Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein spoke about this idea in his Yom Yerushalayim Sicha this year and about how calling the Religious Zionist party "Otzma Yehudit" is exactly the opposite of what it means to be a Religious Zionist. Definitely recommend looking up the Sicha on YouTube (it is in Hebrew).
The post raises the question of whether defeating Hamas and Hezbollah is attainable. It is true that military victory cannot be assumed. But it seems Israel has no other realistic option.
Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the latter’s patron, Iran, are firmly committed to bringing about Israel’s destruction, and October 7 drove home the point that when an enemy openly declares its genocidal intent, it should be taken seriously. It also seems clear that the more time that passes, the stronger Israel’s enemies become. Israel has already effectively ceded the north to Hezbollah. Will Israel wait until Hezbollah’s missile capabilities can target the entire country? And what political calculations will the “moderate” Arab nations make when they see that Iran, not Israel, is the real power to be reckoned with in the Middle East?
In the 1930s, witnessing Germany’s illegal rearmament, Churchill repeatedly warned that action should be taken before Germany was too strong. Understandably, people preferred to “learn to live” with the potential threat. The consequences of such inaction, however, were devastating.
Unfortunately, it seems Israel is now facing an existential situation similar to 1948. Before the State was declared, no one knew for sure whether Israel could defeat the combined Arab armies’ assault. But they knew that failing to do so would likely mean no Jewish State. Currently, a policy of waiting until the noose gets tighter is, to say the least, worrisome.
"What if Israel needs to learn to live, at least for now, with a threat on its northern border, as the United States did for decades when thousands of Soviet missiles were pointed at the continental United States?"
This comparison would make more sense if the USA had had a situation where eg the entire New-England was evacuated and living in hotels in Montana for months on end, while some paramilitary group with representatives in the Canadian parliament kept firing artillery at places from Bangor to Boston. Certain things aren't tolerable.
Absolutely correct and there is another major difference between the current situation and the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a rational actor whose leaders wanted to stay in power. Hezbullah and Iran are not. They are motivated by extreme Shiite beliefs that are not rational and therefore deterrence will not work. The same with Hamas. People in the west make the fatal mistake of assuming everyone has the same motivations as they do. Unfortunately they don’t. Hamas doesn’t care about civilians or destruction. They believe the more people killed and the more destruction will help their cause. And therefore a deterrence policy doesn’t work. You can’t deter someone who doesn’t care about the consequences or more importantly welcomes the consequences.
I agree with both of you that the situation is different; I'm not claiming otherwise. That does not mean that there remains a binary choice with the only two options being "Let it happen" and "All out war." Shaul - your comparison is also faulty, as this paramilitary group is obviously no match for the US army, whereas Hezbollah is an extremely powerful actor with key allies outside of Lebanon as well as within. And Marty - correct, Hezbollah are not rational actors (or perhaps are rational only within their extreme Islamist context). Given that, what do you suggest? Let's say - G-d forbid - that Israel were able to eliminate the threat only through a war in which thousands of soldiers and civilians would be killed. Is it still worth it? What if it's tens of thousands? My point is that sometimes there are only bad choices, and we need to choose the least bad - and maybe, in this case, the least bad is relying upon a faulty-but-not-worthless deterrence. Again: I'm not saying that this is true. I hope it is not true. I am saying that insisting that war is the only answer no matter the consequences (and unless you work in the higher echelons of Israel's security establishment you don't know what those consequences are) is shallow, dangerous, and shortsighted.
"Shaul - your comparison is also faulty, as this paramilitary group is obviously no match for the US army, whereas Hezbollah is an extremely powerful actor with key allies outside of Lebanon as well as within."
Look, we can go back and forth. I could cite the Cuban missile crisis, Chamberlain's peace in our time etc etc. You could cite Vietnam, Iraq, and point to Begin's peace with Egypt. Like you, I 1) don't claim to know the answer and 2) think there aren't any good options. What I disagree with is your underlying presumption that there's something crazy about Ben Gvir's position regarding what the *default* ought to be in a situation like this. Again, from the 'safety' of the USA, it seems to me that you're letting the tzfardea get slowly boiled.
"I am saying that insisting that war is the only answer no matter the consequences (and unless you work in the higher echelons of Israel's security establishment you don't know what those consequences are) is shallow, dangerous, and shortsighted."
The implication of that part in parentheses is what I reject. It's not like Herzi Halevi has some special access to a crystal ball. I don't see any reason why his assessment is somehow more lucid than Ofer Winter's https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skishktec or Tzvika Fogel's.
Reality has shown that the current defense establishment assessments are based on wishful thinking and have been proven wrong time and time again. Remember what they said about Oslo. Remember what they said about the disengagement, can anyone honestly say the defense establishment got those right? Until October 7th the defense establishment thought that Hamas was deterred and wouldn’t attack. So Scott, the defense establishment has lost all its credibility with the people and I don’t see why anyone would just accept their assessments. This claim that only the experts in the defense establishment know is ridiculous They have proven that they know less than the average straight thinking person.
We need to make informed choices based on facts and what has happened over the past n years. If we look at those, it quite clear that the current approach is NOT working. The current approach produced October 7th and the current situation with Hezbollah. The current approach of deterrence has failed miserably. What you also fail to address is that the current situation is untenable. Tens of thousand of residents in the north are homeless. The north is literally burning and unlivable. The only way to get people back to their homes is to remove the threat. Before October 7th the people in the north lived uneasily with the threat. After October 7th no one will live in the north based on deterrence. So unless you are willing to literally give up the northern part of the country there don’t seem to be any other options other than war.
Israel's government and the IDF say that there are other options, such as an agreement by Hezbollah to move a certain distance back from the border in line with UN resolution 1701. You might disagree (and I don't trust Hezbollah either) but are you really sure that you know better than the IDF about the "only way"? What about a permanent Israeli force on the border with Lebanon along with some open or tacit agreement to stop the rockets so that even if Hezbollah tried to do its own October 7th, there would be thousands of soldiers on the border to immediately become involved? I'm not saying that these are the best or even good options. I am saying that I will not go the "only way" route when I don't know what the consequences of that would be.
So you want to repeat what we did in 2006? Why on earth would you think the result would be any different? Would you go live in Kiryat Shemona based on that? Does anyone really think Hezbollah would ever agree to that? Even if Hezbollah withdrew we know what will happen. They will slowly move forces forward. And then what will Israel do? Go to war because Hezbollah broke the agreement and moved forces closer to the border? Of course not. And we will be right back to where we are today. The solutions you are proposing have either been tried and failed, UN resolution 1701 or are wildly impractical and ridiculous. Where are these thousands of soldiers going to come from? What is going to stop Hezbollah from shooting anti tank missiles at them or anyone else? Until the government/defense establishment comes up with a realistic plan that will address the real security concerns of the residents there is nothing to talk about. So far there hasn’t been a single proposal (other than war) that does that.
Here is the bottom line. There are almost 100,000 residents of the north who are homeless. They need to go home. Any plan that is adopted needs to ensure that. All your proposals don’t.
So how many soldiers are you willing to sacrifice in order to implement your plan? Is there a limit? Or does it not matter, as long as Hezbollah is destroyed (assuming that's even possible)?
This perspective is naturally difficult, because the religious will always have an answer, either the Haredi "staying in God's favor by studying day and night is all that matters" or the Otzma "God wants us to conquer the land, and will only support us to extent we pursue that goal"
And the introspective "God let this happen to us for our sins" very quickly turns into "for YOUR sins" directed at fellow Jews
I think that we should be very careful in our criticism of what is being done for us by the Holy Name. Unlike most people who see death as a disaster, when a family member is lost from an orthodox Jewish home, the attitude to it is both one of sadness but also more formally, that its was by G-d's grace and from His viewpoint for the best. The same thing applies to Israel's wars.
Perhaps the lesson that we have learned about the October massacre was more significant than were we to have managed to avoid or at least reduce it.
Perhaps we will be better prepared for the next war.
Perhaps even the loss of life of all the remaining hostages will allow us to eliminate Hamas so completely that the exchange terrorists will not then be free to murder a greater number of our fellow citizens over the years that would follow.
We really don't know, and should be able to accept the future as it comes with both joy and sadness. Below is how I see it: Philosophy of Change
David - I strongly disagree with your characterization of the Jewish attitude towards death. I have never heard any authority say that "when a family member is lost from an orthodox Jewish home, the attitude to it is both one of sadness but also more formally, that its was by G-d's grace and from His viewpoint for the best." We say that He is the true Judge, but telling mourners "this is for the best" would be awful. I sat shiva for my dad about ten weeks ago, and not one person said that his death was by G-d's grace and for the best - and had they said it, every person in the room would have been horrified.
Hi Scott, the second time you quoted my sentence, it was shortened and its meaning changed. I wrote more and differently than "this is for the best". I appreciate you existing state of mourning and add my condolences, you do not need to make an apology.
What I am trying to say- I think- is that often that those who have been brought up with a frum outlook or who are observant Jews, such as myself, assume a certain understanding: that all is directed by Hakadosh-baruch-Hu. Yet the historical realities at different times are, and have been very difficult for the Jewish people- We cannot explain this and I think we should not even try .. but accept that Hashem is hidden- hastarat panim, and, as a result, we cannot know or understand much of what is going on in the world and where it leads. Thus one need be wary of explanations of historical circumstances and concentrate primarily on carrying out the Mitzvot developing good middot, acting with kindness, doing good and being humble.
Everything is Hashem. He gives ppl the ability to sin. We have our own sins that ked us there and Hamas decided to be evil messengers. The world see Hashems chosen people in a low place. they murdered us, and raped our sisters. We continue to be למשל ולשנינה in many ways. What is our sovereignty worth if we feel powerless and dont use it?
Ok, so you are saying that the Jewish people were "humbled, punished, however you want to say it. and that makes us as Gd's people lowly in the eyes of others.
a) I don't know if suffering an attack (though the IDF could have stopped it beforehand apparently) makes us look bad any more so than Jewish people that cheat in business etc. Being a victim these days is celebrated in some places, no?
b) You still did not answer how Gd's choice to let Hamas act could be considered a Chilul Hashem by humans. Unless you are saying that Gd creates his own Chilul, which is an interesting idea.
c) Is it a kiddush Hashem that we are able to fight back or is it Chilul because we have killed so many "innocents" - ? Depends how you look at things right?
A. The world dosent like victims when they're jews.
B. He lets his name be מחולל or else there would be no בחירה. He commands us to be מקדש His name on this Earth but that allows comes with the ability to do the opposite.
C. These "innocents" deserved it. Affirming Jewish over israel is a קידוש ה. By איכה we lamment "מלכה ושריה בגויים אין תורה". If israels kings and ministers are among the nations (and we lose soverignty) there js no Torah.
Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein spoke about this idea in his Yom Yerushalayim Sicha this year and about how calling the Religious Zionist party "Otzma Yehudit" is exactly the opposite of what it means to be a Religious Zionist. Definitely recommend looking up the Sicha on YouTube (it is in Hebrew).
Thanks, I'll try to watch that.
Wow, I loved this. Well said. And especially the humility. As you note, there are no easy answers.
Thank you!
Excellent. Something that needed saying (and being remembered) in the clear language you used.
Thank you!
The post raises the question of whether defeating Hamas and Hezbollah is attainable. It is true that military victory cannot be assumed. But it seems Israel has no other realistic option.
Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the latter’s patron, Iran, are firmly committed to bringing about Israel’s destruction, and October 7 drove home the point that when an enemy openly declares its genocidal intent, it should be taken seriously. It also seems clear that the more time that passes, the stronger Israel’s enemies become. Israel has already effectively ceded the north to Hezbollah. Will Israel wait until Hezbollah’s missile capabilities can target the entire country? And what political calculations will the “moderate” Arab nations make when they see that Iran, not Israel, is the real power to be reckoned with in the Middle East?
In the 1930s, witnessing Germany’s illegal rearmament, Churchill repeatedly warned that action should be taken before Germany was too strong. Understandably, people preferred to “learn to live” with the potential threat. The consequences of such inaction, however, were devastating.
Unfortunately, it seems Israel is now facing an existential situation similar to 1948. Before the State was declared, no one knew for sure whether Israel could defeat the combined Arab armies’ assault. But they knew that failing to do so would likely mean no Jewish State. Currently, a policy of waiting until the noose gets tighter is, to say the least, worrisome.
"What if Israel needs to learn to live, at least for now, with a threat on its northern border, as the United States did for decades when thousands of Soviet missiles were pointed at the continental United States?"
This comparison would make more sense if the USA had had a situation where eg the entire New-England was evacuated and living in hotels in Montana for months on end, while some paramilitary group with representatives in the Canadian parliament kept firing artillery at places from Bangor to Boston. Certain things aren't tolerable.
Absolutely correct and there is another major difference between the current situation and the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a rational actor whose leaders wanted to stay in power. Hezbullah and Iran are not. They are motivated by extreme Shiite beliefs that are not rational and therefore deterrence will not work. The same with Hamas. People in the west make the fatal mistake of assuming everyone has the same motivations as they do. Unfortunately they don’t. Hamas doesn’t care about civilians or destruction. They believe the more people killed and the more destruction will help their cause. And therefore a deterrence policy doesn’t work. You can’t deter someone who doesn’t care about the consequences or more importantly welcomes the consequences.
I agree with both of you that the situation is different; I'm not claiming otherwise. That does not mean that there remains a binary choice with the only two options being "Let it happen" and "All out war." Shaul - your comparison is also faulty, as this paramilitary group is obviously no match for the US army, whereas Hezbollah is an extremely powerful actor with key allies outside of Lebanon as well as within. And Marty - correct, Hezbollah are not rational actors (or perhaps are rational only within their extreme Islamist context). Given that, what do you suggest? Let's say - G-d forbid - that Israel were able to eliminate the threat only through a war in which thousands of soldiers and civilians would be killed. Is it still worth it? What if it's tens of thousands? My point is that sometimes there are only bad choices, and we need to choose the least bad - and maybe, in this case, the least bad is relying upon a faulty-but-not-worthless deterrence. Again: I'm not saying that this is true. I hope it is not true. I am saying that insisting that war is the only answer no matter the consequences (and unless you work in the higher echelons of Israel's security establishment you don't know what those consequences are) is shallow, dangerous, and shortsighted.
"Shaul - your comparison is also faulty, as this paramilitary group is obviously no match for the US army, whereas Hezbollah is an extremely powerful actor with key allies outside of Lebanon as well as within."
Look, we can go back and forth. I could cite the Cuban missile crisis, Chamberlain's peace in our time etc etc. You could cite Vietnam, Iraq, and point to Begin's peace with Egypt. Like you, I 1) don't claim to know the answer and 2) think there aren't any good options. What I disagree with is your underlying presumption that there's something crazy about Ben Gvir's position regarding what the *default* ought to be in a situation like this. Again, from the 'safety' of the USA, it seems to me that you're letting the tzfardea get slowly boiled.
"I am saying that insisting that war is the only answer no matter the consequences (and unless you work in the higher echelons of Israel's security establishment you don't know what those consequences are) is shallow, dangerous, and shortsighted."
