Author Archives: Rabbi

Evacuate them NOW!

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com).

Why does the world dislike Palestinians?

This is the inescapable conclusion derived from the disparate treatment shown to Palestinian refugees as opposed to other global refugees. Just in the last few decades, the Western world has absorbed millions of refugees fleeing sundry conflicts – Iraqi refugees, Afghan refugees, Syrian refugees, Haitian refugees, not to mention the millions of illegal migrants that the United States has welcomed from South and Central America and from distressed areas on earth.

Only Palestinian refugees are treated differently. The other refugees were escorted out of war zones to safe havens as international humanitarian law requires. They were not told that they must remain in the crossfire of conflict or that the world will surge humanitarian aid to them. They were not told that Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, Bashar al-Assad, and other brutes would be held accountable for their welfare or suffer adverse consequences. In most cases, the nearest country accepted these refugees until they found sanctuary elsewhere. In the last two decades, more than thirty million global refugees have been brought to safety.

Only Palestinian refugees are treated differently. Egypt, without repercussion, was allowed to deny safe passage for Gazan civilians through its territory. Imagine how differently our defensive war against Hamas would have been waged if these “civilians” had been extricated immediately. Instead, they were forced to remain and are still forced to remain. It is not only that Hamas has physically barred their departure, which is cruel enough but logical given their effective use as human shields against Israel. It is also that the United States, as repeatedly asserted by Antony Blinken, has made it one of its strategic goals that not a single Gazan be displaced. So, they are forced to suffer and die, some through direct execution by Hamas and others by indirect execution – compelled to serve as human shields and dramatize their suffering for the world and thus besmirching Israel’s image.

So why does the world dislike Palestinians?

One reason might be widespread recognition of the fabricated Palestinian national identity, a fiction that is roughly a century old and invented primarily to thwart Jewish nationalism. It is not a group that has a historic homeland or national identity, which was ever independent, or that can sustain an independent state, the delusions of the world notwithstanding. Palestinian nationalism, such as it exists, has attracted a disproportionate share of the world’s attention since Yasser Arafat arrived on the world scene with his holstered gun, hijackings, bombings, kidnappings, and monetary extortion. This was for the second reason the world dislikes Palestinians: it is because in whatever country they have lived, they routinely foment strife, violence, social unrest, and even civil war. Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait are among the Arab countries that have suffered severely since so-called Palestinians migrated to their countries. Gazans have no place to go because even in the Arab world they are not wanted as those countries fear the consequences of even temporarily housing these people.

Nevertheless, the world’s dislike of Palestinians pales before the world’s hatred of Israel and the Jewish national idea. Much of the world – including nations deemed our friends – desperately does not want Israel to win our current wars. We have reached somewhat of an impasse in the battles in Gaza and south Lebanon. Our enemies have been ravaged by our dedicated and intrepid soldiers and deterrence has been mostly but not completely restored. Gaza has been justly devastated – but its population mostly remains. And, sadly, it is inconceivable that it can be reformed or civilized such that Gazans will live peacefully with us. It is inevitable that these Gazans civilians will return to terror at the earliest opportunity, under the name Hamas or under some group that will bear a new name but retain its jihadist hatred of Israel and Jews. To think that Gazans will dwell in serenity even governing their own affairs is the sort of delusional thinking that has guided Israeli statecraft since Oslo.

Since victory eludes us – victory traditionally defined as permanent loss to the enemy of the territory used for its aggression – we have entered one of the worst stages of war: our soldiers are daily killed trying to retain territory that has already been conquered twice before in this war, not to mention three times before in previous wars. We are bled daily by these guerrilla attacks – explosives in buildings and on roads, and the occasional sniper – without any articulated plan that can permanently change the strategic equation. We mourn our losses – but do little to prevent future ones. These days, our enemies gain no strategic advantage by shooting their rockets, missiles, and drones at us; they just lust for Jewish blood. What can frustrate those malevolent desires?

Israel has carved out a military zone in which Gazans are not supposed to enter and that too irks the world, our enemies, and our friends, which resents any limitations on Gazans’ movements. We are living the conundrum that the world demands humanitarian aid for Gazans, while that same aid will serve little purpose other than allow them to stay, eventually rebuild, and reconstitute their terror machine.

It should be clear to all that much of Gaza has been rendered uninhabitable and will be so for years to come. Evacuation of Gazan civilians – in numbers that are relatively miniscule compared to the other global refugees evacuated in the last two decades – is the most moral approach to their future wellbeing, the stability of this region, and the security of the State of Israel. The entire terror infrastructure built by Hamas may never be fully discovered, so diabolical and so embedded in Gaza it is. Evacuation of those who might control and exploit that infrastructure, now and in the future, is the only way to preserve our security and prevent future brutal invasions of our land.

Israel erred in not demanding the evacuation of Gazan civilians at the very beginning of the war. Instead, the government caved to world demands that humanitarian aid be rushed into Gaza, which prolonged the war, on the absurd pretext uttered by the likes of Blinken and Kamala Harris that Israel’s “number one priority” in this war must be the welfare of Gazan civilians. That is palpably false, and a standard to which no nation in history has been held.

Even if were true, the true welfare of Gazan civilians necessitated their immediate evacuation from the war zone. It still does. Gazan civilians, even those of indeterminate number who do not loathe Israel and seek our demise, will never be able to break away from extreme elements in their society who preach violence, jihad, and destruction of Israel as reasonable endeavors and justifiable objective to which they should dedicate their lives and those of their children.

There will be pundits and experts who will say that the world will never allow the evacuation of Gazans and will demand they all stay and rebuild, come what may. They will also say that Israel should not govern that territory but consent to local governance or maybe some Arab coalition. They will say that Israel will always have the right of self-defense if attacked – but then when Israel is attacked, as we invariably will be with rockets, drones, and missiles, they will then say that it is not worth a war. In effect, we will again acquiesce to Arab aggression against us, while knowing these hostile elements remain unreconciled to our very existence. We have been down this sorry road so many times and at such a terrible cost that one wonders why we pay any attention to these pundits and experts.

If the world will not allow the evacuation of “innocent civilians” from a war zone for unclear reasons and we cannot allow them to stay for obvious reasons, then we are at an impasse. But as long as they remain, our troops and our civilian population are in danger.

The war in the Lebanon will not be won militarily until Israel fully controls the land up to the Litani River and barring a Lebanese civilian presence – at least, those unvetted – south of the Litani, and it will not be won politically until the Lebanese people rise up and expel Hezbollah and its supporters from their government and their midst. Otherwise, Lebanon is rightly responsible for every aggressive act that emanates from its territory. And if this uprising causes a civil war, so be it. It would not be the first or second civil war in Lebanon. Better that they fight for a stable polity than we should fight and die because they refuse to do so. And if they refuse to expel the jihadist murderers who dwell among them, then they should be ready to pay a steep price for that reluctance, and not just in the terror stronghold of Dahiyeh.

Similarly, the war in Gaza will not be won militarily or politically as long as a hostile population survives that will regroup as terrorists, recruit more avid participants from the youngsters in that population, and do not feel the loss of the land that is under their feet. There is no more vivid way of demonstrating their defeat than by resettling parts of Gaza.

We must retain the tiny territory of Gaza as a symbol of victory – but to retain the land and maintain the population there is to sow the seeds of the next round of conflict, endure more rockets and incursions, and come to this same crossroads after still more deaths and desolation – ours and theirs.

Could these evacuated Gazans be repatriated at some point in the future? Certainly, if and when they are purified of their hatred and amend their priorities in life accordingly.

How will the world that dislikes them but hates us respond? Probably not well at first, with all the threats of embargoes and sanctions that they use now to constrain our right of self-defense.

But we are first and foremost a moral people, and elementary morality demands that innocent civilians be extricated from a war zone. At every opportunity, we must hammer home the notion that morality demands not the provision of food and fuel in an environment that is unsustainable, but evacuation to more pleasant climes in which they can relinquish their fantasies of killing Jews and focus on raising their children and making a positive contribution to the societies that embrace them. Our diplomacy should be focused on advocating for this moral imperative – and it is vital to our survival as long as substantial elements in their society harbor the fantasy of destroying Israel. We ignore that fantasy at our peril.

