Court, demanding rights and indulgences for themselves that their tyrannical leaders don’t grant others. Meanwhile, their presence in prison encourages future murderers to go violent, hoping to “liberate” these imprisoned comrades.

A SPECIAL death penalty for terrorists – imposed swiftly – will help break the cycle. It won’t eliminate terrorism, or even hostage-taking to free other, less wicked, prisoners. It will, however, minimize the pain Israelis are currently enduring. Perhaps, next time – and there will be a next time – survivors won’t be forced to watch the murderers of their loved ones go free, and then brazenly celebrate their “victory” over human decency.

Urging any country to put individuals to death through a legal process is not a stance to take casually. The subject is especially sensitive in Israel, having been founded after the Holocaust and after thousands of years during which Jews were unfairly put to death for worshipping incorrectly.

But today’s terrorism epidemic is so out of control that it requires extreme measures. The death penalty will deliver justice, restore some deterrence, and is a merciful move: for those murdered and for those unknowns who might be future targets if the terrorists roam free again.

Even former president Joe Biden, as he went out in a blaze of pardons and clemencies, singled out terrorism as particularly heinous. He commuted the death sentences of 37 cop killers, prison-guard murderers, and deadly bank robbers. But he kept three mass murderers on death row, including two terrorists.

Last fall, the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that in the US, “the number of domestic terrorist attacks and plots against government targets motivated by partisan political beliefs in the past five years is nearly triple the number of such incidents in the previous 25 years combined.” The New Year’s Day jihadist attack in New Orleans proved that the Islamist threat from abroad – including the threat of outsiders manipulating American citizens – also looms.

Safeguards are essential. Limit this death penalty to mass terrorists who killed three or more, or terrorists who slaughtered minors under 18. But justice must also be swift. Appeals after exceptionally speedy trials should be allowed only within three months and expedited by special tribunals. Within a year of any terrorist attack, punishment should be meted out.

Although Israel needs such legislation most acutely, other Western democracies should pass similar laws. The message to an Israel still reeling from October 7’s mass murders – and thousands of attacks since – would be: “We’ve got your back.”

Terrorists command attention by preying on people of conscience while sowing confusion. Terrorism must be fought resolutely – and with moral clarity.

Published by Jerusalem Post

The post The Hamas prisoner release is a justification for death penalty for terrorists first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.