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.

Forty or so years of Oslo-style arrangements, in which the West cajoled and pressured Israel into territorial withdrawals and restraint against emerging enemy threats – has proven to be an utter failure. “Containment” policy which prioritized diplomacy over decisive military triumphs against jihadist adversaries – has failed.

These approaches blew-up in Israel’s face, with terror and invasion from the West Bank and Gaza, and Syria and Lebanon, and with the march of Iran’s nuclear bomb program to near completion.

Over the past 20 months Israel has necessarily moved to a better balance between diplomacy and the use of force to scuttle enemy threats. It has shifted to thinking like a superpower; to becoming a force that acts proactively to assert dominance along its borders and strategic ascendancy against threats farther away.

Thus, Israel must and will continue to make fierce, overwhelming, and surprising strikes against enemy assets and strongholds from Khan Yunis to Isfahan. It needs to keep its enemies off base with beeper blasts and bunker-busting airstrikes.

Israel wants to be feared, militarily dominant – and yes, even “hegemonic” – not loved. Jerusalem knows that its neighbors will seek true reconciliation only when Israel is strong.

Thus, Israel can no longer accept policies that emphasize “quiet for quiet” and prioritize “restraint,” because this allows the enemy to develop attack capabilities under the cover of diplomatic breathing time; what some Western officials mistakenly call periods of “stability.”

In this new era, Israel intends to project its strength to definitively neutralize adversaries, and in so doing to lead the region – to gather a coalition of truly peace-seeking nations. Israel intends to truly “stabilize” the region, but not through reliance on hackneyed diplomatic templates and failed formulas that ooze weakness.

All this is based on a clear strategic prism that stems from a realistic understanding of the region. Israelis and their leaders understand that the set of rules by which the worst actors in the Middle East operate are ideological, attritional, and genocidal – not accommodational or transactional.

So, for example, Israelis understand that beyond whatever security accords might be possible with the new regime in Syria (headed by the Sunni jihadist named Ahmed Al-Sharaa) and the Aoun government in Lebanon, the IDF itself must and will continue to regularly interdict threats to Israel over the borders with these countries. Israel will not sit back for a decade or two, merely gathering intelligence on emerging threats until they reach monstrous proportions (as Israel unfortunately did versus Hezbollah for three decades, and Hamas for two).

It means that to some extent Israel will intervene on behalf of the non-jihadist Druze community in Syria which holds a zone of strategic importance in the southeast of that country along Israel’s northern border. That is what superpowers do. Israel will not wait for American mediators to calm the situation or rely on UN peacekeepers to protect the Druze and secure the border, nor refrain from hitting Al-Sharaa’s assets because Europe is again investing in Syria.

The same goes for Judea and Samaria. Nobody is under the illusion that any Palestinian “authority” can or will counteract the build-up of Iranian backed Islamic terrorist armies in these areas – which directly threaten Jerusalem and central Israel. Only the IDF can and will; thus, the full-scale Israeli military operations in places like Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nablus to resolutely rout out such threats will continue. This is likely to be a permanent feature of Israeli policy.

And by the way, Israel has no confidence whatsoever in the ability of the EU or the US to substantially reform the Palestinian Authority to make it a “democratic, transparent, efficient, and sustainable governance system,” as per EU goals.

Thirty years and billions of dollars and euros later, the return on Western investment in Palestinian independence is abysmal. There is no democracy, no rule of law, no transparency, no sustainability, no investment in economic stability, and no peace education in the PA. There is only nepotism and corruption, “pay-for-slay” handouts (meaning the incentivizing and rewarding of terrorism against Israel), violent propagandizing against Israel (including support for Hamas’s October 7 invasion and massacres), and diplomatic assault on Israel in every possible international forum.

