Author Archives: Rabbi

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

We are drowning in a sea of clichés that purport to provide guidance as to the policies needed to navigate the manifold strategic challenges that confront us. The problem is that clichés contain some truth but rarely furnish a complete picture and, as such, tend as much to obscure as to enlighten. Some examples present.

One incessantly repeated refrain is that “ransoming captives (Pidyon Shvuyim) is the most important mitzvah in the Torah,” to which all other interests are secondary, if that. Most highways in Israel feature such signs. It is certainly understandable that the relatives of hostages feel this way. Their loved one is the world to them and little else matters. The kernel of truth is that Rambam (Laws of the Gifts to the Poor, 8:10) stated that “there is no greater mitzvah than the redemption of captives,” so great that Rambam repeats this point again in the same paragraph. Yet, the context sheds a different light; Rambam did not include this law in the “Laws of Preservation of Life” or the “Laws of War” but in the “Laws of Tzedakah.” That is to say, ransoming captives is a great mitzvah because it incorporates all the different varieties of tzedakah, “for a captive is among those who are hungry, thirsty, unclothed and is in mortal peril.” In terms of tzedakah there is no greater mitzvah – but even in terms of tzedakah, there are limitations derived from the Talmud (Gittin 45a) that Rambam also embraces (ibid 8:12), that “we do not redeem captives for more than their worth for the benefit of civilization.”

How can these two ideas – the importance of the mitzvah v. the inherent limitations imposed on its fulfillment – coexist? It is quite comprehensible as long as we do not reduce the teaching of our sages to a simplistic cliché. Our sages assumed that ransoming captives required only money, and even then placed limitations on its practice, because the survival of the community takes precedence over the survival of any one individual. (For that reason, the laws of Pikuach Nefesh [preservation of life] are much more liberally applied when the endangered party is the community than when it is an individual.) Thus, the Talmud taught that we do not ransom captives for “more than their worth” either “due to the financial pressure on the community,” which could be bankrupted by recurring kidnappings for monetary ransom, or because “an exorbitant ransom will incentivize the seizure of additional captives.”

In our agonizing situation, winning the release of our innocent hostages by paroling vicious murderers places enormous pressure on the community, which has paid and will again pay an awful price for such releases.  Unrepentant terrorists, pledged to murder Jews, will once again be afforded the opportunity to do so. This is not speculation; this is reality. It has happened, it is happening (just a few weeks ago a precious Jewish soul was extinguished by an Arab murderer released in November’s hostage deal), and it will happen again.

Just as egregious, these deals “incentivize the seizure of additional captives.” There is no way to avert our eyes from that fundamental and infuriating reality. If we continue to make these deals, as we have for 40 years, we are stating quite clearly to our enemies that this tactic works, and they might as well do it again. Why wouldn’t they? Add to this the insanity of withdrawing from Gazan territory we have conquered for the seventh time, which mocks the sacrifices of our soldiers and paves the way for the next round of conflict and more dead Jewish soldiers fighting over the same land. It is a poor reflection on our leaders that they have acquiesced so readily and for so long to these execrable exchanges instead of categorically ruling them out and applying real pressure on our enemies and the civilian population that supports them.

It is heartbreaking for the families and a trauma for our nation. It is reminiscent of a terminal illness in which the family is left to pray for a miracle because multiple life-saving organ transplants would require the deaths of the donors. We can only pray alongside them. It is a trauma that will remain with us for decades which, perhaps, only victory can somewhat alleviate.

Another empty cliché frequently uttered is that the government must take every risk because “it breached the fundamental covenant with the people.” There is a kernel of truth in that as well. There is an unwritten compact between the government and the governed in which the primary obligation of the former is to provide security for the latter. The Hamas invasion and subsequent atrocities breached that covenant as October 7 was a colossal failure at all levels of the establishment – military, security and political.

