The Lesson of Jerusalem Day? Don’t Give in to Terrorists’ Threats

On Thursday, the annual flag march—a procession through Jerusalem in honor of the city’s liberation in 1967, that in recent years has become associated with the nationalist religious right—took place without serious incident. Herb Keinon explains why this is significant:

Because Hamas threatened, once again, to fire rockets at Jerusalem if the annual flag march proceeded as usual through the Damascus Gate to the Western Wall; because other terror groups in Gaza threatened to set fields in southern Israel alight via inflammable balloons if the march went ahead; because there was concern that some terror group or a “lone wolf” attacker would try to carry out a terrorist attack in the capital to mar the day and the Israeli celebration.

As in years past, a few among the tens of thousands of marchers disgracefully chanted racist anti-Arab slogans and sang anti-Arab songs while marching through the Old City’s Muslim Quarter. This needs to be roundly condemned. Such actions are reprehensible. In addition, such actions by a small minority give the whole march a bad name. The event organizers need to learn from this and figure out how to prevent this deplorable behavior from recurring year after year.

Another lesson to be learned from this year’s Jerusalem Day is that Israel need not be overly fearful or too mindful of the rhetoric of terrorist organizations. Hamas, with all its bluster, knew that if it were to fire rockets at Jerusalem because of the flag march, Israel would hit back hard. So Israel went ahead with the flag march, and Hamas held its fire. Hizballah knows the same. Their threats and displays of force need to be taken in stride. Israel is not helpless in the face of their threats and, therefore, need not allow their threats to lead to weak knees or dictate Israel’s policies—especially regarding what is and what is not permissible in the country’s capital.

Read more at Jerusalem Post

More about: Hamas, Hizballah, Israeli Security, Jerusalem

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