Entering a 100-day election campaign this weekend, it is instructive to note what the coming Israeli vote is about and what it is not.

The election is mainly about government responsibility for the October 7, 2023 disastrous attack by Hamas and the government’s outrageous indulgences during wartime to the Ultra-Orthodox Israeli public.

The election is not about classic foreign and defense policy issues, because on these matters there is today a broad Israeli consensus. It is important to recognize this and understand the reasons why this is so.

The past three years of devastating enemy attacks on Israel taught Israelis an important lesson – which is the need to maintain a proactive defense posture including strategic ascendancy against enemies near and far.

Consequently, Israel will not return to the containment policies of recent decades that prioritized restraint and diplomacy over enemy degradation and military triumph. This approach allowed enemies to develop attack capabilities under the cover of diplomatic breathing time; what some Western officials mistakenly called periods of “stability.”

That approach blew-up in Israel’s face, with terror and invasion from the West Bank and Gaza and from Syria and Lebanon, and with the march of Iran’s nuclear bomb program to near completion and Iran’s ballistic missile array to near-annihilation-of-Israel potential.

Instead, Israel understands today that it must continue to make fierce and overwhelming moves against enemy strongholds from Sidon to Khan Yunis, and from Nablus to Isfahan. Israel will attack, not defend. It will initiate, not respond. It will hunt down its enemies, not be hounded by them.

Israel also has adopted a buffer-zone military strategy, with areas of long-term IDF control over borders where territory is dominated by Islamist-jihadist organizations. Behind the buffer zones now established in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria is a set of ideas that identify a grim reality and provide a concrete and practical response.

Israelis also realize that this country’s neighbours will seek true reconciliation only when Jerusalem is strong. Additional Abraham Accord-style peace treaties are possible and desirable, but these will be based on muscular defense partnerships, not mushy notions of goodwill.

NOTICE THAT opposition figures now challenging Prime Minister Netanyahu for leadership of the country are not talking much about any of this, because they have nothing to say differently than him in this regard.

Neither Gadi Eisencott, Naftali Bennett, Benny Gantz, nor Yair Lapid would or could act otherwise if they sat in the prime minister’s chair. They would have to clobber Iran and Iran’s proxies (which includes most actors in the irredentist Palestinian national movement) no less than Netanyahu has. And they will have to resist international pressures on these matters no less than Netanyahu has.

They also know that Israeli public opinion won’t brook any weakness in these matters. Consider several recent Knesset decisions and declarations that were passed by overwhelming majorities; approved by crushing majorities that are so rare in the raucous and often-poisonous Israeli political playground.

In February 2024, 99 out of 120 members of Knesset – essentially representing the entire country aside from Israeli Arabs – voted to reject unilateral recognition by European and other countries of Palestinian statehood.

In July 2024, the Knesset issued a declaration by a 68-9 vote opposing Palestinian statehood all-together. The nine votes opposing the resolution came from the Knesset’s two Arab parties.

“The Israeli Knesset firmly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan [River]. The establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel will pose an existential danger to the State of Israel and its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and destabilize the region. It will only be a short matter of time before Hamas takes over the Palestinian state and turns it into a radical Islamic terrorist base, working in coordination with the Iranian-led axis, to eliminate the State of Israel,” the declaration stated.

Indeed, recent polls indicate that 80% of Israelis, again basically the entire Jewish public, oppose the establishment of another Palestinian state beyond the ruinous one already extant in Gaza.

As a result, settlements in Judea and Samaria have manifestly become a consensus issue too. Israelis now understand that broad and deep settlement in Judea and Samaria is needed to torpedo the nightmare scenario of runaway Palestinian statehood.

This issue, which tore the Israeli public apart for four generations, has been resolved. Settlements are a security and Zionist asset, not a burden or a bar to peace.

Sure enough, and understandably so, settlements are not an issue in the coming election campaign. No mainstream Israeli politician is stupid enough to dredge-up stale paradigms about territorial withdrawals; to talk about tearing down the pioneering and more-important-than-ever settlement enterprise. (The muckraking “Democratic Party” leader Yair Golan, heir to the tiny extreme left Meretz Party voting public, is the exception to this rule.)

In fact, in July 2025 a majority of 71 out of 120 Knesset members from the coalition and opposition passed a non-binding resolution in favor of applying Israeli sovereignty to Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. And I expect a next Israeli government – any government – to advance a declaration of Israeli sovereignty in at least Area C of these territories.