Nevertheless, if we think a little more deeply, that was not the only breakdown of the covenant. Every time a Jew is rammed, shot, stabbed, or hammered to death, or cannot live in his or home in the north or south – that is a breakdown of the covenant. The government of Israel had a covenant with the residents of Gush Katif whom it sent there to settle – that covenant was brutally mocked. If we cannot ride our roads without being stoned or sit in restaurants without being blown up, then these “covenants” are empty clichés, or, better, clichés recently invented for the purpose of bringing down this government.

The government owes all of us security – not just some – and the governments that supported Oslo, invited in our enemies and gave them money and weapons (what could possibly go wrong with that?), and then have coddled our enemies for decades, “mowing the lawn” rather than seek solutions, and then releasing thousands of terrorists (including Sinwar) who then indulged in more barbarism against us, those governments also abrogated whatever covenant might exist.

Furthermore, we are entitled to be governed by the leaders we elect and not by unelected Supreme Court justices and unelected bureaucrats, both of whom have usurped the people’s power. And we have the right to expect to live in our homes anywhere in our country without the constant fear of missiles, rockets, and drones falling on our heads. A “covenant” between government and governed has hardly existed for many decades.

Such a cliché might play well in television studios and in opposition politics, but it is disconnected from reality.

A third cliché that confounds us is the pursuit of “total victory.” That is surely a worthy goal and most of the people who oppose it are the defeatists who have (mis)guided security policy for decades. The desire to surrender, to acquiesce in Hamas’ survival, to make another lopsided terrorist exchange that will just kill many more Jews in the future, are all products of self-loathing and/or a hatred for the Netanyahu government.

My objection to the cliché is not its substance; it is that our government’s current strategy cannot achieve it.

There is no way around this basic truth: the Arab world equates defeat with loss of land. That is why the establishment of Israel in 1948 sticks in their craw – but that is also why Egypt no longer perceives the Six Day War as a defeat and does construe the Yom Kippur War as a great victory. We have already surrendered most of the land won in 1967 in a war of self-defense. And the Yom Kippur War ended – at least the diplomacy ended – with Egypt (and Syria) gaining territory at Israel’s expense, and within a decade, Egypt had recovered every inch of land it lost in 1967.

There cannot be victory, total or otherwise, unless Israel controls Gaza, period, and resettles it. Seeing Israeli flags flying over thriving Jewish communities is the only image of “total victory” that the Arabs will recognize, grieve over, regret their ruthless assault, and be deterred from attempting again.

The sad reality is that we do not – maybe even cannot – understand the mentality of our enemies. When they say they “prefer death to life,” we shrug our shoulders and deem it hyperbole. The devastation of their buildings and infrastructure means nothing to them. The arrest and incarceration of their terrorists, rapists, and butchers mean nothing to them. They diverted billions of dollars in international aid just to build underground terror tunnels with which to harass us, leaving Gazans as indigent as they were before the money poured in. They do not think like we do. Sure, they might laud “martyrdom” and then (falsely) accuse us of genocide, which, if you think about it, is a reasonable means of achieving the martyrdom they crave. It is somewhat inconsistent – but is logical when we realize that the accusations are only made as part of their rhetorical warfare designed to weaken us, make us reassess our strategies and objectives, and allow them to continue to murder Jews unimpeded.

They really believe that they are entitled to murder Jews because of the “occupation” but Jews are not entitled to defend themselves because that is “genocide.” They are genuinely evil – but this belief is sincerely held.

If defeat is synonymous with loss of land, and Israel’s government has ruled out permanent Jewish sovereignty over Gaza, then “total victory” will never be achieved. Why then are we wasting our soldiers’ lives for an unachievable goal? Why would we even consider giving Hamas at this point the gift of survival through a deal that will only endanger all of us? They need to fear us, and only then will they be deterred and learn to respect us.

The main obstacle that is still unaddressed is that Gazans – most or all of them – remain implacably opposed to Israel’s existence. They have been brainwashed or believe naturally that Jews are malevolent usurpers and that eventually they will succeed in destroying Israel. We cannot wish this away. We can kill ten Sinwar’s and he will be replaced instantly with ten other rabid haters who will rebuild Gaza – again – as a terror nest. The only solution that secures Israel and provides a better life to Gazans is evacuation to other countries; if not, we are staring at the same morass that will bedevil us in just another few years. If they remain, they will rebuild in order to attack us again. Nothing will change and we will manufacture new clichés for the next massacre, the next brief conflict, and the next series of negotiations – all as equally vacuous as the current ones.

Right now, we are negotiating with ourselves and against ourselves. Hamas is not an interlocutor so Israel is the only party that can be pressured and pressured without end. No one can say yes for Hamas, even their “yes” will not be credible, so we assume we hear “no” and keep conceding, but never enough for our enemies, or for some of our friends.

Unilateral negotiations are never sensible so here is some advice. Antony Blinken has visited Israel nine times since the war started but has never visited Sinwar in Gaza. Sinwar is nominally the other party to these discussions. Blinken should visit Sinwar and find out what he will offer, what concessions he is willing to make, and how Sinwar proposes to realize Blinken’s dream of a “secure and prosperous Middle East for all.”

Of course, Blinken might rightfully argue that he cannot trust Sinwar, that Blinken himself might be taken hostage in Gaza, and that he would rather not take the word of a homicidal maniac.

Then he would know how we feel. Blinken will not even visit Sinwar and yet expects us to live next door to him and give him the means to survive and kill us another day.

It would therefore be helpful if Blinken learned to keep his clichés to himself, for empty clichés are potent, time bombs that will harm us. He should be asked at a news conference if he (or Biden or Harris) wants Hamas to survive. That will tell us all we need to know – and how total victory, if it is to be achieved, will require Israel to act in its own interest, resettle Gaza, evacuate those in the local population who refuse to accept Israel’s sovereignty or generally see no future for themselves under any Arab rule, and exact a real and enduring price from those who attacked us.

Then the better world we all want will be much closer.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

The exuberance people feel at the release last week of American hostages held by Russia – Evan Gershkovich, Paul Whelan, and others – should be tempered by the price Western nations were forced to pay for them: the release of murderers, thieves, and spies. It underscores that the West has become utterly incapable of dealing with rogue nations – nations that evince contempt for fundamental moral norms, and not just international law – and that incapacity hampers Israel as well. It was not always like this.

Simply put, the United States indulged a state of affairs in which innocent civilians such as tourists, journalists, and dual citizens can just be grabbed off a Russian street, incarcerated in harsh conditions, tried under false pretenses, and blatantly used as pawns in order to free real bad actors. Such weakness only encourages more such hostage taking, whenever the need arises. The feeble response of the US was to protest, and when those protests were ineffective, to strongly protest, and when those also failed, to create hash tags, sign petitions, bask in their superior morality, protest some more, and then surrender to the Russian demands for an exchange of prisoners – the innocent for the guilty. Indeed, further hostage-taking is unnecessary, as Russia still holds twenty Americans, all to remain in prison until another exchange is warranted.

There was a time when arrests of Americans in Russia would be met with arrests of Russians in America. When diplomats or journalists of one country were expelled, the other country would then expel diplomats or journalists of its adversary. These days, the judicial system in democracies would not countenance arrest of an enemy’s innocent civilians (which does not preclude that from happening on foreign soil, with the acquiescence of a friendly government). As such, the playing field is uneven, and slanted in favor of the amoral countries. They have no limiting principle except expedience. They do what it takes to win or, at least, achieve their strategic objectives. Democracies are hamstrung by their commitment to quaint moral notions that, sadly, have little place in international relations.

