You’re a soldier, tasked with looking out a home for a suspected terrorist and hidden weapons. The home is filled with girls, youngsters, and an aged, sick, bedridden man.
How do you proceed? Do you power the person off the bed instantly to finish an intensive search, or do you sluggish the search to deal with him with child gloves, probably endangering your troopers?
Judgment calls like these are on a regular basis occurrences for 19-year-old troopers – younger males whose ethical dilemmas solely a yr earlier concerned not getting concerned with their finest pal’s girlfriend or resisting the urge to look on the check paper of the nerd sitting in entrance of them.
However we ship troopers – not a cadre of legal professionals – to the battlefield. How are these troopers taught to make complicated calls that would put them on the unsuitable finish of an IED, or simply as simply land them in army jail for taking an operation too far, in response to the ethical sensibilities of essentially the most ethical military on this planet?
On August 9, in response to Ynet, “The IDF raised the extent of authorization required for sure strikes as excessive because the chief of employees, successfully requiring political approval in some circumstances. Commanders had been additionally just lately given specific directions to halt immediate-response fireplace, besides in circumstances involving the elimination of a direct risk.”
Per Hillel Biton Rosen, army and safety correspondent for Channel 14, simply days later Hamas operatives had been recognized crossing the Yellow Line ceasefire demarcation in Gaza, the place they stole engineering tools. Troopers requested authorization to have interaction, however senior command denied the request.
The incursion was simply one in all greater than 65 crossings, 3 times the quantity recorded the week earlier than the foundations of engagement modified.
A senior safety official mentioned: “Hamas is testing us, precisely because it did earlier than Oct. 7. What occurred final evening might have ended with a soldier being kidnapped.”
Permission-to-open-fire orders clearly act as a deterrent and are needed to take care of regulation and order.
But, the foundations of engagement are fluid and at all times have been. They modify with authorities insurance policies and with diplomatic strain from allies and enemies alike. Even whereas working underneath the foundations, there are days when the military is instructed by political echelons to carry its fireplace, although the day earlier than, it will have opened fireplace.
IDF troopers are confronted with quite a few conditions that require sensitivity and conscious consciousness of civilian populations, however when a military is coping with terror operatives, tunnels, and a malicious entity that disguises itself as civilian and completely controls its civilian inhabitants, it’s arduous for any soldier to know who within the scheme of issues is who.
Israel’s life-saving measures transcend what worldwide regulation requires
JOHN SPENCER – chairman of city warfare research on the Trendy Struggle Institute at West Level, and probably the most distinguished Western consultants on city warfare – has been a number one voice on Israel’s conduct of operations in Gaza. His views are primarily based on comparative historic evaluation of city battles.
In a March 2024 Newsweek op-ed, Spencer claimed: “Israel has executed extra and applied extra measures to stop civilian hurt than any army within the historical past of city warfare.”
He mentioned these measures transcend what worldwide regulation requires and past what the US and its companions did in comparable fights in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Mosul in opposition to ISIS.
Particular practices Spencer lauded:
• Mass evacuation warnings (days or even weeks prematurely in some circumstances)
• Telephone calls, textual content messages, and recorded voice messages to particular buildings or neighborhoods
• “Roof-knocking” (firing a small, non-lethal munition onto a roof as a closing warning)
• Distribution of maps exhibiting secure routes and each day updates on humanitarian corridors
• Frequent tactical pauses and localized pauses throughout operations
• Intensive use of precision-guided munitions and formal focusing on processes
He famous that no different army has systematically mixed these actions at this scale whereas combating an enemy deeply embedded in dense city terrain with an unlimited tunnel community.
Which raises the query: Does that make the IDF extremely ethical or overly cautious?
A historical past of the ethos
Army ethics lengthy predates the State of Israel.
Carl von Clausewitz, who joined the Prussian military at age 12 and served within the Imperial Russian Military throughout the 1812 marketing campaign in opposition to France, is broadly considered the daddy of contemporary strategic research and a thinker of battle. His e-book On Struggle stays one of many key texts used to show troopers and form trendy army and political technique.
He acknowledged that “battle is the continuation of politics by different means,” balancing the folks, the military, and the federal government. Thus, politics determines when a soldier is given permission to shoot.
Right here in Israel, we’ve seen firsthand how diplomacy can get in the way in which of successful a battle. In Israel, the place “By no means Once more” is our battle cry, upon enlisting, every soldier is given a doc known as “Ruah Zahal,” “The Spirit of the IDF,” which features a part on “Purity of Arms.”
The purity of arms (tohar haneshek) was an unwritten army custom developed within the pre-state Jewish protection organizations, particularly the Hagana and its strike power, the Palmah, and handed on to the present-day IDF.
“Tohar haneshek” means conserving one’s weapon “clear” from harmless blood. It means weapons and power must be used just for self-defense and the mission, and solely to the extent needed.
Fighters are anticipated to keep away from harming noncombatants, together with civilians, prisoners, and the defenseless, as a lot as doable, and to take care of their humanity even within the midst of fight, refusing to sink into pointless cruelty, looting, revenge, or abuse.
By the early Nineteen Nineties, the IDF had spent a number of years coping with the First Intifada, which started in 1987. New missions concerned frequent operations in densely populated civilian areas in opposition to non-state actors, stone-throwers, and terrorists who didn’t put on uniforms or separate themselves from the civilian inhabitants.
Conventional army-versus-army doctrines had been now not ample on their very own. Commanders wanted clearer steering for troopers working in complicated, morally ambiguous environments.
In 1994, then-IDF chief of employees Ehud Barak known as in Asa Kasher, who was already deeply accustomed to the IDF via years of instructing its officers, a revered skilled ethicist able to turning army custom right into a coherent trendy code, and somebody who might lend the undertaking each mental seriousness and legitimacy.
He’s a professor emeritus {of professional} ethics and philosophy of follow at Tel Aviv College, a senior researcher (emeritus) on the Institute for Nationwide Safety Research, and the recipient of the 2000 Israel Prize for philosophy.
Collectively, they created “Ruah Zahal,” the IDF Code of Ethics, preserving the morals of the “purity of arms” in exact written language. The formal model retained the core concepts of tohar haneshek – using power just for the mission, solely to the required extent, and the duty to keep away from harming noncombatants – whereas putting them inside a broader moral framework that additionally included human dignity, the sanctity of life, and the values of a democratic state.
The moral code treats the drive to perform the mission and obtain victory as important, however not absolute. Drive should nonetheless be used solely to the extent needed, humanity should be maintained, and pointless hurt to noncombatants should be averted. Victory is an expert and ethical obligation of the soldier and the military, but it doesn’t license using unrestricted means.
Victory: Is the IDF ‘allowed’ to win a battle?
Kasher’s views on victory look like essentially the most controversial side of his physique of writing on IDF army ethics, particularly “Ruah Zahal.” He handled “victory” in a different way, relying on the kind of battle.
He espoused the view that in classical interstate wars between common armies, conventional ideas of army victory (defeating or destroying the enemy’s capability to proceed combating) stay related.
Within the combat in opposition to terrorism and non-state actors who embed amongst civilians, nonetheless, Kasher argued in his fall 2014 essay “The Ethics of Protecting Edge” within the Jewish Assessment of Books – the classical notion of whole victory is usually out of date or strategically unattainable.
He has additional written that in latest many years “victory has been changed by the perfect of efficiently undertaking given missions.”
One of many core members of the committee appointed in 2000 to drastically revise the unique IDF Code of Ethics was Prof. Avi Sagi, a thinker and main public voice on trendy Jewish id, existentialism, and army ethics. He served as a professor of philosophy at Bar-Ilan College and a senior analysis fellow on the Shalom Hartman Institute.
In interviews with former Maariv journalist Tuvi (Toby) Pollack as late as 2024, Sagi argued that “victory is just not an ethical worth” and warned that elevating it might justify the unrestrained use of power.
In a 2026 paper, “The IDF Must Return to Its Core Values,” printed by Col. (res.) Prof. Gabi Siboni and Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Erez Winner, of the Jerusalem Institute for Technique and Safety, described Sagi’s contribution to the “Purity of Arms” as “probably the most contentious modifications” ever made to “Ruah Zahal.”
They continued, “The brand new language created a way of ‘ethical hygiene’ the place the target appeared to not be defeating the enemy however rising from battle with a authorized ‘clear sheet.’”
