Tag Archives: Israel

The Wounded Bear

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

Our illustrious sages often compared Persia to a bear. For example, n the vision of the prophet Daniel (7:5) cited in the Talmud (Kiddushin 75a), “and behold there was a second beast, a bear…” “Rav Yosef taught, these are Persians.” The Gemara continued, “when Rav Ami would see a Persian riding, he would say, ‘this is a bear on the move.’”

There is nothing more dangerous than a wounded bear. Physically injured, the bear’s natural aggression becomes even more intensified and its capacity to strike its enemies is even more enhanced. Such a bear has to be put down, or in Napoleon’s phrase, “If you want to take Vienna, take Vienna!” As such, now is not the time to relax the pressure on Iran or to negotiate. Such will only ensure the survival of an evil, genocidal regime of fanatical Jew-haters, and guarantee that they will immediately ramp up the enrichment of their remaining stocks of uranium to weapons grade levels, weaponize them, and deploy them against us and others. That will be the inevitable price of taking our foot off the accelerator, G-d forbid.

We have to resist the natural inclinations of the world’s diplomats, which is to let evil flourish until it is too late, eschew war at all costs, encourage the signing of agreements despite their toothlessness and lack of enforceability, and, above all, deprive Israel of any semblance of victory and feeling of security.

How did we get here and to where should we go?

It is worthwhile to recall one of the most egregious miscalculations ever made in international diplomacy. In the late 1970’s, US President Jimmy Carter, a self-styled “do-gooder,” turned against the Shah of Iran because of the latter’s human rights abuses. This betrayal occurred notwithstanding that the Shah was an American ally – and an ally of Israel. Carter favored the return to Iran of the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini, who as a “man of faith,” would lead Iran with religious wisdom and moral clarity. It was a dreadful error; if the Shah abused human rights as an act of policy, the Ayatollah, who abused his people with even greater viciousness, did it as an act of faith, the fulfillment of a religious obligation.

Just a few years after seizing power, the Ayatollah launched Iran’s nuclear program, which was temporarily sidetracked by the long-running Iran-Iraq War in the 1980’s, but with the expressed ambition of destroying Israel. And since the Ayatollah seized power in 1979, he and his followers have repeatedly humiliated and attacked the United States, without real consequence or retribution.

In 1979, the American embassy in Tehran was overrun, dozens of US diplomats taken hostage and held for 444 days. There was no American response. The detonation of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 by Iran-backed terrorists who soon formed Hezbollah killed 241 US service members. There was no American response, except for three civil cases brought in the United States against Iran decades later for this murderous act, and for which Iran was found liable. Iran has several times attempted to assassinate American politicians, again with no American response. Throughout America’s long engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran carried out the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers and the maiming of thousands, to which the American response was mostly limited to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Instead, several administrations – most notably those of Barack Obama and Joe Biden – have sought to coddle Iran, subsidize it, and even acquiesce in Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. (Recall the Obama agreement did not enjoin Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon; it only delayed it for ten years – or 2025.) Even Ronald Reagan was ensnared in a major scandal in his second term by chasing the fantasy of “moderates” in Iran who would be pro-American and providing them with weapons. This outreach has been met for more than forty years with Iranian cries of “Death to America,” and the labeling of the United States as the “Great Satan.” Such braggadocio is hard to fathom unless we realize that it is rooted in religious doctrine.

For how long can a nation endure repeated degradation, without a response, and retain the credibility due a superpower? We will find out shortly.

Our current war is certainly not over, as the repeated Iranian missile attacks on Israeli civilians demonstrates. For sure, we have achieved tremendous, even miraculous successes, unprecedented in warfare, already legendary, for which we offer gratitude to the Almighty for His kindness, and His gift to His people of ingenuity, resilience, courage, and commitment. (May we continue to be worthy of the Lord’s blessings and compassion!)

What we have achieved to this point has been solely the result of our efforts, and certainly our offensive operations in Iran have been unaided by any nation – even those who also perceive Iran as an enemy. (We should duly note Saudi Arabia’s hypocritical condemnation of Israel – however muted – for the Saudi’s perceive Iran as their greatest enemy and yet do nothing about it. We should remember this duplicity when the calls come for Israel to make concessions to induce Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords. Dishonorable mention also goes out to the UAE.)