Congruous with this updated, necessarily tough, Israeli mindset on defense and national matters, the Knesset approved a law in March this year by a walloping vote of 93-0 (no objections or abstentions!) enabling the prosecution of Hamas’ Nukhba terrorists.

Indictments are expected in special military courts against more than 400 Hamas barbarians for crimes against the Jewish People, crimes against humanity, war crimes, murder, rape, abduction, and looting. The death penalty for convicted terrorists is explicitly an option, and this applies also to terrorists who killed Israeli hostages in captivity long after October 7.

The Israeli public demands no less. Protestations from the world against these trials and possible executions will fall on defiant and appropriately deaf Israeli ears.

ALAS, I sense that much of the international community and even the world Jewish community still does not comprehend the deep changes in national security thinking and practice that are now the rock-solid Israeli mainstream path, and which will not change much under the next Israeli government – whoever heads it.

Some highhanded politicians around the world refuse to consider the views of Israelis. They know better than Israelis how to secure this country. They flock to Israel to posture like peacocks and take this country’s leadership to task.

A classic example: The arrogant Rahm Emanuel, a US Democratic Party presidential candidate wannabe, who alighted in Tel Aviv last week to deride Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as a “drunk driver” and to dispense warmed-over, hackneyed advice from the dreadful playbook of his former boss. Like President Barack Obama, Emanuel only pretended to be upset about drawing away from Israel.

Emanuel is stuck in a world of double illusions – the illusion that his election will advance by bashing Israel, and the fantasy that Israel’s election can be swayed by pressure from abroad in favor of infirm foreign and defense policies. It would be smarter for world leaders to get used to a revamped Mideast strategic situation anchored by a hard-hitting, confident, and undivided Israel.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, 17.07.2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

Given US President Trump’s sterling record in confronting Iran – no other US president has actually gone to war against the radical Islamist regime and repeatedly backed Israel’s wars of defense against Iran – one wants to give Trump the benefit of the doubt now too when he seeks to defang Iran diplomatically.

But the trash-talking about Israel by Trump and especially by his Vice President, JD Vance, makes this hard to do.

Dr. Michael Doran of the Washington-based Hudson Institute argues, almost convincingly, that Trump is buying time, not surrendering to Iran.

The ceasefire agreement Trump signed with Iran is minimally meant to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and immediately bring down oil prices, he says. Convincing the Iranians to reopen the strait required many US concessions. But with midterm elections looming, the political math was unforgiving. Trump calculated that American retreat, however inelegant and unfortunate, was preferable – for the meantime.

But according to Doran, that does not mean Trump has gone wobbly. The agreement does not mark a definitive and permanent surrender leaving Iran free to behave as it pleases.

If Iran seeks to revitalize its nuclear program and protect it with a shield of ballistic missiles, or aggressively ride herd on Arabian Gulf oil shipping, Trump’s record suggests that he will strike Iran again – Doran insists.

Note, for example, that Trump is not withdrawing US forces from the region (including Israel), and the US Mideast military footprint remains massive. So, the credibility of an American military threat remains strong.

This sunny analysis could be correct, especially if one accepts the premise that domestic politics is the main driver of Trump’s ceasefire gambit. It is also possible that the US military needs an interregnum to rearm and reorganize (just as the IDF and IAF need time to bulk-up and restock for the confrontations likely ahead in 2027).

But Trump is prone to conjuring-up huge and historic “peace” deals, believing his own rhetoric even when it flies in the face of reality, and then moving on – leaving allies on their own to deal with messy, very warlike, aftermaths. See Ukraine and Gaza, and now perhaps Lebanon and Iran too.

Moreover, the concessions given by the US to Iran – such as accepting as “understandable” Iran’s ballistic missile array aimed at Israel and Arab allies of America, and the hundreds of billions of dollars of oil sales revenue and Western investment in Iran now allowed or promised by Trump – legitimize the Ayatollahs and strengthen IRGC hold on the country for the long term.

And linking Hormuz to Israeli operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon is a cardinal sin. What will come next? Iranian demands that Israel withdraw from Jerusalem, dismantle settlements in Judea and Samaria, and facilitate establishment of a Palestinian state – or else Iran will re-shutter Hormuz and strangle Western economies?

Thus, in the real world – not an imaginary world of grand civilizational peace and a “new era of US-Iranian relations with some very nice and responsible Iranian leaders” who whimsically reflect “regime change” in Tehran, according to Trump – America’s “temporary concessions” to Iran are not easily reversible.