Perhaps the criminal gang known as UNWRA – soon to be expelled from Israel – can embrace this goal as their final act before its future dissolution. Rather than continue to perpetuate refugee status and actively foment terror against Jews, UNRWA can provide a new life outside of this region for the hundreds of thousands of refugees under its aegis.

Evacuation of Gazans to the West will ultimately please the Arab world also, especially those who have suffered from Palestinian violence and intimidation. There is plenty of money in the Arab world to contribute to this resettlement; indeed, it will cost far less to resettle them than to rebuild Gaza. And most Gazan civilians would love nothing more than to leave.

Hatred of Israel is a powerful motivator in much of the world. A strong Israel frightens the West – including secular Europe and America – as it makes the Bible and its prophecies all too real. It is high time that we shift the narrative of morality, expose the immorality of the West who also use the Palestinians as pawns, and do what is right and proper.

We need to save ourselves from the Palestinians – but they need to be saved from themselves and their worst impulses. We can buy time until the next conflagration soon erupts or we can try to transform the strategic situation. That can only be accomplished through evacuation now, the moral approach.

The Real World

(First published in the Jerusalem Report, October 21)

Rabbi Dr. Ron Kronish makes a compelling case (Jerusalem Report, October 7) that the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael must learn to live together. He touts our shared ancestry and shared values and attributes continued strife to “deeply ingrained negative stereotypes” that need to be “overcome today through education and dialogue.” If only it were true. My heart is with the writer, though not my head.

All Jews want peace, prosperity, and freedom for all peoples. In the real world in which we reside, Islam is dominated by a relative minority of radicals for whom the existence of Israel is repugnant and unacceptable. Indeed, that fraction of Muslims might number 10% of all Muslims, which computes to one hundred million people of the roughly billion Muslims across the globe. That is not a small number and they wage war not only against Israel but also against the West. They have perpetrated terrorists acts in dozens of cities across the world, and of course delight in murdering Jews wherever we might be found.

We can wish this were not so – Dr. Kronish completely elides this very recent history – but we would be saps to base our diplomacy and statecraft upon wishful thinking. Such wishful thinking underwrote the Oslo Accords and their “sacrifices for peace,” the creation of the Palestinian Authority, the expulsion of Jews from Gaza, the tolerance of the Hamas terror infrastructure, and directly led to the atrocities of October 7 and the multifront wars Israel is now waging. We indulge the saccharine rhetoric about the “moderates” and “coexistence” at our peril; it was the exact same language that lulled Israel into the catastrophic diplomacy of the last three decades.

Certainly, there are moderates in the Arab world. The Abraham Accords spearheaded by President Trump demonstrates that. Israeli visitors to the United Arab Emirates are treated quite hospitably. And yet, all the peace treaties have not changed hearts and minds in the Muslim world. Few Israelis now venture into Egypt or Jordan, and Jordanians and Egyptians have wantonly murdered Jews. Even in Dubai, Jewish public prayer has ended. Worse, after Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, hundreds of the “innocent civilians” of Gaza rampaged, raped, marauded, and murdered even Jews who had befriended them, hired them, transported them to Israeli hospitals. Peace and co-existence are unnecessary with the moderates and impossible with the radicals.

Of all the Arab states that have made peace with Israel – a welcome development per se– it is hard to think of even one that would mourn Israel’s disappearance. Consequently, even these nations that are ostensible peace partners with Israel routinely vote against Israel in the United Nations. Yes, a cold peace is better than a hot war – but there is something much deeper that unfortunately precludes full co-existence.

That impediment is an Islamic doctrine that dictates that any land that was once Muslim remains Muslim in perpetuity, and if lost, must be recaptured, the Dar al-Islām. That Jews have returned as sovereigns in the land of Israel is especially galling. We can wish that away as well but wishing it away does not make it less true. And if 10% of Muslims subscribe to that doctrine, then “education and dialogue” is asking them to repudiate their religion, a fools’ errand indeed.

