Shared values, shared skies: Inside America’s deepest Middle East partnership

written by Ruth Pines-Feldman | 05.07.2026

As the US marks 250 years since its Declaration of Independence, it celebrates a quarter of a millennium of global leadership, military power, economic strength, and technological innovation.

Over the past several decades, one of the most significant and distinctive pillars of American foreign policy has been its alliance with Israel. This relationship extends far beyond a conventional partnership between states. It is built on shared values, strategic interests, deep societal ties, and a level of security and technological cooperation that has few parallels in the international system.

From recognition to strategic alliance

The relationship between the two countries began almost immediately following the establishment of the State of Israel. The US was the first country to recognize Israel, only minutes after its declaration of independence.

President Harry Truman made the decision despite opposition from elements within the State Department and the American security establishment, which questioned Israel’s ability to defend itself against its neighboring states.

The “special relationship” did not emerge immediately. During the 1950s, the administration of president Dwight Eisenhower sought to strengthen ties with Arab states and draw them closer to the Western camp as part of the broader Cold War competition with the Soviet Union and the struggle for influence over Middle Eastern oil resources.

The strategic shift began during the 1960s and 1970s. Israel’s victory in the Six Day War in 1967, combined with the expansion of Soviet influence across the Middle East, increased Israel’s value as a strategic asset for the US and was strengthened during the administration of president Lydon B. Johnson, who had a  close personal relationship with Israeli prime minister Golda Meir.

Under president Richard Nixon, Washington gradually developed a broader framework of military assistance, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic coordination with Jerusalem, helping replace Israel’s previous reliance on European partners, particularly France, which had imposed an arms embargo on Israel.

By the 1980s, the term “special relationship” had become a standard description of the alliance, reflecting a partnership based on shared strategic interests and a common geopolitical outlook.

Over time, defense cooperation expanded significantly. Joint missile defense programs, particularly the Arrow missile defense system, became symbols of the depth of the partnership. Israel also emerged as a center of technological innovation.

Unprecedented cooperation

The direct confrontation with Iran between 2024-2026 demonstrated the extent to which US-Israel security relations have evolved beyond the traditional model of military assistance.

During Iran’s missile and drone attacks against Israel in April and October 2024, American forces actively participated in intercepting incoming threats targeting Israel.

A key factor behind this cooperation was Israel’s transfer to US Central Command (CENTCOM) in 2021, integrating Israel into the US-led regional security architecture through joint planning, intelligence sharing, military exercises, and regional defense initiatives. The Abraham Accords facilitated this process by creating new opportunities for regional cooperation.

The strengthening of ties was reflected at the highest operational levels. General Michael Kurilla, who served as CENTCOM commander from 2022-2025, maintained frequent engagement with Israeli defense and intelligence officials during major regional operations and crises. Joint assessments involving the IDF, Mossad, Shin Bet, and American counterparts focused on Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iranian-backed militias across the region throughout the war.

At the same time, real-time intelligence cooperation reached unprecedented levels. Coordination expanded across signals intelligence, satellite surveillance, missile-launch detection, drone tracking, and strategic warning systems.

Another indication of the alliance’s depth was the visible American military presence in Israel during Operation Epic Fury/Rising Lion in 2026.

The deployment of US refueling and transport aircraft transformed Israel into a forward logistical hub for regional operations and reflected an unprecedented level of trust.

For the first time, Washington was able to rely on Israel as a primary operating platform rather than on other regional bases that had been repeatedly targeted by Iran and its proxies.

The confrontations with Iran produced a new model: a full operational partnership. The alliance between Jerusalem and Washington has evolved into one of the closest security relationships maintained by the US outside NATO. Israel demonstrated that it is not merely a passive ally but a strategic partner, enabling broader Western objectives.

In this sense, Israel continues to serve as a key pillar of Western influence in the Middle East and as an active contributor to regional stability under the broader framework of American leadership.

Changing alliance

One of the defining characteristics of the relationship today is the changing balance within the alliance.

Israel in 2026 is not the Israel of the 1950s, 1960s, or even the 1980s. Its economy ranks among the strongest in the developed world and has demonstrated resilience despite the prolonged multi-front conflict imposed upon it. Its defense industries are global leaders in cyber technology, air and missile defense, artificial intelligence, and unmanned systems.

As a result, there is growing recognition within Israel that it should gradually reduce its reliance on American assistance in areas where it can achieve greater strategic self-sufficiency. This does not signify a weakening of the alliance. On the contrary, it reflects a transition from a model of dependency to a model of partnership.