This is one reason why the West never wins wars anymore. Victory is never the goal of any struggle; the goal is always de-escalation, and conflict avoidance at any cost. The fact that the US celebrated the return of these hostages – as Russia celebrated the return of their agents – proves the point. The goal was to release the hostages, period, despite the statement being broadcast to all about international norms and Western fragility. The US never even enacted a travel ban for its citizens to Russia, sanctions against Russia because of the Ukraine invasion have had little effect, and Russian citizens move freely throughout the West, unafraid of any repercussions.

In other words, the rogue nations – Russia, China, Iran – are winning, and there is little the West can do at this point to stop them, if there is not going to be a change in tactics. The rogue nations are the prime movers, they set the tone of international discourse, they control the lives and well-being of people far from their borders, and they pay almost no price for it. And the West just wants to give peace a chance, as the rogue nations spread their anarchy and mischief across the world.

Israel suffers from this as well, with the twist that we have for too long indulged the fiction of the “proxy” terrorist groups. Imagine if Israel created a “proxy” fighting force that had a free hand in dealing with the enemy as brutally as was deemed necessary, and then denied that it had any control over this force. Who would accept that?

It is bad enough that Iran wages war through surrogates and pays no price for it – its oil fields lie unmolested, generating billions of dollars of revenue, with Western submission to the relaxation of sanctions – as it attacks Israel and American assets in the Middle East. Far worse is the fiction propagated by American diplomacy that compelled Israel to distinguish between Hamas and Gaza – as if Hamas were not the elected rulers there – and between Hezbollah and Lebanon – as if Hezbollah is not the dominant component of the government there. The Hamas/Gaza distinction was accepted by Israel and greatly impeded the war effort; fortunately, the Hezbollah/Lebanon distinction has been rejected by Israel. What is still extant, and the prevailing theme in US diplomacy, is halting the fighting short of victory, de-escalation, an end to violence, all of which will just allow the bad actors to survive to massacre another day.

This surrender to rogue actors is part of the same pattern that produced the West-Russia hostage for prisoner exchange. And since democracies change governments much more frequently than do dictatorships when the deconfliction inevitably blows up, it is usually on someone else’s watch.

The Allies did not distinguish between Nazi Germany and German civilians, nor between Imperial Japan and Japanese civilians, which is why those enemy civilians were bombed to oblivion (this week marks 79 years since two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and those rogue nations surrendered unconditionally. In the West, the will to win has dissipated; consequently, Israel’s stubborn insistence on victory – and survival – perplexes some and antagonizes others.

The inability to fight evil by all means necessary – I am not even referring to nuclear weapons, which have limited, practical value – is typified by Israel’s uncontrollable and unmanageable Supreme Court which has now taken on the cause of protecting the “rights” of the Hamas terrorists who murdered, raped, brutalized, and kidnapped, and still threaten to do it again. Our justices are unduly, and unseemly, concerned with the conditions of their incarceration. But count me among those who could not care less about the conditions of people who burned alive children, and so incinerated one Jewish woman that she was only identified this week as dead, ten months after being murdered.

These terrorists are not soldiers. Their targets were civilians. They do not deserve prisoner-of-war status. They do not deserve to be treated any better than our hostages are being treated and, indeed, they deserve to be treated worse – because our hostages are innocent, pure souls and they are guilty, contemptible, unfit even to be called human beings. They are not criminal to be incarcerated or soldiers to be exchanged at the end of the war. They are savages who have lost their right to live on this planet.

Similarly, it is a morally obscene that Israeli prosecutors are looking to indict IDF soldiers accused of maltreatment of a terrorist by that very terrorist. They must think that “this terrorist might rape and mutilate Jewish women but he would never even think of lying to frame the accused soldiers and demoralize others.” It is a legal system that has again failed us, does not represent or speak for the people, and should have been reformed years ago.

We hear constantly that our morality is our greatest strength, and we must maintain the moral high ground or we will “lose the world’s support.” The latter is risible, as our attempts to fight a “moral war” have earned us only international opprobrium, charges of war crimes, and indictment threats against our leaders and soldiers. It is the worst of all worlds – our self-restraint is harming our chances for victory and we are still vilified as international criminals. We have been foolishly providing food to our enemies – and nonetheless are still being accused of starving them. Bizarre, but not unexpected, as these are the tactics the enemy employs in its quest for victory and our demise.

