Israel has a tendency to execute impressive military feats that often end in strategic failure. This time it’s the opposite: a tactical failure – but a strategic gain. Indeed, the near-hit against the Hamas leadership assembled in Doha earlier this month led to a rare display of unity across the Arab world, the kind of unity that only condemnation of Israel can produce.

Even more significant is that this was a display of solidarity with Qatar, which in recent years has been largely shunned by the Gulf states that rightly see it as the primary promulgator of Islamist ideology that threatens their regimes. 

Reactions to strike

At the emergency summit in Doha this week, attended by nearly all Arab states, participants condemned what they described as a “dangerous escalation” and demanded that the international community and the UN formulate a response and hold Israel accountable. Yet, the harsher that the Arab states’ public condemnation of Israel became, the more glaring was their unwillingness to translate those denunciations into any concrete steps.

In practice, this summit stemmed from the need of Arab states to salvage the honor of one of their own, who was humiliated by the Jewish state. Beyond this, however, it became clear that the strike could not undo the Gulf states’ interest in countering the Islamist threat represented by Hamas and supported by Qatar, nor their interest in avoiding a military confrontation with Israel.

The Trump administration also hurried to distance itself from the operation, with the president stating that it “does not advance Israel or America’s goals” and that he “felt very badly about the location of the attack.”

He said he had tried to warn the Qataris about the strike but that “unfortunately, it was too late to stop the attack.” Still, the fact that the administration took no punitive measures against Israel speaks much louder than Trump’s written message.

Even during his visit to Israel this week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted that the strike had stirred tensions, but emphasized the need to move forward, support Israel, and focus on the Hamas threat and the hostage issue. The practical American message was continued backing of Israel, even if accompanied by diplomatic discomfort.

In Israel, some fear the strike pushed normalization with Saudi Arabia further away. Yet this process is, in any case, in a state of arrest until after the war in Gaza ends. In the future, Israel’s demonstration of operational capabilities may actually serve as a catalyst for deepening relations, since it strengthens Israel’s image as a regional power with unparalleled capabilities.

Sending a strategic message

The strike’s main achievements, however, lie in the messages it conveyed. Israel broadcast that its precision operational capabilities extend far beyond its borders, and that it is determined to pursue its enemies wherever they may be. It also signaled a willingness to act with deception and surprise – which may anger its adversaries but in practice strengthens its deterrence.

In addition, an Israeli shift in its approach to Qatar is long overdue. It must recognize Qatar as the hostile state that it is, despite the current security cooperation between Qatar and the United States. The strike demonstrated that Israel will no longer pretend that its enemies’ most significant supporter can also serve as a trusted mediator, working to preserve peace and stability.

Furthermore, it taught us that although Washington does seek to maintain its security cooperation with Qatar, it will nonetheless not prevent Israel from acting against Hamas on Qatari soil, nor punish it for doing so.

Beyond this, the act also reverberated in Turkey – also a host of Hamas’s leadership – which realized that its own territory is not immune from an Israeli strike. This possibility adds an important layer to the delicate balance of deterrence with Istanbul.

Finally, the most direct message was at Hamas itself: Israel will no longer allow the terror organization to stall Israel’s military progress in Gaza through endless negotiations that lead nowhere. The strike did not torpedo any potential hostage deal because Hamas has made clear that it will not agree to any deal that can meet Israel’s minimum requirements.

Instead, the unambiguous message to Hamas is that your end is approaching, and it will come soon – either through surrender or through Israel’s decisive action.

Published in the Jerusalem Post, on September 25, 2025.

As the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies in the ancient Temple in Jerusalem, he offered a prayer for the state of the nation in the coming year.

“May it be your will, O Lord,” he intoned, “that the coming year be for the Jewish People a year of rain and bounty, of fertility and sovereignty; A year in which the Jewish People will not be dependent on one another, nor dependent on other nations.”

My interpretation of this provocative prayer is that we need Heaven’s help in freeing ourselves from the clutches of fickle local politicians and even more fickle, feckless, and unfriendly foreign nations.

We pray to G-d that we “not be dependent on other nations” – meaning that we not find ourselves overly beholden for diplomatic support or weapons on the United States and other nations; that we not find ourselves squeezed by reliance on capricious Europeans and their on-again/off-again trade and scientific accords; that we not have to beg for protection from the hostile United Nations, International Criminal Court and other nefarious international institutions.