Israel will continue to rely on the US for diplomatic support, strategic coordination, and cooperation against global threats. At the same time, it is committed to expanding its domestic production capacity for ammunition, spare parts, and critical weapons systems to reduce exposure to political fluctuations in Washington.

A strategic challenge 

Despite the strength of the security partnership, the alliance faces significant long-term challenges.

For decades, support for Israel enjoyed broad bipartisan backing in the US. In recent years, however, public opinion has become increasingly polarized.

Polling data indicates declining support among younger Americans, university students, and segments of the Democratic Party. Generational gaps have widened, with younger voters expressing more critical views of Israeli policies than previous generations.

At the same time, new voices have emerged within parts of the Republican Party, particularly among younger conservatives who advocate a more restrained foreign policy and question extensive American involvement overseas.

Although support for Israel remains strong among large segments of the American public, the bipartisan consensus that characterized much of the relationship for decades can no longer be taken for granted.

For Israel, this represents a long-term strategic challenge. Preserving strong ties with both major political parties, expanding engagement with younger generations will be essential to maintaining the alliance’s long-term strength.

Looking ahead 

At the 250th anniversary of American independence, the US-Israel alliance stands as one of the most successful strategic partnerships of the modern era. It has survived wars, political crises, disagreements between leaders, and profound changes in the international system.

The coming decades will bring additional changes, but the alliance between Jerusalem and Washington is likely to rely less on traditional patterns of assistance and more on cooperation.

This is the central significance of the US-Israel alliance in the twenty-first century: not a relationship between a superpower and a small state, but a strategic partnership between two countries that share interests, values, technological capabilities, and a common vision for regional stability and security.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, July 04  2026.

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



Israel’s alliance with the US needs a reset

written by Prof. Zaki Shalom | 05.07.2026

The alliance between Israel and the United States has long been a cornerstone of Israel’s national security. For decades, it has provided Israel with diplomatic backing, military assistance, intelligence and technological cooperation of irreplaceable value.

Precisely for that reason, however, careful attention must be paid to a troubling shift now emerging in American discourse toward Israel. This is not merely a matter of one statement or another by President Donald Trump. Rather, it reflects an accumulation of remarks by the president, Vice President JD Vance, and other prominent figures in his political camp, suggesting a more critical and at times more impatient attitude toward Israel.

Israel, it seems, is no longer portrayed solely as an ally fighting shoulder to shoulder with the most powerful state in the world against the axis of evil. Increasingly, and too often, it is also depicted as a state almost wholly dependent on the United States, while its interests and those of Washington are presented as diverging, sometimes sharply and sometimes more subtly.

Yet it is precisely because of Israel’s close friendship with the United States that Israel must now ask itself a difficult question: has the time not come to demonstrate its independence to Washington through concrete action, and not merely through declarations?

This is not a new question. In the past, Israel faced a strategic reality far more precarious than the one it confronts today. On repeated occasions, when Israeli governments believed that a vital national interest was at stake, they chose to act independently. This was true of the policy of retaliatory operations, the decision to launch the Sinai Campaign, the development of the nuclear option, the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, the expansion of settlement in Judea and Samaria, and other major decisions.

Most of these decisions were taken with full awareness that they might be received with discomfort, criticism, or even anger by the American administration. Yet in many cases, the United States ultimately came to respect Israel’s independent course of action and, over time, even deepened its relationship with the Jewish state.

Israel, too, must draw lessons from the present reality. President Trump’s implicit criticism of Israel’s conduct in Lebanon — namely, that Syria under al-Julani could “do the job” more effectively — cannot simply be dismissed. It requires sober Israeli self-examination.

The current campaign has lasted longer than expected on several fronts, and not all of its objectives have been fully achieved. A state that seeks to expand the scope of its independence must also demonstrate operational capability, strategic decisiveness, and effectiveness. Independence is not only a right; it is also a burden of responsibility.

There comes a stage in the life of every nation when it must move from dependence to genuine partnership. Israel today is no longer the small and vulnerable state of its early years. It is a regional power with some of the most advanced military, technological, and scientific capabilities in the world. The time has come for its relationship with the United States to reflect this reality.

The goal is not to distance Israel from America, nor to enter into confrontation with it. The goal is to establish a more mature relationship, one based on mutual respect, strategic clarity, and reciprocal independence. The history of Israel–United States relations suggests that precisely when Israel acted with confidence, made independent decisions, and proved their validity in practice, it earned not only criticism but also respect. That is the lesson that should guide Israel at the present moment.

Published in  Israel Hayom, July 01, 2026.

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



A Framework for U.S.-Israel Post-Aid Strategic-Industrial Cooperation

written by Dr. Raphael BenLevi | 05.07.2026

Main Points

  • Israel’s strategic role has evolved from aid recipient to full U.S. partner.
  • The current aid-based framework no longer reflects this reality.
  • A post-aid model should strengthen, not weaken, the U.S.-Israel alliance.
  • Israel should gradually assume full responsibility for funding its own defense.
  • The United States and Israel should deepen technological, industrial, and operational cooperation.
  • The new framework should include supply guarantees, joint production, future-defense technologies, and broader regional integration.
  • The paper concludes with concrete proposed language for a new MOU and accompanying Letter of Intent.


To read the full article



America Should Be Israel’s Partner, Not Its Patron

written by Dr. Raphael BenLevi | 05.07.2026

The cooperation between Israel and the United States during the war with Iran marks the culmination of a long shift in the relationship between the two countries. For years, Washington effectively served as Israel’s patron, providing funding to purchase U.S. military equipment and a diplomatic umbrella (including veto protection in the UN Security Council) in exchange for general alignment with U.S. policy preferences and close cooperation on intelligence and military technology. Through the latest joint military action against a mutual enemy, the relationship has now entered a qualitatively different phase. Rather than acting alone or being excluded from a U.S.-led coalition, as it was during both Gulf wars, Israel has operated as a full partner, sharing targets and operational responsibilities with U.S. forces.


To read the full article

Published in Foreign Affairs, April 22, 2026.

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



Billions for Gaza, nothing for Israel

written by David M. Weinberg | 05.07.2026

The Trump Administration and the “international community” are revving up to raise funds for Gaza’s rehabilitation—even under de facto Hamas rule. The talk is of $70 to $120 billion in funds to provide Palestinians in Gaza with “human dignity” and “humanitarian relief.” 

At the inaugural meeting in Washington of his grandiose Board of Peace, on Feb. 19, President Donald Trump announced $10 billion in U.S. funding for Gaza alongside $7 billion more from other countries.

All this passion and concern would be admirable if it were not so counterproductive (at this point) and so one-sided.

The world at large still has said nothing at all about Hamas’s use of women and children as human shields, hospitals as weapons depots, or United Nations schools as launchpads for rockets. It has said little at all about Hamas’s violent seizure of humanitarian aid shipments into Gaza or its targeting of Palestinians approaching aid centers operated by Western-backed humanitarian foundations.

The world seems incapable of admitting that Hamas’s dictatorial and genocidal regime in Gaza is responsible for every bit of ruin suffered by Palestinians, and it has nothing but platitudes to offer about how this time it might be different.

But what really gets my goat is that nobody around the world is talking about raising even one penny for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Israel; of Israel’s southern and northern areas that have been depopulated and devastated by Hamas and Hezbollah attacks over the past two years and even the past decade. 

Not a penny for the battered people of Israel – war widows and orphans, terrorized civilians, traumatized soldiers, and battered businesses. 

Except for Jews abroad, nobody is prioritizing relief and aid for Israel.

Sure, with the war over, Western countries will now return to buy Israeli technology and weapons for their own benefit, and cooperate in science and the arts too. But lavish sympathies and abundant budgets are reserved for the attacking Palestinians, not for the attacked Israelis.

Understand: The cumulative economic toll of the two-year-long conflict inflicted upon Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran is estimated at 352 billion shekels ($112 billion), according to the Bank of Israel. This figure encompasses direct military spending, property compensation and broader civilian outlays. This calculates to a daily burden of about $100 million on Israeli taxpayers.

Remember that this war has brought about the mass displacement of Israeli civilian communities. Approximately 200,000 Israelis remain displaced from their homes in border communities near Gaza and Lebanon. The cost of evacuating northern residents alone topped $2 billion. Israel has dedicated about 60 billion shekels ($18 billion) to supporting displaced citizens and maintaining social services. 

To rebuild the southern region (Gaza Envelope) the government has established the Tekuma (Revival) Directorate with an initial five-year budget of 19 billion shekels ($5.3 billion) to rehabilitate and upgrade 47 communities and cities in the south. 