And not one single new hospital in the West Bank has been built with those EU and American funds. Only one sewage treatment plant. Not a single refugee has been resettled. They’ve had over 30 years to do more! You get the picture…

As for Western (especially US) security assistance to the PA, well, over $1 billion in US training and equipment for PA security forces – including over $40 million in US funds for 2025 – has produced mixed results, at best. PA security personnel have repeatedly participated in or facilitated terror attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF soldiers, including PA policemen Mahmoud Abed and Malek Salem who last week murdered Shalev Zvuluny at a Gush Etzion shopping center. PA security personnel account for 12% of all Palestinian terrorists held by Israel.

This explains why it is so nonsensical of France, Saudi Arabia, and others to resuscitate delusions of Palestinian statehood, specifically now. This is a recipe for devastating disappointment and escalated conflict; and of course, for the isolation of Israel.

Alas, that may the entire point of the French/Saudi exercise – to weaken Israel, to prevent it from growing too strong, too “hegemonic” in its ambitions, too “aggressive” in its military actions, too “dominant” in resetting the regional strategic situation. Too successful in defending itself, including the prevention of runaway Palestinian statehood.

According to President Emmanuel Macron of France, Israel must not be allowed to win so much – especially after its game-changing, successful strike on Iran’s nuclear bomb program. Instead, Israel needs to be constrained, hemmed-in, humbled, and dictated to. “No discussion” he pompously said this week regarding “the need to urgently recognize” Palestinian statehood. It “must” happen, Macron declared – over the protests, and if necessary, over the dead bodies of Israelis.

The situation regarding Gaza is similar. Israel intends to act hegemonically to end the military threat from Gaza and to secure the Negev for renewed Israeli civilian prosperity. This means that beyond whatever temporary accords might unfortunately be necessary to obtain the release of a few more Israeli hostages held by Hamas, there are no long-term accommodations with that terror movement. It must be rooted out from Gaza.

Certainly, there must not be any reconstruction of Gaza without complete demilitarization of the enclave, which probably means a decade more of warfare at varying degrees of intensity.

Do not expect Israel to rely on Egypt or any other Arab state, never mind UN forces, to bring security or stability to Gaza. For years, Egypt turned a blind eye to the massive smuggling of weapons from the Egyptian-controlled Sinai Peninsula into Gaza, and of course it did nothing to stop Hamas from staging a coup against the Fatah-controlled PA and making Gaza into a Moslem Brotherhood mini-state. Nor will Israel abide a “technocratic” Palestinian government in Gaza that is but a flimsy cover for de facto Hamas rule.

The new Israeli superpower mindset applies, of course, to Iran. Iran must be prevented from rebuilding its nuclear bomb and ballistic missile programs and be deterred from rebuilding its network of proxy armies across the Middle East.

Any attempt at cosmetic boondoggle with Iran, say another insubstantial P5+1 accord with the ayatollahs, will force to Israel to again act against Tehran. Israel will apply its updated defense doctrine, its regional superpower prism, of preventively downgrading enemy capabilities and preempting enemy threats.

In short, Israel intends to bugger on and maintain its upper hand. Israelis understand the long-term ideological and civilizational nature of the battles ahead. They gird themselves for these battles with the superpower mindset described here, intending to be a proactive regional power – the only true Western ally – reshaping the Middle East for the better.

To old-guard denizens of traditional, feeble diplomacy, whose antipathy toward Israel stinks to the high heavens, I say: too bad. Get used to a revamped Mideast strategic situation anchored by a very strong Israel.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, 18.07.2025.

Occasionally, it is useful to take a step back from the breakneck-speed flow of daily news with its never-ending fare of political mudslinging and reportage on pain and suffering, and instead read long-form essays that reflect on more substantial ideas and long-term trends.

Here is a summer reading roundup of 17 recent deep-think articles on a range of issues: the Gaza and Iran wars, US-Israel relations, global antisemitism, Israeli society, and more.