In his printed paper “Correcting the IDF’s Moral Code,” Dr. Ronen Shoval, an Israeli political thinker and head of the Argaman Institute for Superior Research, quoted Sagi as saying (on the podcast On the Approach: Conversations with Tuvi Pollack, episode 418, titled “Avi Sagi on the Ethics of Fight and Warfare, Coping with Emotions of Revenge, and the Issue of Sustaining Human Dignity”): “Victory doesn’t justify using power. If ‘victory’ meets the usual of self-defense, nice; if not, we must always reserve the idea of victory for basketball or chess….”
Siboni and Winner argued that “ultimately, victory was included solely via a sort of compromise typical of Israel’s political tradition, within the phrasing ‘dedication to the mission and striving for victory.’ Even so, the formulation of the worth itself remained virtually apologetic.
“For a lot of within the combating ranks, pushing victory to the margins of the worth system conveyed a way that the military had misplaced its bearings. If a army doesn’t educate its troopers to see victory as a central worth, it dangers shedding its basic ethical objective: defending the lives of the state’s residents.”
‘Israel is Simply the Starting’
IN A RECENT INTERVIEW with the Journal, Moshe Feiglin – former MK and deputy speaker of the Knesset, and founding father of the Zehut social gathering, which just lately introduced it will likely be operating in a technical election bloc with Bezalel Smotrich’s Spiritual Zionism social gathering – he defined, “The Purity of Arms reiterates time and again that the phrase ‘victory’ is immoral since you’re solely allowed to combat to guard your self. You’re not allowed to combat for justice, for instance, or in your nation, or in your land, or to attain any sort of victory over evil forces, as a result of there isn’t any good and dangerous on this planet.”
Feiglin’s new e-book, Israel is Simply the Starting, posits that Israel’s refusal to embrace its personal Jewish id is conserving it from successful existential wars it should win to outlive.
“So long as Israel and its military are led by community-minded leaders and never nationwide ones, the battle is not going to finish, as a result of in fact the nationwide battle has but to start,” wrote Feiglin, who misplaced a grandchild in Operation Swords of Iron.
“Regardless of the horrible sacrifice of the troopers and officers who gave their lives to avoid wasting our nation, this battle is not going to finish till Israel’s management is likewise drawn from their ranks – from those that haven’t misplaced their nationwide consciousness. The battle is not going to finish as a result of a group, even one whose sons are heroes, doesn’t win wars. A group can solely lick its wounds and redeem its captives.”
In our interview, Feiglin was clear: “When you’re in battle, there must be just one purpose, and it’s to win.”
He prolonged this credo to acts of terrorism. “If an Arab comes out of his city and throws a rock at an Israeli automotive or at Israeli people who find themselves strolling and touring the land, the response [of the Israeli civilian or soldier] must be to shoot as a way to kill, as a result of he’s combating in opposition to you in a nationwide battle. It isn’t a non-public altercation between folks. We’re at battle.
“When the Egyptian troopers crossed the Suez Canal in 1973, they didn’t look to see who was taking pictures at that second and who was not. They understood that we’re at battle. Each Arab throwing a rock on you is a soldier within the Arab nationwide battle. And when you’re at battle, there must be just one purpose, and it’s to win.
“In Gaza we tried to not use strategies that might have ended the battle quick,” Feiglin mentioned. “We despatched troopers into booby traps and tunnels – together with my very own grandson.”
He paused for a painful second. “We predict by appearing this fashion, we are going to acquire factors with the worldwide ethical conscience, however we are literally exhibiting the world that we don’t settle for our personal code of justice. We need to present the world how westerly civilized we’re – however they have a look at us and say ‘well mannered colonialists are nonetheless colonialists.’”
Do the “don’t shoot” directives, the roof-thumping and flyer dropping superior warnings go above and past the decision of responsibility to warn enemy civilians and combatants that the IDF is about to assault?
“The concept we will practice our troopers to know this ethical precipice within the classroom fails to bear in mind the very dynamic nature of battle and the ‘fog of battle’ that has been described so nicely by Clausewitz,” Dr. David Leitner shared with the Journal. He’s a method and management knowledgeable, the founding father of Rhydl Consulting, and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan College.
“Troopers face distinctive conditions each single time they exit into the sphere, they usually should make selections primarily based on what they’re experiencing within the second,” he added.