Morality is undoubtedly a great strength, but not the modern Western moral notions that have seeped into our society. Our benighted justices and self-proclaimed moralists who sit in their ivory towers pondering the abstractions of “rights of enemy combatants” and “rights of enemy civilians” will only be pleased with stalemate, which means defeat. They are imbued with values that, in large measure, are alien to Jews. They assume that it is more moral to be a victim than to be a victor, not realizing that the greatest moral triumph is the defeat of evil and the forging of a better world.

Victory speaks for itself, and as the Allies did after World War II, they duly deliberated the morality and ramifications of their conduct. But they did it after World War II, not during, and they certainly did not afford their enemies the benefits of our morality that they had so brazenly mocked and callously breached. Morality that is not reciprocated is an albatross, a tool for defeat, and a gift to the rogue nations and terrorist groups.

The West is handcuffed by moral notions it fabricated and improvised (better, that its most liberal, progressive elements fabricated and improvised). Those bear little resemblance to the Torah’s ethic of warfare, which is absolute, designed to completely vanquish the enemy and win, and deter future attacks from our foes (see, for example, Chapter 6 of Rambam’s Laws of Kings and their Wars).

The West must learn to fight fire with fire, which will in short order quell the ardor of the rogue nations, wipe the gleeful smirks off their faces, and rein in their worst impulses. And we must learn that our enemies are not entitled to the benefits of Western morality, which they know is an effective weapon against us and the means to their survival. They are entitled to the Torah’s morality, which prioritizes our lives, physical and spiritual. And those who fear the effects on the Jewish soul during or after a war fought according to Torah norms, fret not. We should be confident that fidelity to Torah itself purifies and sensitizes.

Fighting a war on the enemy’s terms, pace, and morality is a recipe for defeat. The West does not realize that, and so its influence on world events is waning, its leaders are hapless, and evil is proliferating. We must realize that, and soon, take seriously that our enemies want to destroy us and will not be assuaged by soft words or a cease fire, and act accordingly. That is the Jewish ethic that should guide our leaders, and with the help of the Almighty, lead us to victory and redemption.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s critics and haters are outraged that he is planning on visiting Washington DC next week and addressing Congress; then again, they are outraged when he wakes up every morning and when he goes to sleep at night. They claim that he is going for personal reasons, to improve his political standing, and to distract from his failures.

There are cogent reasons why he should go; nevertheless, it is a bad idea at an inopportune and will not yield any positives for Israel.

Certainly, there is a political benefit. Most Israelis will welcome the PM being cordially greeted by members of Congress. Pundits focus on the factoid that with his fourth speech before Congress, Netanyahu will exceed Winston Churchill’s record of the most congressional addresses ever delivered by one foreign leader, but who really cares about this record, aside from the pundit class? The average citizen does not care. There is an Israeli interest in shoring up Congressional support (that does not necessarily require a prime ministerial visit) and ensuring the steady provision of weapons already promised, contracted for, and voted on by Congress but which the Biden administration has admittedly slowed. Nevertheless, all this comes at a price.

The Netanyahu visit to Washington will attract the usual assortment of crazies, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish haters, some of them even claiming to be Jews. The media will duly report on the protests and give free publicity to the haters. Many Democrats in Congress will boycott Netanyahu’s speech, as they have done for the last two speeches, simply because they dislike him and his policies, and are less than supportive of Israel. How the oleaginous Chuck Schumer masks his contempt for Netanyahu behind his phony smiles would be intriguing to see, but it is not worth the trip. What is worse is that PM Netanyahu would fly to a United States that is a tinderbox, already on edge even before the assassination attempt on former President Trump.

In a polarized America, Israel has become another wedge issue, mainly dividing Democrats against themselves. But Netanyahu will be forced to parrot the old cliché that Israel enjoys bipartisan support, which is partly true and these days partly false. The Republicans overwhelmingly support Israel, in our war against Hamas, the conflict with Iran, and the Jewish national story. Democrats, by and large, do not, with Democratic congressional support for Israel far exceeding Israel’s support among the Democrat rank and file.

More egregiously, the White House meeting with Joe Biden does not bode well for Israel. Biden, in any event, is a spent force, barely functioning, desperately clinging to ever-diminishing moments of clear-headedness even as his party shows every sign of abandoning him as their nominee. Visiting Biden at this time is not just a bad look politically; it is almost an invitation to American pressure, which Netanyahu, defying his historic pattern, has mostly (though not completely) been able to deflect in the recent conflict. A visit now will almost guarantee a cease fire before Hamas is destroyed and a hostage deal that frees hundreds of terrorist murderers to again plague our cities and citizens. With Hamas near defeat, such a deal will only resuscitate this band of butchers and earn them plaudits from the Arab street instead of the ignominy they deserve. It will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

But perhaps the most troubling aspect of a Netanyahu visit now involves necessarily wading into the volatile American presidential campaign. Consider that in his planned Congressional address, Netanyahu will have to thank Biden for his assistance, make an obligatory mention of his trip to Israel at the start of the war, and downplay Biden’s insults, heavy handedness, criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war, and the shenanigans with the weapons deliveries.

It should be obvious to all that any praise of Biden will offend Donald Trump, who has repeatedly criticized Biden for his tepid support of Israel, even blaming Biden’s weakness and disrespect on the international scene for Hamas’ attack. Praising Biden – which is the polite thing to do – undercuts an important part of Trump’s appeal to Jews. If nothing else, Trump has a long memory and will not forget this. And it also emboldens Biden in his attacks on Israel as Netanyahu’s tribute will give Biden cover for future recriminations. What benefit is there to Israel for Netanyahu to sit with Biden to hear about the panacea of the two-state delusion? Or for Netanyahu to listen to Biden opine for the umpteenth time that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon on Biden’s watch? None that I can see, and Biden has never ruled out Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon the day after his watch ends, which might even be in several weeks’ time. And to think that the US will take military action to thwart an Iranian bomb is a fool’s errand, and we have been down that rabbit hole for well over a decade.

Conversely, Netanyahu should (and would) praise Trump for all he did for Israel as president – moving the embassy to Jerusalem and formally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and negotiating the Abraham Accords which transformed the Middle East in ways that were unimaginable pre-Trump. But Netanyahu’s celebration of Trump’s support for Israel will enrage Biden. Trump has been outspoken that Israel should “finish the job,” meaning defeat Hamas, whatever it takes; Israel would never hear Trump grumbling about loss of enemy civilian life, for which concern Israel has paid a heavy price in dead soldiers and prolonged the war.

Indeed, saying anything nice about either person infuriates half of the American populace. Is there a way to thread the needle – to say something that will be perceived as gracious to both men without offending either man or his supporters? I don’t see how.

It is a mistake to go now. Nothing will be gained and much can be lost. If the point is to demonstrate that the United States-Israel relationship is strong, that sounds great but is unnecessary. If it were that strong, it would neither need constant stroking nor an untimely visit.

Perhaps the turmoil in the United States will force a postponement. It should be inconceivable that Netanyahu visit the US and not meet with Donald Trump. As I recall, during Biden’s visit to Israel, he did meet with Israel’s opposition leaders. But in the current environment, such would not be appreciated by Biden, as a snub would not be appreciated by Trump.

It is a maelstrom in the United States. Mr. Prime Minister, don’t go. Wait until after the US elections. Otherwise, there is a greater possibility that relations will be harmed than that they will be improved. Maintain the tie with Churchill another few months and visit DC when Israel can gain tangible strategic benefits from an address to Congress and a pop-in at the White House.