Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

Another Wall? Have You Lost Your Mind?! (Forest Rain)

Another Wall? Have You Lost Your Mind?!

This is why liberating the hostages is not enough

by Forest Rain

A new wall has appeared along the highway near Israel’s southern town of Sderot.

Since the war began, the train has been forced to take a long detour to reach Sderot because this stretch of track is visible from Gaza—leaving it vulnerable to anti-tank missiles. Now, a wall stands to block the view, ensuring that terrorists in Gaza can no longer take aim at the train—or at least not as easily. Walls don’t erase reality. The terrorists know where the tracks are. They can check the schedule online, just like any commuter.

With enough determination, any wall can be breached.

This wall gives the train something to hide behind. It offers the illusion of security, not real safety. True security doesn’t come from barriers. It comes from eliminating the threat—the people who wake up one morning and decide they want to blow up a train full of Israelis.

If you get close enough, you’ll see frustration and deep anguish scrawled across the wall in spray paint: “Another wall?! Have you lost your mind?!”

Hiding behind walls didn’t stop the Gazan invasion. In many cases, the bomb shelters families were hiding in became death traps.

The Purpose of the War

When the full horror of the October 7 invasion became clear—the torture, rape, burning, slaughtering, and kidnapping of men, women, children, and the elderly—most Israelis awoke from the Oslo dream of peace with our neighbors. We could no longer afford illusions.

When people declare their intent to kill us, meticulously plan to do so, and seize every opportunity to act on those plans—we must take them at their word.

Most Israelis saw the massacre and burned with rage that became ice-cold clarity: When we said NEVER AGAIN, this is what we meant. Never again would we allow Jews to be slaughtered, tortured, or used as playthings for sadistic monsters who revel in human suffering.

On October 7, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear: “We are at war—not an ‘operation,’ not a ‘round,’ but war.” Since then, he has repeatedly outlined three war objectives—none of which can be compromised:

Return the hostages—both the living and the dead.
Ensure Israelis can safely return to their homes near Gaza (later expanded to include those displaced from the northern border).
Ensure that Gaza can never again be a threat to Israel.

The Hostages—and the True Measure of Victory

The plight of our hostages has rightfully consumed much of our attention. Everyone—without exception—agrees: we must bring them home. All of them, both the living and the dead. We, the nation and our government, owe this to those we failed to protect on that terrible day.

The Israeli government has gone to extreme—and dangerous—lengths to secure the release of the hostages. Hundreds of terrorists have been freed from our prisons, giving them the opportunity to strike again. For Hamas (in Gaza and Judea & Samaria), this is a victory that gives them enormous prestige, the ability to restructure their chain of command and recruit new fighters (who believe that if caught by Israel, they will be released in future ransom deals. The temporary ceasefire has also given Hamas time to prepare for the next battle. The more time that goes by, the more dangerous it will be for IDF troops.

The government made a calculated choice: to risk the future security of every Israeli to rescue as many hostages as possible now. Truthfully, the supposed future risk is not in the future. It is already here.

And with all that, somewhere along the way, many lost sight of the bigger picture. Rescuing the hostages is our moral duty, but it is not the measure of victory.

Israeli media is flooded with voices—self-proclaimed experts, analysts with impressive titles, and understandably distraught family members—arguing that returning the hostages will be our triumph. that bringing the hostages home is the sole objective. That there is no need for revenge. That the war must end.

These ideas are unacceptable. Completely unacceptable.

The Writing on the Wall

That graffiti—“Another wall?! Have you lost your mind?!”—is a scream for real security.

It declares that it is unacceptable for genocidal monsters to live on our doorstep.

Unacceptable to keep hiding behind walls.

Unacceptable and deadly dangerous to mistake the illusion of safety for real security—when in reality, the enemy is always trying to breach our defenses, to invade and slaughter.

That graffiti is a warning. A warning that if we keep pretending, if we keep avoiding the root of the problem, we will face another October 7.