“To evaluate these selections from a authorized standpoint that doesn’t perceive or settle for that battle takes place inside civilian populations who’ve, on the very naked minimal, supported the enemy and infrequently are actively taking part in enemy actions – it’s, in and of itself, a recipe for hesitation that may value troopers’ lives.
“Worldwide politics are closely impacting the power of frontline troopers to behave for their very own security, or to behave in methods they understand as important for the security of the house entrance and the achievement of victory.
“This lack of a transparent, shared understanding of what victory appears like – each within the army and the political realms – has led to vital friction between the political and higher echelons of the army and the troopers out within the subject who’re experiencing the battle via their ft.”
The IDF weighs in
In a dialog with a senior army official, the Journal requested: “Is the IDF combating to win?”
The official defined that the general image exhibits the IDF striving to create circumstances during which Hamas is weakened and exhausted, now not able to working because it as soon as did, and finally defeated. The purpose is to remove any risk to the residents of the State of Israel. Attaining this goal requires a steady effort to stability the appliance of power, technique, and techniques.
Relating to whether or not troopers may chorus from firing to keep away from authorized penalties, the official expressed certainty that this isn’t the case. Of the 1000’s of selections made throughout the battle, solely a really small proportion finally attain investigation. Many of those opinions, the official added, will not be formal investigations however, moderately, inquiries designed to make sure that protocols had been correctly adopted.
Returning to the sooner instance of troopers coming into a home that may comprise terrorists, the official was requested how the military teaches its forces to respect different cultures whereas sustaining dedication and authority.
The official defined that the IDF doesn’t dictate one exact, particular methodology for coming into a home. As a substitute, troopers are given the values and ethics that underlie the mission. They’re reminded {that a} clear, particular mission is the only cause they entered the home; following the mission’s logic is important. Respect is emphasised not solely as an moral requirement but in addition as a sensible one – a scarcity of respect creates chaos, hysteria, and pointless noise that hurt the mission itself.
Preparation for these complicated conditions depends on repeated drills and simulations. The simulations are filmed in order that troopers can evaluation the footage and be taught from their errors.
When requested whether or not the code of “Purity of Arms” must be up to date, the official acknowledged that work stays to be executed however argued that the unique assertion doesn’t require rephrasing or rewriting. The code is robust sufficient as written, the official mentioned. The precedence is making certain the suitable instruments are used to implement it.
Rewriting the foundations: Is ‘Purity of Arms’ due for an improve?
Whereas “Purity of Arms” assumes a significant distinction between combatants and noncombatants and the opportunity of limiting power to what’s needed, Israel’s adversaries – Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and so on. – systematically reject that distinction.
They embed fighters, command facilities, weapons, and tunnels inside and underneath civilian infrastructure, use human shields, and have a good time their very own civilian deaths as strategic property.
When the enemy intentionally creates combined environments, the sensible means to use power “solely to the required extent” whereas nonetheless undertaking the mission shrinks dramatically.
The Torah provides distinct pointers for various sorts of wars, milhemet mitzvah and milhemet reshut, the previous being the sort of battle that should be fought underneath any circumstances. Then there’s the Amalek battle, the place after being attacked by the cruel Amalekites, the fledgling nation of Israel was commanded to execute each man, lady, and little one, and even livestock. The Talmud weighs in, saying, “If somebody involves kill you, you’re obligated to kill him first.”
With that in thoughts, many people and political motion teams hope that this yr brings modifications to the military’s doc. These efforts mirror a broader post-Oct. 7 debate on the Proper over whether or not the IDF’s formal moral language adequately serves a Jewish military confronting existential threats.
In Could 2026, MK Zvi Sukkot organized a letter, signed by about 30 coalition MKs, to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding a full reexamination and rewrite of “Ruah Zahal.”
The signatories mentioned classes from the latest battle and the altering safety actuality required reformulating the foundational rules in order that they strengthen fighters’ belief and align with the mission of defeating the enemy.
Sukkot criticized the prevailing model as having been written by “excessive leftists,” claimed Kasher had tried to wreck the IDF, and insisted the code should state unequivocally that the lives of Israeli troopers take priority over these of the enemy.
Alongside Sukkot’s parliamentary push, a extra ideological marketing campaign has emerged from religious-Zionist circles in search of a basic rewrite of the IDF’s moral protocols.
The Torat HaMedina institute, primarily based in Jerusalem’s Beit Orot neighborhood, launched the e-book Mashiv HaRuah le-Zahal (Restoring the Spirit to the IDF) in spring 2026 as an specific Jewish different to the prevailing “Ruah Zahal.”
Authored by rabbis Yair Kartman and Yaakov Yakir, the work argues that the present code is overly universalist and restraining, treating battle as a needed evil that dangers ethical corruption, moderately than as a mitzvah and divine mission.
Drawing on Torah sources, it reframes fight as a continuation of the trail of King David and the Maccabees, fought within the identify of God and the folks of Israel, and proposes 5 core values: protection of the Jewish folks, sovereignty within the Land of Israel, decisive victory, Jewish morality rooted in custom and prophecy, and the prioritization of Israeli troopers’ lives in a collective nationwide marketing campaign.
The undertaking has attracted seen help from senior non secular and political figures, together with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, Nationwide Missions Minister Orit Strock, and MK Simcha Rothman, who attended associated occasions.
A extra measured corrective proposal, superior by former IDF deputy chief of employees Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Uzi Dayan and Rabbi Oury Cherki equally elevate victory because the supreme worth and make clear the primacy of Israeli lives, whereas remaining nearer to the prevailing framework.
Rabbi Cherki defined that battle is a disaster in response to the Torah. However, he mentioned, the Torah acknowledges that we’re going to get into wars, and we should defend ourselves in opposition to barbarians. The Ramban, he mentioned, factors out that when it’s needed, we’re obligated to stop assaults.
That’s a part of the morality of battle, Cherki advised the Journal. We first search peace, but when that may’t be achieved, we combat to win.
“We should combat in opposition to terrorists who combat amongst civilian populations,” he defined. “The preliminary doc [“Ruah Zahal”] displays an immoral worth. A fighter must have a way of justice and legitimacy. We should always by no means have to decide on between the lives of our troopers and the lives of civilians on the opposite aspect.”
One other notable voice within the critique of “Ruah Zahal” is Shoval’s. In his paper “Correcting the IDF’s Moral Code,” he defined that “moral codes for armies thus search to meet three central features:
“1. Morality and limitations: They set up a framework that defines the boundaries of fight.
“2. Sustaining public legitimacy: A code of ethics ensures that the actions of the army obtain the help of the civilian inhabitants.
“3. Identification and heritage: The code of ethics strengthens the sense of objective in army service by framing it not solely as a way of protection but in addition as a mission grounded in values.
“The primary drawback is that, because it stands, this ‘ethical information’ [‘Ruah Zahal’] is just not ethical,” he defined. “There’s a hidden assumption that to combat a battle is unjust. However typically not killing the enemy is worse than killing them. There’s an assumption that utilizing power implies you’re doing one thing unsuitable. It goes in opposition to the Christian ethos of turning the opposite cheek.”
He continued, “If the position of the soldier is to guard the civilian, the lifetime of the soldier is value greater than the lifetime of the terrorist.”
He identified in an interview that the questions come into play if there’s an Israeli civilian sufferer and a Nukhba terrorist, each wounded on the bottom. Who ought to the medics deal with first? The present ethics in Israel, he mentioned, is to triage the one who’s extra wounded, however he mentioned the wounded civilian ought to morally come first.
In February 2016, Gadi Eisenkot (who was then IDF chief of employees and is at present social gathering chief of Yashar), chatting with highschool seniors about to enter the military, at Heichal Hatarbut in Bat Yam, mentioned:
“When there’s a 13-year-old woman holding scissors or a knife, and there’s distance between her and the troopers, I don’t need to see a soldier open fireplace and empty his journal at a lady like that, even when she is committing a really critical act. Quite, he ought to use the power needed to meet the target.”
He added that troopers obtain weapons to take a human life when required, however the guidelines of engagement are derived from the mission, and the IDF doesn’t function in response to “slogans” equivalent to “whoever involves kill you, kill him first.” A soldier could take away the security and shoot if there’s actual hazard to himself or his comrades however should apply solely the required power.
‘Purity of Arms’ is unlikely to vary anytime quickly
THE REAL QUESTION is how an peculiar soldier is to find out the severity of the risk in actual time and underneath most strain.
