Settlements: a conversation on Israel’s soul and future

Why did we choose to tackle the issue of settlements? And why was it so hard?

I’ll start with a personal confession: many places in Judea and Samaria are very close to my heart.

I have a deep affection for Hebron. I’ve been there quite a few times, even led tours to introduce others to this remarkable place. I would tell the incredible story of Hebron’s Jewish community, though I must admit I approached the complexities of the conflict with a certain bias.

Nowhere else does my prayer feel as heartfelt as it does in the Cave of the Patriarchs, and nowhere else do I feel the presence of ancient Jewish history as vividly as I do there.

I have always been deeply moved by the dramatic history of the Gush Etzion kibbutzim, which fell on May 13, 1948, just one day before Israel declared its independence. It’s impossible not to be touched by the story of Hanan Porat, one of the leaders of the settlement movement. Evacuated from Kfar Etzion as a child in 1948, he later fought in the battles for Jerusalem in 1967, and went on to rebuild the very settlement where his ancestors had perished.

On my father’s grave rests a stone from Mount Eival (near Nablus)—a site of profound significance in the biblical narrative.

There are countless remarkable places and incredible stories in these lands, each one steeped in ancient Jewish history, which holds deep meaning for me.

This item has been challenging for me for two reasons: one is more personal, while the other concerns the thate of our nation. Yet, both aspects are closely interconnected.

The first reason stems from a personal journey I’ve been on for several years—a realization that many of my previous beliefs were rooted in ignorance or a reluctance to seek deeper understanding, preferring to remain on the surface. During my visits to various locations in Judea and Samaria, I often failed to question the foundations on which these places were established.

I was deeply immersed in the personal significance of these lands and their historical importance to me. This connection provided a perspective that spanned millennia, drawing my attention away from the more immediate questions regarding their relevance—not just to Jewish history, but to the modern Jewish state here and now.

In this regard, however, I have also taken a convenient stance. It argues that we were not the ones who initiated the Six-Day War, nor were we responsible for blocking the Strait of Tiran or threatening our neighbors with total annihilation. We certainly did not open the Jordanian front. Therefore, the victors in this conflict are not to be judged. Additionally, this stance points out that the Palestinians themselves seem unable to decide what they want, having rejected several proposed state options in favor of warfare. With no partner for peace, the questions of there is still no peace should be directed elsewhere.

This simplistic view of historical processes, while it may hold some justification, is comfortable precisely because it obscures our role in the conflict and our involvement in its resolution. It offers a tempting sense of righteousness, shifts the burden of responsibility, and postpones the resolution of the conflict into the distant future. Yet, it neglects to address the seemingly obvious questions: what have we been doing all this time, where are we headed, and what are we counting on?

My genuine interest in the legal foundations of settlement activity was sparked a year ago while I was preparing a piece on the judicial overhaul. During this time, I examined historical, precedent-setting Supreme Court decisions, including the significant cases involving the settlements of Beit El and Elon Moreh.

However, it wasn’t until Israel’s key partners started imposing sanctions and legal challenges loomed over our country that I began to take the topic seriously. I finally attempted to understand what the world was saying and what we had been overlooking. Until then, I, like many others, had opted to look away and avoid deeper reflection on the issue.

To be honest, until October 7, this was a rather comfortable stance, particularly for someone who arrived here after Operation Protective Edge in 2014. While there were occasional outbreaks of violence, it was still possible to engage in abstract discussions about the conflict, debate the terminology of different territories, and take pride in the certainty of one’s position in times of self-created, illusory stability.

The initial reaction to October 7 was a reinforcement of previous positions. It seemed to provide yet another piece of evidence: what kind of peace or solution to the conflict can we realistically discuss?

But since then, reality has begun to descend with that same hard but obvious questions: what have we been doing all this time, where are we headed, and what are we counting on?

One can present a thousand justified arguments about how peace is unreachable either now or in the foreseeable future. However, an honest assessment of reality is that millions of people from two different national groups inhabit the same piece of land, and neither group is going anywhere. Both are willing to fight and die for this land, as as has been proven time after time.

Until recently, we argued that our side has always been willing to pursue a two-state solution, if only the other side opted for peace. Let’s assume that is still true, though I’m not entirely sure anymore. But what have we been doing all this time, and what were we hoping to achieve? How does the settlement movement align with this thesis? Have we not been making the two-state solution increasingly unattainable, regardless of whether the Palestinians are prepared for it or not?

What is a settlement enterprise if not just a desire to claim territory under the guise of security reasons and the notion that peace is unattainable here and now?

What is a settlement enterprise if not the perpetuation of a territorial problem?

What is a settlement enterprise if not decades of unresolved national dilemma, reflecting our repeated indecision on what we truly want and where we are headed as a nation?

If we still genuinely aspire to peace, respect the another people’s right of self-determination (as long as it doesn’t threaten our existence), and view ourselves as part of the civilized, democratic world governed by the rule of law—while seeking cooperation and support from it—then perhaps we should at least pause activities that the rest of the world deems illegal. We need to move beyond the bravado of our supposed invincibility and begin contemplating how we can strive for peace, even under these challenging circumstances.

Yes, strive, not just talk about it, since peace is not a rosy dream that descends from the heavens for those who passively wish for it. It demands action, strategic planning, trial and error, patience, and unwavering determination. Like sports or any healthy habit, peace cannot be abandoned after the first failed attempt. If we only depict ourselves as those who yearn for peace while the cruel world attacks us, we become nothing more than naive utopians, waiting for peace to materialize on its own, if and when all the evil forces in the world suddenly see the Truth.

If we are still a truly peace-loving nation, as we so often strive to convince the world, then our actions must align with our words. The pursuit of peace should not be reduced to mere slogans or sarcastic jabs at 90s political agendas (“oh, those poor, naive leftists”); it should be rather reinstalled as a fundamental part of our current political strategies and future plans. Geopolitical actions must be evaluated based on whether they bring us closer to or further away from the prospect of peace.

Moreover, any unjustified violence on our part should be immediately halted and prosecuted. This is what a nation founded on the ideals of peace does—not just talks about it when it’s convenient. Only then could we honestly look the world in the eyes and say we are truly seeking peace in both words and actions, and not just selling nice stories while stoking a never-ending war in the ‘backyard’.

In my view, following the tragedy of October 7, our focus should not be on revenge, punishment, or hatred, but rather on peace—genuine peace, achievable peace on acceptable terms, based on a decades-long plans. This must once again become the ideal we strive for as a society. The pursuit of peace should be our primary goal, with appropriate means and solutions developed to support it. We need to reevaluate all our current strategies and abandon those that have only fueled further violence.

But if all of this is irrelevant—if we, as a society, continue to mock these ideals and dismiss them as some “leftist” notions; if we are waging a holy war, fighting to the last person for every scrap of this land; if our goal is to crush the other nation and assert our dominance, proving to ourselves and others that everything here is rightfully ours while denying the very existence of the other nation—then let us at least be honest with ourselves and the world. Let us declare what our true aspirations are and be prepared to face the consequences.

Let’s not tell the world how peaceful and enlightened we are when radical settler groups, who forcibly seize territory, demolish villages, and glorify violence along with their sense of “chosenness,” are becoming the new face of Zionism, normalized by our resounding silence.

If fighting this shameful phenomenon of settler violence—let alone the questionable legality of settler enterprise as a whole—is considered unpopular, then let’s stop downplaying and whitewashing it with petty excuses about an extreme, unrepresentative minority. Let’s face the facts and say it openly: this is what we want. The rule of law is of no interest to us; we aim to apply it selectively and make it legal.

There’s also little value in lamenting how our dream of peace confronts a wall of misunderstanding when our ministers openly advocate for bloodthirsty revenge, punishment, and humiliation. This isn’t force for peace; it’s merely force for the sake of force.

We are quick to accuse everyone of hypocrisy—be it the BBC, CNN, the Palestinians, or anyone else—but we fail to recognize that we do exactly the same thing, blinded by an unwavering sense of self-righteousness. It genuinely shocks us each time the entire world suddenly turns against us and tells us, as Joe Biden gently put it: “stop bullshitting me.”

What I dislike most is indirectness, insincerity, hypocrisy, and ulterior motives. On a personal level, I prefer to filter out people who exhibit this kind of behavior. Yet, this is how we often conduct ourselves on a national scale. Even worse, it has also infiltrated our internal public discourse.

