Don’t Label Jews “Renegades” for Not Supporting Trump

Earlier this week, the conservative writer David Horowitz denounced other conservatives who would support a third-party candidate over the presumptive Republican nominee. Horowitz focused his attack on William Kristol, whom the headline to his piece termed a “Republican spoiler and renegade Jew.” While condemning Kristol for allegedly betraying the Jewish people, Horowitz makes a point of clarifying that he himself “has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist,” and is “an American first.” Jonathan Tobin comments:

[Horowitz’s] attempt to wrap himself in the star of David and to brand his opponents as traitors to the pro-Israel cause . . . should trouble everyone, including those who believe Trump is the lesser of two evils in 2016. . . .

[I]t is possible to argue, . . . as some ardent members of the pro-Israel community have done, that Trump is the better choice from the point of view of strengthening the U.S.-Israel alliance. But it is not possible to conclude that someone who believes Trump can’t be counted on or viewed as much of an improvement over [Hillary] Clinton is a traitor to Israel. It is certainly not possible to say that to Kristol, who has devoted so much effort to support of Israel throughout his career and especially as a leader of the opposition to Barack Obama’s policies. . . .

Neither Horowitz nor Breitbart.com [the website where the article appeared] has the right to assume the pose of a Jewish pope with the ability to excommunicate all those who cannot stomach Trump as heretics.

Read more at Commentary

More about: Anti-Semitism, Donald Trump, Jewish conservatives, Politics & Current Affairs, U.S. Presidential election, US-Israel relations

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF