Unity is Israel’s most powerful weapon

Its military victories have always depended on something deeper than airpower or intelligence: The unity of its people.

I write in my latest column on JNS.ORG:

The State of Israel has always lived by the principle that its survival depends not only on military might but on the unity of its people. A review of Israel’s modern military history—from the existential wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 to more recent conflicts in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the 2025 strike on Iran—reveals a clear pattern: when Israeli society stands united, its military achieves clarity and strength; when it is divided, outcomes are murky, costly and inconclusive.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the traumatic aftermath of Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists launched a surprise attack on Israeli communities near the border with Gaza. In that darkest of moments, the deep divisions that had wracked Israeli society for months over judicial reforms and political polarization were, at least temporarily, set aside. The country responded with a surge of unity not seen in decades.

The answer to the question of Israeli successes on the battlefield comes down to "unity."

If Israelis can re-embrace that unity, then perhaps this war—born of unimaginable loss—can also mark the beginning of national restoration. 

The full column can be read here.

Stephen M. Flatow

 

Stop Paying for Terror

My most recent column in Israel National News looks at the funding by America of the Palestinian Authority's security force. Taylor Force's memory deserves better than what the U.S. State Dept is now doing.

Stop Paying for Terror: End U.S. aid to Palestinian Arab Forces that worship killers

 In 1995, my daughter Alisa was murdered by Iranian-backed Palestinian Arab terrorists while studying abroad in Israel. She was 20 years old, full of life and hope, until a suicide bomber ended her dreams—and ours.

That’s why I, as an American, cannot stay silent as I watch the United States continue to funnel money into a Palestinian Authority security force that praises and elevates terrorists as heroes. This is not just an outrage—it is a travesty, one that dishonors the memory of those lost and endangers countless more innocents.

****

Enough is enough. For the sake of the victims, for the cause of true peace, and for the moral soul of America, we must stop subsidizing those who dance on the blood of innocents.

Taylor Force

Congress must close the Taylor Force Act loopholes. And we must finally send a clear, unwavering message: the United States will not pay one dime to anyone who celebrates terror. Taylor Force's memory requires better.

Read the full column at Israel National News.

Let us know what you think.

Stephen M. Flatow

Instead of thanking Israel for making the Mideast a safer place, we get calls for a Palestinian state

 After war with Iran, countries call for a Palestinian state

Recognition without security measure in place undermines peace and endangers Israel.

By Stephen M. Flatow

 

Stephen M. Flatow is president of the Religious Zionists of America. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995, and author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror. (The RZA is not affiliated with any American or Israeli political party.)

 

Israel, with support from the United States, makes the Middle East and Europe safer. So, how is it being repaid? With calls for the creation of a Palestinian state, made unilaterally.

 

Countries such as France, Ireland, Spain and Norway have already moved toward recognizing Palestinian statehood. The United Kingdom and others may soon follow. Some present this as a bold step toward peace. In reality, unilateral recognition undermines Israel’s security, emboldens extremists and sets back the cause of genuine peace.

 

From Israel’s standpoint, these declarations bypass the essentials of any viable two-state solution: re-educating the Palestinian public away from violence, enforceable security guarantees, mutually agreed borders and complete demilitarization. Without these, Palestinian statehood could become a launching pad for further violence, not a foundation for peace.

 

For decades, international consensus held that a Palestinian state should emerge from bilateral negotiations—covering security, refugees, Jerusalem and borders. That was the premise of the Oslo Accords, backed by successive U.S. administrations and U.N. resolutions.

 

Unilateral recognition upends that process. It rewards a corrupt Palestinian leadership with statehood while demanding no concessions. Worse, it empowers rejectionist forces like Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, disarm, or abandon terrorism. If statehood is handed over without commitments to coexistence, why would Palestinian leaders compromise in future talks?

 

Such recognition removes incentives for negotiation and undermines Israel’s leverage over existential issues: defensible borders, airspace, intelligence-sharing and control over the presence of foreign forces. One has to ask: How long before North Korean “advisers” show up in Palestine?

 

This isn’t just about pride or symbolism. It’s about Israel’s ability to defend itself from terror and regional threats.

 

Geography matters. The pre-1967 lines—central to many recognition proposals—leave Israel just nine miles wide at its narrowest point. Those “Auschwitz borders,” as they’ve been called, would make it easy for an invading army (think Oct. 7) to split the country in two. Giving up security control of such areas without ironclad guarantees is a risk no Israeli government can take.