There are two remaining objectives, both of which might require assistance from others: the destruction of the underground facility at Fordow and regime change. Whether Israel is capable of destroying a reinforced weapons factory buried under a mountain remains to be seen. There are probably four options, of which the easiest would be American military intervention. By all accounts, the United States possesses the bunker-busting bombs – 30,000 pounds – that can penetrate a facility located eighty meters below ground level. But do we Israelis want that, especially considering that President Trump is very transactional and will expect something in return (he already has a new plane) and considering even more the outcry of the isolationist and sometimes anti-Israel crowd that this will provoke – that Israel is dragging the United States into war. The uproar will occur but the prospect of America at war is quite negligible. After all, Israel has total aerial supremacy in Iran. This strike could take place and be completed successfully in less than several hours. But do we want that?

What should matter more is what is in America’s interest. Does the US have an interest in the wounded bear healing itself and using its Fordow plant to produce a nuclear weapon? Of course not. The US will soon be a target of these weapons, either after Iran develops ICBM capability or through the smuggling of a dirty bomb into the United States. Indeed, the destruction of Fordow would be appropriate retribution from the United States to Iran for the more than four decades of contempt, attacks, and mortification of the US by Iran.

Another advantage is that Iran has linked itself with both Russia and China, both American adversaries. The disappearance of a hostile Iran weakens both those countries, and a muscular American response to the Iranian threat might serve to deter China from invading Taiwan. Those are also American interests, which cannot be advanced by words, threats, or negotiations, but only by forceful and fruitful action.

Rendered impotent with the total loss of its nuclear program, Iran would be ripe for regime change, and this is the touchiest subject of all. This can only come from the Iranian people, who we have been told for many years despise the brutal reign of the Ayatollahs. If Iranian offensive capabilities are neutered – their defensive ones are currently almost non-existent – then the time has come for the opposition forces to present themselves, organize, and foment strife, and overthrow their oppressors. Obviously, this cannot be done from or by Israel and the United States, but both can assist from afar, and ultimately, this is the only path to stability and security in the region.

If Fordow is left intact, then even this grievously injured Iran becomes even more dangerous. If the Ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolution live to maraud another day, then they will, and they will rebuild, faster and deadlier. Regime change will not be simple, for as we have seen, Islamic radicals do not play by the rules of war, the Geneva conventions and the farce of international law mean zilch to them, and they will gladly stoop to barbarity to retain their power. But destruction of their nuclear weapons program and loss of their oil revenue – which should be on the table even now to drive them into submission – will weaken them even more and bolster opposition forces.

What should be intolerable to the US, Israel, and Europe is the marriage of religious fanaticism with weapons of mass destruction. Now is the time to put a death blow to that evil fantasy – and end the suffering of the wounded bear. Can it be done? In truth, democracies have an extremely poor record of anticipating threats and acting to forestall them.

As PM Netanyahu has taken to quoting with some frequency – and much pertinence – Winston Churchill lamented Britain’s feeble response in the 1930’s to the rise of Nazism. In the House of Commons in May 1935, Churchill said:

When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story… It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong—these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

We Jews know best of all the steep price that is paid when genocidal maniacs are allowed to flourish and are challenged by the world’s powers mostly by a torrent of rhetoric, and little else. They think they are thus avoiding war while, in fact, they merely delay war and ensure that the eventual conflict will be far deadlier than it might have been.

US policy towards Iran since 1979 has been marked by naiveté, restraint, strident speech, and ineffectual deeds. President Trump can change that dynamic by acting boldly and decisively, not by urging negotiations that will invariably lead to undesirable outcomes.

We cannot let the wounded bear recover. We have to finish what we started – and if the United States correctly perceives its self-interests, the US will act powerfully but surgically to remove the Iranian threat, midwife regime change along with Iranian dissidents, and spawn a better, more peaceful, and more prosperous world. And without revolutionary Iran, its murderous proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, will in short order – after some reflexive terror – wither and die. Imagine that.

Israel has already done 90% of the work. Let the civilized world – also Iran’s targets – help with the remainder.

Virtue-Signaling Hypocrites

      

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

Thursday, June 12 – The decision by five nations – United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand – to sanction Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is both outrageous and shameful. It would seem that they were sacrificial lambs, offered up by these nations to placate the Jew-haters in their midst because these countries are not yet ready to recognize a Palestinian state. Something had to be done to keep their ravenous, Jew-hating wolves at bay, and the sanctions regime was chosen. It should be met by a muscular Israeli response, notwithstanding the lack of practical effect but especially considering the baseless accusations against government ministers.