And this is the second reason why this item was particularly challenging for me. At the public level, we have stopped discussing it directly, opting instead for hints, euphemisms, and caveats that mystify and blur the entire issue. While preparing this material, I found myself repeatedly searching for pitfalls and choosing my words with unnecessary caution, even resorting to some sort of self-censorship as I pondered what should or shouldn’t be written. Isn’t this a clearest indicator that something is amiss? This topic has become a taboo, a real minefield of ideas and perspectives, where any expressed thought—or even worse, any term or name used—leads to labeling, discrediting, or even harassment.

The lack of direct and honest conversation and silent movement in opposite directions is destroying the foundations and consensus of our society. Each side is pulling this patchwork quilt in its own direction. Through Oslo and Rabin’s assassination, through the peace experiment of the nineties and noughties that was not elaborated, not fully realized and traumatic, through the Gaza withdrawal, through the “miracle-era ” policy of settlement permissiveness – the unfinished and halfway abandoned conversation has moved to the level of grievances and unspoken passive aggression cynically and irresponsibly used by the populists of the last decade.

The absence of direct and honest conversation, coupled with a silent drift in opposing directions, is eroding the foundations and consensus of our society. From the Oslo Accords and Rabin’s assassination to the unfulfilled and traumatic peace experiment of the ’90 and early ’00s, through the Gaza withdrawal and the “miracle era” policy of settlement permissiveness, this half-abandoned dialogue has devolved into mutual resentments and unspoken passive aggression, cynically and irresponsibly bloated by the populists of the last decade.

However, we have no choice but to engage in an honest and open-minded conversation about “what we want to be when we grow up.” Metaphorically speaking, this is the moment when a reasonable adult needs to sit down with a restless teenager and explain that while it’s possible to live one day at a time without considering the consequences of one’s actions, there comes a point when that approach is no longer sustainable and could lead to self-destruction.

Before this conversation even begins, everyone needs to recognize the urgent need for it. We are indeed in deep water, and the fattened elephant in the room has grown to enormous proportions, threatening to leave us with no space at all. This conversation must be approached with a profound understanding that no one, on either side, possesses the magic key or the one correct solution for today. It is with this humble and honest acknowledgment that we must approach our brainstorming about the future. To make progress, we need to agree, at least in broad terms, on where we want to go and start taking careful steps in that direction.

It may be that we will never agree and never find a common denominator after so many years of terrible irresponsibility and petty politicking by our leaders; their ongoing failure to grasp that any decision—or indecision—made today can have repercussions for decades to come; a tendency to sharpen corners rather than smooth them out; an “us versus them” mentality instead of a “we” approach; and numerous fundamental mistakes along the way. But at least we will try.

Writing this material was not easy, but I approached it with a pure heart. I value honesty, and the truth always holds greater importance for me, even when it’s inconvenient. I hope this is what our society will strive for: to realize that a bitter, painful truth is indeed better than a sweet delusion. I also hope we come to recognize that a hard and uncomfortable conversation is always preferable to unspoken, potentially explosive tension.

What we wanted to hear in the Congress speech

Let’s turn the page and close out last week’s events with our look at what did and did not happen in the US Congress last Wednesday.

Israel’s mainstream media rushed to assess the momentary spectacularity of the speech. But they were evaluating a show that hides a tragic reality behind empty slogans and cardboard scenery. In our view, the contrast is too stark to enjoy the show.

We don’t claim to be speechwriters for the Prime Minister, but we offer a few points that we felt were missing from the address.

Perhaps these points would have garnered less applause, or maybe just the same, but they would have better reflected the national sentiment, provided genuine comfort to those in need, and conveyed a sense of sincerity and humanity.

These could have been the words of a leader speaking to all his people—words that would have had a real meaning.

“I would like to start this speech with a moment of silence to honor the memory of all those who have lost their lives since October 7.

Our country and our people have been enduring profound trauma and unimaginable loss for nearly ten months now.

Our history is marked by loss, but we have always found a way to hold our heads high. We know how to bear the weight of grief without allowing it to bend our break our stride.

On October 7, we stumbled and fell, as even the strongest among us sometimes do. Yet, two things have immediately helped us rise.

The first is our remarkable nation, with its iron will and unbreakable spirit. This is a people who do not wait for a call to action, who don’t think twice and rush to save lives, even at the risk of their own, without hesitation or spare questions. Our nation is one of deep empathy and shared responsibility, a people who have continuously learned the importance of unity and mutual support.

Blessed is the country whose people are like that.

I bow my head in reverence to my people and humbly acknowledge the great honor it has been to serve as their chosen leader for so many years. It is precisely because of this trust that I have the unique opportunity to address you now for the fourth time, more than anyone else.”

But I don’t take it for granted.

I know that the people’s trust has been profoundly shaken. After all, on October 7, we, the state, were hardly there for our citizens during their most difficult and painful hours. I’m not sure if we can be forgiven at all, but I apologize anyway. I’m deeply sorry we couldn’t protect you when we should have. I am sorry we were not there for you when you needed us most.

I also understand that trust is not a gift but rather something that must be continually earned. We must live up to the mandate given to us every single day, proving ourselves worthy of this great nation and its sacrifices. I hear you and your justified frustration; I see your desperation. That is why I promise you: once we stabilize the situation and ensure we are on solid ground, we will immediately hold elections and let the people have their say.

The second thing that helped us to rise quickly and recover from the fall was you, the United States of America. Our true friend and partner, who immediately extended a helping hand without any hesitation. In spite of everything, you were with us, you were for us, and we will not forget it.

I know we’ve had our differences and disagreed on many issues over the years. But true friendship allows us to turn the page and start over.

And so I hope that if any hard feelings linger, we will ‘turn the page’ today. Let there be no doubt within these walls about unwavering support for Israel. Let it never be under a question mark in this house.

For ten months, we have been engaged in a grueling war under challenging conditions, battling an inhumane enemy with brutal and criminal tactics. Yet, thanks to our army and our fighters, we have achieved significant results.

However, one task remains incomplete: bringing home those we failed to protect on October 7. While we have carried out extraordinary operations to rescue those we could, ten months is far too long for our people to remain in the hands of ruthless killers.

We have let them down them once again by failing to bring them back soona. Therefore, we will do everything in our power to ensure their return as part of the current negotiations.

It is not an easy decision, but it is the right one, and we will ensure that all our strategic national interests are taken into account. But we will bring our people home.

The pain and despair of their loved ones is shared by all of Israel. We cannot undo their suffering, but we must do everything possible to bring their loved ones home as soon as possible and support them in every way we can.

We must also restore every Israeli’s faith that this State is capable, first and foremost, of protecting and preventing, but if disaster strikes, we will be the first to come to the rescue. This state is built on its people; they are our greatest asset, their lives are sacred to us, and their trust is a precious resource that we cannot afford to squander.

I could offer many more grand and impressive words, but in times like these, words alone are insufficient. Leaders must demonstrate their commitment through action.

I’d be happy to stay longer, but this will be a short visit. I’ll have a few more important meetings and fly back immediately.

We’re at war. Our people are in trouble. After all, important decisions can’t wait.”

Who is really dividing the nation here?

In an interview this morning, Likud MK Nisim Vaturi stated that “the protesters against the government are just another wing of Hamas.”

Vaturi later apologized for his words, but this is far from the first statement in a series of attempts by elected officials, journalists, and opinion leaders to discredit the protest movement.

Another Likud MK, Miki Zohar, commented that statements like Vaturi’s, as well as those made at demonstrations, are equally divisive in society.

This is yet another common accusation against protesters since the days of judicial reform – that anti-government demonstrations are supposedly divisive and play into the hands of external enemies.

Let’s put things in order and sort out who is divisive and who is not.

Let’s start with the basics. The right to protest, along with freedom of assembly and expression, is fundamental in a democratic society. These rights are among the few but powerful and effective tools that citizens have to communicate their disagreement with the authorities.

A protest is not a courtroom with its polite wording and high rhetoric; it often involves and should involve harsh criticism of public representatives and their actions. As long as statements made at a protest do not violate the law or incite violence, they are a legitimate form of expression, whether they are well-received or not.

Not only should mindful citizens, let alone elected officials, not disprove protests, even if they contradict their views, but instead, they should welcome and respect the right to express differing opinions.

A legitimate form of criticism of a legitimate protest can only be disagreement with its calls and demands. This represents an adequate, healthy public discourse.

Different forms of protest can provoke disputes and criticism. Spontaneous protests in unapproved locations that disrupt public order, like blocking highways or strikes, often irritate citizens. Many argue that such actions can lead ordinary citizens to reject the goals and demands of the protest altogether.

Conversely, there are times when protests highlight issues affecting a particular and often overlooked group within society, such as disability benefits, for instance. In such cases, various less publicly convenient forms of protest can be one of the few effective ways to bring public attention to these noteworthy issues.