Many Israelis still delude themselves into thinking that this conflict is all about real estate and finding the right division of territory to satisfy both sides. This is an egregious error born of a secular mindset that cannot admit there are people who take religion seriously. It was baked into Israeli diplomacy, which is one reason Israel’s strategic position has so deteriorated since Oslo. We would be prudent – as befitting a “wise and discerning people” (Devarim 4:6) – not to repeat the same mistakes but to look to our traditions and Torah for our claims to the land of Israel.

It is disconcerting that, in the entire article, Dr. Kronish uses the word “violent” only in relation to what he terms “extremist settler Judaism,” apparently willing to deny the settlers of the Jewish heartland the right to defend themselves and our land. Note the irony that the way Israelis on the left regard the settlers is the same way the world regards Israelis – violent, extreme, genocidal, and other lies. But the settlers are the ones who counter the Muslim narrative with a proudly Jewish one – that this is the land that G-d granted us, from which we were exiled, and to which the Jewish prophets declared we would (and did) return. That is the grand drama of Jewish history.

Must this war end one day, as Dr. Kronish declares? We can hope for that as well, as long as hope does not transmute into naiveté. But Hamas has already infiltrated Jerusalem and dominates the Arab educational, commercial, cultural, and political institutions there. Hamas is more powerful today in Judea and Samaria than is the Palestinian Authority, itself rampant with Jew hatred. Iran shows no signs of abating its Jew hatred and prepares to develop nuclear weaponry, winked at (if not subsidized) by the current American government. And I am unaware of the pedagogical tools that will persuade those who delight in burning children alive and stealing corpses for ransom, and those who support them, of the error of their ways. Sadly, the current battles will end but the war will go on, as it has since the first Jewish casualty of Arab violence in the land of Israel 140 years ago.

When will it end? Jewish tradition in many places (see, e.g., Zohar, Parshat Vaera, end of chapter 7) states that the final war at the end of days will be between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael. Our long and bloody history with our brother Esav is essentially behind us and the climactic battle with Ishmael will be waged over the land of Israel.

This war – all wars – will end when redemption comes and all mankind recognizes the sovereignty of the Creator of the universe. Until then, we should befriend all moral people who believe in the Bible and respect the Jewish narrative. And we can hasten that day of peace not by renouncing our heritage in the futile quest of winning over moderates without power or influence anywhere, but by deepening our connection to Torah, mitzvot, and the land of Israel.

Election Enigma

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

The challenge: How could Democrats replace a feeble Joe Biden who refused to step aside with a younger identity-politics driven candidate, without subjecting that candidate to the voters?

The solution: The only way for Democratic bigwigs to get Biden to quit was to expose his frailty to himself and the public. This was accomplished in a remarkably shrewd way by playing to Biden’s vanity and have him debate Donald Trump in June. Such an early presidential debate – even before the nominating conventions – was unprecedented! They knew he would fail, and then intense pressure could be applied coercing him to step down, too late for primaries and right on time to install their candidate of choice. And Trump fell for it – there was no need for him to agree – owing to his own narcissism issues.

It was a brilliant strategy, marred only by three realities: that almost the entire Democrat establishment had collectively lied to the American people for years about Biden’s incapacity (including Kamala Harris); that Harris had been perceived by that same establishment as a mediocrity who could not win or govern; and the doubt that Dems could get away with not explaining to the American people why Biden changed his mind so abruptly and how, if he is too incapacitated to run for re-election, he is still vigorous and lucid enough to govern.

These three statements are all true and on each score the Dems have escaped accountability. Chalk that up to a compliant media and a willfully blind public. How was it that Joe Biden swore that only a direct message from God would cause him to drop out – and then just days later he’s passing the torch to a new generation? Who was it that kneecapped him with the torch? Americans would surely know by now if they weren’t either so incredibly docile or politically ossified into two rigid camps in which each camper just votes for his or her team.

