In the past year, there has been an increasing problem of violent crime within the Jewish state’s Arab communities, most of which is apolitical in nature. But the outbreak in May of Arab attacks on Jews has raised the frightening prospect of internecine conflict. Sean Durns explains the Islamic Republic’s role in aggravating these problems:

The Times of Israel recently reported that Israeli police have “noticed a significant increase in efforts to smuggle weapons into the country via the Lebanese and Jordanian borders.” The increase, police told reporters, has been “severalfold,” with numbers skyrocketing after the end of the war [with Hamas] in May. Further, “there has been a marked improvement in the quality of the weapons being sent.”

The weapons . . . were mainly being smuggled by Hizballah, the Iranian-backed, U.S.-designated terrorist group that de-facto controls Lebanon. The head of Israel’s northern-district police intelligence department, Yaron Ben-Yishi, told the country’s Channel 12 news team that as much as 95 percent of the smuggling from Lebanon is directed by Hizballah, with many of the weapons destined for organized crime families.

Iran could be hoping to spark a civil war. . . . Some Israeli military officials have speculated that the Islamic Republic is hoping to frustrate future Israeli deployments by bogging down troops before they reach the front lines. Internal Security Minister Omer Barlev has described police efforts to seize illegal firearms in Israeli Arab communities as a safeguard for future military deployments,

But if Tehran is hoping to foment civil unrest in Israel, it is likely to be disappointed.

Why? As Durns explains, most Israeli Arabs are too content with life in the Jewish state to want to participate in a civil war. But that doesn’t mean Iranian efforts can’t do significant damage.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.