In short, the ministers were accused of “inciting violence” against Arabs but zero evidence was marshalled in order to sustain that indictment. Instead, the inciteful statements included their unequivocal opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state and their energetic support for Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. Notwithstanding that these are two policies now widely favored by the Israeli public (85% of whom are opposed to a Palestinian state), how does that translate into “inciting violence” against Arabs?

In the delusional world of the European and Oceanic diplomats, building Jewish homes in Judea (of all places) and opposing the formal creation of a terror state, somehow incites violence, presumably of Arabs against Israelis. This conclusion is in keeping with the soft bigotry of low expectations with which the Western world treats the Palestinians, who apparently cannot help but shoot and kill a Jewish woman in childbirth because they do not like where she lives. If these countries actually believe that Smotrich or Ben-Gvir incited Jews to attack Arabs, they should adduce that evidence forthwith.

Other statements that agitated these diplomats were Smotrich’s assertion that the Palestinians are not a nation, and that both have declaimed that Gazans should be relocated to another country. That latter suggestion was termed “monstrous” by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, presumably implicating President Trump as well, as that “monstrous” idea was his. But it is hard to contend that Palestinians are a nation, as they lack any history before the 20th century and exist only as a counterforce against Israel.

This, indeed, was prophesied in the Bible. The Torah teaches that at the end of days, in our last futile rebellion against G-d, “they will provoke Me with a non-god…and I will provoke them with a non-people” (Devarim 32:21). Golda Meir famously said that “there is no Palestinian people.” To be sure, they are a contrived people, a 20TH century fabrication, which had no national life or even ambition until Jewish nationalism arose. That is why when Egypt and Jordan occupied, respectively, Gaza, Judea, and Samaria from 1948-1967, they did not create a “Palestine” country nor did any such “Palestinians” demand one. The issue only arose when Jews conquered that territory, ancient and integral to the Jewish homeland.

One can quibble as to whether they are a nation today; as recently as 1967, the UN Resolution 242 that sought a “just and lasting peace” made no mention of Palestinians or a Palestinian state. But is rejection of an Arab state carved from the land of Israel tantamount to “inciting violence”? Only in the fevered imaginations of these diplomats.

What is especially rich is their denunciations of Israel as a colonialist power. The French, who haven’t yet sanctioned Israelis but who are otherwise making mischief in the Middle East, still retain vestiges of the French Empire, with twelve territories stretching from Martinique and St. Martin in the Caribbean Sea to French Polynesia and New Caledonia in the Pacific Ocean. They came into possession of these territories the old-fashioned way – military conquest – apparently still indifferent to the very modern value of the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.”

The British are even more egregious, retaining control over Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos, and a dozen other territories where they should not be. They even went to war in 1982 when the Falkland Islands were conquered by Argentina, which still claims sovereignty over these lands that are right off their coast. Put another way, the UK dispatched a naval flotilla six thousand miles from their shores in order to retrieve a small piece of land they claim as theirs since the 18th century despite Argentina’s parallel claim. Yet, the British deign to preach to Israel about Jews settling in Judea or about the conduct of our war in Gaza which adjoins Israel and is relentlessly hostile and homicidal. Such assertions are obviously and unimaginably hypocritical. The British killed 649 Argentinians during that two-month conflict (or 64,900 as counted by the Gaza Ministry of Health).

Indeed, it would be quite appropriate now for Israel to recognize the Falkland Islands as sovereign Argentinian territory (if Argentina approves). This would be a worthy gesture to Argentinian President Javier Milei, whose unabashed support for Israel is a bright star in an otherwise dark world, and especially in light of Argentina’s decision to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Let the British withdraw from land which they have no rational reason to possess and let them acknowledge Israel’s sovereign right to the land of Israel.

How should Israel respond? The government’s denunciation of the sanctioning of our ministers as “outrageous” is a good beginning but it should not end with words. The foreign ministers of these countries should be barred from visiting Israel and their ambassadors should be called to the Foreign Ministry for a stern lecture.

Additionally, Smotrich’s decision to disconnect the PA from the Israeli banking further exposes the PA as a house of cards ready to collapse, incapable of sustaining itself. This is a tough but crucial measure to create a new Middle East, including an Israel in which only people who want to live here and accept Israel’s sovereignty are allowed to live here. We will never have even a semblance of security until that happens.

It is also high time for the British Consulate in Jerusalem, the UK’s representation to the Palestinian Authority, to be summarily closed as an offense to Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. These consulates – there are about a dozen others – should be denied a presence in Jerusalem, and if those countries wish to have representation to the PA, it should open offices in Ramallah, the PA’s seat of government. Israel has for too long acquiesced in this affront to our sovereignty. Furthermore, Israel’s Finance Ministry and National Security Ministry should cut off all contact and relations with their counterparts in those five countries.

These would be the responses of a proud nation. For that matter, these would be the responses of even an unproud nation whose ministers are penalized for defending their nations’ interests. We need not and should not accept these indignities. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir simply reflect the will of their constituents. If opposition to a Palestinian state and Jewish settlement in the heartland of Israel is worthy of sanctions then half of Israel could effectively be sanctioned. It means that any right-wing government is worthy of sanctions. It is thus best to challenge this decision now; even as a hollow symbol it is still repugnant.

If, indeed, these sanctions are essentially meaningless, except as an insult, why did these countries rush to implement them? Well, insulting us is part of the goal, but more importantly, these countries – all governed now by leftists and all being besieged by an influx of Muslims immigrants, legal or not – are pseudo friends of Israel at best and quiet enemies at worst. Each of these countries have been victims of Muslim terror and each struggle to protect its Jewish population from the predations of these new immigrants. It is not the country as much as it is the governments of those countries. Their ideology has no place for a religious-national entity; as such Israel, the national home of the Jewish people, is in their view doubly flawed.

The perfidious quintet sanctioned Smotrich and Ben-Gvir for no valid reason – but they mean all of us. These virtue signalers are not in the least sincere. We should not allow their stunning hypocrisy to resonate with us or doubt the justice of our cause. At the end of days, the nations will thrash about and challenge the people of Israel one last time. Let this be the last gasp of secularism and its discontents before the era of redemption unfolds before us and elevates all of mankind to a more moral and peaceful world.

The Folly of Humanitarian Aid 

   (First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

We seem to be falling again into the same traps and repeating the mistakes of the past expecting a different outcome in the future. It is bad enough that any portion of this aid will be seized by Hamas, and even worse that it sustains a hostile population. Not only has there not been a single person from among these “innocent” civilians who has acted upon Israel’s offer of $5,000,000 plus free passage anywhere in the world in exchange for information leading to the liberation of even one hostage; but also, Hamas’ terrorist ranks have been steadily replenished from these same “innocent” civilians. Tens of thousands of terrorists have been killed but reportedly have been steadily replaced.

What do we gain by strengthening the enemy but the prolongation of the war? After all, breaking the will of the enemy is one traditional path to victory but we apparently eschew that at all costs out of humanitarian concerns. In truth, I cannot ever recall reading that the United States dropped pitot and pasta on Hiroshima and Nagasaki alongside the atomic bombs. Humanitarian aid to the enemy population comes after the war – not during the war – and the chimera known as “international law,” even in the hypocritical, distorted, and arbitrary manner it is misapplied to Israel, should not hamper our chances for defeating the vile enemy who attacked, massacred, raped, tortured, and kidnapped us on October 7, 2023.

There are four situations that render the provision of aid plausible.

  1. Surrender.

This is the traditional way that a defeated party ends the war, when it concludes that it has had enough, can suffer no more, and seeks a way out of the conflict. Countries that go to war surely plan how they are going to provide for their citizens while the battles rage. Hamas’ plan, obviously, was to plan not at all but cynically appeal to the world’s sympathy (and bias against the Jewish state) so that Israel, in wartime, should have to sustain its enemy’s population – i.e., the enemy population that voted Hamas into power a little less than twenty years ago.

If we do not insist on surrender, we are literally following the enemy’s game plan and ensuring its survival to maraud another day. There is no starvation in Gaza, period, although there are shortages and undoubted hardship. They want food, water, and electricity? Surrender. And if they don’t, then obviously failure to surrender has grave consequences, as defeated aggressors throughout history have learned to their detriment.

  • Release our hostages!

If Hamas wants its population fed, it can release all of our hostages, at one time, in one place, in exchange not for murderers already imprisoned, or the rapists, sadists, kidnappers, savages, and pillagers of October 7, but in exchange for food. If it does not want its population to be fed, that really is their problem, not our problem. We need not exhibit more compassion for the enemy population than their leaders show for them.

