Anti-Military Organizations Don’t Belong in Israeli High Schools

Dec. 15 2016

Last week, controversy broke out in Israel over the education ministry’s attempt to stop high-school principals from inviting representatives of Breaking the Silence—an organization that disseminates flimsy allegations of IDF “war crimes”—to speak to their students. Yoaz Hendel explains why the high-school principals are in the wrong:

The main argument made by principals who wish to let the organization’s representatives speak to their students is the freedom to listen to different opinions. That’s an important argument, but it [does not apply to primary and secondary] education. . . . Why? Because, before learning about complicated things, one must learn about simple things. Before making bridges and rafters, foundations must be laid. When I send my kids to school, I want a Zionist education that encourages them to join the army, contribute, be good citizens, and mainly to feel that they are right. . . .

[Most of Breaking the Silence’s activities are licit] in a democratic state with full freedom of speech, but why [allow them in] the educational system? Are high-school students deeply familiar with the Zionist story? Do they understand what the pioneers sought to create here? Do they know the meaning of an exemplary society, of the orchards planted by the pioneers, which created thousands of jobs for the Arabs in the area? Do they know about the Zionist effort at co-existence and about the bloody response on the Arab side?

There is no reason to fear claims against Israel and its policies. Everyone here will [eventually encounter such claims]. But in the meantime, let teenagers grow up in peace; let them be right. This is a right which is as important as the freedom of political organizations like Breaking the Silence to criticize us.

Read more at Ynet

More about: Breaking the Silence, Israel & Zionism, Israeli education

American Middle East Policy Should Focus Less on Stability and More on Weakening Enemies

Feb. 10 2025

To Elliott Abrams, Donald Trump’s plan to remove the entire population of Gaza while the Strip is rebuilt is “unworkable,” at least “as a concrete proposal.” But it is welcome insofar as “its sheer iconoclasm might lead to a healthy rethinking of U.S. strategy and perhaps of Arab and Israeli policies as well.” The U.S., writes Abrams, must not only move beyond the failed approach to Gaza, but also must reject other assumptions that have failed time and again. One is the commitment to an illusory stability:

For two decades, what American policymakers have called “stability” has meant the preservation of the situation in which Gaza was entirely under Hamas control, Hizballah dominated Lebanon, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced. A better term for that situation would have been “erosion,” as U.S. influence steadily slipped away and Washington’s allies became less secure. Now, the United States has a chance to stop that process and aim instead for “reinforcement”: bolstering its interests and allies and actively weakening its adversaries. The result would be a region where threats diminish and U.S. alliances grow stronger.

Such an approach must be applied above all to the greatest threat in today’s Middle East, that of a nuclear Iran:

Trump clearly remains open to the possibility (however small) that an aging [Iranian supreme leader Ali] Khamenei, after witnessing the collapse of [his regional proxies], mulling the possibility of brutal economic sanctions, and being fully aware of the restiveness of his own population, would accept an agreement that stops the nuclear-weapons program and halts payments and arms shipments to Iran’s proxies. But Trump should be equally aware of the trap Khamenei might be setting for him: a phony new negotiation meant to ensnare Washington in talks for years, with Tehran’s negotiators leading Trump on with the mirage of a successful deal and a Nobel Peace Prize at the end of the road while the Iranian nuclear-weapons program grows in the shadows.

Read more at Foreign Affairs

More about: Iran, Middle East, U.S. Foreign policy