Tag Archives: politics

You can’t defeat Hamas while it’s hiding in the crowd

Until Gaza’s civilians are physically separated from its fighters, every “victory” will just be the prelude to the next war.

It’s the same movie we’ve all seen before—Netanyahu in front of a camera, talking tough about taking control of Gaza to defeat Hamas, and then… the walk-back. Now the talk is about a methodical advance into Gaza City, telling civilians to leave before the IDF moves in.

Sounds reasonable on paper. In reality? Hamas knows this script better than anyone. They melt into the crowd of fleeing civilians, keep some fighters behind to ambush advancing troops, and live to fight another day. Israel racks up a few tactical wins, destroys a few more tunnels, and two years later we’re right back where we started.

And those tunnels—don’t think they’re gone. Even the rosiest military estimates say much of that underground web is still there, ready to be used again.

Here’s the core problem: Hamas isn’t going to change. The group’s endgame hasn’t shifted an inch, no matter how much destruction Israel deals out. As long as they can hide among civilians, they’ll rebuild, regroup, and retake control. That’s why the “win a battle, go home, call it a day” approach is just buying time.

But almost nobody—outside of Israel’s hard-right political fringe—wants Israel to rule Gaza outright. Netanyahu has said so himself. His preferred “day after” scenario is some kind of technocratic leadership, likely backed and bankrolled by Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the UAE. The problem? You can’t hand over a functioning, peaceful Gaza to anyone if Hamas is still embedded in the population.

So what’s the missing piece? Physical separation. Pull the civilians out of the combat zone entirely. Not shuffle them from one part of Gaza to another. Move them out, full stop. Only then can the IDF clear the territory properly—no civilians in the crossfire, no cover for Hamas fighters, no half-finished jobs.

It’s not a pretty idea, and it’s not simple. Nobody’s lining up to take in Gazan refugees. Egypt, for one, has no appetite for importing a population seen as sympathetic to Hamas—their own Muslim Brotherhood cousins. Other Arab states, while happy to denounce Israel from afar, aren’t opening refugee camps or building housing. Europe bashes Israel and makes grand gestures about recognizing an illusory Palestinian state to pacify its own restive Muslim populations — but it’s all words and no plan.

And let’s be honest—many Gazans themselves are wary of leaving. They’ve seen what happened in 1948, when Palestinians who fled ended up stranded in camps for generations. But here’s the thing: they don’t have the freedom to choose right now anyway. Hamas controls their movements, their speech, their lives.

That’s why commentator Haviv Gur’s “crazy” idea might be the most logical one on the table: create a secure refugee zone inside Israel itself. I know—it sounds backwards. But think about it. Israel could ensure the civilians are safe, fed, and cared for, while keeping them completely apart from Hamas. The IDF could then operate in Gaza without the nightmare of urban warfare among noncombatants. And the international chorus accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” would have a much harder case to make if the displaced civilians were literally inside Israel, under Israeli protection.

No solution here is clean. None of them are pretty. Dealing with a terrorist group that actively uses its own people as human shields is going to look ugly no matter what. But the one thing that’s absolutely certain is this: if Hamas and Gaza’s civilians aren’t physically separated, nothing changes. Every ceasefire will just be an intermission. Every rebuilding effort will just be a prelude to the next war.

It’s easy for outside observers to call for “restraint” or talk about “addressing root causes.” The reality is that the root cause in this case has an army, a tunnel network, and a death wish—for Israel and, tragically, for many of the people it claims to represent.

Separate Hamas from the civilians, or resign yourself to watching this same bloody cycle repeat. Over and over. Forever.

1 Comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, hamas, Middle East

Worry about the real men who really want to kill us

In the overheated arena of Middle East discourse, where passions flare and reason often falters, the rhetoric swirling around Israel reveals a stark divide. On one side, defenders of the Jewish state like me grapple with the complexities of a nation under siege, striving to uphold its right to exist while navigating the fog of war. On the other, detractors—animated by bias, ignorance, or something darker—seize every opportunity to vilify Israel. They obsess over civilian casualties in Gaza, wringing their hands with selective outrage while ignoring the extraordinary measures taken by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to minimize collateral damage in their fight against terrorists. Context, it seems, is their enemy. The comparative restraint of Israel’s military, facing threats no other nation would tolerate, goes unmentioned. So does the larger picture: a global Jihadist movement, fueled by an ideology that prizes domination over life itself, and its troubling defenders in the West.