When a protest reflects widespread dissatisfaction with government actions, and if the authorities consistently ignore the group’s demands, sometimes disruptive forms of protest are necessary to compel the authorities to engage in dialogue. This was evident last year during protests following the dismissal of the defense minister, which prompted the government to halt the judicial reform’s progress and initiate discussions about it.

But back to the present situation. Since the outbreak of the war, protests have decreased significantly, giving space and credit to the emergency government to act at such a critical time for the country with no distraction. The resurgence of protests only began gaining momentum a few months ago. Just as in January 2023, it did not happen out of thin air.

Then it was a public reaction to an attempt to substantially alter the constitutional order outside of a broad consensus on such a monumental change for the entire society.

In the current environment, it is a response of society to a variety of factors:

  • Conducting warfare without a clear plan and strategy, with vague rather than concrete objectives, no transparent communication, and lack of accountability.
  • Significant criticism of the Prime Minister’s decisions from multiple members of the political-military cabinet, alleging decisions are made based on narrow political interests rather than national priorities.
  • The inability or reluctance to adopt a clear stance on the hostage crisis in any direction, which causes lots of confusion.
  • Renewed attacks on the judiciary and law enforcement systems.
  • Pushing forward a series of controversial, politically motivated laws, including two introduced this week that have sparked division and dissatisfaction among opposition and coalition members alike.
  • Coalition deputies displaying disconnected behavior and making rude statements towards citizens, hostage and bereaved families, evacuees, and others.
  • Persistent efforts to discredit, attack, and insult a significant portion of the population legitimately protesting against government actions.

The protests primarily stem from and react to the government and coalition MKs’ divisive actions rather than being the cause of division. In addition to criticizing the government, the protests consistently call for unity among the people.

So when Miki Zohar equates Nissim Vaturi’s statement with that of protest movement leader Shikma Bresler, who said, “Netanyahu smiled when officers knocked on the door (reporting soldiers’ deaths to their families),” he is inaccurate and misleads the public.

Nissim Vaturi insults a significant segment of society by accusing them of aiding terrorists simply for exercising their right to protest and express their views. It’s worth reminding that some MKs even went further, calling the protesters themselves terrorists.

In turn, Shikma Bresler’s speech at the protest, which one may agree or disagree with, addressed the recent events in the Knesset.

At that moment, the prime minister was caught smiling widely after orchestrating a political maneuver to push forward the contentious conscription law, coinciding with the publication of the names of soldiers killed in Rafah. The law itself and Netanyahu’s reaction to its enactment sparked widespread public outrage, symbolizing everything that has been happening lately. Shikma Bresler’s speech simply echoed this sentiment of outrage felt by the public.

It is the irresponsible conduct of populist leaders and their political maneuvers that are fracturing our society, rather than the dissatisfaction expressed by the people themselves.

On the contrary, had the government coalition acted responsibly and represented the entire nation rather than serving specific sectors or interest groups, the public reaction would likely have been far more subdued.

Trying to swap cause and effect and justify failed actions by blaming the public is nothing short of gaslighting at the national level.

Our responsibility is to resist being misled and to hold our elected officials accountable, not letting them to get away with such cheap manipulations.

8 months of war. Where is this government leading us?

How a complex operation that brought home four hostages and a political circus devoid of any connection to reality in Knesset fits into three days in modern Israel is a big question.

In recent years, we’ve posed very few such questions, often treating them as purely rhetorical. We occasionally marvel at our politicians’ cynicism but proceed without pressing for answers, continuing to entrust our fate to those whose words and actions so often sick our guts.

Meanwhile, questions serve as vital tools for critical thinking. When someone rushes to sell you a vague product without providing details, you start asking questions. When any information is presented as an absolute truth without room for any other perspectives, you start asking questions. And when you ask about one thing and get a evasive response on an entirely different issue, you get back and ask questions.

For eight months now, with our full consent, the government has been selling us some vague product, following only categorical, one-way statements and not answering any questions directly. It is high time we asked ourselves the hard questions and waded through the maze of populism, slogans, and manipulations.

After all, the right questions often have the power to clarify even the most bewildering situations, exposing underlying issues or our actual attitudes to them.

War. Hostages. Communication Failure and Zero Transparency.

After eight months of battles without achieving our goals, it’s time to confront several honest questions, starting with: are our goals achievable at all?

Is the goal of returning the hostages compatible with the goal of eliminating Hamas’s political and military power? If compatible, what is the tangible plan to achieve them in a close perspective, and why are we still far from achieving them after eight months?

If not compatible, then what are our actual national priorities? What is more crucial: to bring people back or to continue fighting even at the cost of their deaths?

If getting people back is more important, why are we not making the necessary concessions as part of the deal negotiations? If that requires ending the war and withdrawing troops, what political means do we have to maintain pressure on Hamas and prevent their resurgence? And what might our strategy be next?

If our priority is to overthrow Hamas, even at the cost of the lives of hostages, why doesn’t the government explicitly state this, instead of giving false hope to families? If we are committed to continuing the war, what is our strategy? What can we achieve in one, two, three, or six months of ongoing warfare? What assurances do we have? What risks do we face? What are the diplomatic and economic costs of prolonging the war? Are there sanctions to consider? Can we sustain the economic burden of the conflict, given, to put it mildly, the considerable state budget deficit and the increasingly expensive loans we are taking out to cover it?

Besides, why has the war effort been proceeding at such a leisurely pace since February? Is it because we lack resources for a more intensive war or because intensity does not make sense in terms of the asymmetric warfare we’re facing with Hamas? If it’s the case, then once again, what are we looking for in prolonging this type of war?

Finally, is the deadlock we find ourselves in occurred due to our own poor decisions, or was this inevitable regardless of our actions during the war? If our current situation is partly self-inflicted, can we persist only to correct our mistakes?

After 8 months, Israeli society at least deserves clear, coherent, honest, and transparent answers to these questions from its government. What do we see instead?

The government and our Prime Minister do not give a single clear answer and continue to talk to us with hollow concepts, hiding behind cardboard scenery, where there is no room for complex issues and hard truth, where everything is categorical, loud, and monochromatic.

Furthermore, after a five-month marathon of weekly press conferences, the prime minister has apparently grown tired of Israeli journalists’ probing questions once again. For several months now, he has opted to communicate solely through video messages and conversations with American journalists and podcast hosts.

From the rather monotonous video messages and interviews, we get to know where our wind is blowing. We learn that somehow, we are still fighting for ‘total victory’ and the unconditional destruction of Hamas, although no substantial plan follows these words. A couple of months ago, we were within arm’s reach of victory, but today, that message has been dropped from the speeches. Now, it’s just total victory, but without a binding timeline.

We hear no response to the criticism from numerous military experts who claim that this goal is an illusion and an impossible task. There is no refutation in the form of even a rough plan for further operational tasks. Military allies, U.S. partners, and a host of experts argue that while fighting to the end may be feasible, without political solutions and the introduction of alternatives, destroying Hamas remains unachievable.

The Prime Minister continues to assert that Hamas must be dismantled first before considering alternatives, yet there’s no clear plan on how to achieve this. Tzachi Hanegbi, head of the National Security Council, recently stated vaguely that we may remain in a state of war for at least another seven months. Again, with no vision of what will happen in those seven months, what can be achieved during this time, even by the most conservative estimates, or any clarity on whether the potential risks and losses are justified.

Having nearly exhausted all unconditional public trust since the onset of the war, it would be prudent, if not essential, for decisions crucial to the country’s future to at least inform the people about upcoming prospects.

Hostage negotiations have been following the same vicious circle since January. Proposals emerge in which Israel makes more and more concessions but fails to agree to Hamas’s primary demand for a permanent ceasefire and withdrawal. Hamas rejects the deals; Israel argues that more military pressure is required and continues military action, but after a while, comes to the negotiating table again, agreeing to more concessions.

And even when the language of the agreement specifically allows it to be interpreted both in the direction of Hamas’ demands for a complete ceasefire and Israel’s insistence on a temporary one, Israel’s prime minister and his staff hastily issue multiple conflicting statements, essentially undermining what the proposal suggests.

Once again. Israel has already entered into negotiations with Hamas terrorists and is attempting to reach an agreement with them on certain terms; it sends an offer, and at the same time, the Israeli Prime Minister declares from every stage that, despite the terms of the offer, Israel will continue the war and destroy Hamas, with whom we are trying to reach an agreement. You might as well just offer Hamas to capitulate and expect them to go along with it for some reason.

“We are working tirelessly and doing everything possible and impossible to get our hostages back. I think about them and their families all the time. And that’s why we made a big offer. But we will not rest until we destroy Hamas.” B. Netanyahu

Reasonable questions arise as to why the Prime Minister repeatedly resorts to questionable actions that could have been avoided whenever the other party considers the deal. This raises justifiable doubts about whether the Prime Minister is interested in the agreement at all and whether he is even deliberately trying to derail it. But yet again, no answers, no attempt to dispel doubts, just vague statements that suggest the hostages are not forgotten. Just another communication failure on a highly sensitive issue, distressing the families so eager for these deals.

Regrettably, alongside the misleading stance on this issue, many coalition MKs are also presenting an exaggerated and manipulative narrative about the end of the war, which is effectively required for the return of the hostages.

Ending the war and withdrawing troops is portrayed as an outright defeat, almost automatically leading Hamas to a complete restoration of its capabilities and an inevitable repeat of October 7. However, several aspects in this regard are simply overlooked:

  1. All of this could happen within a few years solely on the assumption of our complete inaction or the continuation of the policies that preceded October 7. No one deprives us of the opportunity to learn all the lessons and prevent it from happening. No one prevents us from dictating our terms or deprives us of the tools of political pressure in negotiating a post-war settlement and beyond.

  2. October 7 occurred because of a military and political failure on several levels. Had it not been for a fateful coincidence, had Hamas’ motivation not been misjudged, and had more troops been amassed at the border, the terrorist breakthrough could have ended only with heavy fighting in the border area without massive casualties among the Israeli population. The Hamas attack was not imminent and should have been prevented or at least repulsed. And with the right approach, such attempts in the future should be nipped in the bud.

Indeed, suppose we decide to make concessions, end the war, and confront the reality that Hamas is entrenched both ideologically and organizationally; it will raise challenging questions and dilemmas that require thorough discussion, at least as a backup plan.

However, to claim that eight months of intense warfare have yielded no results at all, that Hamas will swiftly recover and strike again, especially likening it to another October 7, is either a gross manipulation or an admission of our total dysfunction as a state.

The Government appears to present its people with a highly exaggerated and distorted choice. On one side of the scale is a vague promise of total victory, while on the other is an equally unrealistic depiction of total defeat. Naturally, when framed in this manner, the choice becomes apparent. Despite claims in interviews with American media that the public supports continuing the war, the reality is that they have been offered a misleading and skewed choice instead of genuinely realistic options.

So why do we tolerate the Government feeding us superficial and empty narratives, evading tough questions, and leaving us entirely in the dark about where we are headed?

We must demand the opposite, especially at this pivotal moment in our history, where we stand at the crossroads of critical decisions, each potentially leading us astray. We find ourselves in an absurd situation where every subsequent move could shape the fate of the Arab-Israeli conflict for decades. Yet, there is a glaring lack of meaningful dialogue on the matter. Moreover, the Government has imposed a somewhat taboo on nearly any discussion concerning Palestinians, as if closing our eyes and pretending we are alone will make the problem vanish on its own.

We must equally, if not more so, ask ourselves tough questions about the potential for war in the North. It’s astonishing that considering the Government’s potential decision to engage in battle in the near future, there has been virtually no public discussion on the matter thus far.

We are not asking the basics: are we ready for it? This extends beyond Hezbollah’s missile arsenal and the potential scale of destruction on the home front. After eight months of a draining conflict in Gaza, with depleted reserves, societal divisions, strained alliances, and a growing fiscal deficit, are we ready to embark on a far more intricate war with unclear objectives? Can we sustain such a war with an open front in Gaza and an unresolved hostage issue? What are the true risks, and do we have a viable plan to mitigate them?

Silently Normalizing the Abnormal

Responsible parents teach their kids accountability. They teach that it is natural to be wrong sometimes. What matters is admitting wrongdoing in time, perhaps correcting it when it comes to actions, or at least taking words back and apologizing. Still, when we see children who find countless excuses and blame anything but themselves for failures, we may even find it cute and amusing. However, when it’s an adult who constantly shifts blame to nonexistent parties, it raises a significant red flag.

For eight months, the government has been blaming literally living and dead for the current situation but is absurdly unable to recognize its own share of responsibility. Numerous journalists and media outlets have only amplified this narrative. Oslo, Rabin, and Sharon are being ‘exhumed’ and held accountable once again; generals are blamed, Lapid with the Lebanon gas treaty, an unjust world, you name it. Anything goes, but the ruling party and government that has been in power almost uninterruptedly for the past fifteen years.

It took only eight months for government members to shift from embarrassed silence and chosen words to a bold denial of any guilt or responsibility for what happened, as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich explained clearly in an interview with radio station Kan Reshet Bet this week:

“October 7 has nothing to do with me, it’s not my fault, it’s the result of a crazy intelligence failure. Whoever is responsible for this should have resigned a long time ago. It’s all a concept of the army.” 

Well, it’s been eight months — a pretty stormy ride indeed, but the government seemingly dodged a bullet, alive and kicking. Why dwell on the past, then? (Unless, of course, it’s about the mistakes of the left)

This is called normalization. It happens when statements, actions, or inactions, deserving a denouncement at least, go unchallenged without consequences. In the book of Bereishit, societies are not punished for their sins per se but for the social normalization of those sins. The flood is sent not merely because the earth is filled with looting but because such behavior has become a daily norm. It is as if the Torah teaches us to remain vigilant and practice active citizenship. Nonetheless, in recent years, the normalization of the abnormal has been occurring at an alarming pace throughout our society.

Two weeks ago, the scandalous investigation into Likud Transportation Minister Miri Regev was released. The first part presented compelling evidence of corruption schemes, but the second offered no less shocking revelations. Two moments were particularly memorable.

On the morning of October 7, when the country was literally bleeding and struggling to pull itself together, as people were being tortured in southern kibbutzim and thousands of reservists rushed to join the fight, Miri Regev’s staff — her advisers, press secretaries, and ministry employees — were busy looking for traitors among the protest movement and government opponents, clinging to the most absurd conspiracy theories.

And three weeks later, when the residents of Kibbutz Be’eri refused to receive the minister at a ceremony, her staff unleashed a wave of vicious hatred against ‘those radical leftists’ – the same residents who had survived the horrendous events.

The response to those publications was nothing but Minister Regev’s unsubstantiated accusation that journalist Drucker had lied. No apology, not a single dismissal at her office, let alone Regev’s own resignation. No one in the ruling coalition said a word, no one demanded a hearing, and no one condemned it.

Yes, the police investigation started. Still, Miri Regev continues her work as if nothing happened, gives interviews, and even boasts that the government is paying for hotels for evacuees from war zones despite this being a direct obligation of the state:

“The government has done so many amazing things this year. So many people are in hotels and all at the expense of the government. The government has given money to rebuild the north and the south. We are working.”

She makes these statements precisely when the evacuees’ patience is wearing thin, as staying away from home and their familiar lives for eight months is an obvious torture.

Not a single word of condemnation followed the brazen behavior of the head of the National Security Council, Tzachi Hanegbi, at the meeting with the families of the hostages. Not only did Hanegbi bluntly say that the government has no backup plan for the return of their loved ones, but he also brought one of the participants to tears and asked not to make a drama.

Three weeks ago, Reuma and Gadi Kedem, who lost six family members on October 7, were targeted by violent right-wing activists holding placards labeling them “leftist traitors” and stating, “It’s good that your children were killed.” Following a lawsuit for injuring Gadi Kedem, a fundraising campaign was initiated to support the activist. Prime Minister’s son, Yair Netanyahu, posted a call for support for this campaign on his social media accounts.

Previously, police officers also used excessive force against protesting hostage families. Needless to say, there were no condemnations from government coalition members.

Several months ago, there were initial reports of attacks by some individuals on hostage families. At that time, such incidents seemed shocking and delusional. Today, however, even coalition MKs and government members no longer shy away from blunt confrontations with people who have lost nearly everything at the state’s fault. Arguments and attacks against them in Knesset committee hearings have sadly become somewhat of a norm.

Once again, there is no unequivocal condemnation of the violence, rudeness, and humiliation that these people endure alongside their unimaginable tragedy. Silence prevails — a silence that criminally blurs the boundaries of what is acceptable in our society and what isn’t, normalizing hatred and violence at full speed.

5th Grade Diplomacy

Meanwhile, the same coalition MKs and government members are so amazingly quick and efficient to issue condemnations when they disagree with some statements or actions abroad. It’s challenging to find an MK who hasn’t voiced an opinion on recognizing a Palestinian state by Norway, Ireland and Spain.

Foreign Minister Israel Katz is leading the charts. It seemed to him a wise diplomatic move to insult the national cultures of Spain, Norway, and Ireland, releasing absurd videos where their national music and dances were accompanied by footage of Hamas atrocities on October 7.

The videos have not been removed, no one has apologized for them, the official Twitter account of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs even reposted them.

Our ministers indulge in populist tirades involving references to the Inquisition, Nazis, and other irrelevant historical allusions, along with labeling nearly everything as anti-Semitism. Our international policy and public statements now resemble trolling at a fifth-grade level.

We decry the Palestinian-Israeli debate in the world for its illiteracy and reliance on shallow slogans and outrageous populism, yet we often set the same tone ourselves.

We could clearly articulate our position, portraying reality as it is — complicated — while posing some genuinely challenging questions to the world. How is the ‘two-state solution’ put into practice? Who represents the Palestinian people? What are national ideals and values they are instilling in younger generations? And who is willing to ensure our security if we go two-state?

But instead of channeling the dialogue in the right direction and challenging our foes, we chose useless populism, apparently, so that in time, no one would listen to us even when we say something important. Eventually, our diplomacy has reduced October 7 to a mere business card that we cynically pull out and throw on the table whenever faced with criticism of our actions or discussion on the Palestinian issue. The chilling hostage-taking video of Nahal Oz’s female soldiers was enough to show it to the world but not sufficient enough to make every effort to free them.

What is there to say when our current foreign policy constitutes insulting and ridiculing other nations and scrutinizing the world’s faults while not acknowledging our own glaring shortcomings?

Dangerous populism; corruption, hatred, and violence being normalized; a lack of accountability; complete non-transparency; total failure in internal and external communication. This more or less summarizes the current state of our political culture — a state that endures because we permit it to endure.

Last night’s passage of a law effectively exempting the ultra-Orthodox sector from military service, especially at this critical time, occurred right under our noses. Yet, we merely groaned to ourselves and moved on.

But we must capture this picture and take a good look at it, not to succumb to apathy and despair but to act and make a clear record of where we have fallen and where we must never return.

It seems that the current government ministers do not pose particularly challenging questions to themselves. However, it is our duty to pose these questions and not just ask them but demand answers, not letting elected officials get away without them.

International isolation of Israel. What is going on?

No longer just mist, but real storm clouds of international pressure are gathering over Israel, marking a week of unprecedented lousy news on the diplomatic front.

Karim Khan, a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC/ICC), which hears cases against individuals, has formally requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant on suspicion of intentionally committing war crimes.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), a UN body handling disputes between states, has granted South Africa’s appeal for interim orders demanding that Israel halt military actions in the town of Rafah.

Ireland, Norway and Spain decided to unilaterally recognize the Palestinian State.

Let’s break down each decision and discuss appropriate and inappropriate responses to them.

Decision of the International Criminal Court

The ICC decision came as a surprise to Israel. According to Israeli lawyers, prosecutor Karim Khan was about to make his second visit to Israel since the outbreak of war before making a final decision, but changed his mind and issued a statement on May 20 announcing the request for arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Galant, as well as the heads of Hamas – Ihya Sinuar, Ismail Haniyeh and Mohamad Def.

The statement focuses on the decisions of Israel’s political-military leadership at the outset of the war and beyond, which led to the difficult humanitarian situation in Gaza: starvation, dehydration, lack of sanitation, and infections. While affirming Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens, the statement also notes significant indications that several military decisions made may have breached international humanitarian law and could potentially amount to war crimes.

The decision to withhold electricity, water and block all humanitarian supplies during the first weeks of the war is heavily emphasized and is seen as a deliberate creation of unbearable living conditions for the entire population in order to pressure Hamas and achieve military objectives, which is contrary to humanitarian law.

The decision sparked a flurry of criticism not only in Israel but also globally, on several fronts.

Requesting arrest warrants for the highest officials of a democratic state along with the heads of a brutal terrorist organization pending investigation and trial is seen as an overly harsh, unjustified and extreme measure.

The court’s jurisdiction does not extend to Israel because Israel has neither signed nor accepted the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding document. However, the court argues that the alleged crimes occurred de facto in Palestinian territories, and the Palestinian Authority has ratified the statute.

Israel has so far boycotted ICC proceedings, asserting that it possesses an independent and robust justice system capable of holding all citizens, including senior officials, accountable. However, for the ICC to refrain from intervening in particular cases, it necessitates the country itself to initiate proper audits and investigations.

If the court decides to issue arrest warrants, Netanyahu and Galant could be restricted from traveling to 124 countries worldwide, including most of Europe. Some countries, like Hungary, have already declared they will not enforce the warrants. The German foreign minister, who criticized the ICC decision, gave a non-committal response when questioned about the possibility of Israeli leaders being arrested on German territory.

Decision of the International Court of Justice

Since January this year, the UN International Court of Justice has been hearing South Africa’s case against Israel for allegedly committing or intending to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. And while the case itself will be heard at a later date, South Africa has already twice requested urgent hearings for interim measures. In January, the court did not accept their request for a complete suspension of military action, but ordered Israel to significantly increase humanitarian aid, prioritize humanitarian considerations in military decision-making, and report to the court on compliance.

This time, the decision was more painful for Israel. The court barred Israel from continuing any military action in the town of Rafah that threatens casualties and severe humanitarian consequences for civilians and ordered allowing any international intelligence team on behalf of the UN to enter Gaza unhindered.

The ruling has sparked criticism as well, but some experts in Israel interpret it as allowing the precise operations in Rafah to continue. However, collectively, this week’s decisions from the two Hague courts inflict substantial diplomatic damage on Israel and pose a significant test for the international legitimacy of future military actions.

The ICJ and the UN lack effective enforcement mechanisms for their directives. However, failure to comply, followed by harsher judgments and UN Security Council resolutions, could potentially subject Israel to sanctions and boycotts.

Decision on the Recognition of the Palestinian State

Finally, three European States announced this week their unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state and urged the European Union to endorse this decision. Without a viable peace treaty defining recognized borders between Palestinians and Israel, state recognition remains symbolic and does not alter conditions on the ground. Nonetheless, it represents another significant diplomatic tool exerting pressure on Israel.

This occurs amidst the Israeli leadership’s consistent reluctance to articulate its future plans and reconfirm its dedication to the two-state solution, now reemerging on the international agenda. Simultaneously, there are both muted and outspoken proposals among Israeli politicians to assert military and potentially civilian authority over the Gaza Strip, including calls for the reintroduction of Israeli settlements in the region.

This was opposed last week by Defense Minister Yoav Galant, who called on the Prime Minister to publicly reject such strategies.

How should and should not we respond to all of this?

Let’s set emotions aside and examine the situation objectively. Despite the evident injustice and prejudice of decisions against Israel, our society and politicians must acknowledge certain facts.

These decisions did not occur in the war’s initial days or months. Experts have consistently cautioned from the outset that global trust is not limitless, and over time, criticism and pressure would intensify. Moreover, these developments are not unfolding out of the blue; they are a response to our actions and inactions.

Nearly nine months of conflict have elapsed, during which, unfortunately, we have not achieved any of our objectives. International law generally permits warfare only when those goals are realistically attainable.

Condemning our actions does not automatically qualify for justifying atrocities or supporting Hamas. Neither do the horrific acts of terrorists entitle us to take any action in retaliation or grant immunity from all criticism.

Complaining and labeling everything as anti-Semitism, firstly, is not always accurate and undermines the significance of this essential term. Secondly, it just doesn’t contribute positively or help us achieve any goals.

Yes, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict holds a foremost place on the world’s agenda and attracts more attention than many other conflicts, regardless of its complexities. However hypocritical it may be, we cannot change that.

Israel faces intense and often biased global scrutiny and operates within a deliberately challenging diplomatic environment. While we may resent it and strive against it, for now, we must accept it as a reality and shape our policies accordingly.

Even if we had conducted this war with utmost precision, the world would still find reasons to criticize. Yet, we have made lots of mistakes, including some that could have been avoided.

From the outset of the war, it was crucial to enforce strict discipline in public statements to avoid providing any unnecessary excuses to our critics and oversight bodies.

It could have been good for ministers to be aware of their responsibilities from day one and refrain from making statements that eventually worked against us. Even if there is some policy in place, perhaps we shouldn’t be blabbing about it at every turn. And yes, if something is said in Hebrew, people abroad still know how to translate and understand when necessary. But if it’s already happening, it would be appropriate for the head of state to articulate some balanced public stance, at least, if not to critique.

The same strict discipline should have been upheld within the military to prevent the rampant use of phone videos, which often portray us in a negative light and occasionally are undermining our defense in The Hague Court. If such incidents occur, it would be appropriate, at the very least, to criticize such actions. Soldiers, despite their undeniable contributions, bear responsibility to understand the boundaries of acceptability in an already challenging situation.

