A reconsideration of the events of the years preceding the 1967 war — or what the General Staff calls “the campaign between the wars” — offers lessons for today. The escalation towards the Six Day War is a classic case of a limited campaign spinning out of control against expectations.
The Balfour Declaration, which will reach its centenary in November 2017, continues to be relevant for us today. Israeli Jews should seek to return to the premises underlying the Declaration – premises that were taken for granted at the time by the international community, but that have since been obscured.
The potential for public panic over the tunnel threat is greater than we think. We have trouble recognizing that there are threats for which we have no ideal solution. It is unreasonable to expect a perfect response for every threat during wartime.
The most important question arising from the events in Amona is not who won and who lost, but where we are heading. The State of Israel is approaching the crossroads of a crucial decision regarding its policy on the future of Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem.
The modern approach to many issues dictates that we try to control events around us, but war is chaotic by nature and does not yield to predetermined processes. The prudence with which the 2014 Gaza campaign was waged deserves the public’s full confidence.
With the start of a new era in the White House, Israel must let go of the two-state solution as defined by the Clinton Parameters. It is time for a reassessment of Rabin’s approach, which stressed the importance of the preservation and development of Area C in Judea and Samaria under Israeli control as a prerequisite for defensible borders.
When we ask young men and women to give everything they have and more for the sake of their country and their people, we cannot at the same time see them as kids. This is by no means a denial that every soldier is in fact a son or daughter to their parents.
Contrary to the accepted wisdom regarding the effectiveness of barriers, there is no substitute for troops on the ground and for civilian settlements that anchor a dominant presence. Israel needs a flexible, dynamic form of security in full friction with the resident populations.
Conflicts and clashes are not unique to Jerusalem. Israel needs to know why Jerusalem should be a priority; because it is seeking the return to Zion in all regions of the homeland! And if Israel does not insist on this, it will steadily withdraw inward, toward the coastal plain, and edge towards decline.
Those who view Israel as a stepping stone for redemption and as the Jewish national spiritual homeland will act differently in responding to Palestinian violence than those who view Israel merely as a safe haven. Thus, the government should do more than just approve security operations against the terrorists.