Tag Archives: Israel

The Price of Appeasement

(First published at Israelnationalnews,com)

It is outrageous enough that negotiations are taking place between the United States and Iran that directly affect the lives and well being of millions of Israelis but without the participation of Israel and with the expectation that we will simply acquiesce to any decisions that are made. This is eerily reminiscent of the treatment of Czechoslovakia in 1938, where its territory was dismembered at Munich and soon thereafter its sovereignty was entirely lost.

This analogy casts Iran in the role of the Nazis, which they would accept as a compliment. And it also casts Vice President JD Vance (if he were a rival, Trump would invariably nickname him “Shady J. D.”) in the role of Neville Chamberlain, with a full beard instead of a bushy mustache. In truth, it is Lebanon whose land is being segmented and whose sovereignty is being forfeited to foreigners, not Israel’s. But it is our lives that are at stake as well as the viability of our communities in the north, and all to appease a genocidal foe that has been able to humiliate the United States even from a position of abject weakness.

Worse, though, is Vance’s ill-disguised contempt for Israel and for Jews as indicated by a torrent of statements he made, some prepared, some improvised. As strange as it must sound to normal-thinking people, since Vance got involved the only nation he has singled out for criticism in the entire region has been Israel, which is the only nation in the region that has been threatened with extermination by Iran (Vance’s new pals, at least the “moderates” he has uncovered, as so many gullible Americans have as well in the last half-century when it suits them). He has not internalized this: if the deal “makes Iran weaker,” as Vance claims, why are they celebrating – and then mocking and threatening the United States? They don’t sound defeated, especially now that the US has effectively ceded control over the Straits of Hormuz to Iran.

What Vance has said is certainly offensive but nevertheless deserves answers. For example, this classic: “Over the last three months, two thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars.” And 100% of those weapons were improved, refined, tested, and deployed by the IDF, with the results shared with the US, at the price of Jewish blood and treasure, saving the US billions of dollars in research and development.

The good news is that Israel used them successfully, thank G-d, as opposed to the US military, which mostly did not. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported what was previously concealed – that Iran essentially destroyed the major US naval base in Bahrain during the war. The American failure to dislodge Iran from the Straits or defend its Gulf allies undoubtedly played an enormous role in the US cut and run from this conflict. Trump can tout the US military with typical braggadocio as the “most powerful in the world,” but, sad to say, it underperformed and did not achieve US objectives in the war. The boast means nothing; the facts on the ground, in the air, and in the Straits prove otherwise.

Israel is grateful for American assistance, money that for many reasons is well spent for purposes of American security, but we would be better off without this dependence. And the suggestion being floated that the US should relocate its destroyed Bahrain base (or other bases) to Israel is insane and should be ruled out by Israel. The presence of American forces in Israel impairs our security. It would constrain our freedom of operation. Imagine having to consult with American officials every time our fighter jets departed; imagine US troops being killed, G-d forbid, in a future conflict or in a terrorist attack. We have always taken pride in defending ourselves without US soldiers to assist us, and we should adhere to that (and swiftly shutter the Kiryat Gat base).

What else did Vance say? In response to pointed criticism of the MoU by Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, Vance suggested that “Donald J Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time.” And then he got testy. “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world… Anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the President of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation in that country.”

Well, first, it is not true. There are plenty of heads of state sympathetic to Israel, even discounting our steadfast friends Micronesia, Palau and now Somaliland. Israel has warm ties with India (the most populous country on earth) and Azerbaijan, and most recently, relations with Bolivia and Colombia are strengthening. The Czech Republic is friendly as is Poland most of the time. Israel is Vietnam’s second largest supplier of weapons. And there are others who respect and sympathize with Israel but circumstances (fear of Muslim terror) force them to be less vocal about it.

Second, what Vance ignores or dismisses is precisely “the reality of the situation” in Israel. We are not surrounded by Canada, Mexico, and two oceans. We are surrounded by enemies – some of whom have “peace treaties” with us that preserve a non-belligerency without a real peace. And encircled by others who openly proclaim their genocidal ambitions – “to wipe us off the map, to drive us into the sea, to reverse this insult to Islam, to excise this cancerous tumor,” to use their words. It is a region of dictators and autocrats, some of whom seized power by force and others who ascended to power by heredity. That doesn’t even begin to address the designs of our enemies within our borders. Perhaps Vance needs to wake up. The United States might have the luxury of ignoring its enemies; Israel and the Jewish people do not. His only suggestion in dealing with those who wish to exterminate us is appeasement and heeding his every dictate.

Furthermore, Vance declared, “What is your exact proposal? You’re a ​country of 9 million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.” To which Ben Gvir responded, and good for him, “This is the proposal … To deal with the Nazis of the 21st century, just as the United States dealt with the Nazis of the 20th century.” If Vance thinks that genocidal foes will be deterred by words and agreements (forget, signing ceremonies, as the Iranians still refuse to appear in public with the Americans), then his isolationism is as misguided as it is hazardous for Israel and the United States. He has a peculiar morality that would grant immunity to terrorists who hide among civilians, even when those civilians are supportive and share the goals of the terrorists.

But one question lingers: Why isn’t the world sympathetic to us, in Vance’s language? This is a perplexing question that has deep roots and makes many people uncomfortable, including many Jews. Why are we so hated? Why are we the only nation on the globe that is the target of such disdain, and for whom nations actively plan its demise? The only one!

Why would nations as diverse as Spain, Burkina Faso, Brunei, South Africa, Turkey, Bangladesh, and Australia have such animus towards Israel?

For sure, it must perplex even kind-hearted people across the world: why are Jews so hated? Why were we the victims of repeated pogroms, expulsions, and the Holocaust? Why, having returned to our ancient homeland in accordance with biblical prophecy, does Israel remain the only nation on earth whose very existence is found threatening and unacceptable?

Such questions cannot be fully answered in a brief essay and perhaps never fully understood. The answers go to the mystery and majesty of the Jewish experience that bewilders many Jews and certainly affronts many of our foes. Many unthinking Jews just assume that we must be doing something wrong because, if not, we would be loved! After all, we bring so much good to the world – kindness, morality, inventions, development, culture, etc. We are the first to respond when natural disasters strike anywhere in the world and still remain unpopular even among beneficiaries of our kindnesses.

Thus, Herzl thought that Jew hatred would end if we had our own state. Many in the world, including misguided Jews, today believe that Jew hatred would end if we didn’t have a state. Others feel that if we are hated, it is because we don’t make a sufficient effort to be loved, or haven’t conceded or surrendered enough in Israel, or haven’t established a Palestinian state, or didn’t build settlements, or … whatever. None of this is true.

The roots of Jew hatred go back to our forefathers and their covenant with G-d, to the Torah that we received at Sinai, to our maddening and inexplicable survival for thousands of years despite being the objects of unending enmity. Our forefathers dealt with genocidal enemies, as did their descendants, throughout history and down to our day. Our foes despise us because of our religion, and theirs, or because they have no religion (like the Communists) and resent our fidelity to ours. They hate us as rootless cosmopolitans or as colonialist masters over a tiny parcel of land. They have long chanted “go back to Israel” until we did, and now they chant “from the river to the sea” we have no claims or right to be here. Their hatred is based on overt jealousy and ill-considered fear, on opposition to the notion of a “chosen people,” on resentment towards those who are deemed “the favorites,” on barely disguised religious antagonism. It has nothing to do with where we live and how we act but entirely with who we are as a nation.

Shady J.D. Vance opposed the war, so much so that he was the only leading national security official not to be present in Mar-a-Lago when the most recent hostilities were launched. But his particular snarkiness – the only nation on the globe he taunts, since his verbal attacks on Ukraine were ignored by Zelensky – seems to be based on his newfound faith about which he is peddling a new book, as if he is personally trying to resuscitate the ancient Catholic disparagement of Jews.

He would do well to consider not only the fates of Bilaam and Balak but moreover, the historical reality that goes back to ancient times, to G-d’s promise to Avraham: “And I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you, and all the families of the land will be blessed through you” (Breisheet 12:3).

May all those who support Israel share in the divine blessings.

Trump Goes Wobbly

(Versions of this first appeared at jns.org and Israelnationalnews.org))

In August 1990, days after Iraq invaded and conquered Kuwait, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pressed President George H. W. Bush on taking decisive military action. Bush agreed, but when he at first deferred to the United Nations for support, Thatcher challenged him, and famously said, “This is no time to go wobbly, George.” Less than six months later, the United States and allies launched the Gulf War, and within a few weeks, Kuwait was liberated, Saddam’s forces were routed, and the Iraqi threat was, for a time, neutralized.

Donald Trump has gone wobbly. Lacking another world leader with the fortitude of Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Trump lacks any counterforce and thus is torn between several of his more engaged advisors – some of whom are obviously pained and troubled by the deal with Iran – and his more isolationist advisors, who want to cut US losses and run. Across the world, Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer is the anti-Thatcher, Europe’s leaders are docile and primed for appeasement, Russia and China can sense American impotence, and the Gulf States are more afraid of Iran than respect the United States.

The only world leader who still wants to defeat the menace of radical Islam is Binyamin Netanyahu, who has now been set up by Trump as the scapegoat if the agreement with Iran fails, no matter the reason. It can fail because Israel will still not accept an Iran with extensive ballistic missile capabilities (something that Trump has now accepted), because Israel will not withdraw from the land it has freed from Hezbollah domination in southern Lebanon, because Israel cannot accept the remilitarization of Iran’s terrorist proxies, or because Israel is unconvinced of Iran’s sincerity in abandoning its nuclear weapons program.

Indeed, to anyone who does believe that Iran will voluntarily disavow its nuclear program I would gladly sell them a bridge in Brooklyn that can be renamed the Trump Bridge.

Trump’s concessions are quite flabbergasting. He has already conceded that the 60-day deadline is not final. The Iranian negotiators, masters of procrastination and obfuscation, are playing Trump and will simply delay as long as necessary, knowing the resumption of war is unlikely and especially having received sanctions relief that will enable them to feed their fighters and spread their terror.

More stunning are two admissions that Trump made during his press conference on Wednesday: that the United States never thought that Iran would close the Straits of Hormuz or launch attacks on the oil infrastructure of its Gulf neighbors.

It is hard to underestimate the level of unpreparedness this reflects. Was a US attack on Iran never war-gamed? The essence of war gaming is anticipating the possible responses of the enemy, who, after all, also has a say in how the war is conducted. Was this not done – or, worse, was it done, but Trump simply ignored it because he admittedly prefers to rely on his own instincts?

This fiasco was compounded by two great failures of the US military. The first was the inability to reopen the Straits of Hormuz to international shipping, dubbed Operation Project Freedom, which was aborted before it began. Ultimately it does not matter whether the Straits remained closed because of the United States’ lack of capability or lack of willpower to reopen them, willpower being an essential element in the conduct of warfare.

This failure emboldened Iran, which now knows that it can open and close the Straits at will, thus disrupting the global economy. Israel may soon be facing Iranian demands such as withdraw from Lebanon and Gaza, divide Jerusalem, or establish a Palestinian state – or Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz to world shipping. If that occurs, that will be a Donald Trump legacy.

The second failure – just as staggering – was the United States’ inability to protect its Gulf allies from Iranian attacks that caused extensive damage to land and infrastructure. It is incomprehensible that these Gulf kingdoms – purchasers of hundreds of billions of dollars in American weapons over the decades – could not protect their own territory. Even more egregious was the reluctance to respond in kind to Iran’s infrastructure, now rendered sacrosanct and off limits to attack, purportedly to allow the Iranian people a greater chance at prosperity once the regime collapsed. There is little chance of that happening now.

Trump going wobbly – when Iran was weakened as never before – has succeeded only in empowering and enriching Iran, heartening the enemies of America and Israel, and intimidating the Gulf states in casting their destiny with Iran and not with the West. And all to save a dollar a gallon in the price of oil or seriously plan on fighting history’s first casualty-free war or chase the chimera of retaining Republican control over Congress this autumn.

A sagacious Israel should realize the limits of American support and prioritize its own interests, as all countries do. This includes not only the judicious use of the word “no,” when the demand is made that we withdraw again from Lebanon but also our demand that the American military base outside Gaza be shuttered forthwith. There is absolutely no good that will come to Israel by having American forces on its soil. If anything, they will limit our freedom of action to fight terror.

That being said, the attack on Iran was still useful. It halted Iran’s march to the bomb and greatly weakened Iran’s proxies. Israel is far better situated now than before the war. But Iran saw and sees through Trump’s blustery threats, including the vacuities about resuming the bombing in sixty days. Bombing is a tactic, not a strategy; it would be helpful if Trump could articulate a strategy. Today Iran mocks him as it once did Obama.

Trump was so desperate for an agreement that had Iran asked the US to pay for 444 days of room and board for the American hostages it held in the late 1970’s, Trump would have paid, plus interest.

Donald Trump has a penchant for being liked, sometimes by the most unsavory people. Without a Thatcher to goad him into not going wobbly, he has gone wobbly, and bigly. He would be wise to learn from another saying of Margaret Thatcher: “If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.”

That, for now, is Donald Trump’s Iran legacy. A lot of bombs bursting in the hot air of empty threats, curses, and braggadocio. Indeed, it wasn’t the “crazy lunatics” who surrendered, but the self-proclaimed “high IQ genius,” outwitted by a gang of murderous thugs, a surrender that has shamed the United States and strengthened the enemies of freedom.

What he does not realize is that the “Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps” (Tehillim 121:4). The rest is in our hands, to live as G-d intended, as our existence is more secure than that of Donald Trump, or JD Vance.

President Donald Hussein Obama

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

It is prudent to be skeptical of anything Donald Trump says, whether it pertains to his “landslide” electoral victories or his sundry “peace” deals across the globe. This skepticism is triply warranted regarding the highly touted peace deal with Iran whose details are still largely unknown, speculative, fanciful, and exceedingly fluid. Undoubtedly, as the week progresses towards a signing ceremony, it will become increasingly clear that there is almost no meeting of the minds, except on one issue. Trump will boast that due to his remarkable negotiating skills, he has successfully pressured Iran into reopening the Straits of Hormuz, which of course were open to navigation before the current hostilities began on February 28.

In other words, Trump’s conduct of the war induced Iran to close the Straits, plunging the world’s markets into turmoil and driving up the price of oil precipitously. His management of the war including, it must be said without any glee, the underperformance of the US military that failed to reopen the Straits, has succeeded only in restoring the status quo ante with one major exception: Iran now realizes that it controls the Straits and can open, close, and regulate them with impunity, and full immunity from any consequences. 

Oh, yes, one more thing. Although details are still hazy, it is safe to say that Iran certainly expects that in exchange for its agreement to reopen the Straits (whose closure was a blatant violation of international law) it will receive multibillions of dollars of financial relief that will revive its battered economy and facilitate its support of terror across the region. 

Trump’s capitulation, no matter how he spins it, is truly Obama worthy, and Iran’s mockery of Trump and its characterization of the American “defeat” will irritate him no end, if not derail the agreement entirely. Personal pique is one of the most compelling factors driving American diplomacy in the Trump era. The irony, it should be underscored, is that Trump at his worst and dumbest is better than Biden at his best and Obama at his brightest. His visceral support for Israel is still present but we need not join in his delusions. 

Peace is not coming. Iran is not yet defeated, but it is greatly weakened, its vulnerabilities exploited and still exposed. The current war was necessary and worthwhile, even if Trump for his own reasons is aborting it, eschewing victory and reverting to the West’s embrace since World War II of stalemate instead of success, of kicking the can down the road in place of resolve and resolution, of appeasing evil because it has abandoned any understanding of objective morality, of good and evil. Europe’s amorality, coupled with its failed pursuit of material prosperity, placed it on a trajectory towards its own extinction. Obama’s statecraft was not much different, and now Trump’s partakes of the same. 

If the whole point of life is to make money and as much as possible, then war with Iran or any other evil entity is bad for business. Indeed, even acknowledging the power of ideology is counterproductive and so it is best to deny that any nation, including Iran, has any exterminationist motivation, and so that doesn’t exist even if it does. In Trump world, unwelcome facts are simply ignored, and harping on them is considered rude. 

The materialist will never comprehend the power of religious ideology and certainly not the depth of religion-based hatred. The fact of its existence is dismissed as “fake news.” And Trump has been both the victim of fake news and one of its leading disseminators. 

American and Israeli interests were bound to diverge at a certain point, and that point has arrived. Iran’s threat to Israel and the United States is existential but the US has the luxury of ignoring Iran for a longer period than Israel can. The fact that the Iranian regime has spent the better part of forty seven years humiliating the United States is of little moment. Iran has been governed during the last (almost) half century by essentially one regime with a depraved but consistent ideology, while the US has had eight presidents of different ideologies, backgrounds, objectives, and approaches. It is no wonder that Trump wishes to cut bait and run. Iran is weakened, for sure, but while it threatens Israel today, its threat to the US will be some other president’s problem. Obama’s policy was literally kicking the Iran problem down the road. For all his bluster and protestations, that is Trump’s policy today, maybe not tomorrow, but probably again the day after. 

Any sentient observer realizes that Trump, wearing his Obama mask, has succumbed to Iran’s hoary tactics of endless negotiation, conceding and then retracting, agreeing to a final deal and then insisting on one last concession from its interlocutors that undoes much of what was agreed to, and then not abiding by any agreement it does sign. If Trump really believes that Iran will ever willingly divest itself of its nuclear program or materials, then he is now, officially, the most dangerous man in the free world, not its leader. Iran, much like Trump did repeatedly in his years as a real estate developer, will sign something, and then weasel, haggle, threaten, litigate, and not pay up. He might even know this, not that it matters. As the American novelist Upton Sinclair once wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.” In Trump’s case, it is not his salary but his world view, his ambition, and his hubris that requires him to look away from Iran’s aggressions and its war against America.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if Trump allows himself to be deceived because the war is unpopular in the United States, or because he fears a Republican defeat in the midterms, or because he hoped to wage history’s first casualty free war, or because the American military has failed to achieve its war objectives despite the hype and spin. What does matter is that the US under Donald Hussein Obama allowed Iran to gain the upper hand in the Straits of Hormuz, could not reopen it despite the seeming disparity between the American military might and Iran’s decimated forces, and could even defend its own bases in the Gulf Arab states and the Gulf Arab states themselves. That does not bode well for them, or, for that matter, for Taiwan, or other US allies.  

As for us in Israel, we should be grateful for past, present, and future assistance from the United States, and certainly for their actions in the last two years that facilitated many of our successes, and particularly the debilitation of all our enemies and the projection of Israeli power on every front and into enemy territory. Sometimes, as with the biblical (and perhaps current) Amalek, the task of our generation is to weaken them when they can’t yet be defeated (as in Shemot 17:13). But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that our interests with the US are identical. We certainly should not constrain our actions against enemies who wish to destroy our State and murder Jews because of an agreement made between the US and Iran to which we were not a party and in which our interests were not primary or even secondary considerations. That would be insane. 

No nation waives its right of self-defense and no self-respecting nation allows its right of self-defense to be theoretical and not actual. This might require publicly calling out Mr. Trump and asking him “which American border towns would he allow to be rocketed, and how many US citizens would he allow to be murdered without any response because of geopolitical considerations?” 

That question neatly frames our dilemma, our options, and the untenability of demanding our restraint. We need not like Trump wearing an Obama mask and we need not acquiesce to its broader ramifications. Trump does not like war, and in truth, no sane person seeks war. But as George Santayana wrote, “only the dead have seen the end of war.” That is neither our fate nor that of the world, until the coming of Moshiach. Until then, we fight evil, even alone, even when the blusterers are tempted to slink away when the going gets tough, even when they are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and boastfully tweeting about it. 

As little is real in Trump world, the immediate future and even the signing of a deal is uncertain. But in his kowtowing to evil, his abandonment of regime change and hope for the Iranian people, and his fantasy of forcing Israel to accept an agreement with Iran that inevitably leads it to a nuclear bomb, Donald John Trump is more like Barack Hussein Obama than he cares to admit.

Patchwork

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

It is hard to dispute that the punishment of thirty days’ imprisonment meted out to a Nachal soldier for wearing a “Moshiach” patch is outrageous, even Draconian, so much so that it is likely to be reduced if not eliminated altogether.

Thirty days? Bear in mind that the Chief of Staff has many accomplishments on his ledger for which we owe him a debt of gratitude but also as then Deputy Chief of Staff shares primary responsibility for the catastrophic Hamas invasion and carnage of October 7. For that he received not thirty days incarceration but a promotion.

The tatzpaniyot (female scouts) repeatedly warned their superiors of dangerous Hamas activity and many paid with their lives because their superiors ignored their warnings. Yet, these superiors have never, to our knowledge, been identified, vilified, prosecuted, or incarcerated. But thirty days in jail for wearing a patch?!

Indeed, the IDF changed its regulations just over a year ago banning such personal patches depicting “Moshiach” or the “Bet HaMikdash,” which on some level is sensible. An army must be uniform, individual expressions must be limited. Such was the reasoning of the US Supreme Court when it ruled, in Goldman v. Caspar Weinberger (1986), that US Air Force Captain Simcha Goldman was not allowed to wear his kippah while on duty. His personal religious garb, innocuous as it was, was held by a slim 5-4 majority to be an affront to the need to “foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps.” Yet, Congress in 1988 passed a law permitting members of the US Armed Forces to “wear an item of religious apparel” while on duty. Somehow, the US military survived, with kippah-wearing Jews and turban-donning Sikhs.