Summer reading list 

1. “Iran’s Target Isn’t Just Israel; It’s Us,” by Mathias Döpfner, chair and CEO of Axel Springer (Politico). Döpfner explains why the entire West should celebrate Israel’s strike against Iranian nuclear weapons facilities – because Iran leads the forces of tyranny against the forces of freedom. This most important narrative is still not sufficiently understood worldwide.
2. “How Bibi Buggered On to Victory,” by Prof. Edward N. Luttwak (Tablet). The dean of American defense strategists argues that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s tenacity, against “howling mobs in Israel and around the world that demanded a ceasefire and the Israeli prime minister in handcuffs,” has led to Israel’s conclusive victories in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. To this, he might now add Iran.
3. “From Patronage to Partnership: Re-envisioning US-Israel Strategic Cooperation during the Second Trump Administration,” by Dr. Raphael Ben-Levi (Misgav Institute for National Security & Zionist Strategy). A brave and deep dive into the future of American military assistance to Israel. The scholar argues that Israel must transition over the next decade from US military financing toward greater independence in defense acquisitions and its own defense industrial base, alongside more cooperation with the US in defense innovation and start-ups.
4. “The Dramatic Operations Israel Coordinated with the US – and Those It Didn’t,” by Itay Ilnai (Israel Hayom). The longest and most in-depth investigation (in two parts) of US-Israel relations during the Gaza war, specifically the restraints that the Biden administration slapped on Israel and how Israel maneuvered with and around them. Also, how Jerusalem managed to persuade Washington to support the ground invasion of Lebanon.
5. “The Israeli Raid on Syria that Exposed the Weakness of Hardened Targets,” by Maj. (ret.) John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point (Mosaic). A revealing and detailed study of the September 8, 2024, IDF commando assault on the underground missile-production facility near Masyaf, which was making precision-guided missiles for Hezbollah. Spencer says that the raid was a spectacular demonstration of Special Forces capability with profound strategic implications, showing that Iran and its network of proxies must reassess the survivability of even their most hardened infrastructure.
6. “Hamas’s Human Shield Strategy in Gaza,” by Andrew Fox and Salo Aizenberg (Henry Jackson Society). This study represents the chapter that is missing in all UN and NGO reports – a comprehensive analysis of the use of human shield tactics by Hamas: how Hamas has systematically weaponized Gaza’s population and urban landscape to achieve both tactical and strategic objectives.
7. “The Gaza Famine Myth,” by Michael Ames (Free Press). How lazy journalism, bad data, and skewed statistics fueled accusations of war crimes against Israel. A key culprit in this calumny: Samantha Power, Biden administration director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
8. “To Save Itself from International Isolation, Israel Must Hold on to the West Bank,” by Rafi DeMogge (Mosaic). The author makes the diplomatic case against territorial concessions, arguing that a Palestinian state would lead to war, not peace. Any Palestinian state would almost certainly find itself in armed conflict with Israel, either as a belligerent party or as a passive victim unable to exert full sovereignty within its borders and restrain terrorist groups like Hamas.
9. “The Golden Age of American Jews Is Ending,” by Franklin Foer (Atlantic). A sad but undeniable chronicling of how antisemitism on the Right and the Left threatens to bring to a close an unprecedented period of safety and prosperity for Jewish Americans – and to demolish the liberal order they helped establish.
10. “They’re Coming After Us,” by John Podhoretz (Commentary). A searing lament of how emotionally unprepared American Jews were for the outbreak of anti-Jewish activism on October 7 – on college campuses, at the businesses they own and work at, at the shuls in which they pray, and in their homes and on the streets. It is a national onslaught that has no precedent in American history or American life.
11. “Antisemitism and the Politics of the Chant,” by Cynthia Ozick (Wall Street Journal). This sizzling indictment, the shortest article on my list, is by who many consider to be the greatest American Jewish writer of this generation. It ruminates on the novel sounds of today’s hatred, like the beat of drums to sloganeering such as ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ and ‘Say it loud, say it clear, we don’t want no Zionists here.’ 

• “Multiplied by a thousand throats, these rumbles and roars let out a crashing thunder, a delirium of dervishlike self-intoxication, rushing on in oceanic waves, undermining reason and drowning thought. Here there is no history, no honest journalism, no honorable discourse, no argument, no analytic engagement. Not so much as a coherent sentence. What we are hearing is the cruel zeal of an up-to-date hypnotic cultism: the politics of chant.”

12. “Antisemitism Is an Early-Warning Siren for Western Society,” Douglas Murray, interviewed by Brendan O’Neill (Spiked-UK). On the scapegoating of Israel, the fascism of Hamas, and the moral disintegration of the West – based on Murray’s upcoming book on these topics. “In Britain, we have hundreds of thousands of people who are sympathetic to Hamas…. We need to be able to say that if you want to bring down the West, if you want to kill the Jews, if you hate liberal democracy and you want to subvert it, then there are lots of places you can live, but this ain’t one of them.”
13. “The War Against the War Against the Jews,” by Danielle Pletka (Commentary). The American Enterprise Institute scholar outlines necessary countermeasures to antisemitism – “to weaponize antisemitism against its perpetrators and sponsors” and to institutionalize the kinds of protections imperative to keeping Jews safe in America. These range from congressional investigations and administrative sanctions to far-reaching legislative action and immigration reform.
14. “How Qatar Bought America,” by Frannie Block and Jay Solomon (Free Press). The definitive, exhaustive study of how the tiny Gulf nation spent almost $100 billion to establish its influence in Congress, universities, newsrooms, think tanks, and corporations – and what it wants in return. Frightening.
15. “How Harvard Can Reform Itself,” by Prof. Gil Troy (Tablet). A bold, near-heretical call for ending the tenure system! The prominent public intellectual and presidential historian, who is also one of Israel’s greatest defenders on the global stage (as well as being a regular op-ed contributor to The Jerusalem Post), builds on the failures of Harvard to combat antisemitism and anti-Americanism to argue that lifetime guarantees of academic employment produce torpor and ideological extremism.
16. “The Israeli Reservists Who Just Won’t Quit,” by Daniel Polisar (Mosaic). The Shalem College leader painstakingly and upliftingly demonstrates how the IDF’s citizen soldiers are revitalizing the Zionist ideal. He details the sacrifices of these “unsung heroes” and their families, and he demolishes the misleading claim frequently made in the media that reservists are showing up for duty in ever-declining numbers and that the reserve army is “on the brink of collapse.”
17. “Why Are Israelis So Happy?” by Natan Sharansky and Gil Troy (Tablet). In a world of globalized alienation, secular and religious Israelis alike remain proudly connected to their story as a people, through rituals as old as the Passover Seder and as new as the letters soldiers write before they go into battle, sometimes sadly their last. “A healthy commitment to community, connectedness, and history anchors us. It motivates us to defend ourselves when necessary, while inspiring us always to build a better world.

 Published in the Jerusalem Post, on July 11, 2025

The straw man of “settler violence” was this week once again spit out by supposed “allies” of Israel in the West to justify the obnoxious imposition of sanctions against two right-wing Israeli cabinet ministers.

The sanctions are galling, and the accusation is false. The move effectively brands Israel a pariah state, even though it was wrapped in fussing-phony language about friendship for Israel.

And it does so based on systematic distortions and demonization. “Settler violence” is an ugly, fringe phenomenon falsely and purposefully puffed-up to ‘balance’ the crimes of Hamas.

The “settler violence” narrative is a well-funded juggernaut; no less than an international campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel and the IDF, to justify violence against Israeli soldiers and civilians, and to pave the way for a runaway Palestinian state.

This is proven by two new, important reports: OCHA-oPT – The UN Organ Behind the “Settler Violence” Smear Campaign, by Adv. Avraham Shalev of the Kohelet Policy Forum; and False Flags and Real Agendas – The Making of a Modern Blood Libel: The ‘Settler Violence’ Narrative as a Weapon in the Battle to Delegitimize the Jewish Presence in Judea and Samaria and the State of Israel, by Adv. Yona Admoni (Coblenz) and Moriah Michaeli of the Regavim Movement.

OCHA is the “Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory” – the “humanitarian” arm of the UN Secretariat, which coordinates the work of about 80 UN groups and NGOs operating in Judea & Samaria. Shalev definitively shows how is the font of all so-called “settler evil” statistics. He reveals how OCHA relies on organizations whose entire purpose is to destroy Israel and those clearly aligned with Palestinian terrorist organizations.