The story of the Idan family makes this painfully clear.

The Idan Family

The Hamas invaders filmed their atrocities, broadcasting their glee as they tortured, burned, and slaughtered.

The footage from the Idan home is something I will carry with me forever. Watching Gali Idan, in the worst moment of her life, gave me an awe-inspiring lesson in what courage looks like.

When I first saw the video, I didn’t yet know that Tzachi Idan had been taken hostage to Gaza—his hands still soaked in his daughter’s blood.

On February 27, 2025, Hamas returned his body as part of a ceasefire deal, along with the remains of three other Israeli hostages: Itzhak Elgarat, Ohad Yahalomi, and Shlomo Mantzur. Tzachi was laid to rest in Kibbutz Einat, next to his daughter, Maayan.

The video from their home needs to be seen. You do not see any of the violence or bloodshed on screen. What you see is terrible enough - what the family experienced and their response. There are abbreviated versions of this video online because, supposedly, people cannot pay attention longer than a few minutes.

But pay attention we should. Imagine being in their place – because it is only by the grace of God that we were not.

18 year old Maayan was shot in the head, in front of her parents, her then 11 year old sister Yael and 19 year old brother Shahar. Terrorists are in their home and none of them know what will happen next. The Red Alert siren blares repeatedly, warning of incoming rockets.

Gali, a ferocious lioness, trying to protect the lives of her children. Tzachi, his hands soaked with Maayan’s blood, trying to be a stalwart backbone for his family. The children, trying to understand what they are seeing. Shahar quietly asking his mother: Is it over? Is it over?

Watch and put yourself in their place.

https://vimeo.com/1066650024?share=copy#t=0

The invaders took Tzachi to Gaza. His wife and surviving children received intermittent signs of life, a flicker of hope that he could be rescued—until they learned that he was murdered in captivity.

After 510 days, Tzachi’s body was brought home but that is not enough to make it safe for Gali and her children to return home.

How can they?

They know the truth: that their safe room became a death trap. That their sister was murdered. Their father was taken and tortured by the same people who still live just across the border. That those monsters are still there, still dreaming of the next October 7.

How can any Israeli parent bring their children back to live next to Gaza—if Gaza is still full of Gazans?

The war cannot end until it is safe for the Idan family to go home. Until it is safe for all of us to go home. And safety will only come when Gaza is no longer a threat to Israel.

Another wall is insanity. Another wall is an invitation for another invasion, another massacre.

Liberating the hostages is crucial—but it is not the measure of victory. Real safety for every Israeli, ensuring our future, is.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Western media simply ignores that everything that comes out of Gaza is pre-approved by Hamas, and anyone who breaks their rules is threatened.

All of the information that the media is reporting from Gaza this morning is what Hamas wants them to say. The only source for the death toll and the allegation that most of the dead are women and children come from Hamas and no one else.

One Telegram message from the Al Qassam Brigades makes this explicit. Although Israeli airstrikes targeted some Hamas leaders, the terror group warned journalists not to report on their names until they get permission:

Urgent Directive and Warning:

We call on activists and media professionals to stop circulating the names of individuals involved in the attacks carried out by the occupation in the Gaza Strip, and to adhere to the statements issued by official authorities.

When a group that wears ski masks and carries weapons gives a directive, it is a threat, not a suggestion.

The main reason the media doesn't report on Hamas' complete control of the media is exactly because it is a threat, not a suggestion. They do not want to appear cowardly or to admit that they are following Hamas rules, so they simply do not report on things like this.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

This is the first year in memory that there don't seem to be any antisemitic Ramadan TV series

Every Ramadan, there are dozens of TV miniseries vying for Arab attention as the viewership spikes during the month.

And every year, there are always antisemitic themes in some of these series.

Last year, an Egyptian TV series Maliha included an elderly man telling his grandson that Jews kill Arab children as a religious obligation - a blood libel inserted into the entertainment.