Some 1.8 billion shekels have been devoted towards development in the regional councils of Ofakim, Netivot, Merhavim, Eshkol, Sha’ar HaNegev and Sdot Negev. The funds are earmarked for 24 municipalities that sustained damage during the war, but are not included in the budget for the western Negev Tekuma region

To rehabilitate, secure, and revive northern towns Israel intends to invest 15 billion shekels ($4 billion) over five years, with an initial NIS 200 million injection for immediate infrastructure restoration. Wildfire losses caused by Hezbollah rockets in the north are said to exceed $100 million.

As for the destruction wrought by Iranian ballistic missiles, mainly in the center of the country, Israel faces $10 billion in property compensation and rebuilding costs. 

Then there are the workforce absences caused by the war. Reservist call-ups have cost the economy an estimated $600 million per week in lost productivity. The Bank of Israel estimates that one month of reservist service equals roughly 38,000 shekels ($12,100) in lost production per soldier.

As a result of the war, especially the heavy load of army reserve duty, more than 50,000 Israeli businesses have closed.

I won’t elaborate here on Israel’s direct military costs, but these amount to at least NIS 243 billion ($77 billion) on ammunition, fuel, and equipment. Israel likely spent more than $1 billion on Arrow missile interceptions alone since the start of the multifront war.

And I won’t elaborate here on the cost of preparing for the next wars, which against Hezbollah and Iran may begin this month. The Israeli defense establishment has already decided it needs a far more independent defense-industrial base as a hedge against future boycotts or embargoes, like the one imposed by the Biden administration when it decided to suspend deliveries of 2,000-pound bombs. 

The development of cutting-edge military technologies that allow Israel to stay a step ahead of its enemies, such as the Iron Beam laser for which the state last year signed a $500 million contract with defense contractors Elbit and Rafael, will further strain the public purse, even if the laser is ultimately able to dramatically reduce the cost of interceptions.

Israel’s defense spending as a percentage of GDP, which stood at 4.5 percent in 2023, has risen to a whopping 8.8 percent—the second highest in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Israel’s Nagel Commission, headed by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Jacob Nagel, believes that those numbers are only going to increase. The military budget is expected to nearly double, reaching as much as 500 billion shekels ($159 billion) over the next decade.

On the fiscal/monetary levels, Israel has taken on an additional 19 billion shekels ($6 billion) in debt servicing costs due to increased borrowing. Israel ran a budget deficit in 2025 of 6.9 percent of GDP. That is more than twice the level of Germany and higher than even France.

Israel has already begun cutting civilian ministry budgets by roughly $5 billion, with a view toward bringing its budget deficits to below 3 percent over the next three years.

In short, the economic and fiscal burden that Israelis shoulder is enormous, and this does not take into account pain, trauma, post-trauma, and other “medical” costs, nor the tribulations of 2,000 families with widows and orphans, nor 15,000 soldiers with varying degrees of injury, including many with long-term medical rehabilitation challenges.

But again, nobody around the world is talking about raising even one penny for the reconstruction of Israel and the rehabilitation of Israelis, never mind for their “human dignity.” Except for Jews abroad, nobody is prioritizing the rebuilding and strengthening of Israel.

Now, of course, Israel is a strong first-world country that has miraculously and smartly pulled through the war with incredible economic resilience. Israel does not run around the world with a cap in hand begging for handouts. And Israel has graciously received massive military assistance from the United States.

Nevertheless, there is something grossly perverse about the fact that the world sees only the suffering of the attackers, Palestinians, and not the suffering of the attacked, Israelis.

There is something truly wicked about the fact that the world rushes to plunk down billions for Gaza but not Kfar Aza; for Rafah (and of course Ramallah, as always) but not Rehovot; for Khan Yunis but not Kiryat Shmona.

I’m just saying.

Published in JNS, on February 22, 2026.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.



Rubio’s Munich message: US wants a powerful, self-reliant Israel

written by Prof. Zaki Shalom | 05.07.2026

In his address at the Munich Security Conference, Secretary of State Marco Rubio conveyed important messages regarding the direction of President Trump’s foreign policy. Although his remarks were aimed primarily at Europe, they clearly reflected a broader strategic worldview that is highly relevant to all American allies—including the State of Israel.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union,—according to Rubio — the West succumbed to a dangerous illusion. Many believed that history had reached its endpoint; that liberal democracy would become universal; that national interests would be replaced by a “rules-based global order”; and that borders and sovereignty would lose their central importance. This euphoria, he argued, ignored the lessons of history and human nature.