According to Shalev, OCHA’s grossly biased and fabricated reports even count many cases of Arab terror attacks on Jews, and left-wing anarchist attacks on settlers, as “settler violence.” Yet OCHA is the “authoritative” source quoted by every foreign ministry in the world about Israel’s “monstrous” settler crimes. (Monstrous is the wild word disgustingly used this week by British Foreign Minister David Lammy.)

The Biden Administration’s State Department – which played a major role in revving-up the fallacious settler violence story line – relied on OCHA too.

Regavim’s deep dive into this issue (125 pages, including detailed statistical appendices) further shows how the so-called “settler violence” is a carefully planned and well-funded international campaign; a crusade to drive the notions that there is a “widespread” (– did somebody say “monstrous”?) phenomenon of violence by settlers in Judea and Samaria against Arab residents in the area (– not isolated instances of violence) and that the Israeli government is complicit in this. And to turn this into common knowledge, into “undisputed fact.”

Note: Neither report denies that there are Israelis who act violently toward Palestinians, and that these attacks are wrong, injurious, immoral, and destabilizing.

But the reports convincingly show that this is not a widespread phenomenon; and that there is a vast gap between the branding, focus, and preoccupation with marginal incidents of violence perpetrated by Jews against Arabs in comparison with the incidence, frequency, severity and prevalence of other incidents of violence (against Israelis!) in Judea and Samaria and in Israel as a whole. The reports also demonstrate that Israeli authorities indeed are addressing the problem (although I think that an even tougher Israeli hand is required.)

Regavim: “The fact that thousands of events, most entirely unrelated to violence, and many occurring outside of Judea and Samaria, are labeled ‘settler violence,’ is eerily parallel to Hamas’s murderous logic in claiming that residents of Kibbutz Be’eri and Kfar Aza are ‘settlers’ – or to the absurd declarations of the official Palestinian news agency, which reports on ‘settler roadblocks’ in Tel Aviv in protest of the Netanyahu-led right-wing government.”

“The absurdity deepens as Arab terror attacks are counted as ‘settler violence’ if they end with the terrorist being killed or injured. Even IDF interdiction of terrorists bith during military operations and in thwarted terror attacks is labeled as settler violence. Fabricated events – which a basic check proves never happened – as well as thousands of peaceful visits by Jews to the Temple Mount, or official government actions such as land declarations, settlement planning, or nature reserve designations – all are included in OCHA’s ‘databases’ as incidents of ‘settler violence’.”

Worse still, Regavim’s report also persuasively demonstrates how Palestinian Authority officials together with extreme left-wing Israeli and foreign organizations openly plan confrontations with IDF soldiers and Jewish residents in Judea & Samaria to provoke them into violent behavior – which is then filmed and edited (i.e., distorted) to fuel the “settler violence” narrative. Regavim also tracks the foreign money routes that fund this malicious effort.

Regavim criticizes the Israeli government for its failure to respond to the “settler violence” campaign. “Israel has neglected to offer a unified, official, and transparent database on the actual scope of ideologically motivated crimes both by Jews and by Arabs. With such data, alongside proportionate framing and factual context, it would have been easy to debunk the campaign at much earlier stages. The lack of official Israeli data has given tailwind to the campaign.”

I KNOW that Regavim is right in this regard because two years ago I conducted my own research into this issue, and struggled mightily to pry real statistics out of the Israeli security establishment.

I submitted a formal request for information to the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), which is the government arm responsible for tracking and countering violence in Judea and Samaria.

From the detailed and precise statistics I eventually received, it became crystal clear that there had not been a significant increase, no “surge,” in right-wing Israeli-Jewish violence against Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria since the beginning of the current Gaza war compared to earlier periods.

I also learned that “violence” in this context means many different things, from verbal altercations and rock throwing (what the ISA calls “frictions” or “harassment”), to spray-painting of anti-Arab slogans and other undercover vandalism including agricultural vandalism (“price tag activities”), to firebombing of homes or mosques (which are classified as outright “terrorist strikes”).