There was also a children's Ramadan series produced in Yemen last year called "The Temporary Entity," described in MEMRI this way:

In the series, a group of Yemeni children, guided by a hoopoe bird, go back in time using a magical book and track the history of Zionism, and their grandfather also tells them stories about the Jews. In the first episode, a Yemeni boy tells his grandfather that the Arabs must unite and "annihilate the Jews." In the second episode the children discuss how the Jews are the "most cunning enemy of the Muslims." They travel in time to 19th century Budapest, where the bird tells them that the whole world hated the Jews because of their "evil moral values and because they are treacherous."

This year, however, I cannot find any antisemitic TV series, certainly not in the larger Arab world outside Yemen.

One Iraqi TV series provides a counterexample. It looks at architecture, and it has one episode that specifically discusses buildings previously owned by Jews that have "shanasheels," latticework balconies, and how to preserve them.

(I briefly researched these balconies to see if they were a unique feature of Jewish homes, perhaps to use as sukkot in the fall. It doesn't seem to be the case, though - they are not uniquely Jewish and they have permanent roofs.)

To be sure, in recent years some series have been far more sympathetic towards Jews than in years past, sometimes causing controversy.

This lack of antisemitism seems surprising because one would expect that the Gaza war would prompt producers to pitch such series for Ramadan. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still such series on Houthi TV channels - antisemitism is baked into their way of thinking - but not finding any in Egyptian, Iraqi or Saudi series is definitely unusual.

Perhaps things really are slowly changing.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The Institute for Palestine Studies calls itself "the most reliable source of information and analysis on the Question of Palestine." It publishes three academic journals and holds conferences for researchers. It is the original source of the field of "Palestine Studies" that is now taught in universities worldwide.

It has a digital archive of "the main documents on the Palestinian issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict."

In very little time, I found that two of these Arabic documents refer to British sources that simply do not exist.

One refers to a 1799 letter from British philosopher Joseph Priestly, where it claims he wrote a Letter to the Jews saying,

Palestine, the glory of all countries, now forms part of the Turkish Empire, and is almost uninhabited: its soil is never tilled, it is empty and ready to receive you. But unless this state, which maintains that country for itself without any benefit to it, collapses, it can never become your country. Therefore, I earnestly pray for its shackles.

Priestly's "Letters to the Jews" are online, and not one of them mentions Palestine, Turks or the Ottoman Empire. They were all written to convince Jews to convert to Christianity.

The second false reference it has is to the fictional Campbell-Bannerman document of 1907. The IPS describes it:

Recommendation of the London Conference (called the Campbell-Bannerman Conference):

1907
In the urgent recommendations submitted by the London Colonial Conference in 1907 to British Prime Minister Campbell-Bannerman, the conferees emphasized:
"The establishment of a strong and alien human barrier on the land bridge linking Europe to the Old World and connecting them to the Mediterranean, such that it would constitute in this region and in the vicinity of the Suez Canal a force hostile to the people of the region, but friendly to the European states and their interests. The urgent practical implementation of the proposed means and methods is necessary."

The 1905 conference was held secretly and continued until 1907. It was convened by the British Conservative Party, and London submitted its recommendations to the ruling Liberal Party. A committee of leading historians, sociologists, agriculturalists, petroleum scientists, geographers, and economists representing all the empires existing at the time participated in it. Its members include: Professor James, author of The Decline of the Roman Empire; Louis Madelin, author of The Rise and Fall of Napoleon's Empire; and Professors Lister, Lessing, Smith, Dotherting, and Zaharof.

This never happened. It has been debunked by Arab researchers who sought to find the original document in British archives. The rumor was traced back to an offhand comment by an Indian historian sitting next to an Arab historian on an airplane flight in the 1940s.

Both of these fake documents support the conspiracy theory that Great Britain always intended to insert an illegal Jewish entity in the Middle East.