 

A premature Palestinian state could also unravel the fragile network of counterterrorism coordination and border arrangements that protect both Israelis and Palestinians. Any future Palestinian entity must be fully demilitarized—no rockets, tunnels or heavy weapons—and subject to strict border oversight to prevent arms smuggling and foreign fighters.

 

Israel’s current, if imperfect, coordination with the Palestinian Authority relies on Israeli control of key zones. Granting statehood before new security arrangements are in place would likely break those ties and create a vacuum—one that terror groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad would be quick to exploit.

 

Supporters of recognition claim that statehood will moderate Palestinian politics. But the Gaza experience tells a different story. Israel’s 2005 disengagement was meant to reduce tensions and empower Palestinian self-rule. Instead, Hamas seized power and launched repeated wars. More than 20,000 rockets have been fired at Israel from Gaza since, culminating in the horrors of Oct. 7.

 

The lesson? Sovereignty without accountability breeds violence. Goodwill gestures can be hijacked by extremists. Real peace requires mutual responsibility, not unilateral giveaways.

 

European governments may act with good intentions, but their actions could worsen the conflict. By rewarding intransigence and bypassing negotiations, they sideline pragmatic voices and empower militants.

 

Across Israel’s political spectrum, there’s broad agreement: Palestinian statehood must not come at the cost of Israeli security. Recognition, if it comes, must be tied to enforceable commitments:

 

• A demilitarized Palestinian state with no offensive weapons;
• A verifiable end to incitement and terror support;
• Full Israeli access to intelligence and early warning systems;
• Agreed borders ensuring defensible perimeters;
• Permanent Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.

 

These are not obstacles to peace; they are its foundation. Any agreement must reflect the region’s hard realities, not idealism from afar.

 

The desire for peace is real on all sides. But peace cannot be imposed, especially not by sacrificing one nation’s security for symbolic gestures. If the world truly seeks a lasting solution, it must return to negotiation, mutual recognition and reciprocal obligations.

 

As Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann said in 1947 following the U.N. partition vote, statehood is not handed over “on a magesh hakessef”—a silver platter. It must be earned and secured by those who genuinely seek to live in peace.

 

Anything less risks not reconciliation, but continued bloodshed.

This column can be reviewed on line here.

SCOTUS hands Terror Victims a win and the PLO and Palestinian Authority a defeat

 The US Supreme Court just restored a measure of justice—
for Ari Fuld and for us all

(June 22, 2025 / JNS)

In a decision that affirms both the power of American law and the dignity of American lives, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the family of Ari Fuld, a U.S. citizen murdered in a 2018 terrorist stabbing in Israel, may pursue justice in an American courtroom.

In Fuld v. Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Supreme Court on June 20 reinstated the right of American terror victims and their families to sue the perpetrators of attacks committed overseas, so long as those groups deliberately maintain a presence in the United States.

It is a decision that resonates deeply with me. My daughter Alisa, then 20 years old, was murdered in a suicide bombing in 1995 while studying in Israel. Like Ari, she was an American citizen targeted simply for being who she was—Jewish, idealistic, full of life.

To read the entire article at JNS.ORG go here.

Thanks for reading, Stephen M. Flatow

Marking Independence Day by making Israel more dependent

 An oldie from 2017 but still relevant

Just when you think they’ve run out of ideas, the American Jewish left has found a novel way to commemorate Israel’s Independence Day—by trying to make Israel more dependent.

In a full-page ad in the New York Times on Thursday, the S. Daniel Abraham Center demanded that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 boundaries and accept creation of a Palestinian state.

The Abraham Center’s solution is a recipe for total Israeli dependence—on the goodwill of the Palestinians and the assurances of the international community. Which is probably not what Israel’s founders had in mind in 1948 when they established what was intended to be a free, proud, and genuinely sovereign state.

Jewish Virtual Library

The New York Times ad began with the usual misleading claims. For example, it alleged that “the Jewish democratic character of Israel is at risk” because “Arabs are today 50% of the population between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Jews are 49% of that population.”

Well, if that’s the case—if the Arabs are already a majority—then how is it that Israel still exists as a Jewish state?

Read the full online version at JNS.ORG here.

Enjoy, Stephen M. Flatow