From this cauldron of distortion emerges Zohran Mamdani, the media-savvy leftist vying for New York’s mayoralty, whose anti-Zionist rhetoric has electrified the progressive fringe. Establishment Democrats, caught flat-footed, fumble to respond, fixating on decoding phrases like “Globalize the Intifada” or “From the River to the Sea.” They debate semantics as if words alone were the threat, sidestepping the harder task of confronting what Mamdani and his ilk truly stand for. Parsing slogans is a distraction. Leadership demands clarity about the intentions behind them—not just what is said, but what is meant.

Let’s dispense with the charade. The useful idiots chanting in Western streets, clueless about the Arab-Israeli conflict’s history or the geography of the Levant, are not the real danger. The Islamist political leaders in Turkey, the Gulf, and Iran, along with their fellow travelers in the West, know exactly what they’re saying. Their code is unmistakable: an anti-Western, barbaric ideology that exalts Islamist supremacy above all else—above liberty, truth, or human life. The Ayatollahs in Iran and their proxies, from Hamas to Hezbollah, are blunt about their aim: a world Judenrein, cleansed of Jews.

Their Western apologists, like Columbia University protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, are cagier. Pressed for specifics, they dodge. When CNN asked Khalil if he supports Hamas, he pivoted, proclaiming opposition to all civilian deaths. It’s a sleight of hand, equating the IDF’s painstaking efforts to spare non-combatants with the deliberate savagery of Iran-backed terrorists who embed themselves in schools, hospitals, and mosques, who disrupt aid to starve their own people, who target civilians as a matter of policy.

This moral blurring is no accident. It’s a tactic to obscure the truth: anti-Zionists like Mamdani and Khalil aren’t fighting for Palestinian rights or equality. Their aim is singular—to strip safety and rights from one group: Jews. They cloak their agenda in the language of justice, but their selective fury betrays them. Why else hijack the term “genocide,” a word seared into Jewish consciousness by the Nazi extermination machine? No other people in modern history have faced such a systematic program of annihilation. Yet, in the hands of these amoral moralizers, “genocide” becomes a weapon to libel Israel and the West while absolving the true heirs of Nazism: the Islamists of Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran.

So while I cringe at the antisemitic rhetoric filling the news cycles and social media threads, it is the relentless commitment to violence that keeps me awake at night. Hamas and Islamic Jihad could end the war in Gaza tomorrow by laying down their arms and releasing their hostages. Instead, they choose to prolong suffering, sacrificing their own people to glorify a genocidal ideology. Their defenders in the West, whether through ignorance or malice, amplify this madness. They scream about Israel’s “disproportionate” response while ignoring the rockets raining on Tel Aviv, the tunnels built to slaughter, the captives languishing in Gaza’s depths. They demand ceasefires but never call for Hamas to surrender. Why? Because their goal isn’t peace—it’s Israel’s erasure – and by extension, our own.

1 Comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Terrorism, Uncategorized

A call for vigilance

The dust has barely settled from Operation Midnight Hammer, the audacious U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, and already the airwaves are thick with speculation and spin. Anti-Trump pundits and a cadre of biased reporters have seized on a leaked, low-confidence DIA analysis claiming the strikes merely delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions by a few months. This narrative, gleefully amplified by those eager to undermine the operation’s success, misses the forest for the trees. The combined American-Israeli assaults likely obliterated key components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—burying fissile material and crippling advanced equipment. Yet, the real questions linger: Did Iran spirit away critical materials in the days before the strike, as reports of trucks fleeing Fordow suggest? And does the regime maintain secret facilities, hidden from the world’s prying eyes? For two decades, Iran’s playbook has been one of deception—obfuscating, denying, and only admitting the truth when cornered. We cannot afford to assume the threat is neutralized.

