IMRA Middle East News Updates

Weekly Commentary: Poll Shows Saudis See Israel Differently Than Others

Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:42:24 -0500

Weekly Commentary: Poll Shows Saudi Street Sees Israel Differently Than
Others
Dr. Aaron Lerner 9 January 2026

Take a look at some of the results of this poll of our neighbors:

"Which country do you consider the greatest threat to the security of your
country?"
(percentage identifying Israel as the greatest threat)
Mashreq (Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Syria) 53%
Nile Valley (Egypt, Sudan) 38%
Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar) 9%

Do you support or oppose your country recognizing Israel?
(% opposing recognition)
Jordan 95%
Egypt 87%
Lebanon 89%
Syria 74%
Saudi Arabia 61%

Is the Palestinian cause a collective Arab cause or only a Palestinian
cause?
(% saying "The Palestinian cause is a collective Arab cause")
Jordan 93%
Egypt 69%
Lebanon 67%
Syria 69%
Saudi Arabia 62%%

The Arab Opinion Index 2024-25 was conducted between November 2024 and
August 2025, according to the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies.
The Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, which produced the survey,
is based in Doha, Qatar
https://www.dohainstitute.org/en/Lists/ACRPS-PDFDocumentLibrary/arab-index-2
025-in-brief-en.pdf

While these results don't indicate that Saudis would be dancing in the
street to celebrate Saudi-Israeli diplomatic relations, they certainly
indicate that the Saudi leadership faces less pressure than others in our
neighborhood to avoid improved relations with the Jewish State.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Weekly Commentary: Trump's Unprecedented Threat to Iran Over the Killing of Protesters

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 09:38:32 -0500

Weekly Commentary: Trump's Unprecedented Threat to Iran Over the Killing of
Protesters
Dr. Aaron Lerner 2 January 2026

"If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their
custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are
locked and loaded and ready to go. Thank you for your attention to this
matter!"
President DONALD J. TRUMP
2 January 2026, Truth Social

As far as I can tell, no American president has ever issued such a clear
warning to a foreign country regarding the consequences of killing peaceful
protesters.

I am not going to engage in speculation as to whether Mr. Trump's team will
resort to hyper-technical analyses of each incident in which protesters are
killed in order to avoid being put to the test.

#1. Was the shooter a true representative of the Iranian regime?
#2. Were those killed truly "protesters"?
#3. Were they 100 percent "peaceful"?

I will suggest only this: if, in the coming days, more Iranian protesters
are killed and no action is taken to come to their rescue - despite the
declaration that "we are locked and loaded and ready to go" - this may
undermine the deterrent effect of other warnings issued by President Trump.

And that could be very dangerous for all of us.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

When Demilitarization Commitments Ignored: Violation Facilitated Germany's Invasion of France

Sun, 28 Dec 2025 08:54:01 -0500

When Demilitarization Commitments Ignored: Violation Facilitated Germany's
Invasion of France
Dr. Aaron Lerner 28 December 2025

Step-by-Step Explanation of the French Withdrawal from the Rhineland in 1930
and Subsequent Events
Background: Demilitarization of the Rhineland under the Treaty of Versailles
(1919)

After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles imposed strict limitations on
Germany to prevent renewed aggression. The Rhineland-defined as the
territory west of the Rhine River and a strip extending 50 kilometers east
of the Rhine-was designated a demilitarized zone.

The relevant provisions were:

Article 42:
"Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications either on
the left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank to the west of a line drawn
50 kilometers to the east of the Rhine."

Article 43:
"In the area defined above, the maintenance and assembly of armed forces,
either permanently or temporarily, and military manoeuvres of any kind, as
well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilization, are in the same
way forbidden."

Article 44:
Any violation of Articles 42 or 43 would be regarded as a hostile act
against the treaty powers and as an act calculated to disturb the peace of
the world.

These provisions created a security buffer intended to protect France and
Belgium from renewed German attack.

To guarantee compliance, the treaty also provided for Allied military
occupation of the Rhineland. Under Articles 428-432, occupation was to last
15 years from the entry into force of the treaty, with withdrawals in three
stages (after 5, 10, and 15 years), conditional on German compliance.

The Locarno Treaties (1925): Reconfirmation and Guarantee of
Demilitarization

In 1925, Germany (under Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann), France,
Belgium, Britain, and Italy signed the Locarno Treaties. The key agreement
was the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee (Rhineland Pact).

Under this treaty:

Germany, France, and Belgium mutually recognized the inviolability of their
western borders as fixed by Versailles.

Britain and Italy acted as guarantor powers, pledging to assist any victim
of aggression.

Crucially, the parties explicitly guaranteed "the observance of the
stipulations of Articles 42 and 43 of the Treaty of Versailles concerning
the demilitarised zone."

Locarno did not replace Versailles. Rather, it reconfirmed and guaranteed
the existing demilitarization regime within a new diplomatic framework. It
was politically significant because Germany accepted these obligations
voluntarily, unlike the imposed terms of 1919.

French and Allied Withdrawal from the Rhineland (1930)

Although occupation was originally scheduled to continue until the
mid-1930s, events accelerated its end:

In 1929, the Young Plan restructured Germany's reparations, reducing annual
payments and extending the payment period.

As part of the Hague agreements linked to the Young Plan, the Allied powers
agreed to accelerate evacuation of the Rhineland.

France, initially reluctant, accepted early withdrawal in exchange for
financial and political concessions.

The final Allied troops-primarily French-completed their withdrawal on 30
June 1930, five years earlier than originally planned.

Importantly, the end of occupation did not terminate demilitarization. The
legal obligation to keep the Rhineland free of German troops and
fortifications remained fully in force under Articles 42-44 of Versailles
and was reaffirmed by Locarno.

Germany's Violation: Remilitarization of the Rhineland (1936)

Under Adolf Hitler, Germany openly violated these obligations.

On 7 March 1936, Germany sent 19 battalions (approximately 20,000-30,000
troops) into the demilitarized Rhineland.

Hitler claimed that the Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact (1935)
constituted a threat to Germany and rendered Locarno void.

This action directly violated:

Article 43 of the Treaty of Versailles, which forbade the presence or
assembly of armed forces in the demilitarized zone.

Article 42, once Germany subsequently began constructing fortifications.

The Locarno Rhineland Pact, which guaranteed observance of those Versailles
provisions.

Britain and France protested diplomatically but took no military action. The
matter was referred to the League of Nations, but no enforcement measures
followed. Hitler had instructed his forces to withdraw if met with
resistance; none came. The episode emboldened further German expansion.

Role of Rhineland Remilitarization in the German Victory over France (1940)

The remilitarization of the Rhineland was a critical enabler-though not the
sole cause-of Germany's rapid victory over France in May-June 1940.

Its strategic consequences included:

Elimination of France's primary security buffer. The demilitarized Rhineland
had allowed France to threaten rapid entry into western Germany in the event
of German aggression. Remilitarization removed this deterrent.

Construction of the Westwall (Siegfried Line). After 1936, Germany built
extensive fortifications along the western frontier, opposite the French
Maginot Line. This reduced German fear of a French counteroffensive.

Greater freedom of force concentration. With the western frontier secured,
Germany could allocate forces with greater confidence to offensive
operations.

Strategic risk acceptance in 1940. During the Battle of France, German
forces bypassed the Maginot Line by advancing through Belgium and the
Ardennes. The existence of the Westwall helped reassure German planners that
France could not easily strike into Germany during the campaign.

The result was the rapid encirclement and defeat of Allied forces in
northern France and Belgium, culminating in the evacuation at Dunkirk and
the fall of France within six weeks.

Summary

The 1930 Allied withdrawal ended military occupation but did not end
demilitarization, which remained guaranteed under both the Treaty of
Versailles and the Locarno Treaties. Germany's 1936 remilitarization was a
clear treaty violation that removed France's principal security safeguard,
enabled German western fortifications, and altered the strategic balance in
Europe. This unopposed breach played a significant role in creating the
conditions that made Germany's 1940 Blitzkrieg against France possible and
devastatingly effective.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Weekly Commentary: Deploying Turks in Gaza Risks Catastrophic Conflict

Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:17:01 -0500

Weekly Commentary: Deploying Turks in Gaza Risks Catastrophic Conflict
Dr. Aaron Lerner 24 December 2025

President Trump's team continues to press for us to accept the participation
of Turkish troops in the International Stabilization Force (ISF) to be
deployed in the Gaza Strip.

These Turkish forces can be expected to do everything in their power to help
Hamas effectively remain heavily armed and dangerous.

I write "effectively" because the Turks could certainly participate in
meaningless photo-op disarmament events.

Turkish forces could not only deploy as human shields for the benefit of
Hamas, but also as a force positioned opposite Israeli lines to intercept
and/or repel Israeli attacks against Hamas targets.

I appreciate that President Trump is not on the same page as we are when it
comes to Turkey in general and Erdoğan in particular.

Washington completely ignored Erdoğan's 30 March 2025 call during Eid
al-Fitr prayers: "May Allah destroy Zionist Israel."

Instead, President Trump praised Erdoğan as "tough" and "very smart."

But Washington's attitude toward Turkey is irrelevant.

Under all circumstances, the Trump team does not want a catastrophic
conflict involving Israel and Turkey.

I appreciate that even if one were to carry out a series of conflict
simulations examining how the deaths of Turkish soldiers in Gaza might play
out under various scenarios, the outcome is never escalation to the point of
a catastrophic armed conflict between Turkey and Israel.

The experts would note that decision-makers would have no choice but to show
restraint, knowing full well that everyone would have too much to lose.

But these simulations take place before real Turks with real families are
killed by Israel.

Not killed in one isolated incident but repeatedly killed as Turkish forces
refuse to back down from shielding Hamas.

A series of deaths that ignites the Turkish street.

This would be followed by a spiraling conflict caused by misjudgments by
both sides and a great deal of bad luck.

Are the odds 50%? 20%? Even just 10%?

None of us - Americans, Turks, or Israelis - can afford to roll the dice on
this.

For everyone's sake, Turkish forces cannot be part of the ISF.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Observation: Difficulties in the IDF for the Religious Don’t Negate Their Duty to Serve

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 10:03:02 -0500

Observation: Difficulties in the IDF for the Religious Don’t Negate Their Duty to Serve
Dr. Aaron Lerner 18 December 2025

Someone shared this article with me:

“The IDF Doesn’t Want Chareidim; It Wants to Re‑Educate Them,” Noam Chairman Says
The Yeshiva World December 15, 2025
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/2486186/the-idf-doesnt-want-chareidim-it-wants-to-re%E2%80%91educate-them-noam-chairman-says.html

I posted my observation in the comments section following the article: (posting times are apparently USA)

DR_AARON_LERNER says:
December 16, 2025 2:55 pm at 2:55 pm
If this were any other mitzvah which secular elements made harder for religious Jews to carry out I am certain that Noam Party chairman MK Avi Maoz would be among the first to call on religious Jews to overcome the obstacles to perform the mitzvah.

That’s the bottom line.

I am proud that my children and nephews all carried out the mitzvah of serving in this latest war.

Someone responded:
coffee addict says:
December 16, 2025 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm
“If this were any other mitzvah which secular elements made harder for religious Jews to carry out I am certain that Noam Party chairman MK Avi Maoz would be among the first to call on religious Jews to overcome the obstacles to perform the mitzvah.“

Ever heard of a Mitzva Habaah BeAveira

I guess you didn’t learn that when you became a doctor

I replied:

DR_AARON_LERNER says:
December 17, 2025 2:45 am at 2:45 am
Thank you for raising the issue. The principle you are referring to — often rendered as “a mitzvah that comes through a transgression” — is indeed a genuine concept in Jewish law, but its scope is frequently misunderstood.

The Talmud (Sukkah 30a) establishes that a stolen lulav is invalid because the act of theft is inseparable from the performance of the mitzvah. Maimonides codifies this explicitly in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shofar, Sukkah v’Lulav, chapter 8, where he lists stolen items among the four species that are invalid for the mitzvah, with related disqualifications discussed in the surrounding halachot.

Crucially, this rule applies only where the mitzvah itself is performed through an inherent wrongdoing. It does not apply where external difficulties, burdens, or sacrifices make fulfilling a mitzvah harder.

Jewish tradition consistently teaches the opposite principle: hardship does not negate a mitzvah but can enhance its value — “the reward is according to the effort” (Ethics of the Fathers 5:23).

Accordingly, many leading authorities classify the defense of the Jewish people as a milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war), following Maimonides (Hilchot Melachim 5:1), a category that obligates participation precisely because of its necessity.

Jewish law therefore draws a clear distinction between:

A mitzvah invalidated because it is inseparable from wrongdoing, and

A mitzvah that remains binding — and even elevated — when fulfilling it entails real sacrifice.

That distinction is well grounded in the classical sources.

[Since then no comments have followed]
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Weekly Commentary: Act on Zini's Warning and Adopt Standards for Handling Kidnappings

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 16:51:37 -0500

Weekly Commentary: Act on Zini's Warning and Adopt Standards for Handling
Kidnappings
Dr. Aaron Lerner 17 December 2025

"The threat of kidnappings has not diminished; it has increased and will
continue to increase, because there is a price to the way in which we paid
for the release of the hostages."
- Shin Bet head Maj. Gen. (res.) David Zini, briefing ministers at the 11
December 2025 political-security cabinet meeting, as reported by Ynet
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra14614905

Our demonstrated willingness to trade large numbers of terrorists in
exchange for the release of hostages isn't our only hostage-related problem.

Yishai Elmakis-Elram revealed in a report published in the 12 December 2025
edition of Makor Rishon that the IDF was ordered not to encircle or attack
Hamas forces in areas where Israeli hostages might be located.

Now that our enemies know that Israeli hostages can be used strategically as
human shields, there is no telling how Hezbollah, Iran, the Houthis, and
Israel's other enemies will exploit this Israeli Achilles' heel in future
wars.

It did not have to be this way.

"Soldier Gilad Shalit has returned home, and the time has come to regulate
the treatment of captive and missing soldiers, and to stop the slippery
slope we find ourselves on following the Jibril deal, the Tannenbaum deal,
and the exchange of Gilad himself."
- Defense Minister Ehud Barak, upon receiving the Shamgar Report, May 2011

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declined to seek Cabinet approval for the
guidelines and restrictions proposed by the Shamgar Report, and they were
never enacted into law.

As politically challenging and painful as it is, adopting and enacting into
law clear guidelines and restrictions governing how Israel deals with the
challenge of Israeli hostages is necessary to remove hostage-taking from our
enemies' portfolio of effective tools in their war against Israel.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il