Harris is an unserious individual being adroitly handled by serious people who want to win at all costs. They know exactly how to market her, how to fool a gullible population, and how to obscure her vulnerabilities, which primarily means hiding her. She has made a career of failing upwards, the beneficiary of social promotions with an undistinguished record in every office she has held and placed in critical positions by powerful male patrons. The disappearing trick can work not only because the American voting public is easily manipulated but also because of the weaknesses of her opponent.

Donald Trump is in an uphill battle. He should not be but he is, owing to the quirks, so to speak, of his personality. Even supporters (like me) should accept the reality that Trump, to my mind, was a good president, but he is a weak candidate, even a horrible candidate. The fact is that campaigning and governing are two different skill sets. Few people possess even one of them, much less both.

There are visible problems with Trump as campaigner. His rallies have become boring, although there has recently been a slight uptick in enthusiasm. He repeats the same lines, jokes, insults, clichés, and boasts. Perceptive viewers see the empty seats at his rallies and the disengaged audiences. But worse than that, the substance of his remarks is always designed to win the laughter, applause, and approval of his audience, but never to reach beyond that audience to other voters. Like Harris, he speaks in ambiguities, endlessly repeating the same hyperbolic clichés – “the worst ever… the best ever…a disaster…never would have happened…we will have to see…, etc.”  It is as if he sees his primary function to be entertainer rather than leader, such that he would rather get laughs than votes. It is not just that Trump is undisciplined; it is that he thinks discipline itself is a detriment to his brand.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that there are no second acts in American lives. In the last century, only one man has lost a presidential election and then won on another attempt (Richard Nixon was defeated in 1960 and prevailed in 1968). It is well known that only one man has won two non-consecutive terms to the presidency – Grover Cleveland, who won in 1884, lost in 1888, and then won again in 1892. What is less pondered is that Cleveland won the popular vote in all three elections against his opponents. Trump, by contrast, has lost the popular vote in his two elections and, by all accounts, stands to lose the popular vote a third time as well. Worse, Republicans have won the popular vote for the presidency only once in the last 32 years, the George W. Bush second term victory in 2004.

That is not a good formula for electoral success because it means that the Republican message is not permeating or persuading the electorate. True, Democrats get to run up the popular vote margin in such heavily blue states like California and elections are won by majorities in the electoral college. Nevertheless, it should be exceedingly rare to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college majority. It is not healthy for democracy for that to be the norm. That Republicans are behind the popular vote eight ball in every election is worrisome. The path to victory requires threading the needle and winning just the right number of votes in several swing states by, as has become the pattern, extremely slender electoral majorities.

That too is a sign of the deep polarization in American politics that will be exacerbated by this year’s election outcome, whatever it is.

Kamala Harris is even more inept, arguably a worse campaigner except when reading a teleprompter, and flirts with incoherence every time she opens her mouth without a script in front of her. But with Harris peculiarly but wisely under wraps, the Democrats have a far better approach. She can be controlled; Trump cannot. To illustrate the problem, Harris’ nomination speech was 37 minutes long, not particularly illuminating, or inspirational, but mercifully brief. By contrast, Trump’s nomination speech was a good 37-minute speech that he delivered over a rambling 97 minutes. It was replete with half thoughts, run-on sentences, and boasts, and it was designed to appeal to no one except those already in his camp. But given the built-in Republican deficit in the popular vote, Trump is far less capable of squandering or turning off independent voters then is Harris. Someone should realize that before it’s too late.

The debate is unlikely to change any minds. An unprepared Trump simply repeated clichés and embellishments, was reticent on details, and could have challenged Harris on multiple issues but was easily sidetracked. His best moment came at the end – “why haven’t you done this already?” – but that is a point he should have pounded repeatedly. Harris dabbled in jumbled words in search of a cogent thought but adroitly – with the moderators’ assistance – dodged every question that attempted to pierce her shell and pin her down on past or present policy. Harris will return to her protective casing and Trump will be left to wonder why his message is not resonating. It is because his message is generally meandering, focused on what was, as devoid of substance as are Harris’ word salads, and speaks only to his base.

The only escape from this predicament is for Trump to expand his base and cut into the traditional Democratic voting blocks. That is easier said than done. With each election cycle, the hope builds that Republicans will gain more black votes and Hispanic votes and Jewish votes and urban votes, and yet it really never materializes. It could, and it should, but it does not. American politics is exceedingly tribal; most people vote for their team regardless of what their team represents or proposes. Jews especially will find every reason – and they are not beyond fabricating reasons or denying the reality that is right in front of them – to vote for the Democrats. For most American Jews, voting for the Democrats is akin to a religious obligation, and the only such religious devotion that they take seriously and perform enthusiastically. Israelis especially should internalize that American Jews’ attachment to Israel is waning – owing primarily to the impact of intermarriage and assimilation – and the Middle East situation ranks very low on the American Jewish list of electoral priorities, far behind abortion and the American economy.

The race remains unpredictable because every poll is within the margin of error and any victory will be narrow. Trump won in 2016 because of an electoral margin of about 70,000 votes in three states and lost in 2020 by a margin of around 42,000 votes in three states. That is volatility.

It is a shame that Trump is such a poor campaigner and digressive debater because he would again be a fine president, even with the uproar his triumph will cause in a hopelessly polarized society. It is a choice between the chaos that follows Trump but whose policies are mostly sound, and the chaos symbolized by the US retreat from Afghanistan, or on the southern border, or on the streets of American cities where the aggrieved can riot without consequence and Jews can be attacked without redress. Choose your chaos.

The United States of America needs strong leadership as does the world. Israel needs an American president whose support is not conditional, who doesn’t mouth supportive platitudes in public while wielding the hammer in private, an American president who prefers an Israeli victory instead of the survival of Hamas and is willing to do what is necessary to achieve it, an American president who will help ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power rather than one who subsidizes Iran’s nuclear program and other global, terrorist mischief.

One dramatic difference between the two parties is that Trump has ruled out the establishment of a Palestinian state as impossible at this time in history, whereas Democrats have made it their passion project regardless of its effect on Israel. Biden and Harris have never called for the defeat of Hamas, surely an American and Israeli interest, only for a cease fire which, by definition, will allow Hamas to survive to murder, maraud, and molest another day. Anyone who feels that Trump is not the better candidate for world stability, for a stronger America, and for a more secure Israel is hopelessly partisan and beyond reason.

That being said, would that Israel always act in a way that furthers our interests and advances our strategic goals rather than looking over our shoulder at our patron. When American support for Israel declines – as it invariably will given the demographics of American society – we will be compelled to do that anyway. Why not do it now – and show the free and sane world what leadership is?

It is a good time of year to purchase my “Repentance for Life” (Kodesh Press, 2023). It is available at their website or here or at fine stores everywhere. Enjoy!

Taking Torah Seriously

Taking Torah Seriously    by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, Esq.

When will we Jews learn to take the Torah seriously?

There are Jews who perceive the Torah as all rituals, filled with virtuous deeds that make us better people, but who derive their values from alien sources. Others embrace the lofty ideas that the Torah articulates but prefer to implement them in ways they fabricate relying on their own judgment. But we are taught that the Torah is “your life and the length of your days to dwell on the land that G-d swore to give to your forefathers” (Devarim 30:20).

The privilege of living in the land of Israel is dependent on our fidelity to Torah – and that is made abundantly clear in an unexpected but revealing way, and quite relevant to current events – in this week’s Torah portion of Shoftim (ibid 20:10-12) where the Torah delineates how we should conduct our wars.

“When you approach a city to wage war against it, you must first propose peace to it. If it responds with peace and opens its gates to you, then the people therein become tributary to you and serve you. And if the city does not make peace with you and wages war against you, you must besiege it.

Rashi, citing the Sifrei 200:5, defines a siege: “you are entitled even to starve it, to make it suffer thirst and to kill the inhabitants by mortal diseases.” That is a siege, and that is a key to victory. That shows the enemy strength and resolve and is designed to induce unconditional surrender which spares lives on both sides. Rashi, on a previous verse, notes that this tactic applies to an “optional war,” for conquest; how much more so would this apply to a war of self-defense forced upon us by a brutal and evil enemy that invaded our land, murdered innocent civilians, raped our women, pillaged, ravaged, and kidnapped as many of our people as it could.