Interestingly, both of these IPS documents refer to the same source: "The Palestine Documents File" from the Egyptian Ministry of National Guidance, General Information Authority, 1969. The Ministry of National Guidance was a propaganda arm of the Egyptian government under Gamal Abdel Nasser, tasked with shaping public opinion and advancing nationalist narratives. It is not a reliable source at all.

Instead of looking up the original sources, the Institute of Palestine Studies used this Egyptian propaganda organization as their primary source.

Another source that the IPS digital archives include in its collection of documents is "Palestinian Documents: Two Hundred and Eighty Selected Documents, 1839-1987" from the Palestine Liberation Organization Department of Culture in Tunis, 1987. While the documents I looked up from this source appear to be real, it is still jarring to see an academic site only link to a secondary source that was created for political purposes. No decent academic journal would link to Encyclopedia Britannica as a source, and this is much worse, since Britannica has much less of a political goal.

Even if these archives were 100% accurate, glancing through them shows that none of the materials point to counter-examples of the common Palestinian conspiracy theory that the European imperialists and the Jews colluded for decades on a plan to expel the Arabs from Palestine. The entire database is cherry picked to support a narrative, not to find the truth. You certainly wouldn't use their database to research illegal Arab immigration into Palestine, which would cast doubt on how many Palestinians are really from the region. There is no doubt that Israeli historical archives include sources that challenge the Zionist narrative.

Academics trust the IPS to be a reliable source for their research. The most charitable explanation for these examples is that the IPS is sloppy in its use of citations in Arabic. Having written about the bias in Palestine Studies recently, I am more inclined to say that the entire field is meant to insert anti-Israel propaganda, and ultimately antisemitism, into universities in an acceptable manner.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

03/17 Links Pt2: The pro-Palestine left is facilitating fascism; The Unbounded Anti-Semitism of the BBC; Are Defenders of Mahmoud Khalil Ready to Defend Speech they Despise?

From Ian:

Phyllis Chesler: How the West was won, and how it can be saved

The Islamification of the West began long ago with Arab and Islamic attacks against infidels, especially the Jews. By the beginning of this century, anti-Zionism characterized the new antisemitism. Israel became the scapegoat of the world for the crimes of their persecutors.

In the last quarter-century, Israel and the Jews have faced large armies, as well as well-funded and relentless propaganda. It has simultaneously been defamed and sanctioned in every language; anti-Israel resolutions and reports have been issued by student bodies, human-rights groups, literary prize judges, academic faculties and the United Nations, whose only accomplishment has been the legalization of Jew-hatred. Students and outside agitators in the West “flood” streets and campuses, Hamas-style; and take over university buildings on behalf of the sadistic and barbarian aggressors they believe are the victims of alleged Israeli apartheid, colonial oppression and genocide.

Thus, as Israel is fighting for its very life and good name, the entire world believes that Israelis are the aggressors and that the true victims are the leaders of an infidel-hating death cult.

How are we to understand such an Orwellian reversal of reality, such a triumph of Nazi-style propaganda? British journalist and JNS columnist Melanie Phillips explains it to us in her new work, The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West—and Why Only They Can Save It. In doing so, she joins and updates the work of writers and researchers Steve Emerson, Oriana Fallaci, Daniel Pipes, Bruce Bawer, Douglas Murray and Asra Nomani.

First, Phillips notes that Israel and the West are up against two death cults: one is external and consists of Islamist jihadists; and the other is a fifth column of elite, “politically correct” Westerners who have been persuaded that the West is evil beyond redemption and that barbarians are entitled to destroy what’s left of society. These Westerners refuse to believe that Islamic regimes have been and remain the largest practitioners of gender and religious apartheid. They refuse to believe that various Islamic regimes still own slaves and murder apostates, dissidents, homosexuals and feminists. They ignore any proof that Islamic regimes currently persecute or forcibly convert, but, more often, genocidally murder Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Baháʼí.

Despite all this, Arabs, especially Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, are still always the victims.