Of course, a certain degree of dependency in is unavoidable in the modern age. Israel’s strategic fortunes are tied to the state of the Western world. Israel cannot manage all diplomatic and defense files on its own. Countering the hegemonic ambitions of Iran is a good example of this – which is why the snapback of global sanctions on Iran this month is critical.

Moreover, Israel needs and wants to be part of Western cultural, scientific and business circles. Our defense/industrial/hi-tech base is dependent on exports and global partnerships. This is especially true of high values services such as banking software, cybersecurity products, and other “intellectual properties” – Israel’s electronic lifeline – which create a net surplus in the balance of trade. And Israel imports far more physical goods than it exports, including oil, machinery, metals, and food staples.

This is where Prime Minister Netanyahu erred this week in speaking about Israel as Sparta, as a rigid proto-Autarky. Israel cannot go there, and talking about isolation and boycott runs the risk of driving a self-fulfilling prophecy.

NETANYAHU is correct about Israel’s need to become more self-sufficient in the development of weapon systems and production of munitions, an issue about which I have written extensively before.

Israeli defense industries need to grow by an estimated factor of eight over the current capacity; and indigenously produce 10,000 surveillance and attack drones, 200 artillery guns, 100 armored personnel carriers, and 50 main battle tanks – per year. We also need to self-manufacture massive quantities of 155mm artillery shells and precision-guided missiles for the air force.

Israel needs to be robustly advanced in national security technologies like AI, quantum computing, and space.

Resilience also means ramping-up and reinforcing services such as hospitals, electricity grids, water and sewage networks, food manufacturing, and stockpiling of core industrial ingredients to last-out a one-year-long interruption in air and sea imports.

But to talk about Israel as a brittle closed-system economy overall, as an autarky, as an authoritarian and isolated “Super Sparta”– is neither realistic nor wise.

WITH MUCH of the world turning hostile on Israel and even antisemitic in its approach to Israel and to Jews, there is reason to be worried. Even in the US, the long-term trend is to shy away from overseas commitments, although for the moment President Trump has Israel’s back.

Europe intimates that it is sick and tired of Israel. It did not take much more than 70 years for European guilt over the Holocaust to wear off, and it now defaulting to its generations-old hatred of Jews, especially strong Jews. Thus, the current EU effort to pummel Israel, to isolate and weaken Israel, to deny Israel weapons and economic benefits. I view the grandstanding by France and others over faux Palestinian statehood in a similar vein. It is a nasty act of defiance and drubbing, aimed more to punish Israel than promote peace.

So yes, it hurts to be at the whim of Western weakness, spite, and appeasement. It is disheartening to be so dependent on a world that relates to Israel with double-standards, hypocrisy, and blatant cynicism. It is uncomfortable to be wedged between Israel’s necessary, long wars of survival on the one hand, and unfair Western expectations on the other.

So, this year, when we get to that prayer of the High Priest, this is what I will be thinking:

“Oh Lord, please reduce our dependency on improvident politicians and untrustworthy statesmen; while giving us good friends, honorable allies, fair trading partners, and loyal scientific colleagues. Make Israel strong enough to work with the world, not fight with it; free enough to contribute creatively to the world, not be crushed by boycott and demonization.

“At the same time, give us the resources to be as self-reliant as needed. Help us be stout enough to set our own red lines and defend them, not be hobbled by feeble red (or Green) lines blithely set by others. Make Israel brainy enough to be respected by the world, not bullied by it. And, oh Lord, when necessary, give us the fortitude to go it alone.

“Help Israel rebuild its strength and deterrence, with crushing and overwhelming victories, over all enemies. And simultaneously, help the nations of the world comprehend Israel’s necessarily aggressive security posture, and fill their hearts with understanding that will generate increased partnerships with Israel.”

ALONGSIDE THIS prayer for both independence and partnership, I have decided for 5786 to adopt for myself a positive mindset about Israel’s future; to embrace a plot of purpose and a belief in inevitable, righteous movement toward stability and peace.

I reject narratives of government evil and Israeli decline. I dismiss the negativism and angry bombast of radical actors, even if many of us are hurting and restless. Our storyline remains is a brilliant tale of justice, determination, and destiny. Hatikvah, the hope, has not been extinguished. Israelis can and certainly will drive beyond the current straits, repairing their internal ills and strengthening their strategic posture.

And therefore, as Israel enters what will be an election year, I will add a prayer on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur for a curb on polarization, stereotyping, and vulgarization in Israeli politics; an election campaign free of inter-communal curses, threats, and denigration.