We are a naturally compassionate people, but it is easier to deal with the severe consequences if we, accurately, deem Hamas like the Nazis, and the people of Gaza as Nazis and future Nazis. They are raised to hate Israel and murder Jews. The deaths of people who dedicate their lives to these propositions should not disturb any normal and decent person. And if there are truly innocent people – who despise Hamas, love Israel, or would like nothing more than to leave Gaza permanently – they should be fast-tracked to leave.

  • Leave

We should not be feeding our enemy but we should be aggressively pursuing the Trump plan of evacuating the Gazans to safer habitations. For some reason, we are not. I would love to hear the Prime Minister, instead of repeatedly threatening to win the war but always hesitating, talk directly to the nations of the world – Arab, Asian, European, and American – and state unequivocally: “If you are sincerely concerned about the welfare of the citizens of Gaza, you would not be insisting that we do what you have never done – nourish your enemies in wartime. What you would do is rush to offer asylum to as many as one million Gazans anxious to leave. You would be sending large ships and planes – we will facilitate their departure – to accommodate these people for whom you express such deep concern. We can evacuate 30,000 a day. Within one month, the situation in Gaza would be permanently transformed for the good, the people would be fed and resettled, and the war would end.”

The more aid we provide, the less likely it is that they will leave. Don’t we realize that? The sooner they leave, the sooner the war will end – because it will only end when they taste defeat, which in their terms is exile and loss of land.

  • Feed our hostages first!

It is obscene that we are providing food and water to an enemy that is, by all accounts, starving and abusing the hostages. It is immoral. It is foolish. It is disgraceful. Consequently, we should insist that the hostages be verifiably fed first. It does not matter if the Red Cross provides the food, although since that tendentious and pretentious entity cannot be trusted, they will have to be accompanied by a third party of our choice. But I don’t care if it is the Red Cross, or the Blue Cross, or if Steve Witkoff himself delivers food to our hostages, but not one morsel or drop should be given to Gazans until our hostages are treated like human beings.

We seem to ignore the fact that they are being held against international law, which has not once been marshaled to demand their release. Apparently, international law only carries weight when it can be used against Jews, and never when it can be used to help Jews. Why do we play along with this charade?

We must stop validating our enemy’s tactic (more than fifty years old) of kidnapping Jews, killing them, and/or holding them in abusive conditions until our foes achieve their nefarious objectives. We are playing right into their hands. And those who call for an end to the war in exchange for the release of all hostages and full withdrawal of Israel from Gaza seem not to realize that Hamas will survive, prosper, threaten us forever, but worse – they will one day, soon thereafter, Heaven forbid, kidnap five children at a bus stop, or take a school class captive, and then demand even more, and more, until our demise becomes sensible to us. Releasing our hostages by paying the enemy’s price, again and again, only ensures that we will suffer more kidnappings, more hostages, more torture, and more national anguish. What rational entity would pursue such folly?

The eighth of the Ten Utterances we will read on Shavuot is “you shall not steal,” which the Sages interpreted as “you shall not kidnap,” a capital crime (Sanhedrin 86a). When we normalize a capital crime – literally nourishing it instead of punishing it harshly – we bring disaster on ourselves, and the uncivilized part of our world is strengthened and emboldened.

There are Israelis who hate our government so much they would rather lose the war and endanger our survival than clear a path to victory. There are others who, under the trauma of the last eighteen months, see no way out other than to surrender and declare victory, and pray that the next traumatic event never happens or just does not affect them. And there are still others – many in our government – who persist in negotiating with an enemy sworn to our destruction and indulging in the same failed policies and approaches of the past. We deserve better – new approaches that do not involve the release of those who murder us and laugh about it, or those who blow up our buses, shoot our vehicles, and stab our pedestrians knowing full well that they will get away with it from our side, and be paid handsomely by those who dispatched them.

We can also say “no” to Trump, Witkoff, and others who just want an end to war, some diplomatic achievement, and a signing ceremony, regardless of the day after costs and consequences. (It was actually amusing this week, to hear Steve Witkoff say he is providing a new “term sheet” to Hamas; “term sheet” is, of course, a real estate term, wholly inapplicable to high stakes diplomacy involving life and death, survival of a nation, and the ignominy and revulsion due to terrorists and their supporters. Talk about being in over your head.) If anything, Trump has repeatedly told Israel to “finish the job.” But we are bookended in our politics by a government afraid of victory and a fanatical left that welcomes defeat if only that will finally topple the government.

Of course, our “no” should be mitigated with these four choices: surrender, release our hostages, leave, and/or feed our hostages first. If not, then let the promised gates of hell open on our tormentors. It is impossible to conceive of more worthy targets.