In parallel, Western societies increasingly shed elements of their sovereignty, transferring authority to international institutions and multilateral frameworks. There was an assumption that global norms and legal mechanisms would ensure stability and peace. Yet during the same period, hostile actors strengthened their military capabilities and prepared for confrontation. The belief that abstract principles alone could secure order proved misguided.

  

Rubio also addressed the consequences of mass migration. In pursuit of a “world without borders,” Western states opened their doors widely, without fully considering the long-term implications for social cohesion, cultural continuity, and national identity. The failure to control borders, he stressed, is not a marginal issue but a fundamental question of sovereignty and civilizational survival.

A central theme of the speech was the deep civilizational bond between the United States and Europe. America, though geographically distant, remains spiritually and historically rooted in Europe. The ideas of liberty, the rule of law, and the great intellectual and cultural achievements of the West emerged from this shared heritage. Security, Rubio emphasized, is not merely about budgets or military deployments; it is about defending a people, a nation, and a way of life.

His criticism of international institutions was sharp. While not calling for their abandonment, Rubio made clear that they have failed to resolve the most pressing crises of our time. The United Nations has not brought an end to the war in Gaza, has not resolved the conflict in Ukraine, and has not removed the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In an imperfect world, states cannot allow their adversaries to shield themselves behind principles of international law which they themselves routinely violate.

For Israel, Rubio’s message carries significant implications. The doctrine he articulated suggests that the United States does not seek weak or dependent allies. On the contrary, it prefers partners that are strong, sovereign, and capable of defending themselves. After years in which certain American approaches seemed to favor a restrained and cautious Israel, the current message is different: a powerful, self-reliant Israel that deters its enemies serves not only its own interests but also those of the United States.

Rubio’s skepticism toward the automatic primacy accorded to international institutions resonates strongly with Israel’s longstanding experience. For decades, Israel has operated under severe diplomatic constraints imposed by multilateral bodies that have often limited its freedom of action while failing to restrain its adversaries.

Finally, the worldview articulated in Munich also sheds light on the Trump administration’s unprecedented involvement in issues perceived as internal Israeli matters. From this perspective, the stability, authority, and resilience of a crucial ally are not purely domestic concerns. A strong and cohesive Israel is viewed as an integral component of the broader Western alliance and therefore as part of the United States’ own national interest.

Rubio’s speech in Munich thus conveyed a clear and consequential message: America expects its allies—including Israel—to strengthen their sovereignty, enhance their military and technological capabilities, and act with confidence in the defense of their civilization and national interests.

Published in  Israel Hayom, February 18, 2026.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.

 



Trump’s first year back in office expanded Israel’s freedom of action

written by Prof. Zaki Shalom | 05.07.2026

Much attention is currently being devoted to assessing the first year of President Donald Trump’s term in office.

There is no doubt that this year has been marked by an exceptionally intense level of diplomatic, military, legal, law-enforcement, and economic activity on the part of this administration, both in the realms of domestic and foreign policy.

From the Israeli perspective, President Trump’s entry into the White House represented an unprecedentedly positive turning point. Trump granted Israel full legitimacy to operate across all seven theaters of conflict that have opened against it since the October 7 Massacre in 2023. He also provided Israel with the necessary tools to do so. On several occasions, he made it clear that if Hamas failed to comply with his demands, it would face what he termed the “gates of hell.”

Surprisingly, Israel made only partial use of this “authorization”. As a result, Hamas continues to exercise firm control over the Gaza Strip. True, its capabilities have been significantly degraded. It can no longer disrupt daily life in Israel through massive rocket fire. Nevertheless, it is still regarded as a legitimate interlocutor in any political arrangement. Hamas continues to enjoy substantial support from several influential Middle Eastern states, including Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Hamas still expresses unequivocal opposition to the Israeli-American demand that it disarm. It remains unclear whether it will voluntarily relinquish its weapons or whether it will choose instead to enter into a comprehensive military confrontation with Israel.

In any case, President Trump’s aspiration and vision to undertake a historic move – namely, the evacuation of Gaza’s residents and their resettlement in other countries – has faded beyond the horizon. Why did this initiative fail – at least at this stage – despite its potential to secure Israel’s southern border for many years? Was it due to criticism from left-wing circles in Israel, from legal experts, and from military figures who opposed the plan with varying degrees of intensity? Who knows?

Israeli-American strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities

President Trump’s most significant contribution over the past year was the joint Israeli-American strike on strategic sites in Iran, foremost among them Iran’s nuclear facilities, which posed an existential threat to Israel.