“May it be your will, O Lord, that there be great affection and peace among all your people of Israel; that we should all be guided by brotherly love and compassion; that we should accept one another and learn from one another; that we should appreciate all your living beings; and that the misfortune of one person should touch the hearts of all. Amen.” (Attributed to Rabbi Nachman of Breslov.)

Published in The Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom 19.09.2025.

This country is on the verge of complete chaos. Every single interest group thinks it can block roads and airports and besiege the homes of public figures. Every sect and splinter faction feels that it holds absolute truths that justify shutting down the country whenever they feel like it, until they get their way – no matter how inconvenient this is for others in the country or how close this takes us to civil war.

This has to stop. There must be limits to dissent and demonstration.

Alas, threats to “burn down the country” and instigate “civil war” are becoming standard language in various protest movements, say, among the hostage freedom “fighters” and the haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) anti-draft “shock troops.” And the protests themselves are becoming more violent every day.

Hostage freedom campaigners burn tires on the main roadways in wildcat style, and residences of the prime minister in two locations have been assaulted. The beat of bullhorns with ugly accusations of “war crimes” and concrete threats to personal security have become de rigueur outside the homes of government ministers – at 6 am, at 11 pm, and any other ungodly hour of the day or night. Even protests outside and inside of synagogues are not out of bounds.

“Kaplanist” protesters have even taken to pursuing government leaders and their families, hunting them down, literally chasing them down the street and marching outside the schools of their kids. The latest anti-government extremist slogan speaks about lighting a “ring of fire” around every minister and every army general who is implicated in government “crimes” related to continuation of the Gaza war and “abandonment” of Israeli hostages.

HAREDI FURY at the failure of the government to pass a military draft exemption law for their masses of yeshiva students (alongside anger at the arrest of a few draft deserters and the denial of budgets to such shirkers of military service) has led to mass demonstrations that choke off entrances to major cities like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Ashdod.

Haredi chutzpah extends to blocking Ben-Gurion Airport too. “No one will fly, if we can’t fly,” they threaten – referring to the possibility that draft-dodging acolytes of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov could be arrested at the airport en route to the rebbe’s gravesite in Uman (Ukraine) before Rosh Hashanah. They even demand the Israeli government pay for part of this pilgrimage!

Last weekend, I saw gigantic haredi street posters (known as pashkevilim) with a one-word screaming headline: “War!” For a moment, I thought to myself, oh good, the haredi community finally has woken up to the fact this country is fighting a long and difficult war against its external enemies and that haredi people need to pitch in too.

But no, “War!” meant war against the haredi community’s perceived internal enemies, meaning most Israelis, who seek to draw Ultra-Orthodox young men into some form of national or military service.

The posters went on to describe the “evils” of mainstream Israeli society (– perhaps that is the source of term pashkevil?) and to threaten to “burn” (lisrof) and “destroy” (lehachariv) the “Zionist state” if yeshiva boys are forced out of their study halls or kollel men are denied discounts in municipal taxes and HMO fees.

The demonstration free-for-all runs amok across the gamut of the upset: Distraught Ethiopian, Eritrean, handicapped, and LGBTQ communities. Angry settlers, disgruntled port workers, dissatisfied farmers, disadvantaged residents of the peripheries, displeased teachers and doctors. Even upset butterfly enthusiasts and bottlecap makers (just kidding, but only by a bit). They all think that they can demonstrate on major highways at rush hour with the declared intention of gridlock, until and unless they get their way.

Everybody else affected by such narrow-self-interest protests – which of course are self-defined by the protesters as emergency rallies of the highest and broadest national priority – be damned.

Unfortunately, the notion that a police permit is necessary before launching a protest or a march in the streets – is wholly out the door. Nor are the police “allowed” to arrest any illegal protesters; that becomes a cause for accusations of “dictatorship” and for additional protests.

COORDINATION WITH the police, not defiance of the police, is the logical approach in a democracy, where balance in civil order is paramount. It is the job of internal security leaders to uphold the important right to protest against, or advocate for, a specific policy, and balance this with the rights of other citizens (who are not party to the voguish cause-of-the-moment) to conduct their lives without undue interference.

And yes, balanced policy requires fair and uniform application of the law across societal sectors and the political spectrum.

By way of example, we all know what would have happened if so-called settler “hilltop youth” or haredi hooligans had climbed onto the roof of the National Library in Jerusalem or firebombed a car outside the Prime Minister’s home. These things actually happened this week.

But since the ruffians are left-of-center protesters against the Netanyahu government, well, don’t expect many arrests and certainly no arrests that lead to actual criminal prosecutions. The politicized Attorney General would never allow that.