Even if we entertain the best-case scenario—that Operation Midnight Hammer dismantled every immediate nuclear threat—the reprieve is temporary. The Islamist regime in Tehran, driven by fanatical ideologues, is not swayed by the rational incentives that guide civilized nations. The mullahs’ obsession with a apocalyptic vision of Shiite domination overrides any concern for their own people’s suffering or the catastrophic consequences of their actions. When President Trump speaks of peace and economic prosperity in the region, his words fall on deaf ears in Tehran. These are not leaders who negotiate in good faith; they are zealots who justify oppression, terror, and reckless brinkmanship to achieve their twisted goals. A fanatic who wants you dead cannot be reasoned with, no matter the carrots or sticks you wave.

This grim reality demands a singular response: unrelenting vigilance. U.S. and Israeli intelligence must operate with razor-sharp precision, monitoring every move Iran and its proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias—make. International oversight, often hampered by bureaucracy and political cowardice, cannot be trusted to keep Iran’s ambitions in check. Every step toward rebuilding their nuclear or ballistic missile programs must be met with swift, decisive countermeasures. “Maximum pressure” isn’t just a catchphrase; it’s a necessity—economically, diplomatically, and, when required, militarily. The Ayatollah and his proxies must face immediate consequences for any attack, threatened or actual, on American or Israeli interests. Whether it’s a rocket from Gaza, a drone from Yemen, or a cyberattack from Tehran, the response must be overwhelming and unambiguous.

The stakes could not be higher. Iran’s regime has made no secret of its hatred for the West, particularly the United States and Israel. Jews, Israelis, and the symbols of their communities—synagogues, cultural centers, even civilians—are prime targets for a regime that thrives on scapegoating and destruction. The proxies Iran funds and arms are not merely regional nuisances; they are extensions of Tehran’s malevolent reach, designed to destabilize and terrorize. Hezbollah’s arsenal in Lebanon, Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza, and Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes are all threads in the same web, spun by a regime that sees chaos as a path to power.

As dire as the situation is, one can envision a path to lasting security. The ultimate solution—dismantling Iran’s brutal Islamist regime—cannot be imposed from the outside. The ghosts of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya haunt us, reminding us that regime change orchestrated by foreign powers often breeds more instability than it resolves. The Iranian people, however, crushed under the weight of their oppressors, can and must find their own way to overthrow the mullahs and restore a government that values human dignity over ideological fanaticism. Only then can the West lower its guard and realize a future where Iran is a partner, not a pariah.

Until that day, we have no choice but to remain resolute. The risk of attack from Iran and its proxies is not a hypothetical—it is a clear and present danger to Western interests, to innocent civilians, and to the very ideals of freedom and coexistence. We must act with clarity, strength, and an unwavering commitment to defending our people and our values. The mullahs may dream of domination, but we will not let their nightmares become our reality.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Time to tackle the fires burning now

Our free society stands at a crossroads, besieged by real and present dangers that demand decisive action, not hand-wringing over hypotheticals or endless debates about future risks. Yesterday’s U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities under President Donald Trump’s leadership is a prime example of confronting a clear and immediate threat head-on, rather than dithering over speculative consequences. Yet, predictably, the usual chorus of naysayers—Democrats, establishment elites, and globalist apologists—are clutching their pearls, fretting about oil markets, constitutional nuances, or Iran’s potential retaliation. This obsession with theoretical problems while ignoring fires burning now is a pattern we’ve seen before, and it’s time to call it out.

Let’s start with a familiar case: the environmental disaster in East Palestine, Ohio. When a train derailment unleashed toxic chemicals into a small American community, liberals were quick to pivot to their favorite talking point—climate change. They’d rather pontificate about carbon emissions in 2050 than address the immediate harm to real people breathing poisoned air today. Meanwhile, President Trump and Vice President JD Vance didn’t hesitate. They visited East Palestine, met with affected residents, and pushed for accountability, cleanup, and now attention to lingering health issues. That’s leadership—focusing on the tangible suffering of Americans now, not some abstract model of future doom.