So far, the opposite is happening. In response to last week’s decisions, we continue the policy of burning bridges. Minister Ben-Gvir declares the need to reoccupy Gaza and evict the local population, Minister Smotrich freezes the Palestinian Authority’s financial flows and calls on the Prime Minister to urgently take a series of decisions, including the expansion of settlements in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), to which the Prime Minister responds with little or nothing.

After a diplomatic fiasco, acting out of spite, allowing words and actions that further alienate us from the world and push away not only our foes but also our few loyal partners, is a road to nowhere.

How can our defense team argue that abrupt statements by ministers are merely emotional reactions to the events of October 7 and do not reflect actual policy, when similar statements continue to be made by ministers in the military-political decision-making cabinet?

We could have pursued a proactive foreign policy throughout the war, clearly communicating our stance and preempting diplomatic challenges. Regarding the Palestinian State issue, Israel has almost never opposed the two-state solution. Even the current Prime Minister has affirmed his commitment to this stance in various languages and on different occasions.

Since the international community has been anticipating it, we could reiterate our previously stated position. However, following October 7, we could present a more robust and comprehensive list of our stringent security conditions, demanding that they be met before the question of the actual establishment of a Palestinian state is even raised.

But it was our indecision and inability to disarm our detractors in advance that became the weapon in their hands.

So, if things are so unfair, maybe there’s no point in responding to criticism at all? Unfortunately, we have reached the point of no return, when criticism was just lip service that could be ignored. Criticism has turned into action, and to respond to it with words only is to continue to lose the diplomatic battle.

We should oppose these decisions, voice our dissatisfaction, but focusing solely on resentment and lamenting injustice is not effective politics. Unfortunately, it only leads to complacency. We must wake up, acknowledge our mistakes, plan ahead, and take proactive steps to cut the diplomatic losses we are experiencing.

Corruption of the highest ranks

Last week, 13 Channel journalist Raviv Drucker, known for his scandalous investigations, released another episode of the documentary program Ha-Makor (המקור), in which he exposed the corrupt behavior of Transportation Minister and No. 9 on the Likud party list Miri Regev.

Drucker used the testimony of Yonatan Yosef, the former chief of staff for Miri Regev’s professional work, as evidence. Yosef gave access to work chats, correspondence, audio messages, and documents to support the investigation.

What did the investigation reveal?
screenshot from the documentary

The main focus of the investigation was the operational system within the Ministry of Transport. According to the uncovered documents, the ministry had developed a “traffic light” system, a table categorizing all municipal heads based on their attitudes towards political parties.

The list highlights the heads of cities and local councils who belong to the Likud party and ranks them based on the number of votes they secured for Miri Regev in the party’s most recent primaries.

Thus, everyone is highlighted either green — the most valuable (also called diamonds), yellow — the less useful, and without any color — the unimportant, those who brought no votes or are not Likud members at all.

According to this system:

Greens received top-class service, including prioritized requests, projects funding, meetings, and regular communication.

Yellows received help on an ad hoc basis.

Whites have not received any responses to inquiries at all.

screenshot from the documentary

For instance, the head of the Emek ha-Yarden local council has not received a response to a single letter or request for a meeting, let alone the advancement of crucial transportation projects, such as on highly accident-prone stretches of road.

Meanwhile, the mayor of Nof HaGalil receives everything he requests, including projects that contradict the ministry’s professional opinion.

Let’s break it down once more. The Ministry of Transportation’s decisions, such as where to install traffic lights, build interchanges, lay bicycle lanes, and repair roads — critical matters that can affect lives — are influenced by whether municipal officials are members of the Likud party and how loyal they are to Minister Regev personally.

The same grading system was applied to regular Likud activists, for whom the Minister of Transportation readily fulfilled almost any favor request. For instance, expediting repairs at a car shop for an activist from Hadera who “just bought a new Jeep for 350,000,” and the shop is “giving him tricks.” Or push bureaucratic processes. Or to get someone’s children a job. Regev and her advisors forwarded all such requests to the “First Priority” group chat room and received a swift response.

screenshot from the documentary

Among other things, it turned out that Regev and her team did not think particularly highly of several fellow party members and journalists. Defense Minister Yoav Galant was referred to in correspondence as a “wimp” and a “total zero,” Foreign Minister (until 01.24) Eli Cohen as a “son of a b…h” and a “s…head,” and so on.

screenshot from the documentary

Miri Regev’s schedules revealed that professional affairs at the Ministry of Transportation received an average of 3.5 hours per week. The remainder of her time was filled with political meetings. This prioritization of political processes over professional duties is corroborated by Yonatan Yosef and various correspondence records.

screenshot from the documentary

The documentary opens with a mysterious incident involving Miri Regev at an Army ceremony on September 6, 2023. Regev’s driver runs over the foot of an internal security officer (Shin Bet), leading to a confrontation. Regev intervenes to support her driver, but officers block her path.

All of this was captured on camera, and following the incident, Regev and her advisors launched an information offensive. They sent two videos to Channel 12 journalist Amit Segal — one from inside the car and another showing Regev allegedly being rudely pushed away — accompanied by a message denouncing such behavior as unacceptable.

One oversight by Regev’s advisors was that the car’s video included sound, revealing her instructing the driver to proceed despite people blocking the car’s path, to which the driver initially refused. But she insisted and pushed him to run over people. Upon realizing the error, Regev chose not to apologize but instead escalated her criticism of the security services, accusing them during a live TV appearance of almost staging a coup. Despite requests from the Shin Bet not to attack them, the Prime Minister supported Regev’s stance.

Editor’s commentary

Drucker began with this episode to highlight cynicism, deliberate politicization of every action, and a pervasive sense of impunity. Unfortunately, this is not news to Israeli society but rather a long-normalized phenomenon in politics.

Police have opened an investigation into Regev, and if the case goes to indictment, it will be the first high-profile criminal trial since cases were opened against the prime minister.

A revelation of such magnitude, grounded not on speculation, rumors, or anonymous sources but on the correspondence, documents, and testimony of a person also facing criminal prosecution for revealing it, is, at the very least, a total breach of trust.

In a healthy political environment, out of respect for the public, the minister would have resigned immediately upon the release of such a scandalous investigation, even prior to any legal proceedings.

But we should have no illusions – instead, what lies ahead is an aggressive and undignified campaign of denial and discrediting everything and everyone involved in this investigation.

What’s going on with Israeli Police?

The challenges facing the Israeli police are not necessarily unique compared to the rest of the world. While an ideal police force may exist elsewhere, the Israeli police have struggled for decades with issues such as corruption, crime, excessive use of force, abuse of authority, and incidents of physical and sexual violence, as well as attempts to cover up these problems. These issues and the responses to them are relatively well-known to the public.

However, since National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir took office, a new and explosive dimension has been added to the existing problems within the Israeli police – a political one. Let’s break down what is happening to the police in the shadow of the war while most public and media attention has shifted elsewhere.

Festival of Appointments

Police Captain Meir Svisa’s name came to public attention as recently as last year. In March 2023, during the first of the “days of disobedience,” hundreds protested against judicial reform in central Tel Aviv during the workday, resulting in significant clashes with the police.

Capt. Swisa was repeatedly seen throwing a flash-bang grenade into the crowd without looking where he was aiming. During the investigation, he claimed to have thrown the grenade into an open area, but additional footage clearly depicts the grenade detonating amidst a group of individuals. Seven individuals injured by the grenades filed complaints against police. One protester had his ear ripped off. Although an investigation was launched against Swisa, it was closed shortly afterward, and he was awarded a badge of honor.

Early in the war, Swisa was also filmed using brutal force against an elderly protester without any apparent reason (video available in article). This incident is still under investigation. Despite this, Meir Swisa was promoted this week and appointed head of the police department in South Tel Aviv. Police state that the promotion has not yet taken effect due to the ongoing investigation.

The questionable appointments extend beyond the district and precinct levels. Minister Ben-Gvir previously selected Avshalom Peled as the next head of the Israel Police, having already promoted him in 2023. Despite Peled’s accomplishments, his police career is far from untainted.

He was previously under investigation for suspected corrupt ties with Judea Regional Council head Moshe Dadon. Recordings of a phone conversation, the transcript of which was published again this week by Haaretz newspaper, clearly show Peled asking Dadon to resolve the issue of an illegally built plot on his property in exchange for a promotion of the regional council head’s relative. The publication also reveals that when Peled was first invited for inquiry, he persistently lied to the investigator until he learned there were recordings of their conversations. Despite this, the prosecutor’s office closed the case due to insufficient evidence. Currently, Peled’s appointment remains frozen pending review by a special commission.

🟢 UPDATE: JUNE 2024 According to various estimates, Minister Ben-Gvir tries another way to appoint Peled: firing Commissioner Shabtai ahead of time and making an interim appointment to bypass the commission.

Ben-Gvir had previously offered the position of police chief twice to Shimon Lavie, the former police commander of the northern district. Following the Mount Meron tragedy in 2021, which resulted in the deaths of 45 people during the Lag BaOmer holiday, Lavie admitted responsibility and resigned. The ongoing investigation into the tragedy motivated Lavie’s rejection of Ben-Gvir’s offer, but Lavie noted that Ben-Gvir did not give up and offered him the position again.

Police leadership changes have not only involved appointments but also the resignations of several officers at senior levels. Among these, the most prominent was Ami Eshed’s resignation as police commander in the Gush Dan district last year. Eshed attributed his departure to significant political pressure and Minister Ben-Gvir’s direct interference in police operations. Ben-Gvir had demanded that the police in Tel Aviv adopt a stricter stance against protesters opposing judicial reform, whereas Eshed insisted on maintaining a balance between preserving law and order and upholding the right to demonstrate.

“I could have easily complied with the ministry’s demands, used more force, and filled the hospitals with injured demonstrators. We could have cleared the highway in minutes at the cost of broken bones and smashed heads and ultimately lost public confidence in the police. But I have raised generations of officers to respect the limits of force and uphold the sanctity of our civil contract.”

Another controversial promotion was awarded to Nissim Guetta, who was filmed using excessive force on protesters in Jerusalem in 2021. Initially convicted by the district court, Guetta’s suspension was later overturned on appeal. The appeal court claimed that protesters initiated force against the police officer, though video evidence depicts only minor interaction before Guetta aggressively engaged and beat several demonstrators. Following the reversal of his conviction, the Minister of Internal Security promoted Guetta to commander of the Judea and Samaria District.

It was after the Guetta incident that Ben-Gvir turned to police officers during an interview on the Channel’s 14 Patriots program and stated bluntly:

“If you’ve been targeted or have been featured in an article in Haaretz (note the left-wing newspaper that extensively covers police and military misconduct), come to me, and we’ll discuss your potential for promotion.”

At that time, Ben-Gvir accused the protest movement of “shaming” police officers, a term he used to describe publicly disclosing the names and photos of officers who had used excessive force against demonstrators. However, being an MK, he viewed this as a legitimate method of identifying officers he had personally clashed with.

Following such statements and consistent policies in this direction, it is unsurprising that over the past year, and particularly in recent months, there have been increasing reports of abusive police actions against protesters opposing government policies but not only. Voices within the police also validate concerns that brutality and excessive use of force have become significant criteria in evaluating officers positively.

🟢 UPDATE: JUNE 2024 Haaretz cites a number of other police appointments by the Minister in its recent article.

Growing political violence

On Tuesday, May 7, the Israel Bar Association’s Constitutional Law and Human Rights Forum submitted a request to the government’s legal advisor and the police legal advisor, urging them to urgently address the rising case of unwarranted arrests of anti-government protesters and police violence against them.

The claims against the police include escalating violence against peaceful protesters, unjustified arrests, night detentions, and handcuffing without legal grounds. Additionally, there are complaints about delayed investigations and the prolonged detention of individuals before their release.

On the same topic, a special session of the parliamentary National Security Commission was held at the initiative of Knesset members Gilad Kariv of the Labor Party and Meirav Ben-Ari of the Yesh Atid Party. During this session, demonstrators who had suffered from police violence provided heavy testimony.

Retired Armored Forces Colonel Shemi Athar, 76, who suffers from PTSD after the Yom Kippur War, witnessed police violence while preparing for a demonstration:

“We gathered at my house to prepare for the demonstration in front of the Prime Minister’s residence. In my private parking lot, there was a truck with our cardboard tank, the symbol of our movement. After 20 minutes, a large police force led by Lt. Col. Amit Polak, Hadera’s police chief, arrived and threatened to arrest the truck driver if he didn’t leave. I told the driver, as my guest, that he could get out of the truck and come into my house. At that moment, I was forcefully pushed away, and five policemen twisted my arms and dragged me into a police car. I did not say a word to those policemen.”

“During the 1973 war, I suffered a concussion, leg injuries, and lost vision in one eye, resulting in severe PTSD. I cried out about my condition, as did Prof. Kobi Sivan from Sheba Hospital, who was also detained, warning of the danger to my life. Despite this, they used even more force on me. I was confined in a police vehicle with almost no air, struggling to breathe. My wife and I pleaded with the police to at least open a window, but she was threatened with arrest. Eventually, I lost consciousness and woke up at the police station, where I broke down and cried like a baby. I was charged with assaulting a police officer.

The battle in which I was wounded in ’73 was a living hell. The same day I was wounded in Sinai, my brother was wounded in the Golan Heights. Forty years later, my brother committed suicide because he never received therapy after the war…

For the past four and a half years, I have been in therapy. But one ‘doctor,’ Police Lt. Col. Amit Polak, has managed to set me back three years in my treatment. And even that wasn’t enough for him. The day after the incident, he shows up at my house, spends an hour searching for something, even goes to my neighbors, asking if they have security cameras. Now, I have nightmares about him strangling me in the night. I can’t sleep, I scream so loud until I take couple of pills to go back to sleep. My daughter, who has a disability, is also unable to function because she’s afraid the police will raid the house again. It drives me crazy. How can such a person serve in the Israeli police?”

Rina Nanda Waxman, 55, who still uses a wheelchair and has a bandaged arm due to injuries sustained at the April 6 demonstration in Caesarea, also shared her harrowing experience:

“I was standing peacefully with a placard that read ‘You’re in charge – you’re to blame’ alongside my friends from the Yom Kippur War Soldiers movement – the very people who saved this country 50 years ago. Without any provocation, a police officer approached me and slapped me twice. He then attempted to push me over a barrier, threatening, ‘I will show you now.’ My elderly friends, who are my parents’ age, somehow managed to pull me away from the officer, but he then targeted Yolanda*. Moments later, more than ten police officers surrounded me. A woman embraced me as I trembled in fear, unsure of what to do. They placed us together briefly, separated us, and eventually forced me into a police bus.

I have previously admitted this, so I am no longer ashamed to recount it. At that moment, I desperately needed to use the restroom, and my body reacted accordingly. Despite my pleas, the police officers denied me this basic human right, and I ended up wetting myself. As a 55-year-old woman, I endured immense shame because of the officers’ disrespectful treatment. Additionally, as a woman, I feared for my dignity while in detention, if you understand what I mean.

But that wasn’t all. I waited at the station for three and a half hours until the same officer who had assaulted me arrived. He yelled at me, insulted me, and called me crazy for making up stories. Then, during the investigation, I discovered I was accused of attacking the officer, causing him injuries, and forcibly moving barriers, despite video evidence showing the barriers were stationary and him dragging me through them.

This is a blatant lie to cover up the officer’s violence. I never imagined I would face such humiliation in the country to which I and my family immigrated.

When I appeared in court, the prison officer who brought us in referred to us as “stock,” literally saying, “I brought you stock.”

I will stop here, as I do not have the strength to continue.”

* Dr. Yolanda Yavor, an active participant in the protests, attempted to assist Rina when she herself was arrested in a manner that was quite abrupt. Overall, Dr. Yavor has been arrested nine times.

Unfortunately, Rina Waxman and Yolanda Yavor are not the first nor the last women to endure abuse and humiliation that clearly exceeds police authority. Sivan Schwartz, an activist and frequent participant in anti-government protests, addressed the Knesset about her problematic arrest experience:

“Five policemen tackled me despite my lack of resistance, which was later falsely claimed. However, everything is recorded on tape. I was detained without informing any of my colleagues or loved ones, including my wife and family, who were kept in the dark for hours.

I repeatedly requested medical assistance, presenting evidence of my disability to the police, but my requests were ignored. Although an ambulance was called twice, I was not allowed to be taken to the emergency room until 3 am without informing anyone. I didn’t just need medical attention; I was suffering from water poisoning. I vomited and wet myself.

Instead of an ambulance, two policemen drove me to the hospital, placing me in the car with tightly closed, painful handcuffs. They mocked me, driving recklessly without securing me with a seatbelt. I nearly lost consciousness, banging my head against the sides and vomiting again. They opened the windows and played the song “Will you remember me, Sivan?” When we arrived, one of them asked sarcastically if I enjoyed the ride. From there, I was taken to the hospital for a medical examination. I am limping, my leg visibly injured, as is my entire body and spirit.