Would a future IDF Chief of Staff prohibit soldiers from wearing kippot? One should be aghast at the thought but who knows? A kippah also distinguishes one soldier from another – as the US Supreme Court implied – and in a profound way. (Conversely, would a future Chief of Staff order every soldier to wear a kippah? Ah, but that would never be sanctioned by Israel’s rogue Supreme Court.) A kippah signifies reverence for Heaven and deference to a higher power, attitudes not always welcome in the military.

For sure, a Moshiach or Mikdash patch is not a kippah; yet, I can hear a dyed-in-the-wool secular Chief of Staff opine that a kippah is barely mentioned in the Talmud  or Shulchan Aruch, should not be defined as essential Jewish wear, and certainly not when it can diminish a soldier’s “instinctive obedience” or the cherished “esprit de corps.”

As numerous reservists and other Israelis have opined, these patches are instrumental in motivating our troops to make the necessary (and even ultimate) sacrifice and therein lies the difference in approaches and why this Nachal soldier’s summary prosecution and sentence is so disgraceful. For what are we fighting? For what purpose are we losing the finest of our youth and seeing many others maimed for life?

One approach is that we are fighting for our land and our State and that too is true enough – but not the whole truth. Poles, Germans, and Spaniards also fight for their land. Russia and Ukraine are fighting over land. We too struggle for our land, our independence, our physical survival – but our endless wars are not simply over territory. Those who believe that – and many do – are generally secular and are seduced by such fantasies as Oslo or the two-state delusion, the illusion that ultimately, we are in the middle of a real estate dispute that can be resolved if we just compromise enough. It is hard to fathom but even after October 7, really, even after a century of conflict, there are people who still believe that.

There is a second approach apparently lost on the Chief of Staff. Many of our brave soldiers – even those who don’t wear patches – instinctively realize that there is much more to our enemies’ hatred of Israel than our possession of a certain parcel of land. It is hatred of the Jewish people, such is now again sweeping the world, which itself is really hatred of the G-d of Israel. As our sages expressed it (Sifrei, Beha’alotcha, 84), “he who hates Israel it is as if he hates the One who brought the world into existence.” Moreover, “whoever touches Israel it is as if he is touching the apple of His eye” (Gittin 57a, based on Zecharia 2:12). The Torah conflated the census of our military with the desire to have the divine presence dwell among us (Rashi Bamidbar 1:1). Our army serves a greater purpose than merely defense of land. It is the instrument through which the Jewish idea is able to proliferate. The land of Israel is holy and a divine gift – but the wars of Israel have a far more profound basis than simply territory. We fight for something far deeper.

Our enemies realize this, even if our Chief of Staff does not. Our enemies focus their evil on conquest of Yerushalayim. Hamas called its invasion the “Flood of Al Aksa.” Pictures of the Dome of the Rock adorned numerous Gaza homes thankfully destroyed. Jewish sovereignty anywhere in the land of Israel but especially in Yerushalayim enrages them and gives them no rest. Their evil is limitless, self-destructive, and suicidal – but at least they are clear about that they are fighting for.

We are less clear and so pay a steep price in life and limb, and the endless pursuit of panaceas and chimeras. Some fight for the homeland, some fight for democracy, and some fight for individual rights. But many also fight to protect Jewish life, preserve the holy land of Israel despite the whimsy of politicians and diplomats, bring the divine presence to earth, establish a model Torah state, bring Moshiach closer, hasten the redemption, and rebuild the Bet HaMikdash. We need not all share the same motivation to fight successfully but we will rue the day when the latter motivations are disdained and those who believe in them are prosecuted. Truth be told, they are the most motivated of all our soldiers. Disproportionately, they have borne the heaviest burden of war in terms of casualties and repeated reserve duty. We disparage them and their inspiration at our peril.

For sure, there are certain patches that should be banned – those that repudiate our national purpose, weaken morale, or dispirit our troops. But King David stated (Tehillim 122:2) that “Our feet were standing in your gates, O Jerusalem,” to which Rashi comments, “our feet were standing in battle everywhere because of the gates of Jerusalem, where they were engaged in Torah.”

Jerusalem – both spiritual and physical – is the focal point of this and every war. Moshiach will appear in Jerusalem and the Bet Hamikdash will be rebuilt in Jerusalem (or vice versa, as conflicting Rabbinic sources suggest). The order is less important than the realization of the centrality of Yerushalayim to our lives, our soul, and our esprit de corps.

We should be encouraging our soldiers to fight for what they believe in, not disheartening them. In this latest contretemps, let cooler heads prevail – heads that are also saner, holier, and more imbued with the eternal spirit of Israel, the key to victory.