The same misguided focus plagues economic discussions. Conventional thinkers hyperventilate about Trump’s tariffs-first strategy in trade negotiations with China, warning of inflation or market disruptions. They’re so busy crunching numbers on hypothetical economic models that they miss the real threat: China’s stranglehold on critical supply chains. From pharmaceuticals to rare earth minerals, Beijing holds leverage that could cripple our economy and security overnight. Trump’s approach—using tariffs to force China to the table and to stimulate domestic resilience —addresses this immediate vulnerability. It’s about protecting America’s sovereignty today, not fretting over what Wall Street’s spreadsheets predict for tomorrow.

Then there’s the border crisis. Democrats wring their hands over the fate of millions of illegal immigrants who flooded across our borders during the Biden administration’s lax enforcement. They cry about “humanitarian concerns” while ignoring the chaos unfolding in our cities. Rioters clog our streets, gang members infiltrate our communities, and unvetted terror suspects—potential sleeper cells—slip through unchecked. These are not hypotheticals; they’re happening now. Contrast this with Trump’s no-nonsense policies: a sealed border, ICE detentions of criminal aliens, and the “remain in Mexico” policy that help keep asylum seekers from overwhelming our system. These measures tackle the immediate dangers to our safety and sovereignty, not some utopian vision of open borders that ignores the consequences.

Now, we see the same pattern with the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Yesterday Trump announced that B-2 stealth bombers and Navy submarines delivered a “spectacular military success,” obliterating key sites in Iran’s nuclear program. This wasn’t a reckless act but a calculated response to a clear and present danger. For over four decades, Iran has been at war with us—sponsoring terrorism, killing American servicemen, and maiming civilians with roadside bombs. Their nuclear program, despite Tehran’s claims of peaceful intent, has long been a ticking time bomb, with facilities like Fordow buried deep to evade attack and enriched uranium nearing weapons-grade levels.

Yet, what do Democrats do? They fret about oil prices spiking if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, or they nitpick over whether Trump sought enough congressional approval. They worry about Iran’s “right to self-defense” or the “everlasting consequences” of escalation, as if Iran hasn’t been escalating against us since 1979. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries cry foul, claiming Trump misled the country or violated the War Powers Act. Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vows retaliation, conveniently ignoring that his regime has been attacking us through proxies for years. This hand-wringing over hypothetical fallout—oil shocks, diplomatic slights, or Iran’s next move—misses the point: Iran’s nuclear capability was a fire burning now, and Trump put it out.

The critics’ obsession with future risks ignores the reality of Iran’s actions. Over 450 missiles have been fired at Israel since the conflict intensified, and Iran’s proxies, like Hezbollah and the Houthis, have targeted U.S. interests repeatedly. Trump’s strikes, using 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators and over 30 Tomahawk missiles, targeted the heart of Iran’s nuclear ambitions—facilities designed to produce weapons that could hold the world hostage. Satellite imagery shows craters and debris at Fordow and Natanz, confirming severe damage. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the strikes as historic, and even Israeli opposition leaders agreed they were necessary for global security.

The bottom line is this: leadership means tackling the fires burning now, not debating fire codes for a blaze that might never come. Iran’s nuclear program was a clear and present danger, not a hypothetical. Trump’s decision, backed by Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, prioritized America’s safety and that of our allies. As Vance said, the strikes were a “narrow and limited approach” to set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by years, not a prelude to endless war.

The naysayers will keep wringing their hands, warning of oil shocks or Iranian reprisals. But what’s the alternative? Letting Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, inch closer to a nuclear bomb? That’s not leadership; it’s cowardice. Just as Trump and Vance addressed the East Palestine disaster, confronted China’s supply chain dominance, and secured our borders, they’ve now taken bold action against Iran’s nuclear threat. Our leaders must focus on the dangers staring us in the face—rioters, gang members, terror suspects, and rogue regimes—before they consume us. The time for action is now, not when the flames are at our doorstep.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized