"Iran is setting exactly the same trap for Israel as Hitler did"

This week marks 87 years since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a non-aggression agreement signed in 1939 between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which also included the division of spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. Less than two years later, Hitler violated the agreement and invaded the Soviet Union.

Shimon Rafael, Deputy Head of the Institute for National Security Policy of the Bithonistim movement (IDSF) and former policy advisor to the Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, explains in an interview with C14 what lesson he seeks to draw from this historical agreement for Israel's current security reality — and especially for dealing with Iran and Hamas.

87 years later, why is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact still relevant in your view?

"The historical lesson from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not just about distant European history, but about the core of our Zionist-national worldview: one must never rely on agreements or international guarantees signed with tyrants, totalitarian regimes, and terrorist organizations.

The tendency to believe that every conflict can be solved through diplomacy, negotiations, and a signed contract is willful blindness. This perception mistakenly assumes that all players in the international arena share the same fundamental values: the sanctity of life, economic rationality, and a commitment to honoring agreements. However, when facing regimes and organizations that are not committed to the values of liberalism and basic morality, cultural manners are nothing but a cover for rearmament and preparation for the next blow."

When did they start to understand that the perceived quiet was an illusion?

"On paper, the agreements between Berlin and Moscow promised stability: economic cooperation, non-aggression, and security quiet. In reality, they helped prepare the ground for war. The agreement removed for Hitler the immediate fear of a two-front war and allowed him to invade Poland on September 1, 1939. A few weeks later, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east. Simultaneously, economic cooperation between the two countries continued, and the Soviet Union supplied Germany with essential raw materials that aided its war effort.

However, the cynical alliance between the dictators was also temporary. Less than two years after the signing of the agreement, on June 22, 1941, Hitler violated his commitment and launched Operation Barbarossa, the large-scale invasion of the Soviet Union. Within hours, yesterday's partner became today's enemy. The promises signed in Moscow proved worthless against the true ambitions of the Nazi regime, and the illusion that an agreement with an ideological enemy could cancel its long-term goals shattered at a huge cost in blood."

You connect this lesson to Iran as well. Where do you see the similarity?

"Look at the Ayatollah regime in Iran. For years, the West tried to solve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic agreements (such as the 2015 nuclear deal). Iran signed, smiled for the cameras, and continued to whitewash its nuclear program, fund terrorist proxies across the Middle East, and openly declare its intention to destroy the State of Israel. For a radical totalitarian regime, an agreement is not a goal for peace, but a tactical tool to gain time, reduce pressure, and build power for a confrontation."

And is this lesson also true in your view regarding Hamas?

"The things are true a fortiori when it comes to murderous terrorist organizations like Hamas. The repeated attempts to reach deals, 'arrangements', 'understandings', and ceasefires with an organization that has inscribed the destruction of Israel on its banner have proven to be a destructive conception. October 7 opened the eyes of everyone who refused to see: Hamas used every round of quiet and every 'understanding' to arm itself, dig tunnels, and plan the most terrible massacre since the Holocaust. For a jihadist terrorist organization, every agreement is just a short rest for future aggression."

If so, what is the alternative? To live by our sword?

"The Zionist-Revisionist perception presents a clear and sober alternative: the Iron Wall.

The national perception does not rely on the mercy of nations, nor on the signatures of tyrants. Herzl, Jabotinsky, and the founders of Zionism understood that the security of the Jewish people can rely solely on its own strength — military, economic, and spiritual."

So you reject political agreements across the board?

"When leaders in the world or in Israel talk about 'political arrangements' with entities that do not recognize our right to exist, we must remind them of August 19, 1939. We must clarify: there is no faith in tyrants: a regime whose essence is the suppression of human rights and violence will never honor an agreement with a free country.

Strength is the only guarantee: firm military deterrence, readiness for decisive action, and strong national sovereignty are the only guarantees for peace and reliability. A reality analysis based on ideology and not wishful thinking: terrorist organizations and extremist regimes must be judged by their ideology and actions, not by a tactical analysis of one agreement or another."

87 years after that agreement in Moscow, what is the message you want Israel to take from it today?

"Israel must continue to lead a firm, sober, and independent security policy. Agreements are made with life-loving countries and law-abiding regimes; in the face of tyrants and terrorist organizations, only force, decisiveness, and reliance on ourselves will ensure the eternity of Israel."