None of Phillips’s predecessors had to ponder the world’s unexpected and, at first, unbelievably bizarre reaction to the Hamas-led pogrom on steroids in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. This is something Phillips deftly tackles as she explains why so many “woke” Westerners deny Jewish victimhood, especially the atrocities that took place that day.

The pro-Palestine left is facilitating fascism

Yet, over recent years, anti-Semitism and attacks on the Jewish community have increased because of the ongoing wars in the Middle East. This rise in anti-Semitism and racism towards Jews is coming not from the political right, but from the left and those it chooses to ally with. This includes people who believe themselves to be anti-fascists in their support for Palestine. There has been a sinister turn of events since 7 October 2023, when Hamas soldiers and supporters murdered and tortured civilians in Israel, before taking hostages into Gaza. What followed in the West was a rise in fascist language and ideology among the ‘pro-Palestine’ movements, including the conspiratorial view that a global Zionist movement is pulling the strings of international affairs.

On social media and on pro-Palestine marches, I have seen and heard absurd accusations that Israel has been responsible for all manner of atrocities. I have seen Nazi salutes thrown and heard Holocaust denial. This is clear, unhinged racism. And yet it is rarely called out.

I cannot imagine a situation in which the organised left would march side-by-side with the traditional far right. Yet the pro-Palestine left has been happily marching almost weekly for 18 months with people who are Holocaust deniers, racists and believe anti-Semitic conspiratorial ideology as if it were fact. Who seem to think Hamas is made up of freedom fighters resisting imperialism, rather than far-right, anti-Semitic terrorists. They are turning a blind eye to those who promote fascism and racism among them.

We must confront this dangerous alliance, lest we forget the lessons of the Second World War and allow a new form of fascism to take root in Europe once again.

Seth Mandel: Blame-the-Jews Lawfare Comes To America

Which brings me to the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the green-card holder who has been made subject to deportation proceedings over accusations of support for Hamas. Khalil was part of the larger, functionally pro-Hamas tentifada movement, but the administration has yet to lay out the specifics of its case. Until it does, the courts will keep Khalil here in the U.S.

Taal and the ADC tie their complaint explicitly to Khalil’s case, using it to bolster their claim that the executive order protecting Jewish rights on campus is illegal.

The implication is clear: Blame the Jews.

It just so happens that the executive order in question does not change immigration law in any way, nor does it advocate for the removal of anybody’s due process rights. One provision of the order, late in the text, adds that “the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with each other, shall include in their reports recommendations for familiarizing institutions of higher education with the grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds and for ensuring that such reports about aliens lead, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens.”

The lawsuit claims that the subsequent statements of administration officials displayed bad faith in the form of their expressions of enthusiasm at the possibility of cracking down on “pro-Hamas” aliens.

But the executive order is not primarily about immigration; it is an across-the-board directive to agency heads to report their findings and progress in cracking down on anti-Semitic harassment in each of their legal domains, and to coordinate where necessary. Nothing about the order dissolves any existing legal rights. It is akin to telling a city cop to crack down on jaywalking.

If the law is illegitimate, it should be challenged. But what is being targeted here is the part of the order (and a separate, immigration-focused executive order) that represents a written encouragement to enforce that law. And why? The most likely answer is to delegitimize as unconstitutional the administration’s attempts to protect Jewish students.

The attempt to dismantle efforts to reduce anti-Semitic harassment on campus is entirely gratuitous here. Taal’s rights and the rights of Jews in America can coexist. Taal’s reaction to the events of Oct. 7, 2023, however, would suggest that that would not be a satisfactory solution to him and to the other parties behind this particular complaint.

03/17 Links Pt1: Two Questions for Abbas and the Palestinian Leadership; Lessons for Western Militaries from the Gaza War; Trump to Iran: Stop Arming Houthis or Face US Military Action

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Two Questions for Abbas and the Palestinian Leadership

A possible successor to Mahmud Abbas is warning that Abbas’s successors will abandon peace negotiations with Israel entirely. Which is less a warning than a direct threat.