I won’t rehash here the horrible disengagement from Gaza in 2005 but recall this: Sixteen-year-old Religious Zionist girls who merely were on their way to protest the destruction of Gush Katif settlements were incarcerated by very aggressive policemen, held incommunicado in jail for weeks, and then hit with severe criminal indictments.

For the sake of both civil sanity and minimal national unity, I therefore support the plan of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir to limit the ability of protesters to block major roads, aggressively besiege personal homes, assault synagogues, etc. This includes highways, access roads to Ben-Gurion International Airport, hospitals, emergency routes, and roads whose closure would isolate communities.

The plan would not interfere with the large anti-government protests taking place on Kaplan and Begin streets in central Tel Aviv every Saturday, if they are coordinated with police (and generally they are, although extremists frequently have broken through barriers to block the Ayalon Freeway).

“The right to demonstrate is not an inherent right, but rather a relative right… and cannot come at the cost of human life and public safety,” reads the new policy document.

I also support the bill placed before the Knesset by coalition chairman MK Ofir Katz that would impose mandatory heavy fines on protest lawbreakers – be they “Kaplanists” or “Breslovers,” settlers or asylum seekers, Ultra-Orthodox, ultra-Right or ultra-Left. The legislation sets fines of NIS 14,400 ($4,300) for blocking critical roadways, and more than twice as much (NIS 29,200 or $8,700) for burning tires or placing dangerous obstacles on such roadways. A repeat violation would cost the lawbreaker another NIS 22,000 ($6,500).

Indeed, I wonder whether these fines are set high enough.

The broader point here is not (just) “public safety” or “public order” – and I am not seeking to give tools to a controversial government (whether this one or the next) to stifle dissent and punish all protesters. Nor am I indifferent to the desperation felt by hostage families, or lehavdil (big distinction!), haredi families.

Rather, the point is to place fetters on our passions that will allow for more civil debate and discourse; that will re-teach us to respect the concerns, viewpoints, and needs of others (yes, travel on unobstructed roads is a basic need); and that will set guardrails so that we collectively don’t drive off the roadways into the ravine. Civil sanity and minimal national unity demand no less.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 05.09.2025

The so-called “snapback” mechanism for sanctions against Iran was triggered several days ago. But the three European countries who made the call – Britain, France, and Germany (the E-3) – may yet fudge the issue and fritter away Western leverage on Iran. They are talking about giving Iran an extension, up to six months’ grace to reach understandings about curbs on its nuclear bomb and missile programs.

That would be a whopping mistake. With Iran charred by the emphatic Israeli and American military strikes of July and weakened by economic and domestic upheavals, the Europeans should be toughly negotiating Iran down and away from its aggressive capabilities and postures, not giving the Islamic Republic a sugarcoated lifeline.

A BIT OF BACKGROUND is necessary. Between 2006 and 2010, the UN Security Council passed six tranches of sanction resolutions against Iran because of its nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs.

Then in 2015, the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: Britain, France, Russia, China, and America, plus Germany) reached an agreement with Iran called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for massive sanctions relief and the release of billions of dollars of escrowed Iranian funds. This was US President Obama’s signature foreign policy “achievement.”

But an emergency brake was built into the JCPOA that allows for swift reimposition of United Nations sanctions against Iran on the tenth anniversary of the agreement – which will be soon, on October 18, 2025 – if Iran is found in violation of its nuclear commitments by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is the snapback mechanism.

Well, the IAEA formally determined this past June that Iran is indeed in flagrant “non-compliance” with its nuclear obligations. And then shortly thereafter Iran showed off its illegal ballistic missile capabilities by firing more than 600 of them at Israel.

Invoking snapback requires a majority of P5+1 members, but not a UN Security Council resolution. (The snapback was specifically designed this way to avoid the UN Security Council, where Russia and China could be expected to veto any decision against Iran.)

Now here is the math: Since Russia and China are in cahoots with Iran, and since President Trump withdrew the US from the P5+1 and the rotten JCPOA in 2018, that leaves the decision to trigger snapback to the E-3.

So the E-3 had to do something, because snapback requires 30 days’ advance notice, which brings the deadline forward to September 18, and the E-3 said it would pronounce on snapback by the end of August, which is this weekend.

At the same time, even after starting the snapback process, the wishy-washy Europeans are offering Iran a way out; suggesting that they won’t actually apply snapback if Iran returns within 30 days to the negotiating table – in direct talks with the US too, and if Iran accounts for the country’s large stock of enriched uranium and fully re-opens its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections.