Was the Torah concerned about the welfare of enemy civilians? In a word, no, except to declare that all their suffering could be averted by surrender of the hostile forces.

Instead of adopting the Torah’s approach of besieging a city with starvation, thirst, and the spread of disease, we have embraced the opposite approach, and then complain when the war drags on, our soldiers are killed, and our hostages suffer privation and death. Instead of “starvation” we provide our enemy with food, instead of “thirst” we furnish them with copious amounts of water and fuel, and instead of “spreading disease” we inoculate them against the polio virus. In its worst corollary, we give the enemy everything they are depriving our hostages.

Rather than make the enemy surrender, succumb, and become subservient to us, we argue amongst ourselves how quickly to (again) abandon Gaza. And we wonder why we have fought over Gaza seven times and never succeeded in achieving any resolution. It is because we have scorned the Torah, hear the above verses without considering their relevance to us, and think that the Torah is silent on the conduct of war.

We think that the problem will just go away. Here again Rashi counsels us otherwise. “If you don’t make peace with it, it will eventually make war against you,” to which Rashi comments, “Scripture is informing you that if the enemy does not make peace with you, it will in the end make war against you. If you leave it alone and go away [you will solve nothing and only hasten an attack against you].”

That has been the Gazan reality for almost seventy years, except when we controlled Gaza. Whenever we “leave it alone and go away,” it becomes a nest of terror and a springboard for deadly attacks on Jews. It would be sobering to say that we have learned this lesson the hard way but, unfortunately, we have not yet learned that lesson at all.

Far be it from me to advocate a siege against Gaza, which would violate the chimera known as “international humanitarian law,” most forcefully utilized as a weapon against Israel and only Israel in the world’s effort to thwart an Israeli victory. An unlikely voice has emerged who articulates similar thoughts – retired Israeli General Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council, and, ironically, one of the architects of the expulsion of Jews from Gaza in 2005.

Eiland said this week that Israel should cut off northern Gaza, evacuate all non-terrorist residents, and impose a siege on the territory to starve out the several thousand terrorists hiding there. They will be given a choice – “surrender or death” – and he suggests that such is compatible with international humanitarian law once the civilians leave. If the civilians choose to stay, then they suffer the same fate. “And this is the optimal way to end a war with the minimum number of casualties.”

Many months ago, Eiland expressed similar sentiments in even stronger language: “What happened on October 7 is that the State of Gaza went to war against the State of Israel. State against state. Now, the state of Gaza does have vulnerabilities. It doesn’t have sufficient fuel, food, and water of its own. You can impose a legitimate boycott on that state until the state returns all of your hostages. Humanitarian for humanitarian.”

The reluctance to fight this war along these lines was an epic mistake, notwithstanding the pressure from the US and others to prioritize Gazan civilians over the fate of our hostages or the welfare of our soldiers. We should have pushed back against the West’s bathetic but depraved ideas of war at the very beginning – but even now it is not too late.

Continuing to supply Hamas with food, water, and fuel pursuant to the illusion that this material is reaching the civilian population just prolongs the war. It also fosters the impression among Gazans that Hamas is still in control. That is no way to win a war.

In truth, as the Talmud (Bava Kamma 46b) puts it, “why do I need a verse? It is logical!” We should not need the Torah to teach us the obvious point that strengthening our enemy during a war or abandoning the territory we have conquered is no way to win. And yet, apparently, we do need the Torah even for that – to teach us the Jewish ethic of war, to teach us how to wage war, and to teach how even to bring our enemies to reconciliation and peace. There are no shortcuts and no guarantee of short-term success. After several millennia of existence, we are still learning that we forsake the Torah at our peril, that a complete and wholehearted commitment to Torah is, indeed, our lives, the length of our days, and the only tried and true formula for our eternal sovereignty over the land of Israel. We should take it seriously – during this month of Elul and thereafter.

It is a good time of year to acquire my “Repentance for Life” (Kodesh Press, 2023). It is available at their website or here or at fine stores everywhere. Enjoy!