But a threat of what, exactly? That is, what would change, in a practical sense, under this new regime?

The official is Jibril Rajoub, and he gave a rare, on the record interview to the Times of Israel. Rajoub’s words are carefully chosen; he uses the interview to appear to praise Abbas to the heavens while, in reality, undermining Abbas’s standing among the Palestinian public and promoting himself as a palatable alternative.

But set his motives aside for now and let’s deal with his words. Abbas, he says, “is the last founding pillar of the Palestinian national movement who believes in two things: making historic reconciliation [with Israel] based on the two-state solution [and] that blood-shedding should not be a choice to achieve [that goal].”

The “blood-shedding” part is obviously false: Abbas pays terrorists and their families for attacks against Israeli civilians. But regarding Abbas’s purported support for a two-state solution, I have two questions. The first question is: What would the map of an acceptable two-state solution look like? Please answer in the form of a detailed map to which you would say “yes,” thus ending the conflict. Israel has produced such maps in the past, and they have been based on negotiations with Palestinian leaders who had been invited to make their demands and to respond to Israeli demands.

The last time this happened was in 2008. Here is the map. Abbas’s response to this map was to end negotiations without a counteroffer. So: What, specifically, about this map is unacceptable to the Palestinian leadership, and how would Abbas change it in order to make the entire map satisfactory?

The map is not a secret, nor is the process that led to it. All Palestinian demands are met by this plan—unless there has been some misunderstanding, which Abbas is free to clear up right now on the record.

Of course, I cannot guarantee that after Abbas’s rejection, this exact deal is still on the table. But considering the events of the past 15 years, Abbas would be crazy not to find out for sure. Making an offer would also force Israel to respond.

If Abbas has any desire to achieve full Palestinian self-determination, he would answer my first question. My second question is closely related, and it is also based on Rajoub’s implication that the Palestinian nationalist movement is only getting more radical, and stands on the precipice of ditching even the pretense of a two-state solution: What is Abbas willing to do to convince his supporters of the need and value of a two-state solution?

John Spencer: The Battle for Legitimacy in Urban Warfare

Despite this significant change in strategic imperatives, an interactive report by The New York Times report, “Israel Loosened Its Rules to Bomb Hamas Fighters, Killing Many More Civilians,” failed on two levels. First, the article did not clearly explain the difference between altering the civilian casualty threshold and the ultimate proportionality decision required within that threshold. Second, the article failed to acknowledge how a radical shift in operational context justified this change.

The shift from a counterterrorism paradigm to a large-scale ground campaign fundamentally alters the way the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) targeting framework is implemented, especially at the tactical level. This is not because the law itself changes, but because the conditions for its implementation do. In counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, especially those heavily reliant on air power, engagements are often deliberate, with targets identified through prolonged intelligence collection, surveillance, and precision strikes conducted with the luxury of time. This includes the opportunity to carefully model anticipated civilian harm. This allows for ‘tactical patience’, enhancing civilian harm mitigation.

However, combined arms maneuver warfare—such as the ground campaign Israel launched in Gaza—demands a fundamentally different approach to LOAC implementation. Close combat against a well-armed, entrenched enemy, particularly one that embeds itself within civilian infrastructure, often compels maneuver commanders and subordinate leaders to make split-second use-of-force decisions in the midst of battle. Unlike an air-centric counterterrorism approach where commanders often have the luxury of time and extensive attack resources to achieve their desired attack effects, ground forces in LSCO operate under a mission imperative to “close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.” This means synchronizing a range of combat power in real time, often while under fire, in an environment where the ability to conduct detailed proportionality assessments is drastically limited.

Crucially, the LOAC principles of distinction, precautions, and proportionality remain unchanged, but how those principles are implemented must adapt to the realities of high-intensity warfare. In LSCO, a commander may not have the luxury of waiting for a higher echelon to conduct an extensive collateral damage estimate before engaging the enemy. The very nature of combat in dense urban terrain—where enemy forces use tunnels, fortified positions, and civilian structures for military purposes—means that expectations for how LOAC should be applied in a counterterrorism context cannot simply be transposed to combined arms maneuver operations. To do so is to ignore the operational realities that fundamentally shape battlefield decision-making.

Expecting the same level of civilian harm mitigation in a major ground campaign as in an air-dominant counterterrorism operation is therefore not just unrealistic—it is operationally illogical. This does not mean the law is ignored or circumvented. Rather, it means that commanders must make attack-legality determinations based on the circumstances of LSCO, where the need for rapid decision-making and immediate force synchronization demands a different application of the same legal principles. Misunderstanding this distinction leads to unrealistic expectations that can delegitimize even lawful military actions and distort public perception of what compliance with the LOAC truly requires in the context of large-scale urban warfare.

Exacerbating the misleading nature of the NYT article was the way it addressed modifications of other IDF precautionary measures, such as protocols for observing potential enemy targets and warning tactics such as roof knocks: dropping low-yield explosive on top of buildings as warning shots that give civilians time to flee an imminent attack. But again, it failed to explain why extensive strike precautions taken by Israel in pre-October 7th counterterrorism campaign logically be ill-suited to a high-intensity war against Hamas where military requirements might preclude such measures. By not distinguishing between the operational adjustments to civilian risk mitigation procedures, the New York Times report contributed to a distorted understanding of how context impacts LOAC implementation. This oversight underscores the vital importance of nuanced reporting that distinguishes between temporary policy adaptations and enduring legal principles.

In today’s information age, public perception plays a pivotal role in the legitimacy of military operations. When media outlets and advocacy groups conflate changes in tactical and operational procedures with indifference towards international legal standards, they risk undermining the credibility of even well-founded military decisions. Clear communication is essential—not only to explain the inherent differences between the legal obligations and the policies adopted to implement these obligations, but also to contextualize why these distinctions matter in varying operational scenarios.

The long-term negative consequence of such reporting and the overbroad condemnations it contributes to are profound. At a time when U.S. armed forces must once again contemplate LSCO, and some advocate a retreat from the legal and moral high ground, we cannot afford reinforcing unrealistic expectations of what the LOAC demands. Doing so will only provide greater momentum for those who unfortunately fail to recognize the moral and strategic value of the continuing commitment by U.S. armed forces to the rules of international law especially in war, and even when the enemy does not reciprocate such commitment. By recognizing the vital role operational context plays in assessing both actual and perceived legitimacy will ensure that the pursuit of strategic objectives does not come at the cost of eroding the very legitimacy upon which the moral and legal authority of military operations depends.

Andrew Fox: Lessons for Western Militaries from the Gaza War

In sum, the military-intelligence community should cultivate the same agility and breadth of vision that Israel was forced to adopt: expect hybrid and “asymmetric” warfare tactics, respond with creativity and speed, and actively shape the information sphere so that truth defeats falsehood.

The role of cyber operations in Israel’s campaign was unprecedented, blurring the line between digital and kinetic warfare. The IDF launched offensive cyber measures to disrupt enemy command-and-control and communications networks. For instance, as it began ground operations in late October, Israel carried out strikes on Gaza’s telecom infrastructure that plunged the territory into an internet and phone blackout. This combined cyber/kinetic action hampered Hamas’s ability to coordinate forces or broadcast propaganda videos during critical battles.

On the defensive side, Israeli cyber units worked feverishly to harden their own networks after 7 October, when Hamas cyber attacks and Iran-backed hackers sought to exploit vulnerabilities. Throughout the conflict, Israel also leveraged cyber-based intelligence for strategic effect: the military routinely published intercepted communications and hacked surveillance footage to expose Hamas’s tactics and human-rights abuses.