OF COURSE, Iran is up to its old tricks: Promise, postpone, stall, threaten, smile and negotiate, and then threaten and negotiate some more. All the while, in some as-yet-undetected Iranian bunker, the uranium centrifuges may be spinning.

Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is demanding an extension to the snapback deadline, “to give diplomacy the time and space it needs,” and threatening the E-3 with a “harsh” Iranian response (– terrorism?) if the Europeans play tough.

(Araghchi also this week threatened Israel with a repeat war, and Gulf countries with blockage of their oil shipping through the Straits of Hormuz – if they don’t line-up with Iran against Israel.)

Russia also is trying to buy more time for Iran. It has circulated a draft Security Council resolution that would tack a six-month extension onto the Iran nuclear accord, during which time no snapback action could be taken.

And note this: Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Sunday that the nuclear issue is “unsolvable.” He defiantly declared that “Tehran would never bow” to US, European, and Zionist pressures. “They want Iran to be obedient to America. The Iranian nation will stand with all its power against those who have such erroneous expectations,” he declared.

Given such Iranian intransigence and arrogance, the E-3 must not revert to the failed diplomacy of the past. It must not fall prey to Iran’s bait-and-delay scam. It is high time for the E-3 to crack the whip and trigger snapback now – without waffling and equivocating, without offering Iran yet another opportunity to wiggle off the hook.

This would mean automatic reinstatement of the pre-JCPOA sanctions: a renewed global embargo on arms sales to Iran, limits on Iranian missile production and distribution, trade restrictions, banking and financial sanctions on Iran, a freeze on Iranian assets around the world, and travel bans on Iranian leaders.

Iran is genuinely concerned about this. Given the rickety state of the Iranian economy, such sanctions could accelerate deep rifts inside Iran and destabilize the Islamic Republic; and perhaps even bring an end to the radical theocratic regime that has ruled Iran since 1979.

IN FACT, even full compliance with past UN resolutions may no longer be sufficient. Those demands were the floor. Today’s reality demands much more.

After all, Iran didn’t just aggressively enrich uranium to bomb-grade levels over the past ten years, but it launched hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israeli civilian and military targets. As Jacob Nagel and Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies have written in this newspaper, this alone justifies new redlines.

Among the necessary new redlines are elimination of the three pillars of Iran’s nuclear weapons program: Complete destruction of all enriched uranium, centrifuges, and enrichment facilities. Full disclosure and termination of all nuclear warhead design, related research and development, and any remaining weaponization infrastructure. Termination of Iran’s ballistic missile, cruise missile, and drone arsenals, including ICBMs that can strike Europe and the US.

This also means an end to Tehran’s longtime arming of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other proxy forces; and cancellation of Iran’s nuclear, missile, and arms agreements with Russia, China, and North Korea.

All this would require super-invasive American or IAEA monitoring of Iran’s bank accounts, uranium mines, mills, ore processing facilities, military and missile bases, ports and airfields, along with total destruction of Iran’s underground bunkers for nuclear activities and weapons storage.

In short, another naïve diplomatic deal based on delayed snapback and flimsy-phony inspections, without real-time dismantlement of Iran’s core nuclear and terrorist infrastructure, would repeat Obama’s fatal errors.

Hello E-3, wake up! A dawdling deal is worse than no deal. Half-measures benefit Iran, providing camouflage for nuclear rebuilding. Weakness will whet Iran’s jihadist appetite for rage and revenge.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 29.08.2025.

Every Israeli prime minister since Yitzhak Rabin has planned and promised to build in E-1 for salient reasons: municipal and strategic imperatives that only have grown with time. The E-1 quadrant is critical for the future of Jerusalem and for Israel’s long-term security.

To this we can today add that E-1 is a marker for diplomatic sanity; pushback against the arrogant Western attempt to ram runaway, perilous Palestinian statehood down Israel’s throat.

Here are six reasons why it is right and imperative that Israel build 50,000 apartments in E-1 over the next decade.

1. Municipal: E-1 begins on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives and runs along the road towards Maaleh Adumim. It is the last significant piece of unsettled land in the Jerusalem envelope. It is the only place where tens of thousands of homes can be built to overcome Jerusalem’s serious housing shortage.

Jerusalem already abuts Ramallah in the north and Bethlehem in the south. Environmental lobbies have stymied all plans for significant housing projects in the green mountains to the west of the city. So, the only direction to grow is eastwards, into E-1.