Shoval mentioned that until there’s a concerted effort, the “Purity of Arms” is unlikely to vary anytime quickly. “The conception has not modified within the military, and it’s not more likely to change. It could solely change when we’ve a brand new technology of troopers with contemporary concepts, coming from the post-Oct. 7 crop of troopers.”
Cherki admitted the IDF seems to be hesitating as a result of it’s not able to make deep modifications, however he does consider sufficient folks need to see modifications occur quickly.
“Altering the ‘Purity of Arms’ doc must be an election purpose of the Proper,” he mentioned.
Hopefully, the candidates will clearly state their factors of view. Some have already weighed in.
Voters will likely be left to find out whether or not the foundations of engagement finally defend our troopers and the Israeli nation they defend, and whether or not this new yr will likely be safer for everybody in Israel.■
What would you do? Responses to a hypothetical military train in civilian areas
The mission: You’ve got already given clear warnings to civilians to evacuate an space utilized by terrorists, to offer the inhabitants time to flee. These embrace leaflets, cellphone calls, and “roof-knocking.” Some civilians stay. How does this have an effect on your resolution to have interaction a professional army goal in that space?
Army figures weigh in:
Fight commander: I’ll by no means settle for a larger threat to my very own power to additional cut back doable civilian hurt. Clearly, we at all times attempt to keep away from civilian hurt. However not on the expense of our personal troops’ security. A correctly coordinated and executed mission reduces the chance to my troopers to zero. Nobody is extra valuable to me than my troopers.
Remaining civilians don’t have an effect on my resolution to have interaction the army goal. Except somebody provides an order to name off the mission as a result of the civilians refuse to evacuate, the mission proceeds as deliberate.
Excessive-ranking elite fight soldier: If clear warnings got (and in my opinion, even these warnings go above and past), anybody who chooses to stay in an energetic battle zone understands the dangers. As a fight soldier, I can not compromise operational decision-making or soldier security to account for many who remained after being warned to evacuate.
In a fight zone, I’ll virtually at all times prioritize the security and lives of my troopers above different concerns.
Former US naval officer: If honest warning has been given, I’d authorize the bombing to start instantly, no matter what number of civilians stay within the focused space. If the civilians aren’t good sufficient to clear the realm, then no matter occurs is on them. In fact, they could be loitering round both to purchase time for the terrorists to get away or to stop us from finishing up our bombing.
– J.S.
Moshe Feiglin’s e-book on id and the combat in opposition to radical Islam
Moshe Feiglin’s new e-book, Israel is Simply the Starting: How Israel’s Struggle Towards Radical Islam and Progressivism Protects the Identification and Liberty of the Civilized World, is illuminating and typically deeply disturbing. He analyzes the unholy alliance between Islam and progressivism, attributing the connection to a quest to abolish id – not simply Jewish id, however any identities everywhere in the world.
Chapter by chapter, Feiglin – who was a Likud MK and deputy Knesset speaker from February 2013-March 2015, and now heads the Zehut (Identification) social gathering, which just lately joined in a technical bloc with Smotrich’s Spiritual Zionism social gathering – lays out the info. Points span from Israel’s existential battle, which he calls “The Temple Struggle,” to the combat to abolish sexual id, the ideological battle over local weather change, how feminists conveniently ignored Islam’s Oct. 7 rapes, Israel’s guidelines of engagement, COVID coverups, and extra.
Feiglin calls out the hypocrisy of Israelis’ blind eye to the federal government’s state-controlled “dominion over our lives,” submission to Oslo, whereas additionally exploring its general tendency to suppress Jewish id inside the State of Israel. And he exposes Islam’s typically hid, extra usually unhidden, agenda to destroy the Jewish state.
Embracing Judaism’s God-fearing id, Feiglin says, is the reply – not just for Israel, however the world. He acknowledges the Jews’ rejection of religion offered “power highly effective sufficient to propel the Jewish folks again to renewed nationhood.” However he says that civic nationalism “might now not imbue Israeli life with which means, nor maintain a nationwide sense of justice, validity, and legitimacy.”
Feiglin’s e-book is a compelling learn, even in the event you don’t agree with all his concepts or conclusions. No matter political viewpoint or non secular orientation, he offers sufficient info, observations, and easy truths for pro-Israel readers making an attempt to make sense of in the present day’s extraordinarily complicated world scenario. – J.S.