However, beyond these strategic events, President Trump bestowed upon Israel a number of “covert gifts” that have yet to receive the attention they deserve. His demand for control over Greenland appears, at first glance, to be far removed from the spectrum of Israel’s national interests. In practice, however, it is of immense importance to Israel.

Since the end of the Six-Day War, the international community has consistently upheld the principle that the territories captured during the war constitute a kind of deposit that Israel would be required to return to their owners once “peace comes to the land.”

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 gave explicit expression to this notion by emphasizing “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” In its wake, almost every US president initiated peace plans based on Israeli withdrawal from the territories. The Israeli government itself adopted this conception, at least partially, in its cabinet decision of 19 June 1967, which expressed Israel’s willingness to withdraw to the international borders with Egypt and Syria in exchange for peace agreements.

President Trump’s demand to obtain sovereignty over, or at least military control of, Greenland–initially met with ridicule and derision – now appears far more tangible. Senior officials of the Danish government have recently been engaged in intensive negotiations with representatives of the Trump administration on this issue. The Trump administration justifies this demand on security grounds.

This point is of great importance to Israel. The range of risks facing Israel is far greater than that confronting the United States. In short, Israel now has a “strong rope” to cling to should it seek to realize claims of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, as well as over territories seized during the current war in the Gaza Strip, Syria, Lebanon, and Somaliland.

US military activity vis-à-vis Venezuela, particularly the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, constitutes a clear expression of the “America First” principle that President Trump emphasized from the earliest days of his presidency. In practice, one of the most far-reaching implications of this trend is the prioritization of US security needs over the principles of international law.

From Israel’s perspective, this development significantly expands its military freedom of maneuver in wartime situations–freedom that has been constrained, to varying degrees, by legal considerations.

Finally, the establishment of the “Board of Peace,” intended to address the regulation of crisis in the Gaza Strip (and, subsequently, in other conflict zones worldwide), may free Israel from the constraints imposed on it by the United Nations, thereby further expanding its strategic room for maneuver.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, January 25, 2026.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.



An open letter to Trump: Protect the free world from those who seek to dominate it

written by Ruth Wasserman Lande | 05.07.2026
Dear Mr. President,

I am Jewish.

I am Israeli.

I am a mother.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that He has chosen you to deliver the free world from those who seek to dominate it and take away its liberties.

Since the atrocities of October 7, 2023, the global campaign against the State of Israel and the Jewish people has become overt. It became increasingly plain to witness the demonization of a people, whom history has proved it is easy to scapegoat and against whom, wide public support can be galvanized.

As such, this demonization serves as a most brilliant diversion from a far greater plan, almost surreal in its nature, to overtake those lands and peoples throughout the globe that are not yet under Islamic rule.

Islamist ideology, led by financial giants such as Qatar, and their temporary cronies such as the current Turkish leadership, has divided the world into two concepts: Dar el-Salaam, meaning “the lands of peace,” referring to those lands that are already ruled by Islam; and Dar el-Harb, meaning “the lands of war/jihad,” referring to those lands throughout the globe that have not yet been conquered by Islam.

The United States, Latin America, Europe, Australia, some remaining parts of Africa, and the Middle East – including the tiny State of Israel – all fall into the latter category and require a jihad, or “a holy war,” to dominate them.

Fighting jihad

The term ”jihad,” with which we have all become so familiar since October 7, may be waged via military might or terrorism, or via a softer, more sophisticated infiltration into cultural, academic, professional, political, and other realms as a means by which to disintegrate a society from within. More often than not, the two are carried out simultaneously by different factions of the same ideology.

The latter has been in progress for approximately half a century, slowly and systematically embedding itself first into progressive circles, speaking their jargon, adopting their themes, and seemingly embracing liberal ideas, only to scorn them behind closed doors.

This infiltration has been carried out by the Nazi regime, then perfected by the former Soviet Union, America’s archenemy. This art of subversion was then co-opted by the leaders of the Islamic Revolution in Iran when they pretended to cooperate with the liberal circles and youth who were demonstrating against the monarchy, and were then swallowed and silenced.

It was used by the Muslim Brotherhood during the Arab Spring several years ago, and most recently it can be seen throughout the Western world via the use, or rather abuse, of young students and innocent minds in the so-called fight for the Palestinian cause. That very same cause was literally created, branded, and turned into what is probably the most brilliant public relations campaign by the former Soviet leadership in their quest to destabilize the Middle East and American influence upon it.

Since then, many Western curricula, including America’s very decentralized education system, have been infected and altered to include messages of extremism, Marxism, socialism, and hatred of American values.

Impressionable progressives

This, Mr. President, directly targeted impressionable progressive minds with ideas of self-loathing, moral decay, and ideas of colonialism, conquest, imperialism, white supremacist guilt, and similar ideas, which impacted and continues to impact the West’s future leadership.

In Canada, as I write this, there are more members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who embody the Sunni extremist Islamist ideology, than anywhere else in the world. The infiltration of Iran’s version of the brotherhood, in the form of the ICRG and dormant Hezbollah cells, has simultaneously been in the making for years, slowly edging its way even into Western political circles.

However, this slow, poisonous ambition is not quenched with just the political Left, Mr. President. When Qatar decided to influence decision-making in the field of sports, for example, it opted to buy both teams, as well as the judge and the court itself.

Likewise, its work in the political arena is comprehensive, attempting to influence all sides, not just the progressive one. Hence, currently, even America First, right-wing influencers can be heard regurgitating very odd, anti-American slogans, raising eyebrows as to whose interests they are truly serving.

Dark ambitions

You, Mr. President, who have closed innumerable huge business deals and faced the most manipulative and fiercest of negotiators and foes, cannot possibly be naïve about this decades-long subversion and infiltration – particularly not now, when intelligence and written documents no longer allow such notions to be discarded as mere paranoia.

I believe that you are not fooled by the undertones of Syria’s new president, whose mercenaries continue to murder minorities in Syria while these words are being written.

I credit you with intuitively comprehending the dark ambitions of Turkey’s Islamist leader, who is a disciple of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I trust that you will not ignore the dire impact of decades of radical education throughout Egypt, Jordan, Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey – to name a few – and that such indoctrination as can be plainly seen, in varying degrees in all of their curricula, cannot produce anything but a huge wave of radical, hate-filled youth who are the current and future opponents of the West.

They are not just taught to hate Israel and the Jews, they are taught to hate the liberties, the freedoms, and the values for which American blood has been spilled by the forefathers of your great nation.

Recognizing peril

Mr. President, you have certainly recognized the peril, as you have begun the challenging yet necessary legislation against the Muslim Brotherhood, on the Sunni extremist side, much like the Islamic Republic’s ICRG and Hezbollah on the Shi’ite side. Both must be outlawed everywhere in the West as they have been in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and other countries that well know what they really are.

Yet, you have chosen to refrain from also designating and proscribing Qatar and Turkey as the two most notorious supporters of this murderous ideology. These agents of chaos and extremism – which seek to rule and conquer and use Islam as the tool to dominate – remain free and dominant, given your support of them.

Mr. President, I believe that only you have the power to change this, as you have been chosen to serve as a beacon of peace. Not via imposed agreements, based on the treachery of manipulative leaders, but rather in the form of magnificent pacts such as the Abraham Accords that you engineered. May God continue to bless you.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, December 30, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.



Why calls for a US withdrawal from NATO matter for Israel

written by Prof. Zaki Shalom | 05.07.2026

Although the likelihood that this legislation will lead to an actual US withdrawal from NATO is extremely low, its implications should not be underestimated.

The sponsors of the legislation argue that the original objectives of the NATO alliance, established during the Cold War, no longer align with the contemporary national interests of the United States. Their principal claims are:

  1. NATO was established to confront the Soviet Union, a superpower that no longer exists.
  2. The United States disproportionately finances NATO.
  3. The European members of NATO possess sufficient military and economic capabilities to defend themselves independently.

It is highly unlikely that the bill will be approved by Congress. Powerful legal and political considerations stand in the way of its adoption:

a. The alliance is rooted in a profound sense of historical solidarity, forged through substantial sacrifices in various military campaigns.

b. Many observers rightly view Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union.

c. The alliance serves as a major deterrent against the enemies of the Western democratic states.

US tensions with NATO allies

This legislative initiative does not emerge in a vacuum. Since US President Donald Trump’s entry into the White House, tensions between the United States and Western European countries – nearly all of them NATO members – have steadily increased. Recently, the president employed particularly disparaging language toward European states. He described them as “weak” and “decaying,” arguing that Europe “doesn’t know what to do” in addressing the major challenges it faces.

Trump did not stop there. In an unusual statement that appears to constitute blatant interference in Europe’s internal political affairs, he made clear that he would endorse European leaders whose views align with his own, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Although the likelihood that this legislation will lead to an actual US withdrawal from NATO is extremely low, its implications should not be underestimated. The legislative effort reflects a mindset that is gaining increasing traction in the United States – namely, that the time has come for the country to focus more narrowly on its national interests. From this perspective, the United States will henceforth evaluate its relations with other countries primarily based on how much they contribute to advancing American national interests.

Numerous voices, including within the American Right, express growing discomfort with what they perceive as an excessively close relationship between the United States and Israel. The highly popular right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson has become a powerful spokesperson for this sentiment.

In anticipation of the forthcoming meeting – the fifth this year – between Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it is essential to make one point clear: Israel should not be complacent about the close strategic cooperation that currently exists between Israel and the United States. Powerful currents threaten to significantly weaken this cooperation, and Israel must act with great sophistication to counter this emerging challenge.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, December 28, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.



Time for Israel to reassess its trump strategy

written by Prof. Zaki Shalom | 05.07.2026

In a speech delivered at the Reagan National Defense Forum on Decem­ber 6, US Sec­ret­ary of Defense Pete Heg­seth expan­ded on the need for the United States to adopt a real­ist approach in shap­ing its global strategy.

The first prin­ciple of such an approach, he argued, is a dra­matic enhance­ment of Amer­ican mil­it­ary cap­ab­il­it­ies. No polit­ical achieve­ments, he main­tained, are pos­sible without robust power. Equally import­ant, however, is a clear under­stand­ing of how – and for what pur­poses – Amer­ican power should be employed.

Heg­seth out­lined four prin­ciples gov­ern­ing the legit­im­ate use of US force:

• Force is used only to defend vital interests.

• Force is used only with the inten­tion of

achiev­ing vic­tory.

• Force is used only when goals are clear,

lim­ited, and attain­able.

• Force is used only as a last resort.

Accord­ing to Heg­seth, many past pres­id­ents aban­doned the real­ist doc­trine cham­pioned by Ron­ald Reagan. They weakened Amer­ica’s mil­it­ary pos­ture, and turned the United States into “the police­man of the world.” These admin­is­tra­tions, he argued, ini­ti­ated mil­it­ary mis­sions that were either uncon­nec­ted to core national secur­ity interests or were fun­da­ment­ally unachiev­able – such as efforts to export demo­cracy across the globe.

In the name of hol­low ideo­lo­gies, they embroiled the United States in futile wars around the world. Pres­id­ent Don­ald Trump, Heg­seth asser­ted, is now revers­ing this course and restor­ing a stra­tegic approach rooted in national interest and mil­it­ary strength.

Accord­ing to the sec­ret­ary of defense, the prin­cipal object­ives guid­ing Amer­ican policy today include:

a. Defend­ing the home­land, includ­ing secur­ing US bor­ders and devel­op­ing advanced defens­ive sys­tems against mis­siles and drones.

b. Deter­ring China through strength – main­tain­ing mil­it­ary superi­or­ity to avoid dir­ect con­front­a­tion.

c. Rebal­an­cing the divi­sion of defense bur­dens with allies, thereby redu­cing strain on the US defense budget.

d. Accel­er­at­ing the devel­op­ment of the Amer­ican defense industry, ensur­ing that the United States remains the world’s premier mil­it­ary power.

Heg­seth’s remarks, and the broader stra­tegic world­view they reflect, require Israel to under­take a fun­da­mental rethink­ing in its approach towards the Trump admin­is­tra­tion.

Israel must recog­nize that repeated ref­er­ences to its unique status – phrases such as “We are the only demo­cracy in the Middle East,” “We alone pro­tect human rights in the region,” or “We are a nation emer­ging from the Holo­caust” – carry far less weight in the eyes of a US admin­is­tra­tion guided primar­ily by real­ist prin­ciples. Moral argu­ments, his­tor­ical nar­rat­ives, and appeals to shared val­ues play a more lim­ited role in this stra­tegic envir­on­ment.

The Trump admin­is­tra­tion seeks to see Israel as a strong, cap­able, and self-reli­ant ally. Unlike pre­vi­ous admin­is­tra­tions, it is will­ing – even eager – to reduce Israel’s depend­ence on the United States. Its expect­a­tion is that Israel will act as a part­ner cap­able of con­trib­ut­ing to Amer­ican secur­ity interests, not merely bene­fit­ing from them.

There­fore, the gov­ern­ment of Israel will need to work dili­gently to per­suade the Trump admin­is­tra­tion that its pro­posed policy frame­works regard­ing Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, and the West Bank advance not only Israel’s national interests but also those of the United States.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, December 14, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.