But the city has been held hostage to global politics. As a result, there has been no significant new building underway in the Jerusalem envelope for more than two decades.

No new neighborhoods have been established in the city since Prime Minister Netanyahu built Har Homa during his first term in the late nineties. Because of diplomatic pressures, the Israeli government has shrunk from critically needed expansions of peripheral, middle class neighborhoods like Ramot, Pisgat Zeev, Gilo, and Armon Hanetziv; and has deferred new neighborhood projects like Atarot and Givat HaMatos – all of which are over the stale “Green Line.”

Even as such projects are slowly being freed up now, they will not amount to anything near the 6,000 new apartments a year that Jerusalem needs just meet the demands of natural growth.

2. Zionist Mission: Hard-working, upwardly mobile young families with kids simply have no affordable housing options in Jerusalem. This demographic has been leaving the city, leaving Jerusalem with socio-economically poor populations; mainly Arab and Haredi residents. This has grim implications for the attachment of Israelis to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem must grow to remain a pluralistic and modern metropolitan. It must expand to remain a Zionist city. Growth is essential for the viability and livability of Jerusalem, and the proximate E-1 is the right solution.

Jerusalem mayors Nir Barkat and Moshe Lion have advanced hi-tech employment and cultural projects to make the city an exciting option for well-educated young Israelis. But without a gargantuan leap in affordable housing options – and again, that categorically means developing E-1 – their efforts may come to naught.

3. Military: Highway number 1, which runs from Tel Aviv up to Jerusalem and down to the Jordan Valley is the only west-east axis across the State of Israel with a Jewish population majority. It is the only safe route through which Israel can mobilize troops from the coast to the Jordan Valley in a case of military emergency. It is an essential and decisive military asset.

Israel needs to secure the road from the coast to the valley via an undivided Jerusalem, the E-1 corridor, and the city of Maaleh Adumim. Building in E-1, and expanding Maaleh Adumim eastwards too, are best ways to augment Israel’s long-term hold across this tactical arc.

4. Strategic: A cardinal strategic lesson of the Oslo Agreement failure is that Israel can no longer rely on international agreements and diplomatic guarantees. Instead, its security posture must be based on defense provided by Israeli forces deployed in defensible spaces, and on this basis, it can perhaps reach diplomatic accords in the future.

E-1 leads to the Jordan Rift Valley, which is Israel’s irreplaceable defensible eastern border. It is the buffer zone that protects Israel against invasion from the east and prevents the Judea and Samaria (West Bank) mountain region from becoming a full-blown terrorist enclave.

Alas, Iran is actively trying to destabilize Jordan and turn the Jordan River into Israel’s hottest and most porous border; a front for a next Nukhba-style invasion of Israel, at least. Already now, Iranian weapons (and large quantities of drugs) flow into Judea and Samaria across this confrontation line, which is among the reasons that Israel is building a NIS 5.2 billion ($1.4 billion) 425-kilometer (265-mile) security barrier along the Jordan border from the Sea of Galilee all the way down to Eilat.

The plan also involves stationing a new, dedicated IDF brigade in the Jordan Valley and bolstering the Israeli presence there by establishing “national mission centers,” including pre-military academies and national service frameworks.

Note this: Defensible borders need to be understood not only as markers that ensure Israel’s security needs but as building blocks which guarantee that peace treaties will be sustainable. All this leads back to the importance of building in E-1.

5. Settlement Legitimacy: Building in E-1 will breathe new life into all 150 Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria and reemphasize the indivisibility of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The world needs to understand that settlements are not “obstacles to peace” and do not constitute “occupation” of foreign land; but rather are manifestations of Jewish return to ancestral lands. No Israeli should ever again be forced out of his home, anywhere in the Land of Israel. There can be no repeat of the Gush Katif expulsion tragedy.

6. Diplomatic Pushback: Many Israelis once entertained the possibility of a full-fledged, democratic, and demilitarized Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria living in peace alongside Israel – but no longer. The slaughter of the Second Palestinian Intifada disabused most Israelis of that notion, and Hamas’s October 7 assault buried it even deeper. It is no longer believable or feasible, at least for the very long term.

And yet, paradoxically, some in the world have doubled down on their demands for full-out Palestinian statehood – now, now, now – in complete disregard for the deleterious plunge of Palestinian politics in annihilationist, jihadist, and antisemitic directions, and in utter disdain for Israel’s nationalist and security perspectives. And condescendingly they are going to slap-down Israel at the UN next month by defiantly swearing loyalty to faux Palestinian statehood.