I learned that the more serious type of incidents had dropped by 50% thanks to Israeli enforcement actions. And that there is no evidence whatsoever of wild accusations (say, by B’Tselem or Yesh Din) that hundreds of Palestinians from many communities have been forced to abandon their homes due to fear of settler attacks. And that indeed many of the Palestinians listed by OCHA as victims of settler violence are in fact Palestinian terrorists killed by Israeli troops in necessary, defensive and offensive operations.

It is unfortunately true that altercations and aggressions by settlers in 2022 and 2024 rose over that in 2020, 2021, and 2023. Perhaps this is because Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, in fact all citizens of Israel, had been subject to a wild wave of murderous Palestinian terrorist attacks ever since 2022.

In case officials in Washington, London, Ottawa, Canberra, Wellington, and Oslo have forgotten, here is a reminder. In 2022, there were more than 5,000 Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli Jews, including car-ramming, shooting, stabbing, and bombing of innocent men, women, and children. These attacks included over 500 Molotov cocktail attacks (firebombs), leading to the injury of more than 150 Israelis. There was a 210% rise in rock throwing incidents in 2021 over 2020, and a 156% rise in bomb throwing incidents in 2021 over 2020.

And in spring-summer 2023, Palestinian terrorists slaughtered close to 40 Israelis in and beyond the Green Line, with more than 3,640 recorded acts of Palestinian and Arab terror throughout Israel, including 2,118 cases of rock-throwing, 799 fire-bombings, 18 attempted stabbings, and six vehicular assaults.

Palestinian terrorism in central Israel was even worse in 2024 (although I don’t have exact statistics), and this can be layered onto Hamas’ truly horrific attacks in the Gaza envelope in late 2023, and the tens of thousands of rockets subsequently fired into Israel.

And yet, I don’t recall hearing about sanctions levied by Washington, London, Ottawa, Canberra, Wellington, and Oslo against ministers in Palestinian governments or ministers in Arab governments supporting hostile Palestinian operations against Israel. Say, ministers in Qatar, Turkey, and Yemen.

So, is there Jewish violence in Judea and Samaria? Yes. We all have seen the dreadful videos of settlers in kipas and keffiyas setting fire to Palestinian cars or trees at night. This is unacceptable, and I hold no wellspring of sympathy for the hilltop wild boys involved. Israel must aggressively combat this lawlessness.

But has there been an enormous, out-of-control surge in settler violence recently? No.

And is there a culture of Jewish violence in settler communities? Also no.

In fact, attacks on Palestinian property and individuals committed by a few extremists at the fringes of an overwhelmingly peaceful community of half a million Israelis who live over the Green Line calculates to a level of violence that is lower than that done by Israelis against Israelis in greater Tel Aviv!

And without meaning to diminish the problematics of extremist Israeli attacks on Palestinians, violence by some settlers also pales in comparison to the “regular” 5,000 Palestinian boulder, bomb, and shooting attacks a year aimed at killing Israeli civilians.

And again, this super-pales in comparison to the 1,200 Israelis slaughtered by Hamas on Oct. 7 or the reign of terror inflicted on all Israelis by the thousands rockets and missiles fired by Hamas (and Hezbollah and the Houthis and Iran) into Israeli civilian population centers.

But what the heck. It is great performative political theater to sanction right-wing Israeli cabinet ministers. The conjuring-up of really bad Israelis – who, gulp, don’t support a helter-skelter rush to Palestinian statehood in addition to their other settlement “crimes” – seems to provide some Westerners (those who dislike Israel but still want to hide their antipathy) with some ersatz moral counterweight to their condemnations of Hamas violence.

Stop throwing pernicious pieties about “settler violence” in Israel’s face as it fights for its very life against genocidal Hamas and hegemonic Iran. At best, this is a red herring issue. At worst, it is an ugly attempt to discredit the righteousness of Israel’s war effort.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 13.06.2025