Nevertheless, one could and should give Trump the benefit of the doubt. As I wrote in early June, working with him over the next 30 months to complete the campaign more decisively against Iran remains the right and necessary exigency.

His style is irritating, and apparent dithering is dangerous, but Trump continues to show basic understanding of the need to reshape the global strategic architecture by eviscerating Iran. For Israel, bobbing and weaving with Trump on all key regional issues is hard but remains necessary.

WHAT CASTS A DARK SHADOW over the above assessment, and which suggests darker influences at work, is the gushing embrace by the Trump Administration of nefarious players like Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, and Syria (under its new ISIS-in-a-suit leader). Trump does not yet comprehend that these are the governments who make-up the next anti-American and anti-Israel regional strategic syndicate that will pose real peril.

These are America’s new best friends? The emir of Qatar, whose Al-Jazeera broadcast network backs Iran and Hamas and continues to agitate for the slaughter of Americans across the Mideast, and who funds the worst Islamic armies in the region? The president of Turkey, who hosts and sponsors Hamas terrorist leaders and talks openly about nuclear annihilation of Israel, and who has thrown a monkey wrench into every Western effort against Iran?

Worse still are a series of gratuitous and unjustified comments by Trump and Vance that castigate Israel.

Does the prime minister of Israel, leading his country across seven confrontation fronts against genocidal assaults and acknowledged by Trump as a “great wartime leader,” deserve derision as a “hothead,” as the most irresponsible regional actor? On what basis does Syrian president Ahmed Al-Sharaa deserve greater respect as someone who can get better handle Hezbollah “if Israel can’t do the job without killing everyone else”?

Channeling the sinister tales against Israel spread by his podcaster friend Tucker Carlson, JD Vance went further, suggesting that Israelis and Americans critical of the US “concession” to Iran which has handcuffed IDF operations against Hezbollah – are simply being bloodthirsty.

“You’re a country of (only) nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” Vance said.

These are monstrous comments, especially regarding Lebanon, where Israel has gone to enormous lengths to target Hezbollah with precision attacks that minimize civilian casualties, just as Israel did against Hamas in Gaza!

And just to be sure that everybody understands Israel’s vassal status in his eyes, Vance scolded specific Israeli critics of the ceasefire deal, adding that “Donald J. Trump is the only head of the state in the world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time, and he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower. (So) If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have left in the entire world.”

The contempt for Israel evident in Vance’s comments; his seeming glee at Israel’s isolation; his nasty dismissal of the legitimacy of dissent from the current policy direction – is unnerving.

He seems to revel in highlighting and amplifying divergence in interests between Washington and Jerusalem: “We can get to a long-term settlement to Iran’s nuclear deal. Now, Israel may like that, they may not like that. But fundamentally, we think this is in the best interest of the United States of America.”

There is no appreciation here of an ally, Israel, which fought heroically side-by-side with American forces and who were essential, indeed primarily responsible, for the success that America achieved against Iran. We hear no understanding whatsoever for Israel’s critical need to crushingly destroy the Iranian terrorist armies, Hamas and Hezbollah, still attacking Israel across its southern and northern borders.

Instead, we hear this: You Israel and your “[expletive-deleted] crazy” leader should just shut-up. America has decided to call off the war/s, and you had better play ball or else.

Coming from Trump, Israel can chalk-up the rebuke to his vainglorious and imperious style and then move past this to cooperate with him on many indeed-shared future challenges. Coming from Vance, the slam down sounds much more menacing, and patently prejudicial.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 26.06.2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

Only a few months after President Donald Trump returned to the White House, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a widely discussed speech at the Munich Security Conference. The speech reflected a broader worldview concerning America’s role in the international system and the limits of its commitments to its allies.

Vance has often been associated with a moderately isolationist outlook. He was initially perceived as a strong supporter of Israel. For that reason, the apparent shift in his position has raised troubling questions.

This is not the first time an American president has significantly altered his approach toward Israel. A notable example is President Richard Nixon, who, in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War and the Watergate scandal, adopted policies that conflicted with Israeli interests.

The principal lesson for Israel is clear: it must continue to reduce, as much as possible, its security dependence on the United States.

One of Trump’s central arguments is that the United States and Israel have already won the war against Iran. Iran’s leadership has suffered severe blows, significant portions of its military and nuclear capabilities have been damaged, and the regime has been forced to confront a new strategic reality.

Yet victory involves more than inflicting damage on an adversary. It also requires that the defeated side recognize its defeat. History demonstrates the importance of this factor. Following the First World War, many Germans did not feel that they had been defeated. Out of this perception emerged the “stab-in-the-back” myth, which later contributed to the rise of Nazism.

Iran’s leadership is far from acknowledging defeat. On the contrary, it portrays its survival as a significant achievement and continues to emphasize its ability to withstand pressure from both Israel and the United States.

Another argument heard from President Trump is that, without American intervention, Israel would have faced an existential threat. From this claim follows, at least implicitly, the expectation that Israel should align itself with Washington’s demands.

Israel owes the United States profound gratitude for its contribution to degrading Iran’s nuclear program and for the extensive security assistance it has provided over many decades. However, the assertion that Israel’s survival depends entirely upon American action does not accurately reflect reality.

Even if the full extent of Israel’s strategic capabilities remains unknown, it is evident that the Iranian leadership assigns considerable weight to them. The combination of credible strategic deterrence and sophisticated missile-defense capabilities is, with all due respect, what fundamentally guarantees Israel’s security.

Finally, there is the claim that the Trump administration represents Israel’s last remaining friend in the international arena. This argument, too, does not withstand close scrutiny. Israel’s international standing today is arguably stronger than at any previous point in its history.

The extensive construction activity taking place in Judea and Samaria, with relatively limited international opposition, is one indication of Israel’s current international standing. Furthermore, throughout the current conflict, Israel has managed to achieve most of its strategic objectives, notwithstanding intensive worldwide opposition.

And yet, in listening to Vance’s argument, a broader question arises: what message does Washington send to its allies if it implies that a powerful partner such as Israel is so vulnerable that it must accept every demand made by its protector? How should Taiwan, the Gulf states, and other American allies facing serious security threats interpret such a message? Does such a message truly enhance American credibility as a reliable ally?

In practice, Prime Minister Netanyahu is entirely justified in maintaining public restraint in response to US criticism. In doing so, he follows David Ben-Gurion’s enduring principle that Israel should avoid unnecessary confrontations with great powers.

Nevertheless, there would be no harm in occasionally presenting counterarguments – provided this is done respectfully and in a manner befitting the unique relationship between Israel and the United States.

Published in  Israel Hayom, June  24, 2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

It is often said that when Golda Meir met President John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s, the question arose as to why Israel needed an independent strategic deterrent of its own. According to one version of the story, Kennedy asked why such a capability was necessary if the United States could guarantee that it would come to Israel’s aid in the event of an existential threat.

Looking at the narrow, vulnerable map of pre-1967 Israel, Golda reportedly replied: “What if, Mr. President, you happen to be on a family vacation far from the White House? By the time you understand what is happening, return to Washington, and make a decision, Israel may already have ceased to exist.”

Whether the story is apocryphal or not, it captures a foundational truth that guided Israeli strategic thinking from the state’s earliest days: Israel must be capable of defending itself, by itself. Not because allies are unimportant, but because when the moment of truth arrives, responsibility for Israel’s survival rests with Israel alone.

This principle became the cornerstone of Israel’s security doctrine. It emphasized superior intelligence, strategic initiative, preemption when necessary, rapid transfer of the fighting onto enemy territory, decisive victory, and the preservation of maximum freedom of action.

Over time, however, that original doctrine gradually eroded. The legitimacy of proactive military action diminished, while dependence on international support increased. The pursuit of decisive victory gave way to concepts such as containment, conflict management, and strategic patience. The costs of this shift became evident as early as the Yom Kippur War, when Israel refrained from launching a preemptive strike out of concern for its relationship with the United States.

Many Israelis expected something different from Donald Trump. Following his first term – marked by unprecedented support for Israel – many viewed him as a leader who would stand firmly alongside the Jewish state, particularly in confronting the ring of hostile forces that Iran had built around it. Trump himself repeatedly argued that Iran posed a threat not only to Israel but to the United States as well.

That is why the sense of disappointment is so profound. Israelis find it hard to explain why the White House appears reluctant to confront Iran more forcefully; why it employs rhetoric perceived as dismissive toward Israel and its prime minister; and why it seems increasingly inclined to limit Israel’s freedom of action against Hezbollah, an organization responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers and civilians.

Yet at this difficult moment, Israel’s leaders and citizens should resist the temptation to focus solely on what Washington did or did not do. Instead, we should engage in an honest examination of where we went wrong rather than seek comfort in accusations that others have abandoned us.

Throughout the conflict, President Trump granted Israel broad freedom of action. At times, it appeared almost unlimited. His pressure undoubtedly contributed much to securing the release of hostages.

The more difficult question is whether Israel made full use of the strategic freedom it was given while the administration absorbed considerable political and diplomatic costs on its behalf. Did we properly appreciate the value of time – a factor that once stood at the very center of Israel’s security doctrine? Did we pursue decisive victory with the urgency and determination that guided Israel’s founding generation?

We are entitled to be angry with the American president. We are entitled to feel disappointed. But anger is not a strategy, and disappointment is not a substitute for self-examination. Neither relieves us of the responsibility to confront our own decisions and mistakes.

The task before us now is not to search for scapegoats abroad. It is to conduct a candid and thorough reckoning with our own assumptions, actions, decisions, and failures over the past two and a half years.

Published in  Israel Hayom, June  18, 2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

October 7, 2023, was far more than an intelligence failure or an unprecedented, murderous terrorist assault; it marked the absolute collapse of an entire worldview.

For decades, Israel operated under the illusion that it could manage its conflict with Hamas through partial deterrence, makeshift arrangements, localized military operations, and a prisoner policy anchored in the assumption that the enemy valued survival over victory.

October 7 shattered this premise, proving that Hamas never sought stability – it sought victory. Its goal was not coexistence under tension, but the total annihilation of Israel as a Jewish state.

Dismantle frameworks

It is maddening to be handcuffed by the President of the United States when fighting Hezbollah, especially when Israeli soldiers and civilians are falling like flies to the terrorist army’s drones and rockets.

It is exasperating to hear US President Donald Trump talk one day about bombing Iran’s nuclear and energy sites to kingdom come and crushing the regime of the “evil” ayatollahs, and the next to hear him talk about “very nice and responsible” leaders in Iran that he would like to meet and to learn that Trump may shower these leaders with tens of billions of dollars in freed cash and sanctions relief.

It is frustrating to recognize that after all the effort and expense of the past year to strip Iran of its hegemonic ambitions and threatening abilities, Trump may set a ceiling on this war not by the cusp of Iran’s remaining offensive capabilities but by his own imperfect endurance.

It is vexing to accept Trump’s truancy; the peril of his non-ideological approach to foreign and defense affairs, his too-transactional thinking, his non-dogmatic methodology for “solving” conflicts – refreshing in some contexts but dangerously delusional in others.

It is irritating that Trump ridiculously believes the force of his personality can fix everything and lead to swift and “huge” peace deals everywhere. This is true regarding his pie-in-the-sky plans for “grand civilizational peace” in Gaza as well as his blathering about reaching a “tenth” accord of peace globally, with Tehran.

It is infuriating when Trump praises the Israeli prime minister one day as a “great wartime leader and friend” then publicly calls him “[expletive deleted] crazy” and asserts that Netanyahu is in his back pocket (“he will do whatever I want him to do”). Worse still, Trump gallingly asserts that “if there wasn’t me, there would be no Israel” and that Netanyahu “would be in prison if it weren’t for me.”

These avowals about Israel’s destiny and Netanyahu’s durability are not remotely true. They are unacceptable. It is right and righteous to push back against Trump when he crosses the line from outlandish swager and inflated vainglory – which is his style, like it or lump it – to insulting and damaging aspersions that have life-and-death consequences for Israel.

AFTER HAVING SAID all that, we have to get past Trump’s annoying approach to people and politics and consider his rock-solid policymaking record and commitments on the issues most important to Israel.

In particular, the US president must be lauded for the nobility of his resistance to Iran, and I believe, his intention to see the job through to completion.

President Trump understands that stopping the war now amid some short-term economic discomfort would be a victory for the mullahs. Iran cannot be allowed to conclude that shutting down oil flows is its passport to survival, now or in the future. After all, the spike in oil prices due to traffic stoppage in the Strait of Hormuz was not unexpected. As Trump himself has said, the disruption is a “small price to pay” for major security advances.

It also makes no sense to leave so many loose ends in Iran, from missiles and production facilities to nuclear sites at Pickaxe Mountain and the Isfahan tunnels where Iran’s gigantic stockpile of highly enriched uranium for nuclear bombmaking is said to be stored. This is why massive US air, naval, and amphibious forces are still in the region.

And Trump recognizes that the current conflict is essentially a world war against America’s greatest strategic adversaries including China and Russia – who are allied with Iran.

Therefore, Trump is exceedingly unlikely to desert the battlefield without more significantly quelling Iran. He will not just declare a synthetic “victory” and withdraw his troops.

He may wait a while for a range of reasons (from upcoming July 4rth celebrations – America’s 250th, to mid-term elections in November, to a necessary re-stocking of American armaments), but I am betting that he will further pursue the military effort to extinguish the threat of the ayatollahs to Gulf Arab countries, to Israel, and to the Western world.

SO WHY the obfuscation in Trump’s many statements? Why the fetters on Israel’s necessary wars with Iran’s proxy armies that are camped along this country’s borders? Why the dissing of Netanyahu?

Well, the administration’s ambiguity confuses the enemy. If we are left guessing at Trump’s next moves, so are the ayatollahs.

But Trump himself? I do not think that he is at all confused regarding Iran. From his 2018 dumping of Obama’s rotten nuclear deal with Iran, to his 2020 assassination of IRGC chief Qassem Soleimani, to Operation Midnight Hammer last June, to Operation Epic Fury this year – Trump has proven neither fickle nor flighty.

On the contrary, Trump has broadcast unwavering willpower and purpose. He ain’t a paragon of virtue in so many other ways, but Trump has shown profound understanding of his responsibility to reshape the regional and global strategic architecture by eviscerating Iran.

He also has evinced domestic political courage in this regard, taking on hard Left Marxist and pro-Islamist critics and hard Right isolationist and Christian nationalist critics. He has taken risks with his own MAGA base by slapping-down the loudest and most influential foul-mouth faultfinders like Tucker Carlson.

Remember: Despite the rise of an enemy potentially as lethal as Nazi Germany, many Western leaders nevertheless have preferred accommodation with Iran. It always is easier to delay and deflect than to fight a fiercely committed and skilled enemy.

And yet, Trump has taken on the Iranian challenge. In defiance of conventional wisdom that the “responsible” approach is to swallow Iran’s piecemeal provocations to avoid war, and that Iran’s hegemonic ambitions are anyway near-unstoppable, Trump preferred to draw blood and a red line. He defied the ayatollahs instead of dancing with them.

And so, Trump ought to be recognized and appreciated for his moral and strategic clarity. This war is an act of rectitude, of justice and sanity in global security affairs.

So, if you want to worry that Trump could yet cut a bad deal with Tehran, an agreement that does not push Iran far enough away from the nuclear bomb and from Israel’s borders, or that he may stop short of regime change, go ahead and stew. But for the moment, Trump should still be acclaimed for his continued resistance to Iran, including his long blockade of Hormuz.

Yes, Trump’s dithering is dangerous, and his specious slamming of Netanyahu is upsetting. Israel’s existence is not a favor bestowed by Washington, and Israel’s leaders cannot accept every security policy dictate from DC.

But working with Trump over the next 31 months to more decisively complete the campaign against Iran – uncomfortably bobbing and weaving as necessary – remains the right and necessary exigency.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 05.06.2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

On April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush sent a landmark letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in support of the disengagement plan from Gaza. The letter praised Sharon’s political courage and described the initiative as “bold and historic,” with the potential to advance Israeli-Arab peace.

Three principles stood out in Bush’s message. First, he stated that it was “unrealistic” to expect a full Israeli return to the 1949 armistice lines, recognizing the “new realities on the ground,” particularly the major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria. Second, Bush rejected the Palestinian demand for a “right of return” into Israel, asserting that the refugee issue should be resolved within the framework of a future Palestinian state. This position reinforced American recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Third, Bush emphasized Israel’s right to “secure and recognized borders” in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The Bush letter enabled Sharon to present the disengagement as a strategic exchange: Israel evacuated territory while securing American recognition of key Israeli interests in Judea and Samaria.

Yet this achievement proved fragile. With Barack Obama’s entry into the White House, American policy shifted considerably. Obama returned to the formula of negotiations based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps. His administration argued that Bush’s letter constituted a political position rather than a legally binding commitment.

During Donald Trump’s presidency, however, several of the principles embodied in the Bush letter were revived and even expanded. The United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, relocated its embassy to the city, and acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

The current war has created a new territorial reality across several fronts. In Gaza, Israel reestablished control over the Philadelphi Corridor in order to prevent Hamas rearmament, restored the Netzarim Corridor separating northern and southern Gaza, and expanded buffer zones along the border.

In Lebanon, Israel maintains positions and security zones near the frontier. Reports indicate an expansion of Israeli control up to, and in some areas beyond, the Litani River. Large parts of southern Lebanon have been devastated, making the return of many residents unlikely in the foreseeable future.

In Syria, following the collapse of the Assad regime in 2024, Israel seized buffer zones and strategic positions on the Syrian Hermon, citing concerns over jihadist infiltration and the security vacuum that emerged. Reports further suggest that Israel seeks the demilitarization of southern Syria from Iranian and jihadist presence.

Israel has not formally stated its intention to annex these territories. Still, a new reality of buffer zones, military control, and sustained strategic presence has undeniably emerged. Senior Israeli officials have also expressed support for renewed Jewish settlement, particularly in Gaza.

Simultaneously, American officials throughout the conflict have repeatedly praised Israel’s role in the broader confrontation with Iran. Trump himself declared that “Israel won the war,” while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described Israel as “a determined and capable partner.”

Against the backdrop of growing European estrangement from Washington’s policies toward Iran, Israel’s contribution to the American-led regional effort has become increasingly significant. Yet Israel has learned from past experience that diplomatic praise alone does not ensure lasting strategic support. Changes in political leadership or international circumstances can rapidly transform warm commitments into distant or even hostile policies.

For this reason, Israel must move quickly to translate its military and territorial achievements into explicit, long-term American commitments. The atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, the refusal of Hamas and Hezbollah to disarm, and Iran’s continued insistence on advancing its nuclear program provide Israel with strong justification for its strategic demands.

However, growing domestic opposition within the United States to the administration’s policies, the erosion of American leverage over its allies, and the approaching congressional elections all suggest that Israel’s diplomatic window may be limited. Israel should therefore seek to anchor American commitments through formal memoranda of understanding and congressional legislation, rather than relying solely on presidential declarations.

Published in  Israel Hayom, May 14, 2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

Key to discussions about rebuilding Israel’s reputation around the world is the question of purpose. What does Israel have to offer the world? Is there something more than high-tech ingenuity that makes Israel admirable?

The answer is resilience. Israeli society enjoys a sense of righteousness and grit, and the Israeli state possesses military and economic might, which make Israel a model for the world.

This is a theme that ought to dominate Israeli public diplomacy (“hasbara”) in the coming years.

Resilience is the ultimate essential commodity for facing bleak global realities. The world-at-large is threatened by very bad state actors like Russia, China, and Iran – with hard military conflicts ahead; by hegemonic transnational movements such as radical Islam that seek to undermine Western societies from within and pose a growing terrorist peril; by corrosive ideologies that contradict that values of Judeo-Christian civilization and classic democratic creed; and by distorted historical narratives that delegitimize the foundations of national sovereignty.

The stability of modern life also is threatened by the epidemics of drug use and depression, and family and community dissolution; by technologies that destroy privacy and promote distrust; and by global economic interdependence that crushes entire classes and countries and which fuels hatred and violence.

Israel is an exemplar for how to deal with all these challenges to national health and existential danger. It is country that throughout its nearly 80 years has successfully confronted extreme security threats and ideological delegitimization by carrying grand historical-ideological awareness and a stirring national identity, developing deep patriotism that embraces the pride and privilege of fighting for the country, inculcating love of the land and of neighbor, and maintaining religious faith.

Israel also has made the hard choices and sacrifices that are necessary for sustaining heavy-duty national defense and a robust economy, and the results are amazing.

In all, Israel is resilient. It thrives while its haters flounder. It is a paradigm of how to stand strong and uphold a noble cause with clarity, something that the rest of the embattled world needs to rediscover.

CONSIDER the identity statistics. According to every poll conducted over the past decade, Israeli youth believe deeply and optimistically in the future of this country. Ninety percent plan to stay here, no matter what. Over 85% think that the IDF is the most moral army in the world. At least 65% say it would be worthy to die for country, if necessary.

More than 75% categorically prefer to buy “Blue & White” (Israeli-made products), and 84% prefer to buy from Israeli or international companies that contribute to the war/national effort.

More than 60% say that social solidarity, volunteerism, and family values are what make Israel great. This, even though over 80% of high schoolers think the chances for peace with the Palestinians are minimal to nil. In short, our youth know that Israel is more than the sum total of conflict with the Palestinians or with Iran, and believe that Israel will manage and even prosper.

The determined sentiments of Israeli youth are of a piece with the resilience demonstrated by broad segments of the Israeli public. This ranges from muscular mothers holding down the home front to the hundreds of thousands of Israelis (and Diaspora Jews) who are volunteering in myriad ways during wartime to make up labor shortfalls in fields, factories, and hospitals, and to heal and rehabilitate the war widows, the many wounded, and the displaced.

This overall buoyancy stems from the grand historical-ideological awareness and other markers of devotion I described above. Indeed, Israeli society is undergirded by a “civil religion” of sorts – a latent faith that buttresses public and political life. It is what the late, great Lord Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks (the most prolific Jewish philosopher of our day) calls public theology; a sense of national purpose and identity that is shared by almost all Israelis.

This is not empty convention. Regardless of how or whether they adhere to religious ritual, Israelis understand themselves as holding a moral bond, and as being chosen – yes, chosen! – for a task. They feel a responsibility for advancing Jewish civilization, which the Bible roots in building an exceptional polity in Zion. And thus, Israelis will fight unflaggingly for their freedom.

Moreover, the Jewish People aspires to be an instrument for broadcasting essential values to the world. Among other, this explains why Israelis are among the first to fly across the world to provide aid in times of natural disaster; why they are so proud of their global medical and scientific contributions; and why scholarly international academic collaborations are essential to their soul. Yes, even now, when parts of Western academia want to boycott Israelis and Jews.

No one can claim that life in Israel has been carefree or lighthearted since the Hamas invasion of October 2023 and the ensuing wars on seven fronts. But as longevity and happiness studies show (in which Israel ranks among the highest in the world), there are motivators in life that can overcome duress and turn challenges into blessings.

Israelis are not superheroes. But they are people who love their land, believe in their country and their historical mission, adore their children, and are intent on seeing their families, neighbors and brethren protected, defended, and supported.

Israel is big, powerful, and wealthy enough to fiercely defend its way; and at the same time, big, powerful, and wealthy enough to be educated, generous and tolerant. Secure in its heritage, Israel is confident about its abilities and capable of contributing to the world.

CONSIDER the economic statistics. Despite a three-year-long war footing, the International Monetary Fund still expects Israel’s economy to grow by 3.5% in 2026 (compared to 2.3% for the U.S. and 1.3% for the EU). Israel’s GDP is forecast to outperform all G7 countries too. The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange is booming (outpacing major international indices such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite).

Foreign investment continues to play a decisive role in Israel’s economic strength, staying high despite the recent wars, as has high-tech merger and acquisition activity (almost $100 billion in 2025). Egypt and Israel have signed the biggest natural gas deal in Mideast history, worth $35 billion. The UAE and Morocco have reached multi-billion-dollar defense deals with Israel.

Israel itself is expected to invest $120 billion over the coming decade to develop an arms industry not dependent on foreign suppliers; atop $50 billion a year in direct military spending.

IN SHORT, possessing a sense of purpose has always been central to community and nation building, in any society. It provides direction and spirit, and generates the hardiness necessary for confronting enemies.

Traditional American political discourse knew this, and sought to place redemption, liberty, morality, and Divine covenant – themes explicitly drawn from the Exodus story – at the center of public life.

The Founding Fathers of America also possessed an abiding belief in the essential goodness and uniqueness of America; what is known as conviction in American “exceptionalism.” They all shared the sense that something great, even miraculous, was at work in America; and this informed an “evangelical” (eager) American responsibility to lead the world.

Alas, the 44th president of the USA, Barack H. Obama, was not comfortable with American leadership in world affairs. He explicitly viewed America’s past to be arrogant and high-handed. He set out to “fundamentally transform” America’s place in the world; to strip the United States of its superior position; to drag America down from its “imperious” perch.

He thought that he would be leaving the world a better place by cutting unexceptional America (and unremarkable Israel) down to size. Alas, he was quite successful in doing so.

His intellectual molder is what, among other, cobbles the West’s ability to today confront, say, modern Islamofascism or Russian/Chinese imperialism. It is what prevents the renewal of Western resolve to defend itself; a tenacity that can only come from profound intellectual, moral, and societal rearmament, as well as concrete military rearmament. It also is what prevents certain Western elites from identifying with Israel and its heroic, successful struggles.

Time to reverse this. It is time to flaunt the resilience of Zion. There are enough smart and searching citizens of the world, and hopefully Western leaders, who will take heart and take example from Israel’s brave path. Israel the resilient – this is critical branding for the country’s advocacy going forward.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 08.05.2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.

On May 1, 2026, the Pentagon announced that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had ordered the withdrawal of some 5,000 American troops from Germany, out of roughly 36,000 US troops stationed there. Germany is the main American base of operations in Europe. This is therefore not merely a numerical reduction, but a potential blow to the logistical nerve center of US operations in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.