Israel must rebuff such diplomatic outrage. Building in E-1, so anyway necessary for multiple reasons as detailed above, is appropriate pushback (and a modest move, at that). It tells the French, British, Canadians, Australians, and others that the longer they fail to advance realistic parameters for Palestinian accommodation with Israel, the less autonomy Palestinians might obtain.

Europeans argue that Israeli development of E-1 would bifurcate the contiguous land mass that they hope to attain for the Palestinian national movement, linking Ramallah and Bethlehem. Outrageously, the EU is even funding the establishment of unauthorized Palestinian and Bedouin settlements in E-1 (like Khan al-Ahmar) to create “facts on the ground” and prevent Israeli development in this zone.

But the accusation of “bifurcation” is a red herring, as is the insurmountable demand for territorial contiguity. It is quite clear that any Israeli-Palestinian arrangement in Judea and Samaria is going to involve blocs and bypasses, overpasses and underpasses, and detour roads – what has been called “transportation contiguity.” Israel’s plans to build in E-1 need not be regarded as a bar to an agreement with a serious Palestinian partner – if one ever emerges – E-1 is the least problem in this regard.

So instead of battering Israel, the West should be advancing realistic space sharing arrangements for Judea and Samaria. Again, there are multiple ways of fashioning freedom and prosperity in what will always be a complicated mesh of Israeli and Arab West Bank populations.

And it is time for the world to treat Palestinians as responsible adults, with no free pass regarding the type of autonomous self-rule they might establish. End payments to terrorists and NGOs that back terrorists, disarm Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist armies, end attempts to brand Israel a war criminal in international courts, force an end to the teaching of genocidal antisemitism in Palestinian schools and media, demand respect for human rights and religious freedoms. Bring about recognition of Israel by the Palestinians as the indigenous home of the Jewish People. Bake these demands into Mideast diplomacy of the future.

In the meantime, Israel assertively will develop E-1 to strengthen Jerusalem and secure the Jewish nation-state.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, 22.08.2025.

As we grieve for Israeli victims of Hamas’s October 7 raid into Israel, and for Israeli soldiers killed in fighting Hamas, and for Palestinians caught in the crossfire and starved by Hamas, and for the devastation in Israel and Gaza – let’s not forget a key cause of the ongoing disaster: Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s 2005 “disengagement” from Gaza and the attendant expulsion of “Gush Katif” settlers from Gaza. What a whopping strategic mistake!

The wrong and wrenching Israeli disengagement – twenty years ago this week – inspired the October 7 massacre. It not only gave Hamas the opportunity to seize control of Gaza and dig attack tunnels and arm itself to the hilt, but it gave Hamas the motivation and confidence that it could crush Israel.

The fact that the supposed Israeli strongman, General Sharon, fled lock-stock-and-barrel from Gaza in the face of Palestinian terrorism and brutally crushed the Israeli “settler” sector, strengthened extremists in Palestinian society and led to collapse of Israeli deterrence.

Sharon’s argument – that after leaving Gaza Israel would enjoy overwhelming backing from the world to decisively crush “residual” Palestinian terrorism from Gaza – turned out to be utter nonsense. Until recently, the world never truly supported Israeli military action against the jihadist Palestinian state that emerged in Gaza. And even today many world leaders refuse to recognize the obvious existential threats that any Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza would pose to Israel for the foreseeable future

The bottom line is that those who understood in real time that the Israeli disengagement was bound to be a disaster for Israelis and Palestinians alike – were right. The resilient Right knew that the ravaging of Gush Katif was a deathblow to Zionism and to Israeli security. The levelheaded Left knew that unilateral withdrawal would boost the worst elements in Palestinian society.

If all this was so painfully obvious, why did Sharon obtain real-time support from so many Israelis? The answer I think is that the disengagement initiative was a trenchant exhibition of bleak and vengeful impulses in Israeli politics. It was not really or mainly about peace with the Palestinians (which Sharon certainly did not believe in), but, alas, about the crushing of Religious Zionism.

Reflect upon this story from miserable August 2005. This happened several days after the violent ejection of Israelis from the magnificent towns of Gush Katif and the ransacking by Palestinians of the spectacular farms and greenhouses that Israel purposefully left behind for Palestinian benefit. I hosted in Israel a group of 14 Canadian newspaper editors. The group met its peers at all Israeli newspapers, including the then-editor-in-chief of Haaretz, David Landau.