By releasing these materials (with minimal delay) on social media and in press briefings, the IDF effectively countered enemy propaganda in real time. One notable example was the intercepted Hamas call about the Al-Ahli hospital blast, which Israel shared online to undermine Hamas’s false narrative. In essence, cyber intelligence and info-war capabilities became a force multiplier—the IDF not only physically hit Hamas’s networks, but also fought in the information space, debunking the militants’ claims and highlighting the truth of the conflict. Israel’s use of hackers and analysts alongside soldiers shows how modern wars are fought on servers and social platforms as much as in the streets.

Moving forward, the West should fully integrate cyber and information warfare into its military-intelligence doctrine. Any confrontation with a peer opponent will feature a significant cyber dimension—likely far more intense than what Israel faced with Hamas. A Russian campaign, for example, could begin with waves of cyberattacks to knock out European communications, scramble logistics, and spread confusion.

The IDF’s experience demonstrates the value of offensive cyber actions to throw the enemy off balance. Whether that means hacking enemy comms, jamming their signals, or even confiscating illicit funds (as Israel did by seizing millions in cryptocurrency from Iran-backed groups) to sap their finances, cyber tools can erode an adversary’s capacity to wage war.

At the same time, we must be prepared to counter enemy propaganda and disinformation on a massive scale. Moscow has long shown proficiency in information warfare—from deepfake videos to troll farms—aiming to skew perceptions. The lesson from Israel is to proactively put out factual intelligence to challenge lies. This could mean quickly declassifying satellite images or intercepts if Russia tries to fabricate an atrocity or justify aggression, much as the IDF did to set the record straight on Gaza.

Importantly, the cyber defence of military and critical infrastructure needs to be rock-solid. Even Israel, a “Start-Up Nation,” found that its cyber defences had gaps: over fifteen Iran-linked hacker groups launched attacks on Israel after 7 October, hitting targets like hospitals and leaking sensitive data. In one chilling scenario, hackers obtained Israeli soldiers’ medical records and could have altered blood type data, potentially putting wounded troops at risk of mistreatment.

For the West, this is a warning to invest heavily in cybersecurity and inter-agency coordination before a crisis. Drills that simulate communications outages, malware infections, or social-media misinformation cascades are as important as live-fire military exercises. By fortifying networks and educating personnel (and the public) on recognising disinformation, we can blunt the effectiveness of enemy cyber strikes.

Ultimately, the IDF showed that success in cyber and information warfare comes from offence and defence: disrupt the enemy’s systems and lies, while securing your own. Our intelligence community, learning from Gaza and Lebanon, should ensure that, in any future conflict, its “digital frontline” is as robust and agile as its traditional forces—if not more so.

Conclusion
No two conflicts are identical. The IDF fought in Gaza under circumstances unique to Israel’s security situation—against an irregular foe, in a small coastal strip, with both home turf advantages and challenges. Troops operating in Eastern Europe would face a far more conventional enemy operating in expansive terrain. Yet the past months have revealed some commonalities of urban warfare in the 21st century. Drones will swarm. Communications will falter. Tanks will continue to rumble down shattered streets, requiring clever tactics to survive. Civilians will be in the line of fire, testing the ethics and discipline of every soldier. Elite units may find themselves fighting hand-in-hand with grunts. Air power will deliver sledgehammer blows, successful intelligence fusion will decide the outcome of battles, and the court of global opinion will render its own verdict.

Israel’s campaign in Gaza since 7 October 2023 has been a crucible of adaptation. The West is running out of time to absorb these lessons before a future conflict necessitates similar adaptation in the heat of battle. The overarching lesson is balance: integrate the IDF’s tactical innovations with a clear understanding of how engagements would differ against a near-peer adversary. By doing so, our militaries can honour the IDF’s sacrifices by ensuring that if armed forces are ever thrust into a brutal urban fight—whether defending our allies or safeguarding our own national interests—they will be as prepared, lethal, and restrained as necessary. The fog of war will always be thick, but the experiences of Gaza can illuminate the path to better strategy on the streets of any city where our soldiers may one day have to fight.