The implication of that part in parentheses is what I reject. It's not like Herzi Halevi has some special access to a crystal ball. I don't see any reason why his assessment is somehow more lucid than Ofer Winter's https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skishktec or Tzvika Fogel's.
(I made most of these points in the comments on a prior post as well. https://scottkahn.substack.com/p/the-war-cabinet-and-israel-in-grave/comment/58735002 )
Reality has shown that the current defense establishment assessments are based on wishful thinking and have been proven wrong time and time again. Remember what they said about Oslo. Remember what they said about the disengagement, can anyone honestly say the defense establishment got those right? Until October 7th the defense establishment thought that Hamas was deterred and wouldn’t attack. So Scott, the defense establishment has lost all its credibility with the people and I don’t see why anyone would just accept their assessments. This claim that only the experts in the defense establishment know is ridiculous They have proven that they know less than the average straight thinking person.
We need to make informed choices based on facts and what has happened over the past n years. If we look at those, it quite clear that the current approach is NOT working. The current approach produced October 7th and the current situation with Hezbollah. The current approach of deterrence has failed miserably. What you also fail to address is that the current situation is untenable. Tens of thousand of residents in the north are homeless. The north is literally burning and unlivable. The only way to get people back to their homes is to remove the threat. Before October 7th the people in the north lived uneasily with the threat. After October 7th no one will live in the north based on deterrence. So unless you are willing to literally give up the northern part of the country there don’t seem to be any other options other than war.
Israel's government and the IDF say that there are other options, such as an agreement by Hezbollah to move a certain distance back from the border in line with UN resolution 1701. You might disagree (and I don't trust Hezbollah either) but are you really sure that you know better than the IDF about the "only way"? What about a permanent Israeli force on the border with Lebanon along with some open or tacit agreement to stop the rockets so that even if Hezbollah tried to do its own October 7th, there would be thousands of soldiers on the border to immediately become involved? I'm not saying that these are the best or even good options. I am saying that I will not go the "only way" route when I don't know what the consequences of that would be.
So you want to repeat what we did in 2006? Why on earth would you think the result would be any different? Would you go live in Kiryat Shemona based on that? Does anyone really think Hezbollah would ever agree to that? Even if Hezbollah withdrew we know what will happen. They will slowly move forces forward. And then what will Israel do? Go to war because Hezbollah broke the agreement and moved forces closer to the border? Of course not. And we will be right back to where we are today. The solutions you are proposing have either been tried and failed, UN resolution 1701 or are wildly impractical and ridiculous. Where are these thousands of soldiers going to come from? What is going to stop Hezbollah from shooting anti tank missiles at them or anyone else? Until the government/defense establishment comes up with a realistic plan that will address the real security concerns of the residents there is nothing to talk about. So far there hasn’t been a single proposal (other than war) that does that.
Here is the bottom line. There are almost 100,000 residents of the north who are homeless. They need to go home. Any plan that is adopted needs to ensure that. All your proposals don’t.
So how many soldiers are you willing to sacrifice in order to implement your plan? Is there a limit? Or does it not matter, as long as Hezbollah is destroyed (assuming that's even possible)?
This perspective is naturally difficult, because the religious will always have an answer, either the Haredi "staying in God's favor by studying day and night is all that matters" or the Otzma "God wants us to conquer the land, and will only support us to extent we pursue that goal"
And the introspective "God let this happen to us for our sins" very quickly turns into "for YOUR sins" directed at fellow Jews
I think that we should be very careful in our criticism of what is being done for us by the Holy Name. Unlike most people who see death as a disaster, when a family member is lost from an orthodox Jewish home, the attitude to it is both one of sadness but also more formally, that its was by G-d's grace and from His viewpoint for the best. The same thing applies to Israel's wars.
Perhaps the lesson that we have learned about the October massacre was more significant than were we to have managed to avoid or at least reduce it.
Perhaps we will be better prepared for the next war.
Perhaps even the loss of life of all the remaining hostages will allow us to eliminate Hamas so completely that the exchange terrorists will not then be free to murder a greater number of our fellow citizens over the years that would follow.
We really don't know, and should be able to accept the future as it comes with both joy and sadness. Below is how I see it: Philosophy of Change
Change brings pain—again and again.
Pain brings suffering—uttering, muttering
Suffering brings tolerance—with much endurance.
Tolerance brings thinking—and good ideas linking.
Thinking brings knowledge—saves going to college.
Knowledge brings understanding—sensibility expanding.
Understanding brings wisdom—and where it comes from.
And wisdom makes life bearable—happily declarable!
.
David - I strongly disagree with your characterization of the Jewish attitude towards death. I have never heard any authority say that "when a family member is lost from an orthodox Jewish home, the attitude to it is both one of sadness but also more formally, that its was by G-d's grace and from His viewpoint for the best." We say that He is the true Judge, but telling mourners "this is for the best" would be awful. I sat shiva for my dad about ten weeks ago, and not one person said that his death was by G-d's grace and for the best - and had they said it, every person in the room would have been horrified.
Hi Scott, the second time you quoted my sentence, it was shortened and its meaning changed. I wrote more and differently than "this is for the best". I appreciate you existing state of mourning and add my condolences, you do not need to make an apology.
Your comments show how lacking we are in the mistaken pursuit of meaning in current events together with our religious traditions.
I'm sorry David, I don't know what you are trying to say.
What I am trying to say- I think- is that often that those who have been brought up with a frum outlook or who are observant Jews, such as myself, assume a certain understanding: that all is directed by Hakadosh-baruch-Hu. Yet the historical realities at different times are, and have been very difficult for the Jewish people- We cannot explain this and I think we should not even try .. but accept that Hashem is hidden- hastarat panim, and, as a result, we cannot know or understand much of what is going on in the world and where it leads. Thus one need be wary of explanations of historical circumstances and concentrate primarily on carrying out the Mitzvot developing good middot, acting with kindness, doing good and being humble.
Excellent, thank you.
IMHO, the depravities visited on us on Oct 7 were more than הסתר פנים. They were extreme examples of 'חילול ה.
If Gd let it happen how could it be a Chilul Hashem?
The גלות is reffered to a חילול ה in tanach. So is עונש in general למה יאמרו מצרים...
Ok, (perhaps textually) but theologically, how are Gd's own decisions like here, considered a Chilul Hashem (which connotes a human failing) - ?
Everything is Hashem. He gives ppl the ability to sin. We have our own sins that ked us there and Hamas decided to be evil messengers. The world see Hashems chosen people in a low place. they murdered us, and raped our sisters. We continue to be למשל ולשנינה in many ways. What is our sovereignty worth if we feel powerless and dont use it?
Ok, so you are saying that the Jewish people were "humbled, punished, however you want to say it. and that makes us as Gd's people lowly in the eyes of others.
a) I don't know if suffering an attack (though the IDF could have stopped it beforehand apparently) makes us look bad any more so than Jewish people that cheat in business etc. Being a victim these days is celebrated in some places, no?
b) You still did not answer how Gd's choice to let Hamas act could be considered a Chilul Hashem by humans. Unless you are saying that Gd creates his own Chilul, which is an interesting idea.
c) Is it a kiddush Hashem that we are able to fight back or is it Chilul because we have killed so many "innocents" - ? Depends how you look at things right?
A. The world dosent like victims when they're jews.
B. He lets his name be מחולל or else there would be no בחירה. He commands us to be מקדש His name on this Earth but that allows comes with the ability to do the opposite.
C. These "innocents" deserved it. Affirming Jewish over israel is a קידוש ה. By איכה we lamment "מלכה ושריה בגויים אין תורה". If israels kings and ministers are among the nations (and we lose soverignty) there js no Torah.