Mr. Landau was an English gentleman, and to me, always a good colleague. While we were poles apart ideologically, I appreciated his advice and even his support. I knew that my Canadian guests would find him fascinating. But this time, Landau’s radical creed got the better of him, and he proceeded to give a lesson in raw Israeli politics to the unsuspecting Canadians.

“You undoubtedly want to know what I think about the disengagement from Gaza,” he told the Canucks. “I’ll tell you: I think that it was the most important and uplifting thing that has happened in this country in decades! It gives me great hope for the future. I am delighted by the disengagement. But not for the reasons you imagine,” Landau asserted with a smirk on his face.

“You Canadians probably think that the withdrawal is a fine thing because it ends the Israeli occupation of Gaza,” Landau said, toying with the visitors. “But that’s not it,” he proclaimed, gesticulating with his hand in a dismissive motion. “That’s not what makes the disengagement important.”

“And you Canadians probably think that the withdrawal is a good thing because the Palestinians now will be able to build a thriving state in Gaza, and show Israel and the world that they can live in peace alongside Israel. But that’s not it,” Landau again proclaimed, again waving his hand dismissively. “That’s not what makes the disengagement important.”

“And you probably think that I think the withdrawal is a very good thing because my sons will no longer have to do army duty patrolling the alleyways of Khan Yunis and Jabalya,” said Landau. But that’s not it,” he proclaimed, his hands flicking furiously and derisively. “That’s not what makes the disengagement important. In fact, that’s really not important at all.”

Here Landau turned red in the face. He began banging on the table and bellowing at full volume. “I’ll let you in on a secret: a dirty little secret known only to true Israeli insiders!” he said.

Now screaming: “The reason why the disengagement is so important; the reason why it is so historic a move; the reason why it makes Ariel Sharon into such a great hero; the reason why it fills me with hope for the future – is because we crushed Religious Zionism!” Landau barked.

Shocked silence in the room. And then boom, crash, whack – Landau pounded on the table some more. “We crushed the Religious Zionist rabbis and settlers! We destroyed their Gush Katif towns, and we smashed their political power! We decimated the Religious Zionist lock-hold on Israeli politics. And now, now, now… Now there may be, finally, true hope for peace!”

Landau then wiped away the saliva that was literally oozing from his mouth. He had completed this bloody baring of his soul.

The Canadian visitors sat dumbfounded. They had come seeking understanding of Israel’s strategic environment and of Israel’s diplomatic horizons. Instead, they were treated to an acerbic exhibition of the vindictive compulsions that course through Israeli politics.

EVER SINCE THEN, it has been clear to me that a very deep and central motivation of the Left’s enthusiasm for the Gaza disengagement indeed was evisceration of the settlement movement and the disembowelment of the Religious Zionist community that largely stands behind it.

This ugly truism was borne out at conferences in 2015 marking the tenth anniversary of the disengagement, held at the Israel Democracy Institute and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

None of Sharon’s aides who spoke at these conferences – Dov Weissglass, Yisrael Maimon, Amos Yaron and others – could cobble together a convincing diplomatic rationale for the expulsion; any logic that stood the test of time. Nor did they express any remorse, despite the obviously catastrophic security consequences of the unilateral withdrawal.

Intellectual figures like A.B. Yehoshua and Fania Oz-Sulzberger were no better. No regrets, no political repentance, no recalibration of their ragged strategic worldview.

“The settlers are just a bunch of fanatic right-wing crybabies,” the foul-mouth Israeli media personality Yaron London roared. “So they had to move a few kilometers away, so what? I moved 16 times in my lifetime and never demanded compensation from anyone!”

Then London let the cruel cat out of the bag. “We had to get out from under your strangling grip,” he told former National Religious Party MK and Gush Katif resident Zvi Hendel, with whom he shared a stage. “The domination of Israeli politics and policy by messianic settler forces was much too overwhelming. So we clobbered you, and I am not sorry.”

David Landau could not have said it better. His successor at Haaretz, current editor-in-chief Aluf Benn, this week wrote similarly with disdain about the “massive compensation and valuable real estate” that Gush Katif “evacuees” supposedly received. (Not true.) He would like to see a repeat of the disengagement in the West Bank. Ugh.

The morals of the story are clear: Be very skeptical of fallacies about free Palestinians living in peace alongside Israel (unless Israel maintains full control of the entire security envelope) and beware the ruthless resentments in Israel politics. Israel must rebuff international pressures to rush into risky diplomatic gambits, and Israelis must refrain from ruinous internal reprisals.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, on August 8, 2025.