The same female police officer searched me multiple times, forcing me to strip naked despite my suffering from anorexia. I am an advocate for girls with anorexia, a cause that is deeply significant to me; I’ve known dozens who have died from this damn disease. When the ambulance arrived and I informed them of my chronic condition, the police officers started mocking my illness.

I endured physical and moral abuse, humiliation, and even political persecution. The police officers shamelessly said, ‘Come on, show her. She’s protesting against the government.’ There’s no shame left.”

So what’s going on with the police, and how serious is it?

As mentioned before, the issues of police violence, corruption, and other misconduct are longstanding and did not begin with the current government’s inauguration.

The Police Investigation Unit (Machash) was established within the prosecutor’s office in 1992 in response to these issues. However, the unit has faced numerous challenges over the years — initially wielding significant power, now criticized for its weakness, dependency on the prosecutor’s office, bureaucratic delays in investigations, and the widespread issue of unresolved complaints. These shortcomings have been well-documented and publicized, as seen in investigative works such as Roni Singer’s 2019 documentary.

Despite the unit’s evident weaknesses, Minister Ben-Gvir continues criticizing the unit and attempts to interfere with its operations. He has argued that the already limited and partial investigations into police and military misconduct “only harm national security.”

Just a month ago, Roni Singer released another documentary as part of the investigative series “זמן אמת” on Channel 11.

The documentary covers many topics, some of which we have already covered in this piece. It also delves into the stories of two women, Yarden Man and Yael Abadi. Yarden Man was swiftly accused of assaulting Conservation Minister Idit Silman under highly questionable circumstances. Yael Abadi faced allegations of attacking Knesset Member Shalom Danino. She was detained for several days for spray-painting the number 1,400 (representing the official October 7 death toll at the time) on his parking lot gate. According to both women, they were treated as dangerous criminals during interrogations and subjected to politically motivated questions about their voting preferences and involvement in protest movements.

Former police officers criticized both cases, with State Prosecutor Amit Aisman labeling the investigation and police conduct in the second case as a violation of the rule of law.

In addition to addressing questionable appointments, the documentary highlights the atmosphere of chaos within the police force, including concerns over weapon purchases without proper tendering and oversight. It also reveals the Ministry’s direct communication with district commanders, bypassing the police chief, and other troubling precedents.

However, perhaps the central message and concern of the film is the active politicization of law enforcement, a phenomenon unprecedented until now. Several retired police officers who held top positions in the organization, along with anonymous sources within the police force, express similar concerns and strongly criticize the actions of both the police and the ministry. As retired Lieutenant Colonel Yigal Hadad, with 34 years of service in the police force, rightly observes in the documentary, police appointments should be of as much, if not more, interest to the public than judicial ones.

What was a cause of public outcry and controversy last year is now proceeding much more smoothly and unhindered under the cover of war. Initially, Israeli society was outraged by the appointment of an convicted felon with renowned radical views as a minister in charge of law enforcement. However, over time, people became accustomed to it. Initially, the public was outraged by the minister’s brazen interference in police operational matters. Now, we almost take it for granted. The promotions of violent police officers were initially surprising, but today, such cases are no longer an exception; they are becoming the rule.

It’s important to acknowledge a few critical points. Policing is a complex and demanding job in a challenging environment that requires high levels of discipline and stress tolerance. Situations can vary significantly, and video footage doesn’t always capture the full context of events. Additionally, the notion of “the customer is always right” doesn’t apply here. While confrontations between citizens and police officers inherently involve unequal power dynamics, protests can also attract violent individuals and provocateurs seeking conflict.

The ability to assess situations calmly and maintain composure even in the most intense circumstances demands the highest moral standards from police officers and a clear commitment to serving the public. Despite our aspirations, we cannot realistically expect every officer to embody these qualities. Some may enter the profession seeking power and authority, while others may believe their political beliefs justify the judgment of others. Therefore, moral integrity and complete political neutrality within the higher ranks of law enforcement are absolutely crucial. That is precisely why the current state of affairs within the police is so concerning.

Meanwhile, mainstream media tend to cover police-related issues rather selectively, let alone the police attitude toward minorities, which receives even less attention. It only underscores the vital role of such independent outlets like Haaretz and Shakuf. Israeli citizens should receive explicit and honest information about institutions assigned to their protection.

Still, there is no need to fall into hysteria and view every police officer as an adversary of civil society from now on. Each incident should be evaluated on its own merits without rushing to judgments. However, it doesn’t take an expert to admit that recent events are clearly out of the line and should worry everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

So it’s high time we asked ourselves some hard questions.

Is this the type of police force we desire? Officers brutalizing and aggressively targeting women, older people, and war veterans with disabilities who pose no threat to society beyond expressing their political beliefs; law enforcement officers callously mistreating sick and traumatized individuals during arrests; a police leadership permitting a minister with extreme radical views to intervene in an institution mandated to remain apolitical; violence and corruption not only going unpunished but even becoming grounds for promotion. Is this the direction we envision for our state?

What is happening at US colleges and how does it affect us?

Давайте разберемся на примере того, что прямо сейчас происходит в американских ВУЗах, в том, что не так со многими пропалестинскими демонстрациями после 7 октября, где заканчивается легитимная критика Израиля и начинается антисемитизм, и насколько опасно это явление.

Continue reading

DAY AFTER. Why start with radical reform of the Palestinian education system?

A month ago, we published a piece on the ambivalent stance of the Palestinian people and their political leaders over the decades toward the prospects for a peace process and coexistence with Israel.

We decided to explore this topic further and understand what really hides behind the repeated failure of peace agreements and opinion poll numbers showing that Palestinians, for the most part, still believe in armed struggle.

To do so, we decided to investigate what JCPA (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs) analyst Pinchas Inbari calls, in one of his articles on the subject, the ‘identity card’ of any political entity: the school curriculum.

After all, what you seek to pass on to future generations often characterizes you and your policies much better than the verified statements at peace summits. It is even more relevant for societies predominantly built on an ideological basis.

We cannot say that we were totally surprised. The subject of violent incitement and anti-Israeli rhetoric in Palestinian schools has been present in the Israeli media for years. There have been images of filmed plays in schools and kindergartens, sometimes with very young children, where the main plot was a military confrontation with Israeli soldiers and caricatured Jews.

However, before October 7th, we, like perhaps most Israelis except for the few who study the Palestinian education system regularly, wanted to believe in an exaggerated scale of the problem.

So when we plunged into reports, the scale and profoundness of the problem amazed us. We assumed that history, social studies, and other social studies textbooks would indeed reflect Palestinian and somewhat anti-Israel narratives. Clearly, we didn’t expect to see love and understanding towards Israel. But we were surprised to see that textbooks on almost all subjects for all ages are literally packed with anti-Semitic stereotypes and that ‘fighting the Zionist occupation’ is somehow miraculously reflected in maths, physics, chemistry, and biology.

It is difficult to speak of any attitude towards peace if, from the early age, one is indoctrinated with ideas of violence, the sanctity of ‘martyrdom,’ and the meaninglessness of ordinary life.

It is purely naive to talk about the ‘two-state solution’ when the second state simply does not exist on the map. From the earliest age, children are raised on the delusion that one day, this non-existent state on the map will not exist for real, and they will be able to settle ‘Palestine’ in its entirety. All it takes is continuing the struggle, which is just another self-sacrifice in order to “lavish the land with the blood.”

 

Clearly, not everything written in textbooks directly and unconditionally influences a child. One can remember oneself at school age. But for any other ideas to develop, there must be some loud-sounding alternative.

In the meantime, what we see in textbooks corresponds quite well with what we see in polls and, more sadly, in real life, in the form of ‘lone wolf’ attacks and the growing popularity of terrorist organizations.

We were also genuinely surprised at how European reporters, looking at the very same textbooks and examples from them, managed to come to very different conclusions regarding the admissibility of such materials.

The reasoning that jihad is a multifaceted concept and does not always mean casualties and violence, that teaching biology through encounters with the army reflects somehow advanced education approaches with real-life examples, sounds a bit in the ‘context-dependent decision‘ fashion of Ivy League colleges.

Perhaps it is easier to argue that this is just a reflection of Palestinian identity, and one should respect it when it is not you or those close to you who are killed on this same identity basis, and ‘speech turns into conduct‘ only somewhere thousands of miles away.

When Palestinian identity ceases to be driven solely by the hatred of the ‘Zionist enemy,’ that must and could be defeated, when national heroes are not admired based on how hard they hit Israelis, when society focuses on itself and stops raising generations on the false illusion that Israel will one day suddenly cease to exist. Then, perhaps, we will be at least a little step closer to peace.

In the meantime, questions about why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still unresolved should not be directed primarily at the Israeli address.