Why Mike Huckabee is the Right Man

(First published at Dailywire.com, on behalf of the Jerusalem Center for Applied Policy)

United States Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee presented his credentials two weeks ago to Israel’s President, Yitzchak Herzog, and immediately demonstrated why he is the right person for this vital position at this critical time. It is true that Ambassador Huckabee has visited Israel more than 100 times, in his capacity as a Baptist preacher leading his congregation and as a politician accompanying his constituents, but even more importantly, he understands Israel, its uniqueness, its role in history, its abiding friendship with the United States, and its challenges.

Huckabee declared at the reception that he returns to Israel with “absolute joy and an overwhelming sense of awe that I am in a land where G-d Himself said, ‘This is mine, and these are My people.’” Such sentiments are not often expressed in Israel and not articulated often enough by Jews but they provide the foundation for defining the rightful place of the State of Israel, its reason for existence, and even the relentless antagonism of its enemies. The land of Israel was not only the land of the Bible in ancient times; it remains the land of the Bible and awaits the fulfillment of the prophetic vision of the future. Perceived through that prism, Israel’s struggles against implacable foes take on a new light that is visible only to someone who shares Ambassador Huckabee’s perspective.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine another ambassador having visited the country to which he was posted one hundred times before he assumes the role. It means that Huckabee’s commitment to Israel’s security stems from his correct understanding of America’s place in the world and its capacity to foster good and promote peace and prosperity. What should be on Ambassador Huckabee’s agenda, especially mindful that he is the US Ambassador who should advance American interests in the region?

The Ambassador has been outspoken in recent years as to the non-viability of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel, now rendered especially incongruous and perilous in light of the Hamas massacre of October 7, the ongoing war, and the Palestinian Authority’s reluctance to condemn that war. As ambassador, he can thwart the subtle encroachment towards a Palestinian state favored by Europe and some elements in the United States by reiterating a number of steps taken during the first Trump administration. He can again shutter the US Office of Palestinian Affairs (OPA), located on Agron Street in the western part of Jerusalem, which was revived by the Biden administration in violation of US and Israeli law and functioned as a quasi-diplomatic mission to the Palestinians. During the first Trump term, this office was closed, and its services provided out of the American embassy in Jerusalem to which it reported directly.

The OPA as currently constituted is an affront to Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. Ambassador Huckabee, together with Israel’s Foreign Ministry, can use his good offices to limit or halt the activities of the several European consulates that are located in Jerusalem and operate as missions to the Palestinian Authority in defiance of Israeli and international law. The ambassador can persuade – and certainly the US government can act to support Israel’s closure of these hostile outposts in the heart of Jerusalem.

The Ambassador can urge the State Department to finally designate “Jerusalem, Israel” as an official place of birth on American passports. State has long embraced the chimera that Jerusalem’s status as part of Israel – as Israel’s capital, no less – is somehow still subject to the outcome of negotiations. This policy should be repudiated and US citizens born in Jerusalem who so desire should have their place of birth recorded as “Jerusalem, Israel.”

Ambassador Huckabee should also encourage the Trump administration to follow through on its temporary suspension of funding to UNRWA and make that suspension permanent. UNRWA, although barred by Israeli law from operating in Jerusalem, still maneuvers behind the scenes, controlling schools and in some cases economic development while advancing the interests of Hamas, with which it was integrally linked during the Gaza War. Cutting aid and resigning from UNESCO, another UN organization that is antagonistic to Israel and the United States, is also an American interest.

Additionally, for many decades under Democratic administrations, any type of residential or commercial building in Jerusalem by Jews – not by Arabs – drew immediate condemnations from the State Department. This too much end, and the ambassador is well positioned, as is President Trump, a real estate maven, to take the lead in supporting Israel’s plans to construct new neighborhoods in Jerusalem and even to explore the expansion of Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries to encompass satellite towns on its periphery.

To his great credit, President Trump has appointed two distinguished emissaries to Israel – David Friedman in his first term and Mike Huckabee in his current term. A person of faith, such as Ambassador Huckabee, deeply understands the centrality of Israel in the narrative of world history. But this ambassador also deeply understands the Israel of the future, and the pivotal role played by the city of Jerusalem, and even more how a secure and prosperous Israel will strengthen the United States and bring the world closer to the vision of peace on earth.

Rabbi Pruzansky is Senior Research Associate at the Jerusalem Center for Applied Policy (JCAP.ngo).